Order Code IB10067
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 107th Congress
Updated July 3, 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
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)
Regulating Pesticides (by Linda Schierow)
Funding the Environmental Protection Agency (by Martin R. Lee)
Environmental Research and Development (by Michael Simpson)

---

IB10067
07-03-02
Environmental Protection Issues in the 107th Congress
SUMMARY
The 107th Congress has acted on legisla-
Solid/Hazardous Wastes. Prospects for
tion relating to specific Superfund, pesticides,
future action on solid waste issues, including
water infrastructure security, drinking water,
interstate waste bills, in the 107th Congress are
solid waste, climate change, environmental
uncertain. The House passed a provision in
science and technology, defense environmen-
H.R. 4 authorizing tax credits for the produc-
tal activities and funding issues.
tion of energy from landfill gas.

Clean Air. The impact of air quality regula-
Defense Cleanup. Congress has acted on
tions on energy production; gasoline additives;
annual FY2002 authorization and appropria-
air quality standards; and emissions from coal-
tion legislation on environmental programs at
fired power plants are current issues. The
the Department of Defense. It is beginning to
Senate Environment and Public Works Com-
consider FY2003 legislation.
mittee narrowly approved multi-pollutant
legislation (S. 556) June 27, 2002 . P.L. 107-
Global Climate Change. The main issue is
87 (H.R. 2299) funds environmental
oversight of the Administration’s proposal for
streamlining initiatives for transportation.
voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse
gases. House-passed H.R. 4 would authorize
Water Issues. The House Transportation and
the Climate Protection Programs at EPA.
Infrastructure Committee has approved a bill
Foreign Relations authorization bills include
to extend the Clean Water Act’s funding
language to encourage U.S. leadership interna-
through FY2007 (H.R. 3930); the Senate
tionally and domestically in reducing green-
Environment and Public Works Committee
house gas emissions, and to continue partici-
has approved similar legislation (S. 1961).
pating in negotiations to deal with climate
Action has occurred on water infrastructure
change.
security bills. Continued oversight of the
implementation of the Safe Drinking Water
Pesticides. The Senate passed H.R. 1, which
Act (SDWA) can be expected. Various related
contains a provision requiring state pesticide
program and regulatory deadlines will occur
management plans. H.R. 2581 would prohibit
during this Congress. House-passed H.R. 4
the export of certain pesticides.
and S. 950, as reported, address MTBE issues.
EPA Budget. P.L. 107-73 (H.R. 2620)
Superfund. Congress enacted P.L. 107-118,
included $7.9 billion for FY2002; the FY2003
the Small Business Liability Relief and
request is $7.7 billion. The terrorist
Brownfield Revitalization. On June 4, 2002,
supplemental , P.L. 107-117 (H.R. 3338, Div.
the House passed H.R. 2941 to enhance the
B), included $176 million for EPA terrorist-
Department of Housing and Urban
related activities.
Development’s brownfields program. The
Senate Environment and Public Works Com-
Science and Technology. A House Science
mittee reported S. 1079 on April 25, 2002, to
Subcommittee approved H.R. 64, creating a
provide $60 million per year for the Economic
Deputy EPA Administrator for Science.
Development Administration’s brownfield
program.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10067
07-03-02
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. There has been action on bills related to the security of water
infrastructure facilities (H.R. 3178, S. 1593, H.R. 3448, S. 1608). A House Science
Subcommittee recommended 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. On climate change, H.R. 4 authorizes 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
In the second session, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has
approved a bill to extend the Clean Water Act’s funding through FY2007 (H.R. 3930); the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has approved similar legislation (S.
1961). The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee narrowly approved multi
pollutant legislation (S. 556) June 27, 2002. The House passed the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2003 (H.R. 4546, H.Rept. 107-436) on May 10, 2002, and the
Senate passed its authorization bill (S. 2514, S.Rept. 107-151) on June 27, 2002. The House
passed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2003 (H.R. 5010, H.Rept. 107-
532), and the Military Construction Appropriations Act for FY2003 (H.R. 5011, H.Rept. 107-
533), on June 27, 2002. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of the
military construction appropriations bill on June 27, 2002. The House passed H.R. 2941 on
June 4, 2002. The bill enhances municipalities’ (especially smaller ones) ability to take
advantage of the Dept. 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. The Senate-passed farm bill, S. 1731, includes provisions on school pesticide
management plans and pesticide fees, which were dropped in conference. . The Senate
Committee on the Budget reported S.Con.Res. 100 which includes a Sense of the Senate on
full funding for Superfund.
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
CRS-1

