Order Code IB10115
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 108th Congress
Updated January 28, 2004
Coordinated by Susan Fletcher and Margaret Isler
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations
Clean Air Issues
Climate Change
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking Water
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Superfund and Brownfields
Chemical Security and Toxic Substance Control Issues
Environmental Issues and Surface Transportation
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles

---

IB10115
01-28-04
Environmental Protection Issues in the 108th Congress
SUMMARY
This issue brief provides an overview of
tion, brownfields grants, environmental issues
some of the key environmental protection
in comprehensive energy legislation, and
issues that have been and are likely to con-
defense cleanup and military/environment
tinue to be the focus of public and congressio-
issues.
nal attention. The individual sections below
on specific issues reference more detailed
These issues are discussed in this report,
CRS reports.
along with other issues likely to be on the
environmental agenda: Clean Air Act issues;
Initially, the 108th Congress finalized
Clean Water Act; Safe Drinking Water Act;
FY2003 funding not completed by the 107th
climate change; and alternative fuels and
Congress. A consolidated appropriations act,
vehicles. (The major emphasis in this issue
H.J.Res. 2 (P.L. 108-7), included $8.0 billion
brief is on pollution-related issues; environ-
for EPA. Budgetary attention next turned to
mental issues focused on natural resource
the FY2004 appropriations, for which the
management are not included here.)
EPA request was $7.6 billion. The House
approved $8.0 billion in H.R. 2861, amended,
The status of committee and floor action
on July 25 (H.Rept. 108-235). The Senate
on environmental legislation is shown in
approved $8.1 billion in H.R. 2861, amended
Table 1 at the end of this issue brief. Bills
(S. 1584, S.Rept. 108-143), on November 18,
receiving congressional action include the
2003. Since October 1, continuing resolutions
conference report on the energy bill, H.R. 6;
have funded EPA at the FY2003 level of
the Climate Stewardship Act, S. 139; the
$8.08 billion. A conference-approved omnibus
Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of
appropriation bill, H.R. 2673 (H.Rept. 108-
2003, H.R. 866 and S. 1039; the Underground
401), funding EPA at $8.4 billion for FY2004
Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2003, S.
was signed into law on January 23, 2004 (P.L.
195; the Ombudsman Reauthorization Act, S.
108-199).
515; the Brownfields Redevelopment En-
hancement Act, H.R. 239; the Chemical Facil-
A number of other key issues have seen,
ity Security Act, S. 994; and the Water Quality
or are likely to see, action in the 108th Con-
Financing Act of 2003, H.R. 1560. The Na-
gress, including leaking underground storage
tional Defense Authorization Act for 2004
tanks that may contaminate water supplies,
(P.L. 108-136), signed into law November 24,
wastewater treatment utility and chemical
2003, includes environmental provisions that
facility security, expanding authority for an
have been controversial.
EPA ombudsman, environmental concerns in
surface transportation reauthorization legisla-
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10115
01-28-04
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On November 17, 2003, the conference committee reported H.R. 6, a comprehensive
energy bill (H.Rept. 108-375). Among its numerous environment-related provisions are
amendments to the Clean Air Act’s reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, eliminating the
requirement that RFG contain 2% oxygen and establishing a new requirement that an
increasing percentage of gasoline contain renewable fuels such as ethanol. The conference
bill would ban the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) by 2015 with some possible
exceptions, provide funds for MTBE cleanup, and authorize grants to MTBE producers to
convert their facilities to produce other fuels. The bill would provide fuel producers and
blenders of renewable fuels and MTBE protection from defective product lawsuits. In
addition, the bill contains provisions that would strengthen the federal underground storage
tank program to better prevent new leaks; provide incentives for renewable energy; loosen
Clean Water Act requirements for oil and gas exploration; provide greater flexibility in
hydroelectric relicensing; and authorize the use of mining wastes from the Tar Creek
Superfund site in road construction. A number of climate and energy efficiency provisions
that were part of the Senate-passed bill were rejected by the conference committee. The
conference report was agreed to in the House 246-180 on November 18. On November 21,
supporters of the bill attempted to invoke cloture and limit debate in the Senate. However,
the vote failed to receive the necessary 60 votes. The final tally was 57-40. It is unclear
when another cloture vote will be attempted. For more information on environmental
provisions in the energy bill, see CRS Report RS21673, Selected Environmental Provisions
in the Energy Bill (H.R. 6).
The House approved $8.0 billion in appropriations for the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in H.R. 2861, amended, on July 25, 2003 (H.Rept. 108-235). The Senate
approved $8.1 billion in H.R. 2861, amended (S. 1584, S.Rept. 108-143). Beginning
October 1, continuing resolutions funded EPA activities at the FY2003 level of $8.08 billion,
effective through until January 31, 2004, or until passage of an omnibus appropriations bill
including EPA. On January 23, 2004, the conference-approved omnibus appropriations bill,
H.R. 2673 (H.Rept.108-401), was signed into law (P.L. 108-199). It funds EPA at a level
of $8.4 billion for FY2004.
On November 12, 2003, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
ordered S. 1072 to be reported. This bill would authorize federal highway and transit
programs from FY2004 through FY2009, including funding for air and water quality projects
and other environmental activities. Representative Young, Chairman of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, introduced his version of this legislation
(H.R. 3550) on November 20, 2003.
Action was taken on a number of other environmental bills. See Table 1 at the end of
this issue brief for a summary of action on environmental bills in the 108th Congress and
issue discussions below for details.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
In the first session of the 108th Congress, legislative action has been taken on a number
of environmental measures, many of which represent unfinished proposals or initiatives that
were under consideration in the 107th Congress. These include funding levels and
implementing requirements concerning grant funds for leaking underground storage tanks;
brownfields and Superfund; sewage treatment facility security; ground water contamination
CRS-1

