[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] THE REVITALIZATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM ======================================================================= (110-100) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ FEBRUARY 14, 2008 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ---------- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 40-823 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin VACANCY STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California VACANCY (ii) Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee BRIAN BAIRD, Washington WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland DORIS O. MATSUI, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York GARY G. MILLER, California BRIAN HIGGINS, New York ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado Carolina MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania HEATH SHULER, North Carolina BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas JOHN J. HALL, New York CONNIE MACK, Florida STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice York Chair CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Louisiana Columbia JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio BOB FILNER, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts VACANCY GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California JOHN L. MICA, Florida MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York (Ex Officio) JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio) (iii) CONTENTS Page Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii TESTIMONY Albrecht, Mark, National Brownfields Association, Brownfields Manager, Mayor's Office of Economic Development, City of Akron. 14 Bodine, Hon. Susan Parker, Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency......................................................... 3 Eben, Jerome Leslie, Immediate Past President, American Institute of Architects New Jersey....................................... 14 Hill, Hon. Vonciel Jones, Council Member, City of Dallas......... 3 Leigh, Nancey Green, Professor, College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology........................................ 14 McCullough, Steven, President/CEO, Bethel New Life, Inc.......... 14 Silversmith, Gary, President, P&L Investments, LLC............... 14 Zone, Hon. Matthew, National League of Cities, Council Member, City of Cleveland.............................................. 3 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri................................. 25 Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 26 Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 28 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES Albrecht, Mark................................................... 31 Bodine, Hon. Susan Parker........................................ 33 Eben, Jerome Leslie.............................................. 47 Hill, Hon. Vonciel Jones......................................... 107 Leigh, Nancey Green.............................................. 117 McCullough, Steven............................................... 130 Silversmith, Gary Jay............................................ 139 Zone, Hon. Matthew............................................... 148 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Bodine, Hon. Susan Parker, Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, responses to questions from the Subcommittee........... 41 Eben, Jerome Leslie, Immediate Past President, American Institute of Architects New Jersey: Response to question from Rep. Oberstar........................ 54 ``Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology,'' Lisa Fay Matthiessen, Peter Morris, Davis Langdon...................................................... 57 ``Cost of Green Revisited: Reexamining the Feasibility and Cost Impact of Sustainable Design in the Light of Increased Market Adoption,'' Lisa Fay Matthiessen, Peter Morris, Davis Langdon 83 Hill, Hon. Vonciel Jones, Council Member, City of Dallas, response to question from the Subcommittee..................... 116 Leigh, Nancey Green, Professor, College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology, responses to questions from the Subcommittee................................................... 128 McCullough, Steven, President/CEO, Bethel New Life, Inc., responses to questions from the Subcommittee................... 137 ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Mark H. Ayers, President, written statement............................ 153 City of New York, Mayor's Office of Environmental Coordination, Robert Kulikowski, Director, written statement................. 156 National Brownfields Coalition, written statement................ 00 National Construction Alliance, Raymond J. Poupore, Executive Vice President, written statement.............................. 166 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] HEARING ON REVITALIZATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S BROWNFIELEDS PROGRAM ---------- Thursday, February 14, 2008 House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:00 p.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. Ms. Johnson. The Subcommittee will come to order. I apologize for the schedule we have had to endure this afternoon. I must announce that I have to leave shortly and hope to return in a little while. I welcome everyone to our hearing today on the reauthorization of the Environmental Protection Agency's Brownfield program. I have deep appreciation for the subject matter of today's hearing, because I have been able to witness first-hand the many positive effects that brownfields redevelopment affords the local communities. In the heart of my Congressional district, very close to my district office lies a 72-acre site known as the Victory Park. This former industrial wasteland, once polluted by an old meat- packing plant, a paint plant, a train yard, and a 100 year-old grain silo that had been forgotten by time, is now the home of American Airlines Center, the W. Dallas Hotel, and high-rise apartments and condominiums as well as other retail and commercial enterprises. This dramatic turnaround would not have been possible without the assistance of the State's voluntary cleanup program and the partnership of EPA, the city of Dallas and private developers. Instead of blight and depressed areas, this Dallas community now enjoys the benefits of a vibrant economic growth, expanded employment and increased revenue from productive use of the properties. Simply put, for Dallas the brownfields program has been overwhelmingly successful. That can be and should be replicated throughout the Nation. Today we begin the discussion on reauthorization and revitalization of the brownfields program. This program, which was conceived and initiated in the Clinton Administration and legislatively enacted in the Bush Administration, has proven to be a necessary catalyst to the revitalization of under-utilized sites and the preservation of undeveloped areas. The brownfields program generates jobs and economic activities, allows for the efficient use of transportation resources, and helps restore and maintain the environment. However, the brownfields program has been unnecessarily constrained since its enactment, principally by under- investment by this Administration and the appropriations process. As President Bush said when signing the Small Business Relief and the Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002, this is a good jobs creation program. But I think he has forgotten this fact. That is why it is so frustrating to see the brownfields program consistently and dramatically underfunded. Congress authorized and the President supported a funding level of $200 million annually for site assessment and cleanup. Yet, appropriations for the brownfields assessment and cleanup program peaked at $97.7 million in fiscal year 2002. Since that time, appropriations for the site assessment and cleanup component of brownfields grants have hovered right around $90 million annually. I applaud the President for requesting a slightly increased funding level for the site assessment and cleanup grants in its fiscal year 2009 budget. However, the addition of $100,000 proposed will not likely have a significant impact in addressing the backlog of pending brownfield applications. For example, last year EPA received 810 proposals for funding that passed its threshold requirements for eligibility. Yet EPA could only fund 294 individual proposals, or just 36 percent of the requests for funding. While this fact is in itself concerning, so is the fact that the gap between eligible project applications and available funding continues to widen. For example, just two years ago, EPA could fund roughly one in three applications. However, as more communities learn of the potential benefits of brownfield remediation, we should expect that the number of applications for funding will continue to increase. I expect that many of our witnesses this afternoon will discuss the importance of brownfields cleanup for the revitalization of neighborhoods, while placing under- utilized properties back on local tax rolls, and for the protection of human health and the environment. However, I believe the restoration of brownfields also has a tremendous economic stimulus effect on our cities and neighborhoods. In these uncertain economic times, we need to focus our efforts on ways that the Federal investments can have a real beneficial impact on the lives and livelihoods of our citizens. I can think of few more beneficial impacts than the creation of economic development. As EPA stated last week in its Committee budget briefings, the brownfields program has resulted in the assessment of more than 11,500 properties and helped create more than 47,000 jobs. If this is the success rate of an