Order Code IB10067
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 107th Congress
Updated May 13, 2002
Margaret M. Isler and Martin R. Lee
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Elevating the Environmental Protection Agency to a Department (by Martin R. Lee)
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)
Superfund and Brownfields (by Mark Reisch)
Solid Waste Issues (by James McCarthy)
Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs (by David Bearden)
Global Climate Change (by Susan Fletcher)
Regulating Pesticides (by Linda Schierow)
Funding the Environmental Protection Agency (by Martin R. Lee)
Environmental Research and Development (by Michael Simpson)

---

IB10067
05-13-02
Environmental Protection Issues in the 107th Congress
SUMMARY
The 107th Congress has acted on legisla-
future action on solid waste issues in the 107th
tion relating to specific Superfund, pesticides,
Congress are uncertain. The House passed a
water infrastructure security, drinking water,
provision in H.R. 4 authorizing tax credits for
solid waste, climate change, environmental
the production of energy from landfill gas.
science and technology, defense environmen-
The Senate-passed version encourages the
tal activities and funding issues.
production of ethanol from solid waste.

Clean Air. The impact of air quality regula-
Defense Cleanup. Continued oversight of the
tions on energy production; gasoline additives;
multibillion dollar cleanup and compliance
air quality standards; and emissions from coal-
programs at the Department of Defense is
fired power plants are current issues. Senate-
likely. Congress has acted on annual authori-
passed H.R. 4 includes provisions banning
zation and appropriation bills for these pro-
MTBE use and eliminating a 2% oxygenate
grams. It is considering FY2003 legislation.
requirement. P.L. 107-87 (H.R. 2299) funds
environmental streamlining initiatives for
Global Climate Change. The main issues for
transportation.
Congress is oversight of the Administration’s
proposal for voluntary measures to reduce
Water Issues. Action has occurred on bills
greenhouse gases. In the House-passed H.R. 4,
related to funding research on water infra-
the House authorized the Climate Protection
structure security (H.R. 3178, S, 1593), autho-
Programs at EPA. Foreign Relations authori-
rizing vulnerability assessments (H.R. 3448),
zation bills include language to encourage the
and establishing a grants program (S. 1608).
United States to take leadership in reducing
The House Committee on Transportation and
greenhouse gas emissions, and to continue
Infrastructure has approved H.R. 3930
participating in negotiations to deal with
authorizing wastewater infrastructure funds.
climate change.
Continued oversight of the implementation of
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) can
Pesticides. The Senate passed H.R. 1, which
be expected. Various related program and
contains a provision requiring state pesticide
regulatory deadlines will occur during this
management plans. H.R. 2581 would prohibit
Congress. House-passed and Senate-passed
the export of certain pesticides.
versions of H.R. 4 and S. 950, as reported,
address MTBE issues.
EPA Budget. P.L. 107-73 (H.R. 2620)
included $7.9 billion for FY2002; the FY2003
Superfund. Congress enacted P.L. 107-118,
request is $7.7 billion. The terrorist
the Small Business Liability Relief and
supplemental , P.L. 107-117 (H.R. 3338, Div.
Brownfield Revitalization. H.R. 2941, as
B), included $176 million for EPA terrorist-
reported, and S. 1079, as reported, would
related activities.
enhance HUD’s and the Economic
Development Administration’s Brownfields
Science and Technology. The House passed
programs.
H.R. 64, creating a Deputy EPA Administrator
for Science.
Solid/Hazardous Wastes. Prospects for
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10067
05-13-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The 107th Congress acted on several environmental protection bills in the first session.
Congress enacted P.L. 107-118 (H.R. 2869), the Small Business Liability Relief and
Brownfields Revitalization Act. H.R. 2941, as reported, and S. 1079, as reported, would
enhance HUD’s and the Economic Development Administration’s Brownfields programs,
respectively. There has been action on bills related to the security of water infrastructure
facilities (H.R. 3178, S. 1593, H.R. 3448, S. 1608). The House passed H.R. 64, creating a
Deputy EPA Administrator for Science. The Senate passed a provision in S. 1 requiring state
pesticide management plans. The House International Relations Committee approved H.R.
2581, requiring state pesticide management plans. House and Senate versions of H.R. 4
authorize climate change programs at EPA. It also authorizes $200 million to cleanup
MTBE in drinking water and authorizes tax credits for the production of energy from landfill
gas. Senate Environment and Public Works-approved S. 950 amends the Clean Air Act and
Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize corrective actions, allow controls on fuel additives,
and allow waiving of oxygen content requirements. Funding bills were enacted too.
The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved H.R. 3930
authorizing wastewater infrastructure funds. The Senate Committee on the Budget reported
S.Con.Res. 100 which included a Sense of the Senate on full funding for Superfund. Action
on defense authorization bills is underway.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The 106th Congress acted on several environmental protection bills. 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 RL30798,
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. Table 1 shows major legislation of the
107th Congress.
Table 1. Major Environmental Protection Legislation
in the 107th Congress
Superfund
S. 350
Passed Senate 04/25/01
Establishes a Brownfields
Program
H.R. 1831
Passed House 05/22/01
Provides liability relief for small
business

