Order Code IB10067
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 107th Congress
Updated January 4, 2001
Martin R. Lee, Coordinator
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Clean Air Act (by James McCarthy)
Surface Transportation and the Environment (by David Bearden)
Clean Water Act Issues (by Claudia Copeland)
Safe Drinking Water Act (by Mary Tiemann)
Reauthorizing Superfund (by Mark Reisch)
Solid Waste Issues (by James McCarthy)
Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs
(by David Bearden)
Global Climate Change (by Susan Fletcher)
Funding the Environmental Protection Agency
(by Martin R. Lee)
Environmental Research and Development
(by Michael Simpson)

---

IB10067
1-4-01
Environmental Protection Issues in the 107th Congress
SUMMARY
The approach of the 107th Congress to
hensive Superfund amendments in the 106th
environmental protection issues depends on
Congress, it is unclear at this time if such
the priorities of the leadership, several commit-
legislation will be reconsidered in the 107th
tee chairs, and the new Administration. The
Congress. In the Senate, the Chair of the
authorizations for most environmental
Environment and Public Works Committee did
protection programs have expired.
not list Superfund reform legislation as a

priority for the 107th. A related concern,
Clean Air. Clean Air Act issues in the 107th
Brownfield legislation, however, was listed .
Congress include several holdovers from the

106th, as well as continuing oversight of EPA’s
Solid/Hazardous Wastes. Whether solid
implementation of the Act. Gasoline additives,
waste legislation will be addressed in the 107th
air quality standards, and emissions from coal-
Congress may depend on the views of new
fired power plants are possible topics. How
leadership on the House Commerce Commit-
Congress will deal with these remains unclear.
tee, which has jurisdiction over such legislation
The use of federal highway revenues to ad-
in the House. Defense Cleanup. Continued
dress the environmental impacts of surface
oversight of the multibillion dollar cleanup and
transportation may receive attention during
compliance programs at the Department of
oversight of the implementation of the Trans-
Defense is likely. Congress passes annual
portation Equity Act for the 21st Century
authorization and appropriation legislation for
(TEA 21, P.L. 105-178)
these programs.
Water Issues. The 106th Congress approved
Global Climate Change. The main issues for
several narrow water quality provisions. A
Congress are oversight of the U.S. negotia-
key water quality issue is what additional
tions related to the Kyoto Protocol, which
steps are necessary to achieve the goals of the
involve potential rules for how climate change
1972 Clean Water Act (CWA), and what the
might be addressed by the United States and
federal role will be in guiding and paying for
other nations, and what policies are appropri-
future activities. Topics might include manag-
ate domestically.
ing animal wastes, implementing impaired
waters ( i.e., Total Maximum Daily Load,
Pesticides. The 107th Congress is also likely
TMDL) requirements, and funding water
to continue monitoring EPA implementation of
infrastructure projects. Impacts of the Act’s
the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).
wetlands permit program also remain on the
Several environmental science and technology
legislative agenda for many. Continued over-
issues are of interest to Congress, also.
sight of the implementation of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) can be ex-
EPA Budget. As soon as the President sub-
pected. Various related program and regula-
mits the FY2002 budget in February, Congress
tory deadlines will occur during this Congress.
will begin determining funding levels and
priorities for EPA activities.
Superfund. While the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee and the House
Committee on Commerce approved compre-
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10067
1-4-01
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The environmental protection agenda for 107th Congress may be defined initially by
numerous holdover issues and new initiatives of congressional leaders and the new
Administration.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The 106th Congress acted on several environmental protection bills (see CRS Issue Brief
IB10003, Environmental Protection Issues in the 106th Congress). The focus was on
legislation addressing specific clean water activities, and funding of environmental protection
activities. (For a description of environmental protection laws, see CRS Report RL30783,
Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection
Agency.)
The approach of the 107th Congress to environmental protection issues depends on the
priorities of the leadership, several committee chairs, and the new Administration. The
authorizations for most environmental protection programs have expired, although programs
authorities remain in effect and funding is continued.
Clean Air Act (by James McCarthy)
Clean Air Act issues in the 107th Congress include several holdovers from the 106th, as
well as continuing oversight of EPA’s implementation of the Act. Bills to diminish the use
of MTBE, a gasoline additive, were at the top of the clean air agenda for much of the last
Congress, but Congress adjourned without taking floor action. MTBE is used to meet Clean
Air Act requirements that gasoline sold in the nation’s worst ozone nonattainment areas
contain at least 2% oxygen. The additive makes gasoline burn more cleanly, but it has been
implicated in numerous incidents of ground water contamination. H.R. 11, a bill to waive the
oxygen requirement in California only, was approved by the Commerce Committee’s
Subcommittee on Health and Environment September 30, 1999, but then stalled amid
discussion of broader legislation. In the Senate, S. 2962, to ban the use of MTBE, which
would have allowed Governors to waive the oxygen requirement, and authorize $200 million
from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund for MTBE cleanup, was approved
by the Environment and Public Works Committee on September 7, 2000 and reported
September 28 (S.Rept. 106-426). No further action was taken.
Of particular concern in the MTBE debate are the potential impacts of any such
legislation on the use of other oxygenates, principally ethanol. Ethanol is made largely from
corn; a sizeable group of Governors, Members, and Senators from agricultural states is
concerned that changes in the Act not adversely affect ethanol’s use. The reported Senate
bill provided regulatory requirements that could have tripled ethanol use over the next decade.
Revisions to the air quality standards for ozone and particulates, promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency in 1997, may also command renewed attention in the 107th
CRS-1