---

IB10067
07-03-02
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
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
Passed House 06/4/02
HUD Brownfield Program
S. 1079
Approved 04/25/02
Economic Development
Administration Brownfield
Assistance
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.
Air Quality
S. 556
Approved by Senate
Requires power plants to reduce
Environment and Public Works
several pollutants
06/27/02
Water Quality
H.R. 3930
Approved by House
Extends Clean Water Act
Transportation and
funding
Infrastructure
S. 1961
Approved by Senate
Extends Clean Water Act
Environment and Public Works
funding.
Drinking Water/Air/MTBE
H.R. 4, §504
Passed House 08/02/01
Authorizes $200 million to clean
up MTBE at underground tanks
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.
CRS-2

---

IB10067
07-03-02
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
Solid Waste
H.R. 4, §3306
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
Both versions authorize EPA
Passed Senate 04/25/02
climate programs; Senate
version establishes Office of
National Climate Change Policy
to develop a climate change
response strategy; Senate
version establishes a voluntary
greenhouse gas database
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 05/30/02
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
CRS-3

---

IB10067
07-03-02
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
FY2002.
H.R. 4646
Passed House 05/10/02
Defense Authorization Act
FY2003
S. 2514
Passed Senate 06/27/02
Defense Authorization Act
FY2003
H.R. 5010
Passed House 06/27/02
DOD Appropriations FY2003
N/A
Approved Senate Appropiations
Military Construction
06/27/02
Appropriations FY2003
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
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 are the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review requirements, which some
argue 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.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee narrowly approved multi pollutant
legislation (S. 556) June 27, 2002, however. The bill would require power plants to reduce
emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide. The
Administration and much of the electric power industry oppose the bill, and its prospects are
uncertain.
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
CRS-4

---

IB10067
07-03-02
1, 2001, the House rejected an attempt to exempt California from the oxygen requirement
(the Cox 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)
Meeting public needs for surface transportation, while ensuring that the protection
of the environment is not comprised, has been a longstanding issue among states and affected
communities in local areas. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21, P.L.
105-178) authorized funding for federal highway and mass transit programs from FY1998
to FY2003, and set aside approximately $12.5 billion for several programs to mitigate the
environmental impacts of surface transportation. 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, established
several new programs, and required 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.)
In the 107th Congress, several oversight hearings have been held to examine the
Department of Transportation’s implementation of TEA21, and oversight of the law’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. Thus far, 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, about $3 million more than in FY2002. In addition to federal efforts,
numerous states are implementing a variety of demonstration projects that may help to
identify environmental requirements earlier in the planning stage and speed the review
process. Congressional oversight of this issue will likely continue as the Department of
Transportation proceeds with its streamlining initiatives and as Congress considers the
reauthorization of TEA21, which expires at the end of FY2003. (CRS Report RS20841,
Environmental Streamlining Provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century: Status of Implementation, provides additional information.)
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
CRS-5

---

IB10067
07-03-02
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. The House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee has approved a bill to extend the Act’s funding program through
FY2007 (H.R. 3930); the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has approved
similar legislation (S. 1961). (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 in May, Congress passed legislation authorizing funding for
drinking water utility vulnerability assessments (P.L. 107-188).
CRS-6