---

IB10067
05-13-02
P.L. 107- 118 (H.R. 2869)
Signed 01/11/02
provide certain relief for small
businesses under Superfund,
promotes the cleanup and reuse
of brownfields, provides
financial assistance for
brownfields revitalization
H.R. 2941
Reported by House Financial
Enhances HUD Brownfields
Service 04/11/02
Program
S. 1079
Reported by Senate
Enhances the Economic
Environment and Public Works
Development Administration’s
04/25/02
Brownfields Program
Pesticides
H.R. 1
Passed Senate 06/14/01
Requires state pesticide
management plans
H.R. 2581
Reported from House
Prohibits export of certain
International Relations 11/16/01
pesticides and chemicals
S.1731
Passed Senate 02/13/02;
Includes provisions on school
dropped in conference.
pesticide management plans and
pesticide fees.
Drinking Water/Air/MTBE
H.R. 4
Passed House 08/02/01
Both versions authorize $200
Passed Senate 04/25/02
million to clean up MTBE at
underground tanks; Senate
version bans MTBE use and
eliminates 2% oxygenate
requirements
S. 950
Reported by Senate
Amends Clean Air Act and Solid
Environment and Public Works
Waste Disposal Act to authorize
12/20/01 (S.Rept. 107-131)
corrective actions, inspections.
Allows States to impose
controls on fuel additives, and to
waive oxygen content
requirements.
H.R. 3178
Passed House 12/18/01
authorize EPA to fund research
and development projects for the
security of water infrastructure
S. 1593
Reported by Senate
authorizes an EPA
Environment and Public Works
grant program to support
12/10/02 (S.Rept. 107-118)
research on protecting water
infrastructure
H.R. 3448
Passed House 12/12/01; Senate
authorizes $120 million for
12/20/01
vulnerability assessments and
emergency response plans to
protect drinking water systems
H.R. 3930
Approved by House
Authorizes wastewater
Transportation and
infrastructure funds.
Infrastructure Committee
03/20/02
S. 1608
Passed Senate 12/20/01
establishes a grants program for
drinking water and wastewater
facilities to meet immediate
security needs
CRS-1

---

IB10067
05-13-02
Solid Waste
H.R. 4
Passed House 08/02/01
Tax credits for the production of
Passed Senate 04/25/02
energy from landfill gas; Senate
version encourages the
production of ethanol from
municipal solid waste.
Climate Change
H.R. 1646
Passed House 05/16/01
Encourages U.S. leadership to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and continue participating in
climate change negotiations
H.R. 4, Div. B, Subtitle G
Passed House 08/02/01
Authorizes EPA Climate
Programs
H.R. 2460
Reported from House Science
Authorizes EPA Climate
(H.Rept. 107-177), 07/31/01
Programs
EPA Funding
P.L. 107-73 (H.R. 2620)
Signed 11/26/01
FY2002 funding for all EPA
programs
P.L. 107-117 (H.R. 3338, Div
Signed 01/10/02
Appropriates $176 million in
B)
FY2002 funds for EPA terrorist-
related activities
Environmental Science and Technology
H.R. 64
Passed House May 30, 2002
Establishes an EPA Deputy
Administrator for Science and
Technology
Defense Environmental Programs
P.L. 107-117 (H.R3338)
Signed 01/10/02
Defense Appropriations for
FY2002 and Emergency
Supplemental
P.L. 107-64 (H.R. 2904)
Signed 11/05/01
Military Construction
Appropriations contains funding
for cleaning up base closure sites
P.L. 107-66 (H.R. 2311)
Signed 11/12/01
Energy and Water
Appropriations, contains funding
for defense-related nuclear waste
management
P.L. 107-107 (S.1438)
Signed 12/28/01
Defense Authorization Act for
2002.
H.R. 4546
Passed House 05/10/02
Defense Authorization Act for
2003
Bill # not available
Approved by Senate Armed
Defense Authorization Act of
Services 05/09/02
2003
Environmental Streamlining Funding
P.L. 107-87 (H.R. 2299)
Passed House 06/26/01
DOT Appropriations includes
Passed Senate 08/01/01
funds for environmental
streamlining initiatives
CRS-2