---

IB10067
1-4-01
Congress. The standards were challenged in the courts, and implementation is currently in
limbo, pending resolution of appeals to the Supreme Court. The Court heard oral arguments
November 7, 2000, and a decision is expected in spring 2001. The decision is likely to
stimulate congressional oversight, and perhaps legislation.
A third set of air quality issues on the congressional agenda concerns recent efforts by
EPA to control emissions from coal-fired power plants. In addition to implementing acid rain
controls targeting sulfur dioxide emissions from such plants, the Agency has promulgated new
rules to control nitrogen oxide emissions, has initiated enforcement actions against several
major utilities, and has announced plans to regulate mercury emissions. Electric utilities are
also major sources of the leading “greenhouse” gas, carbon dioxide, which is unregulated.
Many parties in industry, the Congress, and in both the outgoing and incoming
Administrations have suggested the time is ripe for comprehensive, multi-pollutant legislation
to regulate utility emissions.
The last Congress also expressed an interest in the degree to which plans for new
highways must conform to emission budgets under the Clean Air Act. This “conformity”
issue may also remain on the agenda.
Congress last enacted major amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990, and EPA is still
implementing numerous provisions of those amendments. Recent efforts include development
of tighter emission standards for diesel engines and fuels, implementation of controls on
sources of 188 air toxics, and review of state implementation plans for attaining ozone air
quality standards. EPA decisions regarding implementation of these and other programs
mandated by the Clean Air Act will provide opportunities for oversight and possible
legislation in the 107th Congress.(For additional information on clean air issues, see CRS Issue
Brief IB100065, Clean Air Act Issues in the 107th Congress.)
Surface Transportation and the Environment (by David
Bearden)
In the 107th Congress, the use of federal highway revenues to address the environmental
impacts of surface transportation may receive attention during oversight of the
implementation of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21, P.L. 105-
178). The law authorized a total of $218 billion for federal highway and mass transit
programs from FY1998 to FY2003, and set aside roughly $12.5 billion for several programs
to protect the environment. The majority of environmental funding under TEA 21 is reserved
for air quality projects to assist states in complying with federal air quality standards. The law
also increased funding for environmentally related transportation enhancements and
established new programs to assist transit systems in purchasing low-emission buses, conduct
environmental research, encourage environmental technologies for motor vehicles, and
support projects that integrate transportation efficiency, community preservation, and
environmental protection. Other provisions addressed the operation of low-emission vehicles
in high occupancy vehicle lanes, extended tax benefits for alcohol-based fuels, and required
the environmental review process for highway projects to be streamlined. (CRS Report 98-
646 ENR, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178): An Overview of
CRS-2