---

IB10067
07-03-02
(For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10069, Clean Water Act Issues in the
107th Congress.)
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. A key oversight issue has
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.
A major SDWA issue has concerned the ability of public water systems to comply with
a growing number of complex drinking water rules. Congress authorized a drinking water
state revolving fund (DWSRF) 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. On May 17, 2002, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved
S. 1961, a drinking water and wastewater infrastructure financing bill which increases
funding authority for the DWSRF and authorizes $5 billion over 5 years for a small drinking
water system grant program. (See CRS Report RL31344, Water Infrastructure Financing
Legislation: Comparison of S. 1961 and H.R. 3930.)
Congress also has acted on drinking water security legislation. The emergency
supplemental appropriations for FY2002 (P.L. 107-117) contains $90.3 million for activities
including assessing the vulnerabilities of drinking water utilities, and $5 million for state
grants for assessing drinking water safety. On June 12, 2002, the President signed the
Bioterrorism Preparedness Act (P.L. 107-188, H.R. 3448) which authorizes $160 million for
drinking water utilities to conduct vulnerability assessments, prepare emergency response
plans, and make basic security enhancements. Additionally, the law authorizes funding for
water infrastructure security research and for emergency assistance to states and public water
systems. (See CRS Report RL31294, Safeguarding the Nation’s Drinking Water: EPA and
Congressional Actions.)
Legislation also has targeted specific contaminants. At least 13 bills address the problem
of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) being detected in drinking water
supplies. (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. (See also CRS Report RS21201, Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks: Program Status and Issues.) 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 the arsenic rule, EPA announced that the standard
CRS-7

---

IB10067
07-03-02
will be 10 ppb. Many in Congress had objected to the delay, and the conference report for
EPA’s FY2002 appropriations (P.L. 107-73, H. Rept. 107- 272) prohibited EPA from using
funds to delay the rule. The rule entered into effect on February 22, 2002, with a compliance
deadline of 2006 for public water systems. Several bills (e.g., H.R. 1252 and H.R. 1413)
authorize new funding to assist small systems in complying with the arsenic standard
specifically; in addition, S. 1961 and other bills (e.g., H.R. 1178/S. 503, H.R. 3224, and S.
1299) authorize grant programs to help small communities comply with all SDWA
standards. S. 1593, a water security research bill, includes $40 million to assist small
communities in complying with arsenic requirements.(See CRS Report RS20672, Arsenic
in Drinking Water: Recent Regulatory Developments and Issues.)
Reauthorizing Superfund (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.
CRS-8

---

IB10067
07-03-02
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 passed H.R. 2941 on June 4, 2002. The bill enhances municipalities’
(especially smaller ones) ability to take advantage of the Dept. 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 107th Congress could include
renewing the Superfund taxes (H.R. 4060, S. 2596), and oversight hearings on EPA’s
transfer of the ombudsman’s office to the Inspector General’s office (S. 606). 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 solid waste provisions. No other solid waste legislation has been addressed in
the 107th Congress, and the prospects for other legislation addressing solid waste issues
appear dim.
In the House version of H.R. 4, Section 3306 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. The Senate bill also includes provisions to encourage the production of
ethanol from municipal solid waste; the House bill has no comparable provision.
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
CRS-9

---

IB10067
07-03-02
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
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 late June, 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
environmental programs, including cleanup, compliance, pollution prevention,
environmental technology, and 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 in FY2002 for national defense programs: 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).
These laws provided a total of $10.8 billion for DOD’s and DOE’s defense-related
environmental programs, and the Administration has requested $10.9 billion for FY2003.
The second session of the 107th Congress is considering legislation to authorize funding
in FY2003 for national defense programs. The House passed the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2003 (H.R. 4546, H.Rept. 107-436) on May 10, 2002, and the
Senate passed its authorization bill (S. 2514, S.Rept. 107-151) on June 27, 2002. As passed,
H.R. 4546 would authorize $1.28 billion for environmental cleanup at current and former
military installations, the same as requested, but about $40 million less than the amount of
$1.32 billion in S. 2514. The amounts authorized for DOD’s other environmental programs
are not specified in either bill, since there are no line-item accounts for these activities.
Rather, their funding would be authorized under several larger accounts for operation and
maintenance, military construction, procurement, and research and development. For DOE’s
defense nuclear waste management and cleanup responsibilities, H.R. 4546 would authorize
$6.59 billion, about $14 million less than the request of $6.61 billion, and $275 million less
CRS-10