---

IB10067
05-13-02
Elevating the Environmental Protection Agency
to a Department
(by Martin R. Lee)
There is a history of bipartisan support for proposals that would elevate the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from an independent regulatory agency to a federal
department. The 101st, 102nd, and 103rd Congresses took action on the issue but reached
no final agreement. In the 107th Congress, S. 159 and the Administration-favored H.R. 2438
propose direct elevation of the agency. The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs held
a hearing on S. 159 on July 24, 2001; a House Government Reform subcommittee held
hearings on September 21, 2001 and March 21, 2002. Among the current issues are whether
access to the President would be enhanced and whether EPA would have heightened
effectiveness in dealing with other federal departments and the states. Whether such an
elevation would improve EPA's status in environmental negotiations with others nations,
most of which have environmental officials at the ministerial level, is another issue. Some
Members, including the bills' sponsors and the Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs, argue for keeping the bills focused on provisions directly relating to
elevation and oppose addressing perceived problems with EPA in this legislative vehicle.
Other Members contend that this is an opportunity to consider such issues, especially the
quality of science used in the agency's regulatory decisions. (For further discussion, see CRS
Report RS20982, Elevating the Environmental Protection Agency to a Department: Analysis
of Major Issues.)
Clean Air Act (by James McCarthy)
Clean air issues were discussed at length in the first session of the 107th Congress,
but little action was taken, and the prospects for action in the second session remain
uncertain. The most prominent air quality issue has been whether state and federal
regulations designed to protect air quality have had a negative impact on energy production.
Of particular interest is whether the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review requirements have
prevented power plants from making improvements that would expand power output. A
related issue is whether Congress should modify Clean Air Act requirements for power
plants by enacting “multi-pollutant” legislation, which, it is argued, would both reduce
emissions and encourage investment in new plants by providing certainty regarding future
regulatory requirements. Both the House and Senate have passed comprehensive energy
legislation, H.R. 4, but neither version of the bill contains provisions addressing these issues.
A second set of air issues Congress is considering concerns regulation of the gasoline
additive MTBE. 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, but the additive has
been implicated in numerous incidents of ground water contamination. The Senate version
of H.R. 4, passed April 25, 2002, bans the use of MTBE in gasoline within 4 years,
eliminates the 2% oxygen requirement, preserves the emission reductions achieved by
reformulated gasoline, and requires a tripling of the use of ethanol or other renewable fuels
in motor vehicles by 2012. The House does not have comparable requirements in its version
of H.R. 4 – one of many areas in which the House and Senate-passed bills differ. On August
1, the House rejected an attempt to exempt California from the oxygen requirement (the Cox
CRS-3

---

IB10067
05-13-02
amendment to H.R. 4) on a vote of 300-125. (For additional information on clean air issues,
see CRS Issue Brief IB10065, Clean Air Act Issues in the 107th Congress.)
Surface Transportation and the Environment
(by David Bearden)
Several oversight hearings have been held during the 107th Congress to examine
the Department of Transportation’s implementation of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA21, P.L. 105-178). Oversight will likely continue as the debate over the
reauthorization of the law proceeds. TEA21 authorized funding for federal highway and
mass transit programs from FY1998 to FY2003, and set aside approximately $12.5 billion
for several programs to protect the environment. Most of this funding 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
several new programs, as well as requiring that the environmental review process for
highway projects be streamlined. (CRS Report 98-646 ENR, Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178): An Overview of Environmental Protection Provisions,
discusses each of these programs.)
Thus far in the 107th Congress, oversight of TEA21's environmental provisions has
focused on the implementation of requirements to streamline the environmental review
process for highway projects. While the law did not specify a deadline for meeting these
requirements, some Members of Congress have expressed concerns over the pace at which
implementation has proceeded. While final regulations to implement the streamlining
requirements have not been issued to date, the Department of Transportation has proposed
regulations for a coordinated environmental review process that address some of the
provisions of TEA21, signed a National Memorandum of Understanding with six other
federal agencies, and established a pilot program to gain practical experiences in exercising
the principles of streamlining. The President’s budget proposal includes $6 million to
support the Department of Transportation’s streamlining initiatives in FY2003, over $3
million more than in FY2002. In addition to federal efforts, numerous states have initiated
practices intended to streamline the review process as well. (CRS Report RS20841,
Environmental Streamlining Provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century: Status of Implementation, provides additional information on this issue.)
Clean Water Act Issues (by Claudia Copeland)
Key water quality issues that face the 107th Congress include: actions to implement
existing provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), whether additional steps are necessary
to achieve the overall goals of the Act, and the appropriate federal role in guiding and paying
for clean water activities. The CWA is the principal law that governs pollution in the
nation’s lakes, rivers, and coastal waters and authorizes funds to aid construction of
municipal wastewater treatment plants. Senate and House committees have begun to
consider legislation on water infrastructure funding. In March, the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee approved a bill to extend the Act’s funding program through
FY2007 (H.R. 3930), while the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has held
CRS-4