---

IB10067
1-4-01
Environmental Protection Provisions, describes each of the above programs and indicates the
amount of funding authorized for them.)
During the 106th Congress, oversight of TEA21's environmental provisions focused
primarily on the implementation of requirements to streamline the environmental review
process for highway projects, and oversight of this issue will likely continue into the 107th
Congress. On May 25, 2000, DOT issued its environmental streamlining regulatory proposal
and accepted public comments through September 23, 2000. During oversight hearings held
during the 106th Congress, some Members in the House and Senate criticized the proposal for
not fully addressing the streamlining requirements under TEA21, and for addressing other
planning and regulatory issues not required under the law. Some of the principal criticisms
of the proposal were the absence of a requirement for environmental reviews to be conducted
concurrently, rather than sequentially, and to be completed within a cooperatively determined
time period. Some Members also criticized the proposal for not including a dispute resolution
mechanism to ensure that federal agencies complete their environmental reviews within
mutually agreed upon time frames. In response to these criticisms, DOT testified during
oversight hearings in the 106th Congress that it would carefully evaluate all of the concerns
and the proposed changes submitted during the comment period when developing a final rule
on the environmental streamlining regulations. As of the adjournment of the 106th Congress,
DOT had not issued a final rule, and it is unclear what form the final regulations will take and
when they will be issued.
Clean Water Act Issues (by Claudia Copeland)
A key water quality issue today is what additional steps are necessary to achieve the
goals of the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA), and what will be the federal role in guiding and
paying for future activities. This Act is the principal law governing pollution in the nation’s
lakes, rivers, and coastal waters and authorizing funds to aid construction of municipal
wastewater treatment plants. Specific issues of interest include funding for water quality
infrastructure and related projects, programs to restore pollution-impaired waters, and
managing impacts of agricultural activities on water quality.
In the 106th Congress, congressional committees held oversight hearings on
implementation of some existing provisions of the Act and Administration water quality
initiatives, but no committee activity to reauthorize the entire law occurred. The Act was last
comprehensively amended in 1987, and authorizations for most programs expired on
September 30, 1990. Activities under the Act continue, however, as Congress has continued
to appropriate funds to implement the law. Although no comprehensive reauthorization
legislation was enacted during the 106th Congress, activity on bills dealing with specific water
quality issues did occur. Congress passed a bill to strengthen protection of coastal recreation
waters through upgraded water quality standards and coastal waters monitoring programs
(P.L. 106-284). Congress also passed a bill reauthorizing several existing CWA programs
(i.e., Chesapeake Bay, clean lakes, and the National Estuary Program; P.L. 106-457).
Further, Congress passed a bill to authorize CWA grant funding for wet weather sewerage
projects (included as a provision of H.R. 4577, FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations bill).
Implementation of the law since 1972 and application of pollution control technology
by industries and cities have led to significant water quality improvements: about 60% of
waters surveyed by states are clean enough to support basic uses such as fishing and
CRS-3

---

IB10067
1-4-01
swimming. However, these same survey data indicate that about 40% of surface waters fail
to meet standards. Nevertheless, the Clean Water Act has been viewed as one of the nation’s
most successful environmental laws in terms of achieving the statutory goals, which have been
widely supported by interest groups and the public, but lately has been criticized over whether
further benefits are worth the costs.
Many Clean Water Act issues that might be addressed involve making difficult tradeoffs
between impacts on different sectors of the economy, taking action when there is technical
or scientific uncertainty, and allocating governmental responsibilities for implementing the
law. Some observers speculate that, rather than taking up comprehensive CWA
reauthorization legislation as it has traditionally done, Congress might consider only narrower
bills to reauthorize or modify selected CWA programs, as was the case in the 106th Congress.
If broader clean water issues receive attention, topics that might be of interest include
managing animal wastes to minimize water quality and public health impacts, measures to
address polluted runoff from farms and city streets, and water infrastructure funding. Impacts
of the Act’s wetlands permit program, a pivotal and contentious issue in the recent past, also
remain on the legislative agenda for many.
(For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10001, Clean Water Act Reauthorization.)
Safe Drinking Water Act (by Mary Tiemann)
The 107th Congress is likely to continue overseeing implementation of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), the principal federal statute for regulating the quality of water provided
by public water systems. EPA, states, and public water suppliers currently are working to
implement and comply with a wide range of requirements added by the 1996 SDWA
Amendments (P.L. 104-182), and various program and regulatory deadlines will occur during
this Congress.
First enacted in 1974, the SDWA, as amended, is administered through regulatory
programs that establish standards for drinking water contaminants and that control the
underground injection of wastes to protect drinking water sources. The 1996 amendments
revised the Act to focus resources on contaminants posing the greatest risks, to provide
funding for drinking water mandates, to improve compliance, and to prevent pollution of
water sources. The provisions modified the standard setting schedule and process, directed
EPA to conduct benefit and cost analyses when setting standards, expanded consumer
reporting requirements, and added programs for certifying plant operators and compliance
capacity development. Appropriations for SDWA programs are authorized through FY2003.
A general oversight issue for the 107th Congress may involve the adequacy of state and
community resources to implement and comply with SDWA requirements. At the state level,
the General Accounting Office reports that resource shortages are affecting many states’
ability to administer drinking water programs, and that resource shortfalls are expected to
worsen as program responsibilities expand through 2005 (GAO/RCED-00-199). At the
community level, a key issue concerns the ability of public water systems, especially smaller
systems, to comply with a growing number of complex drinking water regulations. Congress
established a drinking water state revolving fund (DWSRF) program in 1996 to help
communities finance projects needed to comply with federal regulations. Under this program
CRS-4

