PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 115-419, Part I.
Congressional Research Service
Version 18 · Reported to House amended, Part I · Nov 21, 2017
Brownfields Reauthorization Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill modifies the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to specify if a state or local government takes title to a brownfield site as a result of law enforcement activity, that government is not an owner or operator for the purposes of CERCLA. (Brownfields are certain commercial properties that are hindered from reuse or redevelopment due to the presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.) (Sec. 3) The bill modifies brownfield program eligibility with respect to petroleum sites where no viable responsible party exists. Specifically, it eliminates the requirement that sites be of relatively low risk. (Sec. 4) The bill revises leaseholder status regarding bona fide prospective purchasers. (Sec. 5) The bill expands CERCLA eligibility for nonprofit organizations and qualified community development entities. (Sec. 6) The brownfield site characterization and assessment grant program and the brownfield remediation grant and loan program are revised by authorizing eligible governmental entities to receive grants and loans for property that was acquired before January 11, 2002, even if the entities do not qualify as bona fide prospective purchasers. (Sec. 7) The bill increases the cap on the amount that may be given in grants and loans for each site to be remediated. (Sec. 8) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must establish a program to provide multipurpose grants to carry out inventory, characterization, assessment, planning, or remediation activities at brownfield sites. (Sec. 9) The bill allows grant recipients to use up to 5% of funds for administrative costs. (Sec. 10) The bill reauthorizes brownfields revitalization funding through FY2022. (Sec. 11) The bill reauthorizes state response programs through FY2022.
People & committees
Rep. Esty, Elizabeth H. [D-CT-5] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 115-419, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 115-419, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Discharged.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1758 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1758 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1758 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1758 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.