---

IB10067
05-13-02
hearings on several proposals. (For information, see CRS Report RL31344, Water
Infrastructure Financing Legislation: Comparison of S. 1961 and H.R. 3930.)
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 regularly appropriated 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, and oversight hearings on some
existing provisions of the Act and Clinton Administration water quality initiatives were held.
Implementation of the law since 1972 has led to significant water quality improvements:
about 60% of waters surveyed by states are clean enough to support basic uses such as
fishing and swimming. However, the 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 the public, but lately has been criticized by some 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 modify selected CWA programs, as was the case in the 106th Congress.
Among broader clean water issues, topics that might be of interest include implementation
of current programs for developing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to restore pollution-
impaired waters, managing animal wastes to minimize water quality and public health
impacts, and measures to address polluted runoff from farms and city streets. Impacts of the
Act’s wetlands permit program, a contentious issue in the recent past, also remain on the
legislative agenda for many.
More generally, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, congressional attention has focused on security, preparedness, and
emergency response issues. One topic of interest is protection of the nation’s water
infrastructure facilities (both drinking water and wastewater) from possible physical damage,
biological/chemical attacks, and cyber disruption. (For information, see CRS Report
RS21026, Terrorist and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector.)
Policymakers are considering a number of legislative options in this area, including enhanced
physical security, communication and coordination, and research. In December, Congress
appropriated $176 million in funds to EPA for water infrastructure and other security
activities (P.L. 107-117), and the House and Senate have passed separate versions of bills
authorizing water infrastructure research and water utility safety assessments (H.R. 3178,
H.R. 3448, S. 1608).
(For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10069, Clean Water Act Issues in the
107th Congress.)
CRS-5

---

IB10067
05-13-02
Safe Drinking Water Act (by Mary Tiemann)
The 107th Congress has continued oversight of the implementation of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the principal federal statute for regulating the quality of water
provided by public water systems, last reauthorized in 1996. In the first session, a key
oversight issue involved drinking water infrastructure needs and funding. Since September
11, infrastructure discussions and legislation also have focused on the security of the
Nation’s water supplies. In the second session, both chambers are working on water security
bills and on broader water infrastructure financing bills.
A key issue has concerned the ability of water utilities to comply with a growing
number of complex drinking water rules. Congress authorized a drinking water state
revolving fund program in 1996 to help communities finance projects needed to comply with
SDWA rules. Since FY1997, Congress has provided roughly $5.2 billion for the program,
including $850 million for FY2002. However, a large funding gap remains and is expected
to grow as new rules increase needs and infrastructure ages. (See CRS Report 97-677, Safe
Drinking Water Act: State Revolving Fund Program.) The Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have held hearings on water infrastructure
needs. In February 2002, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held
hearings on several bills including S. 1961, a broad water infrastructure bill. (See CRS
Report RL31344, Water Infrastructure Financing Legislation: Comparison of S. 1961 and
H.R. 3930.)
Congress has acted on several bills that address water security. The emergency
supplemental appropriations for FY2002 (P.L. 107-117), contains $90.3 million for activities
including assessing the vulnerabilities of water utilities, and $5 million for state grants for
assessing drinking water safety. The House-passed version of the bioterrorism bill, H.R.
3448, (now in conference) authorizes $120 million for vulnerability assessments and
emergency response plans for water utilities. The House passed H.R. 3178, a water
infrastructure security research bill, and the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee reported a similar bill, S. 1593. Senate-passed S. 1608 would provide $50 million
for grants to water and wastewater facilities to meet immediate security needs. (See CRS
Report RL31294, Safeguarding the Nation’s Drinking Water: EPA and Congressional
Actions.)
Legislation also has been offered on specific contaminants. At least 13 bills address the
problem of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) being detected in
drinking water. (See CRS Report 98-290 ENR, MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking
Water Issues.) House and Senate versions of the energy bill, H.R. 4, authorize the
appropriation of $200 million from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust
Fund to respond to MTBE contamination. S. 950 (S. Rept. 107-131) contains similar
funding authority and, like the Senate energy bill, bans MTBE. Numerous bills were
introduced regarding the regulation of arsenic in drinking water, after EPA delayed a rule
issued in January 2001 to reduce the arsenic standard from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10
ppb. After reviewing the research and analyses for arsenic, EPA announced that the standard
will be 10 ppb. In November, Congress approved the conference report to EPA’s
appropriations bill, H.R. 2620 (H. Rept. 107- 272), which prohibited EPA from using funds
to delay the rule. The new rule entered into effect on February 22, 2002. S. 1593, a water
CRS-6