---

IB10067
1-4-01
through mid-1999, EPA had awarded more than $2.7 billion in capitalization grants to states,
and states had made roughly 1,200 loans to water systems for drinking water projects.
However, a large funding gap remains, and this gap is expected to grow as new regulations
increase infrastructure needs. (For more information on the DWSRF program, see CRS
Report 97-677, Safe Drinking Water Act: State Revolving Fund Program.)
In addition to oversight, legislative efforts may carry over from the 106th Congress to
address specific drinking water issues, such as the numerous detections of methyl tertiary
butyl ether (MTBE) in ground water and drinking water. (See CRS Report 98-290 ENR,
MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water Issues.) Other issues of ongoing concern
may involve EPA’s drinking water research program, and upcoming regulations for various
contaminants including radon and arsenic. (For information on the proposed arsenic rule, see
CRS Report RS20672, Arsenic in Drinking Water: Recent Regulatory Developments and
Issues.)

Reauthorizing Superfund (by Mark Reisch)
The Superfund Act, formally known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, is the principal federal law for cleaning up
spills and other discharges of hazardous substances. Superfund action in the 106th Congress
was characterized by extensive, but ultimately unsuccessful efforts to amend and reauthorize
CERCLA. Two reauthorization bills were reported (H.R. 1300 from the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, and H.R. 2580 from the Commerce Committee) but they did not
proceed further. The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee opposed reinstating
Superfund’s expired taxes (which largely funded the program in the past) unless the
reauthorization made significant changes to CERCLA’s liability scheme . In the Senate the
Environment and Public Works Committee met numerous times to mark up S. 1090, a
CERCLA reauthorization bill, but finally agreed on August 4, 1999, to end further
consideration when members could not reach a bipartisan compromise. The unresolved issues
included cleanup standards, liability issues, and natural resource damages.
Many Members in both chambers wanted the brownfields program, which covers less
serious hazardous waste sites, to be formalized in law. The Republican leadership kept the
popular program within the reauthorization bills. An expiring brownfields cleanup tax
incentive was extended twice. The Tax Relief Extension Act (P.L. 106-170, H.R. 1180,
H.Rept.106-478) continued the tax break to December 31, 2001, and the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-554, H.R. 4577, H, Rept. 106-1033) gave it 2 additional
years, to the end of 2003. The second law also expanded eligible sites to include any site
containing a hazardous substance that is certified by the appropriate state environmental
agency.
A third enactment, the Superfund Recycling Equity Act, relieves recyclers of CERCLA
liability if they meet certain conditions; it was incorporated in the Omnibus Appropriations
Act (P.L. 106-113, H.R. 3194, H.Rept. 106-479).
One other bill reached the House floor in the 106th Congress. H.R. 5175, which would
have relieved small businesses of CERCLA liability for small quantities of hazardous
substances and for municipal solid waste was brought up under suspension of the rules on
CRS-5