---

IB10067
07-03-02
than the amount of $6.87 billion included in S. 2514. H.R. 4546 also would exempt military
readiness activities from certain requirements under the Endangered Species Act, the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Wilderness Act. As passed, S. 2514 does not include any
environmental exemptions. Differences in funding levels, and whether to adopt the
environmental exemptions proposed by the House, will be among the issues to be resolved
in conference.
Action also has begun on legislation to appropriate funding in FY2003 for national
defense programs. The House passed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for
FY2003 (H.R. 5010, H.Rept. 107-532), and the Military Construction Appropriations Act
for FY2003 (H.R. 5011, H.Rept. 107-533), on June 27, 2002. The Senate Appropriations
Committee approved its version of the military construction appropriations bill on June 27,
2002, as well, but had not filed its report on the bill as of the beginning of the July 4th recess.
As passed, H.R. 5010 would provide $1.28 billion for environmental cleanup at current and
former military installations, the same as the House authorized in H.R. 4546 and the
Administration requested. The bill also would provide $25 million to clean up
contamination from unexploded ordnance on Kaho’olawe Island in Hawaii, and $10 million
to mitigate the environmental impacts of military activities on Indian lands. As in the
authorization bills, there are no line-item accounts for DOD’s other environmental activities,
and their funding would come from several larger accounts in the bill. Other provisions in
H.R. 5010 would establish a commission to assess the “adverse impacts” of encroachment
factors, including requirements of environmental laws, on military training. As passed, H.R.
5011 would provide $545 million for base closure activities, which would include the
cleanup of environmental contamination. (CRS Report RL31456, Defense Cleanup and
Environmental Programs: Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003, discusses the
above legislation, provides background information, and analyzes key issues.)
Global Climate Change (by Susan Fletcher)
The key piece of climate change legislation in the 107th Congress is the Senate version
of H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy bill. This version would establish an Office of National
Climate Change Policy to develop a climate change response strategy. Further, the Senate
version of H.R. 4 would establish a voluntary greenhouse gas database and promote research
and development on climate change. The conference committee is currently working to
reconcile the House version of the bill, which only contains authorizations for research and
development, with the Senate version.
The 107th Congress has also included climate change provisions in the Foreign Relations
authorization bill, in some versions of appropriation bills, and in a number of other bills.
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
CRS-11

---

IB10067
07-03-02
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; CRS Report RL31205, Climate
Change and Relevant Legislation in the 107th Congress; 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 President signed the Farm Bill, (Public Law 107-171). 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 not contained in the House bill, and it was dropped in conference.
Also dropped during the farm bill conference was a provision regarding fees for
pesticide registration. Instead, the report on FY2002 appropriations legislation for VA,
HUD, and Independent Agencies, prohibits EPA from implementing a proposed rule to
increase fees for establishing a “tolerance,” or maximum safe level of pesticide residues on
foods (H.Rept. 107-159, H.Rept. 107- 272; Public Law 107-073). In lieu of increased
tolerance fees, the report extends for one year existing EPA authority to collect maintenance
fees (for reregistration of pesticides) and increases that authority from $14 to $17 million.
For more on this issue, see CRS Report RL31186, Pesticide Registration Fees.
The House Armed Services Committee reported, and all other committees of referral
discharged H.R. 2581 on March 8, 2002 (H. Rept. 107-297, Part II). The House International
Relations Committee reported 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 would have 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.
CRS-12

---

IB10067
07-03-02
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 recently introduced into the House (H.R. 4935) and Senate (S.
2118 or S. 2507). 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. For more on this issue see CRS Report RS20959,
Persistent Organic Pollutants: Factsheet on the Stockholm Convention.
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
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.
CRS-13

---

IB10067
07-03-02
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
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 Science and Technology 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. As placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on September 4, 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
CRS-14

---

IB10067
07-03-02
Electricity Conservation Issues); Senate conferees were appointed on May 1 and House
conferees on June 12.
CRS-15

---