---

IB10067
05-13-02
infrastructure security bill, includes $40 million to assist small systems in complying with
arsenic requirements. (See CRS Report RS20672, Arsenic in Drinking Water: Recent
Regulatory Developments and Issues.)
Superfund and Brownfields (by Mark Reisch)
The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act passed
both chambers on December 20, 2001, and was signed into law on January 11, 2002 (P.L.
107-118, H.R. 2869). It amends the Superfund Act, formally known as the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, which is the
principal federal law for cleaning up spills and other discharges of hazardous substances.
The brownfields program for cleaning up less serious hazardous waste sites was initiated
administratively by EPA under the aegis of the Superfund program, and the current
enactment establishes the statutory authority for the brownfields program as well as
providing it with funding separate from the Superfund program.
The Small Business Liability Relief Act, Title I of H.R. 2869, exempts from CERCLA
liability for cleanup costs those persons who disposed of “de micromis” quantities of material
containing hazardous substances (less than 110 gallons of liquid or less than 200 pounds of
solid material) at sites on the National Priorities List prior to April 1, 2001. It also exempts
from liability residential property owners, small businesses, and small non-profit
organizations who sent municipal solid waste to a site that was later listed on the NPL. A
party who sues someone who is exempted from liability due to these provisions must pay the
exempted party’s attorney’s fees and court costs. The act also authorizes EPA to reduce the
amount of a settlement for a small business or other person who demonstrates an inability
or limited ability to pay for cleanup.
Title II of the act would authorize $200 million per year for 5 years for grants to local
governments, states, and Indian tribes to inventory, assess, and clean up brownfield sites.
The lesser of $50 million or one-fourth of the annual appropriation would be dedicated to
cleaning up “relatively low-risk” brownfield sites contaminated by petroleum, which is not
presently allowed by CERCLA. The grants would be awarded competitively based on
ranking criteria in the act. An additional $50 million per year would be provided to establish
and enhance state and tribal cleanup programs. EPA would be prohibited from enforcement
activities at sites in a state cleanup program except in certain circumstances, such as an
imminent and substantial danger to public health or the environment. The act also provides
liability protection from CERCLA for property contaminated by a contiguous site, for
prospective purchasers, and for innocent landowners. Title II requires states to maintain a
public record of brownfield sites; and directs the President to defer listing an eligible site on
Superfund’s National Priorities List (NPL) if a state so requests, so long as the state is
making progress in addressing it.
On November 26, 2001, the President signed the VA-HUD appropriations bill for
FY2002 (P.L. 107-73, H.R. 2620, H.Rept. 107-159, S.Rept. 107-43). It contains $1.27
billion for the Superfund program, including $97 million for brownfields.
The House Financial Services Committee reported H.R. 2941 on April 11, 2002. The
bill enhances municipalities’ (especially smaller ones) ability to take advantage of the Dept.
CRS-7