---

IB10067
1-4-01
September 26, 2000, but failed to achieve the two-thirds majority needed for passage. The
vote was 253-161.
Whether an effort will be made in the 107th Congress to pass a comprehensive Superfund
reauthorization bill is unclear. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman
Bob Smith released his list of legislative priorities on December 18, 2000, and while it
included brownfields, it made no mention of Superfund. If his counterparts in the House
decide to take up CERCLA, it will mark the fifth Congress in a row that Superfund reform
has been considered. (For further discussion, see CRS Issue Brief IB10011, Superfund
Reauthorization Issues in the 106th Congress.)
Solid Waste Issues (by James McCarthy)
Whether solid waste legislation will be addressed in the 107th Congress may depend on
the views of new leadership on the House Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over
such legislation in the House. For the past 6 years, action on such legislation (notably, bills
to allow states to restrict imports of solid waste from out of state – so-called “interstate
waste” legislation) was blocked by the committee’s Chairman, who retired at the end of the
106th Congress.
In addition to providing new leadership, 2001 may provide a potent stimulus to action,
when New York City closes Fresh Kills, its last remaining landfill. The landfill was once the
largest landfill in the United States, accepting 13,000 tons of waste per day in 1996, when the
decision to close it was made. The city has few in-state options for disposal, and expects to
send to other states virtually all of its waste upon closure.
Congress may also consider implementing the Basel Convention on Transboundary
Movement of Waste. The United States is a signatory of this convention, which controls
international shipment of waste, but implementing legislation has not been enacted. (For more
information on international waste trade, see CRS Report 98-638, Waste Trade and the Basel
Convention: Background and Update. For information on interstate shipment of waste, see
CRS Report RL30409, Interstate Shipment of Waste: 2000 Update, and CRS Report
RS20106, Interstate Waste Transport: Legislative Issues.)
Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs
(by David Bearden)
While the Environmental Protection Agency is the primary federal agency responsible
for the control of pollution and the cleanup of civilian environmental contamination, the
Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for remediating contamination and controlling
pollution at military facilities. In the first session of the 107th Congress, authorizing and
appropriating funding for national defense programs for FY2002 will likely be a significant
consideration in the annual debate over the federal budget. Of the activities traditionally
authorized and funded, DOD administers six environmental programs: cleanup at current and
former military facilities, cleanup at base closure sites, environmental compliance, pollution
prevention, environmental technology, and natural resource conservation. In addition to
CRS-6

---

IB10067
1-4-01
DOD’s programs, the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing defense
nuclear waste and cleaning up contaminated nuclear weapons sites. Some of the principal
issues associated with these programs are the adequacy, cost, and pace of cleanup at
contaminated military sites and the extent to which DOD complies with federal, state, and
local environmental laws and regulations.
The 106th Congress enacted authorizing and appropriation legislation for DOD and
DOE’s defense cleanup and environmental programs for FY2000 and FY2001. (CRS Report
RL30111, Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs: Authorization and
Appropriations for FY2000, and CRS Report RL30554, Defense Cleanup and Environmental
Programs: Authorization and Appropriations for FY2001, discusses each law.)
Global Climate Change (by Susan Fletcher)
Concerns that the increase in “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere has caused warming
of the Earth’s climate have led to a number of international responses, as well as issues of
interest to the U.S. Congress. The main issues for Congress are oversight of the U.S.
negotiations related to the Kyoto Protocol, which involve potential rules for how climate
change might be addressed by the United States and other nations, and what policies are
appropriate domestically. The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), which the United States has ratified, contained voluntary commitments
by all parties to that treaty to take steps to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases,
primarily carbon dioxide produced by burning of fossil fuels and wood (as well as five other
gases from other sources). Congress has been primarily concerned with the issues connected
with the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC; the Protocol contains legally binding emission
reductions for 38 industrialized nations. Congress has held oversight hearings on many
aspects of the economic impacts and scientific findings related to climate change generally and
the Kyoto Protocol specifically. Legislation was also introduced related to needed scientific
research, policies on domestic credit for activities to reduce carbon emissions or increase
carbon sinks, and limits on the activities of the government that could be regarded as
implementing the Kyoto Protocol before it has been approved. Amendments were attached
to numerous appropriations laws in the 106th Congress to prohibit expenditures by agencies
to implement the Kyoto Protocol, or in some cases, prohibit funding for activities “in
contemplation” of Kyoto Protocol implementation.
The United States has signed the Kyoto Protocol, but it has not been submitted to the
Senate for its advice and consent because the Clinton Administration was seeking to obtain
“meaningful participation” of developing countries, and was participating in the continuing
negotiations to agree on rules governing various aspects of how the Protocol would operate.
These rules have key relevance to economic impacts of U.S. commitments -- in particular,
how much the United States could rely on “flexibility” mechanisms that would reduce
domestic measures needed to meet its commitments, through trading emission “credits” with
other countries and relying on its extensive forest and agricultural lands to absorb carbon,
acting as “sinks.” In November 2000, negotiations held in The Hague, Netherlands, were
expected to resolve a number of political and operational issues on how the Kyoto Protocol
would work. However, these negotiations collapsed when some of the key issues regarding
flexibility mechanisms and use of carbon sinks eluded political agreement among ministers
from developed countries. A large congressional delegation attended these negotiations, and
CRS-7