underfunded program, imagine the economic impact and potential for job creation that could come from actually funding all of the applications that are submitted to the agency each year. I do not believe that we have seen all the good that this program can do for our communities and for helping American families. I am glad that the Subcommittee begins today the discussion of reauthorization and revitalization of the brownfields program. I welcome our witnesses here today. We await my partner here, the Ranking Member. While we do, I want to welcome my councilwoman from Dallas, Texas, the Honorable Vonciel Jones Hill, who is a very bright and very contributing member of the Dallas City Council. Thank you for being here. We are going to ask unanimous consent to place all of our formal statements into the record so we can hear our witnesses. I want to thank our Members here for having the day that we have had and still being present. Statements from the National Construction Alliance, the Building Construction Trades Department, the City of New York's Office of Environmental Coordination and the National Brownfields Coalition all will be made part of the record, without objection. We are pleased to have three very distinguished witnesses on our first panel here this afternoon. First, we have the Honorable Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator for Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Next we have the Honorable Vonciel Jones Hill, council member for the City of Dallas, Texas. And finally, we have the Honorable Matthew Zone, council member for the City of Cleveland, Ohio, who is speaking on behalf of the National League of Cities. We are pleased that you were able to make it this afternoon, and your full statements will be placed into the record. We ask that you try to limit your testimony to five minutes, and we can read the entire record. We will proceed with Mr. Zone, who has a plane to catch shortly. Mr. Baird will take over as Chair. Mr. Baird. [Presiding] We apologize for the transition. As you know, it has been a hectic day. We appreciate your perseverance and we are glad to be here. Brownfields is tremendously important, and we have a number of sites in my district, probably every Member does. We look forward to your testimony. Mr. Zone, we would be happy to hear from you to begin with. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MATTHEW ZONE, NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF CLEVELAND; THE HONORABLE SUSAN PARKER BODINE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; THE HONORABLE VONCIEL JONES HILL, COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF DALLAS Mr. Zone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Matt Zone and I am a council member from Cleveland, Ohio. I am here today on behalf of the National League of Cities, the oldest and largest organization representing local elected officials in America's cities and towns. I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of local elected officials on the revitalization of the Environmental Protection Agency's brownfields program. The City of Cleveland has had a successful partnership with the EPA brownfields program in redeveloping our urban landscape. Since 2004, Cleveland has received $800,000 in EPA brownfields assessment grant funds that has led to cleanup of nearly 100 acres. Assessment dollars are critical to local governments, as they support the first and most risky phase of the redevelopment project. Assessment funds granted by the EPA brownfields program assists local governments in evaluating the extent of contamination and the potential costs for remediation. The City of Cleveland has successfully used these grants to leverage over $15 million. Without these funds, many projects would not have gone forward. In addition to the assessment dollars, the City of Cleveland has also received technical assistance from EPA. The assistance is just as critical to local governments as the grant funds. With the technical assistance of an expert brownfields professional from the EPA Region V brownfields office, the City's development department has increased their capacity to redevelop brownfields in Cleveland. The EPA brownfields program is vital for local governments in aiding the redevelopment efforts. But much work remains to be done. NLC urges Congress to increase the overall funding authorization level for the EPA brownfields program, to increase the caps on the assessment grants amounts, whether site-specific or community-wide and to increase the technical assistance offered to communities. Additionally, NLC asks Congress to enact legislation addressing and resolving the disincentives created by the potential liability to facilitate re-use of brownfields properties. Such legislation should provide a waiver, a definitive limitation or an elimination of liability for non-contributing local governments coming to title of previously contaminated properties involuntarily. This is a real problem in our city, with one site specifically that you will hear about in a minute, Mr. Chairman. Cleveland truly considers the EPA to be a partner in the area of the brownfields redevelopment. But I come to you today with a pressing issue that could jeopardize Cleveland's and other cities' strategic redevelopment policies. As an older industrial city, Cleveland's legacy of manufacturing and commerce is now symbolized by numerous abandoned structures, obsolete buildings, leaky underground storage tanks and polluted properties. The impact of our industrial legacy has spread across our neighborhoods like cancer, killing once vibrant areas and leaving behind dead zones. The factories that once built America and employed thousands of Clevelanders are no longer an asset, they are a liability. Our current vacant property portfolio puts my city at risk. Local governments need support of Congress and our Federal agencies to revitalize the abandoned properties and the buildings that are growing in number. These abandoned buildings have compounded our financial problems and cost our city millions by shrinking our tax base and undermining property values. In fact, our city has had to increase its demolition budget four-fold just since 2006. We anticipate spending over $9 million this year to demolish dangerous abandoned structures that threaten the safety of our cities. Local governments rightly approach brownfields redevelopment as an economic development activity. However, strategically redeveloping these contaminated properties means much more than dollars and taxes. It means correcting the environmental injustices that are unduly thrown upon those living in our impoverished neighborhoods. It means protecting our first responders by eliminating contaminated enclaves of criminal activity and structures of high fire risk. For Cleveland, it means protecting Lake Erie. It also means creating a more sustainable future. Finally, the issue of municipal liability for cleanup costs is a concern for local governments, particularly if they were not involved in the contamination of the site. As a general rule, under the current law, local governments have a disincentive to clean up and develop brownfields properties because of the liability they could face. Often, as involuntary owners of brownfields properties, many local governments are wrongly designated potentially responsible for parties and held liable for the cleanup. The fear of such designation has led municipalities choosing not to invest in the cleanup or the development of land. The City of Cleveland, through its partnership with the EPA and the State of Ohio, implemented a land bank program in 2005. This industrial land bank program targeted former industrial and commercial properties for redevelopment. Our program's rationale is simple, to strategically invest our limited resources in strategic economic development areas. The land bank program allows the city to take a holistic approach to brownfields and redevelopment. Currently, the city is redeveloping nearly 50 acres of brownfields properties through our program and has invested over $16 million in demolition and cleanup costs. One property of particular interest is referred to as the Trinity Building. This is the picture you are seeing on the screen here. This site is posing huge challenges to the city due to the lack of Federal liability protections afforded to local governments. Mr. Baird. Mr. Zone, I neglected earlier to remind the witnesses we have a five-minute limit. I see you have quite a bit more in your written comments, so if I can ask you to conclude here and we will take the written comments into account. That time we will have time for a little Q&A as well. Mr. Zone. Sure. Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, I believe our city has enough experience and expertise to address these brownfields in our neighborhoods. But our story and experience are no different than any other American city with an industrial legacy. Congress has shown great leadership, amending CERCLA in 2002. While progress has been made and beneficial relationships formed between local and Federal entities, the Federal Government must continue its efforts and commitment toward this program. On behalf of the National League of Cities and the City of Cleveland, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Zone. I think you raise some outstanding points. We have been joined by John Boozman from Oklahoma. Mr. Zone. Sir, thank you and my colleagues for letting me go out of order. I do have a 6:20 flight, so if I walk out during questioning, please pardon me. Mr. Baird. Our apologies to all of you for the delay. Mr. Boozman. I have a statement that I would like to put into the record, with your permission. Mr. Baird. Without objection, so ordered. Administrator Bodine? Ms. Bodine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here once again before the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. It is a particular pleasure to talk about the brownfields program. More than a decade ago, local governments, States and EPA all identified a problem that local communities were facing when they were trying to revitalize properties in their communities that were either contaminated or potentially contaminated. The private and public sectors were extremely hesitant to get involved with these sites, which we now call brownfields sites. And some of that concern was over Superfund liability, which could hold someone responsible for cleaning up property contamination that was caused by a prior owner. Some of that concern, also, was simply fear of the unknown. Nobody wanted to get involved in a property that might be contaminated because they couldn't estimate how much it was going to cost to clean up. So it was an unknown risk. Now, it is important to understand when we talk about the brownfields program that these are properties that aren't contaminated enough to rise to a level of Federal concern under our Federal cleanup programs. These are not Superfund sites. But we all recognize that the fear of Federal liability has acted as a barrier to redevelopment of these properties. Now, to address the liability concern, EPA did develop tools, like prospective purchaser agreements, and States developed voluntary cleanup programs. EPA worked with States and recognized the strength and validity of these programs and recognized them as appropriate mechanisms for getting these sites cleaned up in lieu of Federal liability. We continue to enter into memoranda of agreements with States to recognize strong State programs, including State programs that take a one cleanup program approach, so that they can clean up RCRA sites or PCB sites or brownfields sites or even oil sites all under the same program. To address the concern over the uncertainty at these sites, EPA developed a program to provide grants to local governments to inventory and assess contamination. Once cleanup costs were quantified, then developers could make the business decision whether or not to invest in contaminated property. Over the years, EPA added grants to capitalize revolving loan funds, to provide seed money for cleanup, and the agency also provided job training grants to provide employment opportunities in the communities where brownfields were located. Thanks to the work of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and of course other Committees in Congress, President Bush was able to sign into law the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act in January 2002. That law broadened EPA's brownfields program to include cleanup grants, to provide seed money for cleanup, and provide statutory liability protection to promote private sector participation in brownfields cleanup and redevelopment. I am very pleased to report that EPA's brownfields program has been highly successful. With the over $660 million in seed money that EPA has provided for assessments, revolving loan fund capitalization and cleanup grants, there have been more than 11,500 property assessments and that work has leveraged over $10.3 billion in cleanup and redevelopment investment. All of that together has leveraged more than 47,000 jobs. Helped by the over $300 million that EPA has provided for State programs, and tribal programs as well, States and tribes have continued to develop and enhance their programs, which have resulted in the cleanup of over 70,000 properties. The Federal investment in brownfields has produced significant results. The public funding has not just created a return on the investment, but has provided long-term sustainability benefits, helping to preserve green space. Our grant selection program for 2008 is underway. The deadline was in October, we received over 800 applications. Last year we received about 801. Of those, 770 were actually legally eligible to receive funding, and we funded 294 proposals. We plan to fund a similar number this year. The way these proposals are selected is through an evaluation process. There are 10 different panels of agency staff, and each panel has one headquarters person or one person from another Federal agency. They review the proposals and they rate them based on the environmental benefits, the cleanup benefits, the community benefits, and the economic benefits. The proposals are also evaluated based on the programmatic ability to clean up these sites. The ones that are funded are the ones that are rated highest by these panels, so we can be confident we are getting the best return on the Federal investment. To reach more communities in 2009, we are looking at potential changes to our grant proposal guidelines, so that we can allow coalitions of communities to apply for up to a million dollars for assessment grant funding. The purpose of that is to allow small and rural communities to partner with larger communities or cities or counties or States that have the programmatic capability to manage these grants that the small, rural communities might not have. That makes them eligible for the funding and lets the funding reach more communities. I see my time is up. I just want to let you know that we are continuing to focus on streamlining grants. We are continuing to focus on sustainability and in particular, we are collecting data from all of our grant recipients about the contaminants that are addressed, the media that are addressed, the cleanup activity, the institutional controls and the number of acres that are being made available for use. All that goes into a public data base, all that information is publicly- available. Thank you very much. Mr. Baird. Thank you, Administrator Bodine. Ms. Jones Hill. Ms. Jones Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for providing me this opportunity to promote the brownfields program and Dallas' successful 13-year partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency. I am Vonciel Jones Hill, councilwoman from the City of Dallas, and I am here to discuss why the brownfields program is extremely important for community revitalization. Since the program began in 1995, the City of Dallas has received $1.12 million in EPA assessment grants for brownfields revitalization, and has been able to leverage more than $3.4 billion in private and public investment to assist in the revitalization of 47 brownfields sites. With our assessment dollars, the City of Dallas has conducted 32 phase one environmental site assessments and 9 phase two assessments. We have leveraged more than 6,800 construction and redevelopment jobs and more than $13.5 million in private sector cleanup funding in 2008. Brownfields redevelopment is not just an evolving issue for developers, it is another option to redevelop deteriorating inner city neighborhoods, create jobs, enhance the local tax base and reduce crime. I am proud to say that Dallas exemplifies the success of the brownfields program well. Accordingly, in 1998, the EPA designated Dallas as brownfields showcase community. Please allow me to highlight two of Dallas' nationally-recognized brownfields success stories. Victory Park, previously mentioned by Chairwoman Johnson, is a $3 billion multi-use development offering retail shops, restaurants, office space, residential units, hotels and entertainment venues, such as the American Airlines Center, which is the home of the Dallas Stars and the Dallas Mavericks. Victory Park is a national model for the importance and success of a public-private partnership. The 73-acre site is adjacent to downtown Dallas and was a neglected brownfield for many years. It is now one of the city's most thriving areas, teeming with jobs and activities. In 2001, EPA recognized the American Airlines Center and Victory Park as one of the Nation's largest and most successful brownfields projects, through presentation of the EPA's Phoenix Award. The development also received the Phoenix People's Choice award that same year. Victory Park is expected to generate $1 billion annually and has already created 1,200 jobs with many more expected in 2009. Next is the Jack Evans Police Headquarters facility, a $59 million city project, just south of the central business district. The site was donated by a developer to enhance security and reduce crime in a neighborhood emerging from decades of decline. The new facility serves as a model for the Dallas green building program and in 2005, received a leadership in energy and environmental design silver certification. The Jack Evans Police Headquarters is part of a larger transit-oriented development revitalization effort. It is one block from the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Cedars light rail station. The area includes another successful brownfields project, the 1.2 million square foot South Side on Lamar Complex, which houses 457 residential units and 120,000 square feet of commercial and retail space. In 2003, the Phoenix Award was awarded to the Jack Evans police headquarters as well. In summary, the EPA brownfields program has been a remarkable, remarkable success in Dallas and has led to the revitalization of what was once an abandoned, neglected area of our city. I urge you to reauthorize the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act to continue this vitally important effort. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee. Mr. Baird. Ms. Jones Hill, to all our witnesses, thank you very, very much for your interesting and informative testimony. It is very pleasant to see individuals from cities who have used the Federal program to great benefit. We thank you for your testimony on that, and also for your very cogent recommendations. Ms. Bodine, I have just a couple of quick questions, and then I will yield to Mr. Boozman. At one point I understand there was a program called Brownfields to Brightfields, which I think Secretary of Energy then-Bill Richardson established, which was designed to promote brownfield usage for renewable energy, like solar installations. I think a number of Federal agencies have surplus property that may well qualify as brownfields, you think of the military bases or others. I am wondering, as part of reauthorization, do you know if EPA has any thoughts about using Brownfields to Brightfields kinds of approaches to promote renewable energy resources? Ms. Bodine. In our existing grant guidelines we have in there an evaluation of proposals based on sustainable re-use of brownfields. So the proposals are evaluated and they get extra points to the extent that they are promoting sustainable re- use. That of course could include clean energy uses as well as green buildings, as well as low-impact development. So I guess I would urge you to continue to consider the broad range of sustainability efforts that could be leveraged with brownfield dollars, so that then grantees can pick their target of opportunity, where they see the greatest opportunity to leverage to get the sustainable benefits, instead of focusing on one particular benefit over another. Mr. Baird. Thank you for that. You heard some comments from Mr. Zone and Ms. Jones Hill, and we will hear testimony in a minute from the folks in the National Brownfields Association, as well as other folks involved with brownfields. As we look, in this Committee, toward reauthorization of the brownfields program, does the Administration at this point have any particular recommendations that you intend to make that you think we could use to improve this program, and also, do you have any comments on some of the suggestions offered by Mr. Zone in his testimony, or, I don't know if you have had a chance to look at the testimony of the other witnesses who will follow in the second panel. Ms. Bodine. We have not developed a legislative proposal. We would be happy to work with your staff in offering technical assistance. There are some areas where there could be some greater clarity and some technical improvements that I think we should definitely be providing. Mr. Baird. One of the areas in which we see some proposals is to expand the qualification criteria for brownfields. Are there concerns about, if we expand it, does that dilute, given that we are already under-funding it relative to authorized levels, are there any concerns about, by expanding the eligibility, you thereby dilute the resource that is available for the existing eligible programs? Ms. Bodine. It is hard to answer that in the abstract. I don't know who you are trying to expand the eligibility to include. I think in looking at that, you would want to look at, are these grant applicants that would then be providing the same kind of benefits. Mr. Baird. Mr. Zone, did you care to comment? Mr. Zone. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. From our city's perspective, EPA has been a wonderful partner. One project that I cited, we worked very closely with EPA, and actually, they encouraged us to go in and demolish that structure. After we demolished it, surrounding that structure, there is a senior housing, there is a day care center, we found PCBs onsite. Now we are kind of in a tug-of-war with EPA where potentially there is a $6 million cleanup left on the site after we as a city have already invested nearly $3 million. We would like to see the city, from our perspective, have some sort of indemnification that if we work cooperatively with the Federal Government and go in and do the cleanup, that we are not the polluters of the property. We are the recipients of an abandoned, blighted property. We are just trying to abate a nuisance. If we could work more closely together and hold that being held liable, that would greatly aid our effort. Mr. Baird. I think you made that point well in your testimony. Thank you. Ms. Jones Hill? Ms. Jones Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The City of Dallas has two recommendations that we would like to place on the record for improvement of the program. We recommend that the EPA increase the brownfields revolving loan fund for major cities to $5 million per individuals grantee for multiple site, industrial brownfields projects. Secondly, we recommend establishing an opportunity to seek a waiver of the one-year time requirement for completion of cleanup on large projects. Thank you so much for allowing us to offer those suggestions for improvement. Mr. Baird. Outstanding suggestions and in both cases, from hard practical experience, it sounds like. Those are the best kinds of suggestions Committees can receive. Thank you for that. The Chair recognizes Mr. Boozman. Mr. Boozman. Thank you. I appreciate your patience today. I know this has been a hard day for you as well as for us, running back and forth. So we really do appreciate you. I would like to follow up on what you said, Mr. Zone, what you were just talking about, just throw it open to the panel real quickly. Would an exemption from CERCLA liability for non- liable parties that do not take ownership of a brownfields site but are willing to take cleanup action, contribute cleanup funding or provide other substantial support to the cleanup site, would that encourage more brownfields site cleanups by such innocent parties? Ms. Bodine. Congressman, you prefaced that by talking about non-liable parties. Clearly, one of the barriers to brownfields redevelopment that had been identified was the fear of Superfund liability. The way that was addressed in the amendments in 2002 was to have new owners who were coming into the property, prospective purchasers, have them not be liable. So that is in the law right now. Now, to get the benefit of that liability exemption, you need to have done an investigation on the property, all appropriate inquiry. Then you also can't impede any cleanup that is going on. But under current law, if you didn't cause or contribute contamination and you are new to the property, then you are not liable. Mr. Boozman. So if the city wanted to go in and clean up the property, and they are not the owner of the property? Ms. Bodine. You can take ownership. If you are a new owner, you become what is called a prospective purchaser, and you are not liable. But you have to have done the all appropriate inquiry, you have to have done the site assessment, evaluating the property for contamination. The fact that you find contamination doesn't make you liable for it, but you have to have done the investigation. Mr. Boozman. So if a city that wanted to go in and just be helpful and clean up, is that what you are referring to, that is not an owner and doesn't want to be an owner? Ms. Bodine. Oh, I am sorry, I misunderstood the question. The statutory protection only applies to owners. It doesn't apply to a Good Samaritan who is coming in or a volunteer who is coming in, or a non-profit or a city. Mr. Boozman. Would it be helpful if we made it such that a city could do that, I guess is what I am asking, or another party? Ms. Bodine. The only issue I see on that, you would definitely encourage more people to participate in cleanup activity, and that is always a good thing. There may be an issue of control of the property that you would want to think about, because you would then have someone who isn't the owner. But there certainly could be a benefit to encouraging more cleanup activity if you have more people who would be willing to come in. Mr. Boozman. Yes, sir? Mr. Zone. We met all of the requirements that the EPA asked, and we worked very closely with them. Even after encouragement, we went in there and just tried to abate the nuisance. But we found ourselves after doing everything that they asked us to do, now when we found PCBs onsite, we immediately contacted them, they came in and did some more testing and said potentially, you have a $6 million cleanup effort that you might be responsible for, it is difficult for us to go and abate a nuisance and do the dirty work, for lack of a better term, and now find ourselves being responsible for that cost. Mr. Boozman. Yes, ma'am? Ms. Jones Hill. Congressman, if I may, thank you. Your idea of encouraging more persons to clean up is certainly a good idea. But encouraging a non-owner to clean up a site is an idea that we would want to think through very carefully, because of liability and ownership and control issues, an issue that I certainly would want to talk with my council colleagues about. I believe we would have to move very carefully in that direction. Mr. Boozman. Thank you. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. We would like, if it is okay, to submit some things in writing, in the interest of time. Mr. Baird. Without objection, absolutely. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Richardson. Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for Ms. Bodine, our EPA representative. Actually, it is in light of reviewing subsequent testimony, and I am not sure if you will still be here, so that is why I wanted to ask the question now. Dr. Nancey Green Leigh, in her testimony, the written that we have, on page 5, it says, ``Given the public sector's emphasis on allocating scarce brownfields redevelopment resources to those properties that will realize the greatest market returns, oftentimes properties in small or local depressed neighborhoods are overlooked,'' things like laundromats, et cetera, in neighborhoods. So when I turn to, for example, in reference of 2002 Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, my question would be to you, a representative of the EPA, what is your commitment and willingness to target the additional increment funds to brownfields neighborhoods with the worst health exposures and the greatest need of economic development? Ms. Bodine. Thank you. The proposals are evaluated and ranked and the funding is provided based on not just economic development, but community involvement, community benefits, environmental benefits, and the public health benefits that you are talking about. So that is taken into account. What we do find, though, and I refer to it in my statement, is that there is an issue where smaller communities don't have the programmatic capability to handle these grants. My colleagues here all have very great programmatic capability that is not shared, necessarily, by all the smaller communities around the Country. What we are looking at is trying to provide opportunities for those smaller communities to partner in coalitions with either States or counties or larger communities, so that they too can be the beneficiaries of the grants. Ms. Richardson. Do you have a percentage that you keep track of, of your allocations of neighborhood or more depressed areas versus larger downtown areas? Ms. Bodine. We track population, like under 100,000, and we track whether it is a HUB zone property, properties that are designated as particularly needed zones. So yes, we do track that. Ms. Richardson. Could you provide that to this Committee? Ms. Bodine. Yes, certainly. Ms. Richardson. And just with all due respect, I would push back a little with you. I happen to represent, one of the cities in my jurisdiction is the City of Long Beach, which is the fifth largest city in the States. I would encourage you, though, sometimes with cities, they may take the opportunity to, for example, improve their downtown area, versus doing one of their more depressed neighborhoods. So I would really be looking for what commitment would EPA have of the cities and organizations who are applying to say, we are not just going to leave it up to you to decide who gets it. Maybe there should be a percentage that is considered, given the fact that many smaller neighborhoods may not have the advocacy necessary to be able to apply. This would encourage those other cities or organizations to step up and say, okay, well, we need to make sure we are getting at least one in five years or one in ten years, or we are doing something to these communities. So we would also ask that you would consider a greater role that EPA might play in encouraging the consideration of these neighborhoods. Thank you. Mr. Baird. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Arcuri. Mr. Arcuri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the panel again for your patience today. I just have one very short question. Do you think, as involved with your cities, which are both very large cities, that it would be beneficial for you to have more flexibility in terms of how the money is spent? Very often a project starts, you get halfway through the project, things change, circumstances are different. Would some degree of flexibility or increased flexibility be beneficial? Mr. Zone. An excellent question, Congressman Arcuri. Every project is different. Once you put the shovel into the ground, you are going to find something you didn't expect was going to be there. The project that I cited was, we went in there because it was a public health hazard, and that is what put us in that situation. The EPA again has been a great partner to work with thus far. I have another brownfield site in my ward that was owned by the old Union Carbide and Energizer Company. We remediated that property. The alkaline battery was invented on that site. We call it Battery Park now. We remediated that site, about 15 acres, to a residential standard. Now we are building 328 units of housing. It is just amazing. If we had that type of flexibility, it would greatly aid us in being able to do more types of developments exactly like the question you asked. Ms. Jones Hill. Congressman, thank you. Certainly, greater flexibility would be helpful to the cities. That is flexibility on the funding. Also, I want to reiterate that from Dallas' standpoint, some flexibility on the time requirement would be very, very helpful if we had the opportunity to waive that one- year time requirement for the larger projects, because that one-year time requirement on the larger projects is really a critical issue. Flexibility on both the funding and the time would be very, very helpful, especially to our city. Mr. Arcuri. I think your point is very well taken. Do you have any specific suggestions on the kinds of flexibility that would be beneficial? Ms. Jones Hill. I would want to talk with our staff and my colleagues. But I would think if we had the opportunity for, perhaps a three-year time line, that would perhaps be much better for us. Mr. Arcuri. Great, thank you. Mr. Zone? Mr. Zone. If assessing the property and funding could be under one program, I think it would create more flexibility. Mr. Arcuri. Can you just expand on that a little bit? Mr. Zone. I am not the technical person. I brought my brownfields manager with me. Mr. Arcuri. So basically just to have a little more ability, money that is deemed for assessment that you would be able to use it in alternative ways? Mr. Zone. Yes, the funding that, what I understand now, the funding, that these are two separate funding streams. And if it was under one umbrella, it would give much more flexibility for those types of efforts. Mr. Arcuri. Very good. Thank you very much. Mr. Baird. With that, I very much thank the panel for their preparation work, for your work on this issue. We will look forward to further comments. With that, this panel is dismissed and I call the next panel to the table, and we will proceed. Thank you again for your patience with our hectic schedule today. The second panel, we thank also for your patience. I know, Dr. Leigh, you may have a flight to catch earlier, so we will try to accommodate that. Are there others who have urgent flights that we need to be cognizant of? What are your time frames, if I may ask? All right. We will try to accommodate that. What we will do is give very brief introductions. Mr. Mark Albrecht is Brownfields Manager for the Mayor of Akron, Ohio's Office of Economic Development, here on behalf of the National Brownfields Association. Mr. Steven McCullough, President and CEO of Bethel New Life, Inc. Dr. Nancy Green Leigh, Professor at Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Architecture. Mr. Jerome Leslie Eben, immediate past President of the American Institute of Architects. Mr. Gary Silversmith, President of P&L Investments. We will really urge you to keep your comments to five minutes. We have read the written comments as well. With that, we will begin with Mr. Albrecht. Thank you very much. TESTIMONY OF MARK ALBRECHT, NATIONAL BROWNFIELDS ASSOCIATION, BROWNFIELDS MANAGER, MAYOR'S OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF AKRON; STEVEN MCCULLOUGH, PRESIDENT/CEO, BETHEL NEW LIFE, INC.; NANCEY GREEN LEIGH, PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY; JEROME LESLIE EBEN, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS NEW JERSEY; GARY SILVERSMITH, PRESIDENT, P&L INVESTMENTS, LLC Mr. Albrecht. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to provide testimony today. I am wearing several hats today on behalf of the National Brownfields Association as well as the City of Akron. I will share my experience both as a member of the executive team of the National Brownfields Association, but also as a municipal brownfields practitioner. I serve on the Brownfields Association Advisory Board, but also work as the brownfields and economic development manager for the City of Akron, where I have been working on planning, economic development and brownfield projects for the last 30 years. Just as way of background, NBA is a 501(c)(3) dedicated to promoting the responsible and sustainable development of brownfield projects by promoting the construction of green and sustainable buildings using energy-efficient technologies and recycled materials on environmentally-impaired properties, i.e., brownfields. NBA members have been able to improve local economies, increase local property taxes, reduce blight, clean up contaminated land, minimize sprawl, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and minimize the environmental footprint of new developments. Founded in 1999, the NBA membership has grown to more than 1,400 members in the United States and Canada. They come from both the public and private sectors and include property owners and developers, investors, service professionals and representative from Federal, State and local governments, academia and non-profits. As the premier national brownfield organization, the NBA provides local, national and international perspective on the brownfield market through members in more than 20 chapters in the United States and Canada. For the last five years, the NBA has been the recipient of an EPA grant that has provided us the opportunity to do brownfield education and training to municipalities. We have successfully conducted more than 30 workshops throughout the Country to hundreds of municipal and State attendees, who have given us high marks. The goal of the workshops is to make municipal employees more conversant in the real estate language and the Brownfield redevelopment practices, so that they can attract additional private sector investment into the communities, and leverage Government funds. NBA also has started to host a deal flow conference. The first was held in 1999 and creates a marketplace where buyers and sellers of brownfields can meet and make transactions. After all, that is what brownfield redevelopment equating to economic development means. Last year, the Big Deals Conference attracted more than 1,000 attendees, and it showcased more than 30 projects for redevelopment. U.S. EPA also holds an annual brownfields conference, and NBA has proposed to combine these two events, allowing EPA to save in excess of $1 million annually. We look forward to meeting with EPA to collaboratively work together to advance this important market. I would like to just kind of step back to Akron, Ohio for a brief moment, just to give