---

IB10067
05-13-02
of Housing and Urban Development’s brownfields program. The Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee reported S. 1079 on April 25, 2002, to provide $60 million per year
for the Economic Development Administration’s brownfield program.
Other possible Superfund/brownfield action in the second session of the 107th Congress
could include renewing the Superfund taxes, and oversight hearings on EPA’s transfer of the
ombudsman’s office to the Inspector General’s office. Previously, the Hazardous Waste and
Superfund Ombudsman was located within the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. (For further discussion of Superfund and brownfield issues, see CRS Issue Brief
IB10078, Superfund and Brownfields in the 107th Congress.)
Solid Waste Issues (by James McCarthy)
On April 25, 2002, the Senate passed comprehensive energy legislation (H.R. 4).
The bill is substantially different from the version passed by the House August 2, 2001, but
both bills include tax credits for the production of energy from landfill gas. The Senate bill
also includes provisions to encorage the production of ethanol from municipal solid waste.
No other solid waste legislation has been addressed in the 107th Congress, and the prospects
for other legislation addressing solid waste issues appear dim.
The landfill gas provision in the House version of H.R. 4, Section 3306 of the bill,
contains tax credits for the production of energy from landfill gas. The provision reinstates
tax credits under Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code that had expired in 1998. The
credits would be equal to more than $1.00 per thousand cubic feet of gas produced, and
would be allowed for facilities placed in service between July 1, 1998 and December 31,
2006. They would apply to all gas produced at such facilities for a 5-year period beginning
on the date of enactment or the onset of production (whichever is later). Facilities required
to collect gas under Clean Air Act regulations would qualify for smaller credits.
The Senate version also reinstates Section 29 credits for production of energy from
landfill gas, but for a more restricted period of time. The credits would apply for a 3-year
period, and would apply to facilities placed in service after the date of enactment and before
January 1, 2005.
Interstate shipment of solid waste, caused in part by the closure of old landfills,
continues to be of some interest to the Congress. In March 2001, New York City closed
Fresh Kills landfill, the last remaining landfill within city limits. [The landfill has been
temporarily re-opened to handle debris from the World Trade Center, and may remain open
for this purpose for as long as a year, but it is no longer handling any municipal garbage.]
Fresh Kills 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 disposal
options, and, as a result of the landfill’s closure, is now sending virtually all of its garbage
out of state.
It has long been argued that the closure of Fresh Kills, in addition to mounting exports
of waste from other large cities, might provide the stimulus for Congress to address solid
waste legislation; but the event came and went without congressional action, and the
prospects for future action in the 107th Congress are uncertain. Several bills addressing
CRS-8

---

IB10067
05-13-02
interstate shipment of waste have been introduced. The Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials of the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on
August 1, 2001; the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing March
20, 2002. As of early May, further action had not been scheduled.
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. DOD administers five
programs to fulfill its environmental responsibilities: environmental cleanup, environmental
compliance, pollution prevention, environmental technology, and natural resource
conservation. In addition to 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, whether DOD and DOE adequately comply with environmental
laws and regulations, and the extent to which environmental requirements encroach upon
military readiness.
The first session of the 107th Congress completed legislation to authorize and
appropriate funding for DOD and DOE’s defense-related environmental programs in
FY2002, including: the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107),
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-117), Military
Construction Appropriations Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-64), and Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-66). In addition to authorization and
appropriations legislation, several other bills were introduced which would affect various
aspects of the military’s environmental activities. (CRS Report RL31198, Defense Cleanup
and Environmental Programs: Authorization and Appropriations for FY2002, discusses the
above legislation and provides background information on each program.)
In the second session, the House passed its version of the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2003 (H.R. 4546, H.Rept. 107-436) on May 10, 2002, and the
Senate Armed Services Committee approved its version ( bill # not available) May 9, 2002.
As passed, H.R. 4546 would authorize a total of $1.28 billion for environmental cleanup at
current and former military installations, the same as requested. It also would authorize a
total of $6.59 billion for DOE’s defense nuclear waste management and cleanup
responsibilities, about $14 million less than the request of nearly $6.61 billion. The
authorization of $6.59 billion includes the Administration’s request for $800 million to
establish a new “Defense Environmental Cleanup Reform” account to improve program
efficiency and reduce cleanup costs. The House bill also includes numerous environmental
provisions related to military readiness issues and the cleanup of unexploded ordnance
(UXO) and other military munitions. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees
have begun a series of hearings to prepare legislation to appropriate funding for national
defense programs in FY2003, but these bills have not been reported out of committee to date.
CRS-9