---

IB10067
1-4-01
it appears likely that Congress will continue to conduct oversight hearings and consider
legislation related to the issues of climate change generally, and the Kyoto Protocol
negotiations specifically. (For further discussion , see CRS Issue Brief 89005, Global
Climate Change; CRS Report RL 30692, Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol; and
t h e C R S e l e c t r o n i c b r i e f i n g b o o k o n G l o b a l C l i m a t e C h a n g e
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebgcc1.html].)
Regulating Pesticides (by Linda Schierow)
The 106th Congress prohibited in P.L. 106-377 implementation of a rule proposed by
EPA to increase fees charged to registrants of pesticides used on food. The fees were to
reimburse EPA for the cost of establishing a “tolerance,” or maximum safe level of pesticide
residues on foods. According to the conference report (H.Rept.106-988 ), the proposed rule
would charge more than 100% of actual costs and charge registrants retroactively. Other
legislation proposed in the 106th Congress aimed to amend the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA; P.L. 104-170), but was not enacted. Bills would have required new data collection
before the Agency could revoke, suspend, or modify a pesticide tolerance or exemption, and
a “transition analysis” for proposed or final rules and other documents related to FQPA
implementation. The analysis would specify when tolerances were reassessed based on
assumptions rather than data. The bills also would have required notice-and-comment
rulemaking to establish EPA science guidelines, which then would be subject to judicial
review under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 USC 701 et seq.). (Currently, EPA
promulgates rules separately for each pesticide registration and tolerance.)
The 107th Congress is likely to continue overseeing EPA implementation of the FQPA.
The FQPA amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) in 1996. EPA regulates the use of pesticides
under authority of FIFRA. In addition to regulating pesticide use, EPA sets allowable
pesticide residue levels for food (tolerances) under authority of the FFDCA. FQPA
established a new, stricter safety standard for pesticide residue tolerances: regulations must
ensure “a reasonable certainty of no harm.” The act requires EPA to re-evaluate all
tolerances in effect in 1996 by August 3, 2006. At issue generally is the pace and process
through which EPA is implementing the law: grower groups and the pesticide industry have
complained that the implementation process is not transparent enough to allow them to plan
for contingencies, and that EPA is proceeding too fast without gathering reliable data on
which to base decisions. These groups would like EPA to implement FQPA through a notice
and comment procedure, but EPA claims that scarce time and resources prevent a rulemaking
approach, and that flexibility is necessary to ease the transition to new products for pesticide
users and producers. What primarily concerns pesticide interests is the possibility that EPA
might revoke or restrict pesticide registrations under FIFRA for widely used pesticides. In
contrast, public health and consumer advocacy groups believe that the FQPA safety standard
and deadlines require EPA to protect children’s health by restricting use of some older
pesticides quickly. For additional discussion, see CRS Report RS20043, Pesticide Residue
Regulation: Analysis of Food Quality Protection Act Implementation, or CRS Report
RS20043, Pesticide Residue Regulation: Analysis of Food Quality Protection Act
Implementation (updated August 2000).
CRS-8