you a sense as a local practitioner. The City of Akron is a prime example of the important role that brownfield transactions have had in improving the local economic condition of the city and the role that U.S. EPA has played with us. Akron is a city of 207,000, with an economic legacy in the industrial and manufacturing segment. We have had to transition. To give you a sampling, in 1970 we had 35,000 rubber jobs, producing tires in Akron. By 1990, there were 3,000, today there are 300. We have been able to transition to an economy of plastics, polymers, metal-working, technology industries, largely predicated on our ability to recapture brownfields as the city contains 62 square miles but yet has less than 2 percent vacant land in which we can place these new businesses and industries. In the past ten years, we have been able to take advantage of three U.S. EPA grants to seed funding to assist with this brownfield recapture. I would like to just show a few images of Akron, if I can. This is a project that we used some seed EPA money. This is a national corporation for research in advanced elastomers. That was the before and after in reverse order. Former B.F. Goodrich company, which was actually a brownfield that was built in 1970, terribly contaminated with asbestos. Today it is the home of Gojo, which is the Purell hand cleaner. We are using it for the former Goodyear air dock facility. The major Ohio contribution here, we also used some U.S. EPA funding that will eventually house the new Missile Defense Agency's high altitude airship program. This is an important one that we used EPA funding on, to create the first new retail center in Akron in 40 years. As pre-development costs, the city had to take the lead and act as developer. An old contaminated power plant that is on the Ohio and Erie National Heritage corridor that has now a very popular 300,000 users a year. It was a U.S. EPA grant for cleanup, we were able to take care of this arson fire problem using a demolition grant. We are currently involved with the major brownfield projects with Goodyear Tire and Rubber and Bridgestone Firestone Tire Company to retain their world headquarter and North American headquarters, respectively, in our community. These are critical opportunities for us if we are to take advantage of this. Very quickly, in summary, Akron, as well as other communities around the Country, has been very valuable, taking advantage of the U.S. EPA brownfields programs, invaluable to non-profits and local communities. It is an important first step in funding and addressing the brownfield program. We too would like to see greater flexibility in the program in terms of combining the assessment and cleanup under direct grants as well as the RLF. Most importantly, we would like to see the combination of the petroleum and city-wide hazardous grants into one grant program, thus moving things further. Thank you for this opportunity to present today. I will be glad to answer questions. Ms. Richardson. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Albrecht. We take your recommendations seriously, and obviously your success is why we are here today. Next we have Mr. Steve McCullough. He is the President and CEO of Bethel New Life, Inc. Mr. McCullough. Thank you to the honorable Members of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. My testimony focuses on the Environmental Protection Agency's brownfields program and how it can continue to be an effective tool in improving the quality of life for communities across the Country. Bethel New Life is a faith-based community development corporation located in Chicago's west side. Bethel began in 1979 as a housing ministry of Bethel Lutheran Church to rebuild neighborhoods left in ruins after 1968's civil rights riots. Our mission is to realize God's vision of a restored society by empowering individuals, strengthening families and building neighborhoods through community-driven, solution-oriented and value-centered approaches. Bethel is nationally known for its pioneering community development initiatives, especially in the areas of sustainable urban growth, smart growth and urban context and brownfields redevelopment. Bethel has ben a part of the clean-up and redevelopment of seven brownfields sites in Chicago that have provided major economic stimuli to our lower-income community. We were recently a recipient of EPA's Smart Growth Award in 2006. Our work in brownfield development is close 20 years old. We recently celebrated the opening of a new transit-oriented development project on a former brownfield. This development, called the Bethel Center, is a trend-sitting example of transit-oriented neighborhood revitalization. It is also a LEED certified Gold building. Our work around brownfield development has given us the opportunity to partner with the American Planning Association to train communities across the Country on putting together brownfield remediation strategies. The APA is the recipient of a brownfields training research and technical assistance grant from EPA. Creating community-based brownfield redevelopment strategies is a three-year initiative with the goal of helping community groups in low-income communities develop a new set of eyes to see brownfield sites as opportunities. Non-profit community development organizations are uniquely positioned in a number of key ways to revitalize communities through the brownfield redevelopment. First, community-based non-profits have the long-term vision and active presence necessary to guide revitalization efforts. Second, non-profits serve a crucial role as credible, neutral intermediaries between community and public and private entities advocating for brownfield redevelopment projects that are in the interest of the public good, not just in the interest of a private developer. Third, non-profits have the specialized brownfield knowledge to act as catalyst, managing and coordinating brownfield activities on behalf of and in support of community- based organizations that would otherwise pass up these sites without the non-profit's assistance. Lastly, non-profits have the capacity to leverage brownfield funding with both private sector resources and with other public funds, including transit-oriented development, anti-sprawl and smart growth program funds. The Brownfields Act should recognize the tremendous value that non-profits, whether single-handedly or in partnerships, play in redeveloping brownfields by making non-profit organizations and non-profit controlled entities eligible to receive brownfields assessments and RLF grants, along with cleanup and job training grants. This represents a lost opportunity to maximize these Government resources, by taking advantage of the community development and financing infrastructure that has developed over the last 20 years, and make more efficient use of public and non-profit resources for successful brownfields redevelopment. Community development corporations and community development financial institutions and other non-profit institutions have a place in the infrastructure that will allow them to leverage these funds with other public and private resources and expeditiously deliver these resources to revitalize brownfields in the struggling neighborhoods of all sizes. The Brownfields Act should make non-profit organizations and non-profit controlled entities eligible to receive brownfield assessment and RLF grants, along with cleanup and job training grants. This change recognizes the tremendous value that non-profits, whether single-handedly or in partnerships, play in redeveloping brownfields. The 2002 Brownfields Act should require site ownership as a condition of eligibility to receive direct brownfield remediation grants or revolving loan fund sub-grants in order to ensure that the project moves forward and that responsible parties do not benefit from the grants. Many projects and otherwise eligible entities are willing and able to obtain site control prior to purchase for the purpose of conducting remediation but are reluctant to take ownership of contaminated brownfield properties prior to completion of remedial activities, due to uncertain liability exposure. This represents also a lost opportunity to revitalize many brownfields sites. Finally, the expansion, the last recommendation is expansion of EPA brownfield grant eligibility, including community development entities. A community development entity, otherwise known as a CDE, is defined by the Internal Revenue Code as any domestic corporation or partnership where the primary mission of the entity is serving or providing investment capital for low-income communities or low-income persons. The entity maintains accountability to residents of low-income communities through their representation on any governing board or any advisory board. In conclusion, EPA's brownfield program is a vital tool that should be allowed to evolve into an even more valuable resources to improve communities across the Country. Thank you for the time and opportunity to speak to you. Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. McCullough. I think you are really speaking to some of the questions that our group here has had. Thank you for your testimony. Next we have Dr. Nancey Green Leigh, Professor of the College of Architecture with the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia. Welcome. Ms. Leigh. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Richardson and Members of the Subcommittee. As a Georgia Tech professor, I have been researching, writing and teaching about brownfields redevelopment since the early 1990s. Since EPA's programs were initiated to overcome the market failure and brownfield redevelopment caused by CERCLA, the brownfield industry has become a niche real estate market that relies upon public-private partnerships, employs between 5,000 to 10,000 people and has many high-profile redevelopment successes. There simply would not be the brownfield industry we have today without the EPA's programs and the 2002 Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act. But as others have noted, there is still much to be done. The number of brownfields that have been cleaned up through State voluntary programs represents only 5 to 10 percent of the total problem. My research suggest that for every known brownfield, there could be as many as 14 more than have not made it onto official lists. Further, new brownfields, such as meth fields, are still being created. It is likely that these new brownfields will be disproportionately located in disadvantaged areas. Brownfields fall into three groups: those with negative values where environmental liabilities far exceed their value; those with modest or neutral value; and those with strong positive values. The last group have very desirable locations and tend to be the bigger sites on which large scale redevelopment can occur. So far, the predominant brownfield redevelopment focus, both private and public, has been on the most marketable and larger properties, or the low-hanging fruit. The rationale for the public sector focus has been to maximize return on public investment while the private sector logically and appropriately is seeking to maximize profits. Largely missing from the national dialogue has been the issue of whether brownfields status impacts more than the individual property or brownfield. My own research has found that the presence of brownfields reduces the value of surrounding properties in a neighborhood. This of course leads to lower property tax revenue to pay for schools and essential services and to support economic development. There is legitimate concern over large, mothballed sites, but the remaining brownfield inventory is increasingly composed of small and medium size sites. Many would be considered marginal redevelopment prospects by the private sector. Neglecting their redevelopment acts as a barrier to neighborhood revitalization. In turn, the neighborhoods where they are located are left further behind from those that are being revitalized. The back to the downtown movement that is occurring in our major cities due to the rejection of suburban living by certain demographic groups, as well as firms seeking to avoid the cost of sprawl, has provided a helpful impetus for brownfield redevelopment. But it could also contribute to growing income and equality and displacement of low-income residents due to gentrification, unless EPA's brownfields programs become more focused on low-income neighborhoods. The Brownfields Act was aimed at promoting economic development and achieving environmental restoration. Since such a small percentage of brownfields have been redeveloped, the Act clearly needs to be reauthorized and its funding substantially increased. It also needs revision. To counter trends in urban inequality and gentrification displacement, the reauthorized Act should target the additional increment in funds and placement of EPA staff and brownfields neighborhoods with the worst health exposure and greatest need for economic development. It should require a demographic and economic impact assessment of projects and gentrification prevention or redress plans. It should emphasize a neighborhood approach if there are community-wide, multi-purpose grants. And it should encourage the development of workforce housing. EPA adopted an environmentally responsible redevelopment and re-use initiative for encouraging the best sustainable environmental practices in brownfields redevelopment in 2004. However, there appear to have been only two pilot projects resulting from this initiative. To further the greening of brownfield redevelopment, the reauthorized Act should encourage life cycle assessment analysis to minimize environmental burdens of brownfield projects, encourage on-site remediation strategies, promote deconstruction over demolition when buildings are removed, and require green building and site development standards. In conclusion, my own view is that EPA's Brownfield Act and the program have fostered more innovation and economic development, leading to a sophisticated brownfields industry, than environmental solutions. However, EPA could be a real catalyst for sustainable development that maximizes both objectives if it requires, rather than simply encourages, green redevelopment standards. These standards would reduce energy and consumption costs, lower building and site maintenance costs, create healthier living and work spaces, foster new businesses and jobs in the brownfield sector as well as in the larger economy. Thank you for the opportunity to present my testimony. I would be happy to answer your questions. Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Dr. Leigh, for not only your testimony but your work in this area. Next we have Mr. Jerome Leslie Eben, the immediate Past President of the American Institute of Architects from Trenton, New Jersey. Welcome, thank you for being here. Mr. Eben. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. The AIA is a professional society representing 82,000 licensed architects across our Country. We are leaders in our communities and we play a major role in strengthening America's economic vitality. I would like to also commend the Committee for holding this hearing today on a topic of vital concern to both us as architects and you as our political leaders in not only suburban communities but in urban communities across the Country. My home State of New Jersey is home to at least 20,000 contaminated sites, the majority of which qualify as brownfields. Essex County, where I was born, where I live and where I work, has over 1,000 brownfields. Newark is in Essex County, and is the third oldest city in the United States, settled in 1666. It is one of the most economically charged cities in America. It has 500 certified brownfields, probably hundreds more which sit unoccupied, contributing to the city's blight. Bringing these contaminated sites back to life through brownfields redevelopment is imperative to restoring American cities, not only like Newark, but other American cities that were mentioned here today, Akron, Cleveland, other cities. Architects throughout the Nation understand the enormous significance of redeveloping these sites. We are committed to planning the design and construction of vital, healthy communities, and we are understandably concerned that brownfields sites blight neighborhoods and need revitalization. We have long supported Congressional efforts to facilitate brownfield cleanup and redevelopment. However, this Committee, the AIA and EPA know that there are still hundreds of thousands of brownfields sites that sit vacant and under-used. Therefore the Federal brownfields law must be updated to provide communities with the necessary tools and resources to clean up these sites. Redeveloping brownfields sites produces undeniable economic benefits, I think that has been testified to here today, demonstrating that intelligent Federal spending on brownfields will provide the needed economic investment for cities and communities nationwide. The message is clear, investing in brownfields will boost the economic vitality of our cities, our communities, create jobs, stimulate the economy at a time when Congress is exploring ways to do that, to stimulate the economy, particularly in the housing and real estate sections. Investing in brownfields should be an important priority. Therefore, we strongly urge the Committee to increase funding levels in the program and reauthorize this legislation. It is clear more brownfields exist than can be redeveloped. Each year, EPA is faced with the difficult task of choosing which projects to provide grant monies, and which projects to exclude. Given the extensive competition among applicants for limited grant funding, we feel that including additional project qualifications in the programs grant-making criteria would direct funding to the best possible projects. One such condition is energy efficiency, mentioned by you, Congresswoman. We believe that the efficiency in green building standards should be a factor in determining which grant applications do receive this funding. Most brownfield redevelopment projects will require major renovation of buildings onsite and in most cases, new buildings altogether. It makes sense for buildings to be designed in an intelligent, energy-efficient way. Architects and builders across this Country are utilizing the most modern design techniques, materials and building systems to achieve the significant energy savings in new and renovated buildings. Energy-efficient or green buildings offer countless benefits to their inhabitants, including reduced energy use. Given that many brownfields are located in low-income areas, such as Newark, reduced energy costs for future building occupants should be factors in determining which projects receive these grant monies. Furthermore, reclaiming contaminated sites helps improve the natural environment. Once a brownfield site is cleaned up, it is counter-productive then to build an energy-guzzling building on that very same site, especially when the cost of green buildings are negligible. Thus, we strongly believe that brownfield redevelopment projects that will result in energy- efficient and green buildings should be given a preference as the EPA chooses which projects to do in the future. When this Committee attempted to reauthorize the brownfields law during the 109th Congress, language was included requiring the EPA to include the use of green standards and energy efficiency as criterion in grant-making. We urge the Committee once again to take this route to ensure our Nation that the brownfields are redeveloped in the smartest and most energy-efficient way. America's architects are committed to designing healthy communities. In order to redevelop some of the most economically depressed neighborhoods, the Federal Government's brownfields program must be expanded. This will facilitate the cleanup of blighted areas across America. The AIA strongly supports this Committee's efforts to improve the brownfields program, and I welcome your questions. Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Eben. We are going to take a brief pause, if you don't mind, Mr. Silversmith. We realize Mr. Albrecht has to hop on a plane in five minutes. So we are going to deter for a slight second and have Mr. Boozman, who is our Ranking Member from Arkansas, ask a question. Then we will continue on. Mr. Boozman. Thank you. I have one that I would like to throw out for the panel, and why don't you start, Mr. Albrecht, then you can go ahead and leave if you would like. Believe me, it doesn't matter if I start, if I have a 1:00 o'clock flight or a 5:00 o'clock or an 8:00 o'clock at night, I am constantly running, as all of us are, to catch that. So I understand. Dr. Leigh mentioned about the mothballed sites in her testimony. How can we make it possible for the so-called mothball sites to be cleaned up and put into productive use? Would mothballed sites be cleaned up if protections from liability were made available? Mr. Albrecht. I am not an environmental attorney, but from a practical standpoint at the city, the one slide that I showed you of an old Imperial Electric that was an arson fire, we took ownership of that just probably eight months prior to the January 11th, 2002 rule that kicked in the all appropriate inquiry. What we were able to do, through the cooperation of Region 5 in Chicago was we had to demonstrate that we did do some level of due diligence prior to that. We really feel locally that that particular benchmark rule is inappropriate. As Cleveland demonstrated, we have been land- banking properties for 10 years. Some of those have been in our portfolio, the first project I showed you was the AES Elastomer Systems project. We took that on initially to demolish the building. It turned out the company wanted it rehabbed. But we took it on blind faith. So you need to provide us some flexibility in how our ownership patterns work in that regard. Thank you. Mr. Boozman. With the Chair's permission, then, you can go ahead and go. Is that all right, Madam Chair? Ms. Richardson. Yes, you are released, and thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Boozman. Yes, thank you very much. Do the rest of you have anything to say about that? Mr. Silversmith. If I may, just a few things. Number one, some of the cities are afraid to exercise eminent domain or otherwise foreclose for back taxes on these mothballed properties. Because under CERCLA, they are not liable if it is an involuntary acquisition. The issue among the lawyers is, if you take it by eminent domain or for back taxes, was it an involuntary acquisition. So consequently, some of the properties remain mothballed because the liability relief is not broad enough for the cities. In addition, there are some tenants who come into properties that are already contaminated. The responsible party is the owner, and the tenant does not have a liability release under CERCLA. Then finally, gas stations are not exempt. So when we come in to clean up gas stations, there is an issue there for liability. So pursuant to your questions, there clearly could be an expansion of the liability relief. Mr. Boozman. Good. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Richardson. Did anyone else want to respond? Okay, we will continue with our last panelist here. We have Mr. Gary Silversmith. Thank you for comment on that question. He is President of P&L Investments, Inc. here in Washington, D.C. Thank you, and welcome. Mr. Silversmith. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and my Valentine to the Subcommittee is that I am your last witness. I am the President, as you mentioned, of P&L Investments, a national brownfields investor and developer headquartered here in Washington, D.C. We are involved in the cleanup and redevelopment of dozens of properties around the Country, ranging from an abandoned gas station in Los Angeles that we are converting to affordable housing to cleaning up an old shopping center in Maine that we are releasing. We not only acquire large brownfields held by major corporations, such as AIG Environmental and General Motors, but we also clean up and redevelop many small properties, including a truck stop in Denton, Texas, near Madam Chairwoman's district office. We were told that were are the first company in America to get permission to convert a Superfund site to residential use. Before cleaning up the Superfund site, it was contaminated with PCBs, mercury, and asbestos. The property consisted of a dilapidated factory building occupied by drug dealers and arsonists. In fact, the EPA's onsite trailer was burned down. We demolished these buildings and we cleaned up the site. The townhouses built on the land appreciated over 300 percent in the first four years. So the community not only got rid of a drug-infested blight, but the residents made money. Also, the EPA wrote a complimentary article about the project in their Cleanup News publication, and EPA gave us a very important liability release. In Pennsylvania, we took an abandoned 90-acre asbestos brake plant and asbestos landfill, and we converted the plant to an industrial park with high-tech companies. We capped the landfill with asphalt and converted it to a commercial parking lot. For this project, we received a liability release from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We would have never undertaken this project without the liability relief for innocent purchasers provided in the brownfields law. The Federal brownfields law also recognizes the critical importance of public-private partnerships in bringing these contaminated properties back to productive use. We are currently involved in an innovative public-private partnership with an Ohio community where we are converting a landfill to a golf course with new commercial buildings around the golf course. As part of this partnership, the local government entity will receive 25 percent of the profits. This project would not have been possible without the investment of both State and Federal grant monies. While the Federal brownfields law has stimulated the revitalization of thousands of properties around the Country, those of us in the industry have learned a great deal since the law was passed six years ago. As part of my written testimony, I have attached recommendations developed by the National Brownfields Coalition, which I wholeheartedly support. Based upon my experience in the field, I would like to highlight just a few of the recommendations. Number one and most importantly to me, Congress should increase the ceiling on brownfield cleanup grants. As you know, the maximum amount that EPA can provide for a cleanup grant under the current law is $200,000. There are many sites where the cleanup cost is millions of dollars. In these cases, $200,000 from EPA is usually not enough help, even taking into account funding from other sources. As a result, these sites are usually mothballed. Number two, pursuant to Congressman Arcuri's question, the Government should provide flexible multi-purpose grants. The slow timing and the lack of flexibility with the Federal brownfield grants is a real problem. Under the current grant process, there is a lengthy delay between the time of the grant application and the time the funding is available. In addition, the grants are for only either assessment or cleanup. Moreover, the cleanup grants are typically tied to a specific site. Local governments could really use multi-purpose grants that are processed quickly that can be used for assessment and/ or cleanup and that can be employed in a variety of brownfield properties. Congress should make it clear that Federal grants can be used for demolition and site clearance. For many of the larger projects we undertake, demolition and site clearance are major costs. For example, we are now converting an abandoned factory in Baltimore County to mostly park land. One reason the cleanup is delayed is because the prospective purchaser, the Maryland State Park System, would like the abandoned factory demolished as part of the cleanup. But the State Park System cannot get an EPA grant for all of the demolition. If EPA could award a more flexible grant, then the demolition could proceed. In summary, the 2002 brownfields law was a milestone for brownfield redevelopment. And it should be expanded to fund both bigger grants and to be more flexible in its application. In addition, pursuant to Congressman Boozman's question, its liability relief should be expanded. After all, brown to green is good. Thank you. Ms. Richardson. Thank you very much, Mr. Silversmith. Any further questions, Mr. Boozman? Mr. Boozman. I don't think so, Madam Chair. We probably will have some that we would like to submit, with your permission, though. Ms. Richardson. Absolutely. Seeing no further questions, first of all, I would like to thank the panelists for your work, for your testimony as well as your time today. On behalf of Chairwoman Johnson, and the entire Subcommittee, we want to recognize your comments and your recommendations into the record and assure you that they will be considered in our future deliberations. As we close, we want to thank the witnesses and suggest that any Members, whether present at this moment or coming forward on this Subcommittee, that we might have follow-up questions that we would submit to you. We ask that you would respond to them in a timely fashion. We appreciate your cooperation and your valuable participation today, especially given the hour and your patience with us. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 5:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]