---

IB10067
05-13-02
Global Climate Change (by Susan Fletcher)
The 107th Congress has included climate change provisions in the Foreign
Relations authorization bill and in some versions of appropriation bills. A number of bills,
including the energy bill, address other aspects of climate change. Concerns that the
increases in “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere have 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. One of the main issues for Congress over the past several years has been
oversight of the U.S. negotiations related to the Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 United Nations
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which involve potential rules for how climate
change might be addressed by the United States and other nations, and what policies are
appropriate domestically to address climate change concerns. However, since the Bush
Administration rejected the Kyoto Protocol, the issues for Congress have been evolving as
the Administration’s positions have developed. On February 14th, 2002, the Administration
announced a series of voluntary measures intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, plus
some increased climate related funding. The cornerstone of this “new approach” is the
reduction of greenhouse gas intensity -- that is, greenhouse gas emissions per unit of
production.
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 has been introduced over the years related to 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. A number of other proposals, including coordination
mechanisms in the federal government for climate change, and a number of energy-related
bills that include an emphasis on sources of energy that produce fewer emissions, are under
active consideration and have been considered or reported by several committees. (For
further discussion , see CRS Issue Brief IB89005, Global Climate Change; CRS Report
RL30692, Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol; and the “Congressional Bills”
section of the CRS electronic briefing book on Global Climate Change, at
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebgcc1.html].)
Regulating Pesticides (by Linda Schierow)
The House and Senate approved the conference report (H. Rept. 107-424) on the
Farm Bill, H.R. 2646, and sent the measure to the President. The Senate-passed Farm Bill
(S. 1731) contained a manager’s amendment that would have required States to develop
integrated pest management plans for schools as part of State cooperative enforcement
agreements with EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
The provision was dropped in conference.
In his FY2003 budget proposal, President Bush again proposed to greatly increase the
fees charged to registrants of pesticides used on food. Collected fees would reimburse EPA
for the cost of establishing a “tolerance,” or maximum safe level of pesticide residues on
foods. Fee opponents argue that the proposal would charge more than necessary and
retroactively. The 107th Congress rejected this approach for funding pesticide programs. In
CRS-10

---

IB10067
05-13-02
the FY2002 appropriations bill for VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, Congress
prohibited EPA from implementing a proposed rule to increase tolerance fees (H.R. 2620,
as enrolled). In lieu of increased tolerance fees, H.R. 2620, as enrolled, extended EPA
authority for one year to collect maintenance fees (to support reregistration of pesticides) and
increased authority from $14 to $17 million. The Senate-passed Farm Bill (S. 1731) included
a provision that would have reauthorized maintenance fee collection and continued the
prohibition on collection of registration fees, increased maintenance fees, and allowed
expedited registration processing for inert ingredients. It also would have limited increases
in tolerance processing fees. These provisions were not included in the enrolled bill. For
more on this issue, see CRS Report RL31186, Pesticide Registration Fees.
The House International Relations Committee reported a bill, H.R. 2581, November 16,
2001, after including an amendment authorizing the Commerce Department, in conjunction
with EPA, to prohibit the export of pesticides and chemicals that they deem to be a risk to
the public health, safety, or environment of the United States or any other country” (H. Rept.
107-297, Part I). The Department, EPA, and other appropriate agencies are to prepare a
report identifying all U.S. persons who export and the quantities exported of any hazardous
pesticide or chemical that is “banned, severely restricted, highly regulated, or never regulated
for use” in the United States. The bill would reauthorize the Export Administration Act
through 2005. The Senate-passed version of the bill (S. 149) does not contain pesticide
export provisions. EPA currently has no authority to regulate pesticide exports. Authority
may be granted to prohibit exports of a limited number of chemicals, if Congress approves
international treaties and implementing legislation now being prepared by the Bush
Administration. The two treaties, known as the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions,
respectively, would phase out production and trade of 12 persistent organic pollutants and
require informed consent from importing governments when certain banned and severely
restricted chemicals are exported.
The 107th Congress also may consider proposals (H.R. 2721, H.R. 2727, S. 877, and S.
1963) that would require labeling or restrict the use of arsenic-treated lumber, particularly
in construction of playground equipment. Other proposals (H.R. 1084 and S. 532) would
allow a state to register a Canadian pesticide for distribution and use within that state. The
intent is to give growers living in states that border Canadian provinces equal access to
pesticides used by their Canadian competitors. In addition, the 107th Congress is likely to
continue overseeing EPA implementation of the FQPA, which amended FIFRA and the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) in 1996. FQPA established a new, stricter
safety standard for pesticide residue tolerances and directed 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. For additional discussion of this issue, see CRS Report
RS20043, Pesticide Residue Regulation: Analysis of Food Quality Protection Act
Implementation (updated April 2001)
Funding the Environmental Protection Agency
(by Martin R. Lee)
For FY2002, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than
CRS-11