---

IB10067
1-4-01
Funding the Environmental Protection Agency
(by Martin R. Lee)
The 106th Congress enacted FY2000 and FY2001 funding for the EPA. As soon as the
President submits his budget proposal in February, committees with environmental protection
jurisdiction will begin developing their views and estimates reports for the budget committees
and conducting hearings on the EPA proposal. In the 107th Congress, markup by the
appropriation committees and floor action can be expected by late spring or summer.
On February 1, 1999, the President requested $7.2 billion in discretionary budget
authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2000, about $400,000, or
5%, less than FY1999 funding. The major issue associated with this proposal was its
proposed reduction of roughly $500 million for clean Water State Revolving Funds. EPA
appropriations are included in the annual VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation Bill,
which the House passed as H.R. 2684 (H.Rept. 106-286) on September 9, 1999. The Senate
Appropriations Committee made its recommendations on September 16th in S. 1596 (S.Rept.
106-161); the full Senate passed H.R. 2684, after substituting the language of S. 1596. House
and Senate versions included about $7.3 billion, while the final conference version (H.Rept.
106-379) provided a total of $7.6 billion. The President signed the appropriation measure as
P.L. 106-74 on October 20, 1999.
For FY2001, President Clinton requested $7.26 billion, roughly $300 million less than
FY2000 funding. This primarily reflected decreased funding of about $500 million for
wastewater treatment funding to the states. The House Appropriations Committee's
Subcommittee on VA-HUD-Independent Agencies held hearings on the proposal on March
16, 2000, and the Senate Subcommittee on March 23, 2000. On May 23, the House
Subcommittee recommended $7.2 billion for the Agency and the full Committee
recommended that amount in H.R. 4635 (H.Rept. 106-674) on June 7, 2000. The House
passed the bill on June 21, 2000. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $7.53
billion for EPA in reporting its version of the bill (S.Rept. 106-410) on September 13, 2000.
The Senate passed $7.84 billion on October 12, 2000. The conference report, H.Rept.
106-988, filed October 18, 2000, included $7.8 billion for the agency. The House and Senate
agreed to the conference report on October 19, 2000. The President signed the measure on
October 27, 200 as P.L. 106-377. (For more detail, see CRS Issue Brief IB10058,
Environmental Protection Agency: FY2001 Budget Issues.)
Environmental Research and Development
(by Michael Simpson)
For EPA’s FY1999 Science and Technology account, which includes research and
development activities, the 106th Congress enacted P.L. 106-74 providing $645.0 million for
FY2000 and P.L. 106-377 providing $696.0 million for FY2001. The House Committee on
Science also reported an environmental authorization bill, H.R. 1742 (H.Rept. 106-512), and
an air and radiation bill, H.R. 1743 (H.Rept. 106-511) in the 106th Congress.
The 106th Congress showed continued interest in two longstanding areas of concern:
the quality of science used by the Agency for prioritizing and conducting research and
CRS-9

---

IB10067
1-4-01
regulatory activities, and the manner by which EPA develops and manages its data.
Congressional interest, raised and focused by various specific issues, was shown in hearings,
bills, and proposed amendments to appropriations bills. This pattern is expected to continue
in the 107th Congress. One issue involved whether the state of the science was sufficiently
developed to support a workable Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program, being
implemented under the Clean Water Act, relating to wastewater discharge limits. Another
concern has been the science supporting control of particulate matter under the Clean Air Act.
Still another issue involved the Agency’s reassessing dioxin risks, and the degree to which
EPA has considered all information and reviews. EPA plans to complete and release a final
dioxin reassessment early in the 107th Congress. The debate over climate change has also
focused on the quality of science available to decisionmakers.
Data quality and management are also a longstanding area of concern associated with
EPA’s science activities. Controversy exists concerning not only the condition and extent of
monitoring and research equipment (which impact the quality of raw and analyzed data), but
also the currency, completeness, appropriateness, and extensiveness of data used by EPA and
that made available for use and review outside the Agency. (Please see CRS IB94036, The
Role of Risk Analysis and Risk Management in Environmental Protection, for further
discussion on this issue.)
The 107th Congress may again address these concerns either through oversight, possible
legislation or the appropriations process. Whether there may be an effort in the 107th
Congress to enact an environmental research and development bill is unclear at this time.
CRS-10

---