---

IB10067
05-13-02
the FY2001funding level of $7.8 billion. On July 17, 2001 the House Appropriations
Committee recommended $7.545 billion, $229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620,
H.Rept. 107-159). The House passed the bill on July 31. The Senate Committee reported its
bill S. 1216 (S.Rept. 107-43) on July 19, 2001 approving $7.752 billion, the amount
approved by the Senate August 2, 2001. The conference agreement (H.Rept.107-272) signed
into law as P.L. 107-73 on November 26 provided $7.90 billion. P.L. 107-117 (H.R. 3338,
Division B) , the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Act, provides supplemental funding of
$176 million for EPA activities relating to security threats. The House version would have
provided $161 million; the Senate version $126 million.
For FY2003, the President requests $7.7 billion in budget authority for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), $458.8 million (or 5.6%) less than the total
FY2002 appropriation of $8.2 billion which included the $175 million terrorism
supplemental in P.L. 107-117, Div. B. The Administration will not continue funding for
about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2002, and proposes provisions shifting
more enforcement responsibilities to the states. In FY2002, $188.1 million was allocated for
EPA’s Homeland Security efforts; for FY2003, the President seeks an allocation of $133.4
million, 29% less than current year funding.

Environmental Research and Development
(by Michael Simpson)
The 107th Congress/1st Session acted to authorize the EPA Office of Air and Radiation
and EPA’s climate change programs, fund EPA programs, and consider specific ways to
improve the quality of science acquired, reviewed, used by, and disseminated from EPA.
The Congress may advance those actions and considerations.
S. 1176 (Environmental Research Enhancement Act of 2001) was referred to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works on July 12, 2001. House-passed H.R.64 was
received in the Senate on May 1 and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works. Both bills would establish a Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology
(S&T) and an Assistant Administrator for Research and Development. Both propose new
duties for some EPA offices to try to improve the quality of science acquired, reviewed, used
by, and disseminated from the Agency. The Deputy Administrator in H.R. 64 would have
to “ensure that Agency decisions are informed by the results of appropriate and relevant
research.” S. 1176 has the responsibility for ensuring and certifying to the Administrator
“that the scientific and technical information used in each Agency regulatory decision and
policy is ... valid; appropriately characterized ...; and appropriately applied.” The legal
aspects of certification, and of informed versus used, may be significant differences between
the bills. Both bills centralize in the Deputy Administrator authority to judge the validity of
science informing or used in each Agency decision; this is notable and may be controversial.
The issue of elevating EPA to a federal department has, for some, also focused attention on
the quality of science at the Agency.
About $100 million of research each year had been performed by approximately 200
competitively chosen research fellows, through EPA’s Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
program. The FY2003 budget proposes to move the STAR program from EPA to the
CRS-12

---

IB10067
05-13-02
National Science Foundation (NSF). Proponents say NSF may more efficiently and
objectively run the program. Opponents say applied research and a source of EPA scientists
could be hampered.
The Administration requested $641 million for EPA’s S&T account for FY2002. The
House-passed version of H.R.2620 included $680 million; the Senate-passed version, $666
million. Signed on November 26, PL107-73 provided $698million for S&T, and transferred
$37 million from the Superfund account. The Administration requested $670 million for
EPA S&T for FY2003.
Two bills would authorize appropriations for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, and
EPA’s Climate Change Protection Programs. Placed on the Union Calendar on July 31, H.R.
2460 Subtitle G authorizes them for FY2002 at $157 million, FY2003 at $163 million, and
FY2004 at $169 million. Of these amounts, the following would be for science: $28 million
for FY2002, $29 million for FY2003, and $31 million for FY2004. For climate change
programs, $128 million would be allocated for FY2002, $134 million for FY2003, and $139
million for FY2004. Placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on September 4 and with
Senate conferees appointed on May 1, H.R. 4 Subtitle G would authorize $122 million for
FY2002, $127 million for FY2003, and $132 million for FY2004 for Climate Protection
Programs (information about these programs can be found in CRS Issue Brief IB10020,
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity Conservation Issues).
CRS-13

---