---

IB10115
01-28-04
by the fuel additive MTBE; funding for wastewater treatment plant construction projects;
various environmental protection programs in the comprehensive energy bill; and
Department of Energy and Department of Defense environmental cleanup programs, which
include provisions concerning specific environmental matters of congressional concern. All
of these are discussed in the sections below. Action in this Congress is summarized in
Table 1.
Other major issues on the environmental protection agenda of the 108th Congress
include consideration of the Administration’s “Clear Skies” proposal concerning emissions
from electric power plants, continuing interest in energy conservation and climate change,
and an Administration proposal concerning treaties controlling certain persistent pesticide
and other pollutants. Also under consideration are the authorization of environmental
programs within the Surface Transportation authorization, more commonly known as the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which expires at the end of
FY2003; and oversight of various programs, including a Clean Water Act program for
restoring pollution-impaired waters, New Source Review regulations implementing
provisions of the Clean Air Act, and research and other programs relating to climate change.
While the overall authorizations for most environmental protection statutes have
expired, program activities continue as Congress has regularly appropriated funds to
implement these laws; so the fact that authorizations have expired does not seem to be a
significant impetus for legislative activity. In addition, demands for or constraints on
funding programs are likely to continue to stimulate legislative action.
The discussion of the major environmental protection issues below focuses on the
nature of the issues and expected activity in the 108th Congress. It is not intended to include
comprehensive coverage of all environmental issues; in particular, it does not address issues
involving public lands and natural resources. For more details on individual issues, see the
references in each section below. For an overview of environmental protection laws, see
CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations
The 108th Congress approved consolidated appropriation legislation, P.L. 108-7
(H.J.Res. 2, H.Rept. 108-10), signed February 20, 2003, to fund federal agencies, including
EPA, at $8.08 billion for the rest of FY2003.
In the FY2004 budget presented February 3, the President requested $7.7 billion in
budget authority for the EPA, $451 million (or 6%) less than the FY2003 level of $8.08
billion provided under P.L. 108-7. A proposed reduction of $713 million, or 19%, in the
State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account contributed to the overall reduction. The
proposal for other EPA major accounts either stayed essentially level or increased. The $1.5
billion requested to clean up toxic waste sites under Superfund was $125 million above the
current-year level. The question of how to fund state and local wastewater and drinking water
capital needs was once again a major issue. The request sought $3.1 billion for the STAG
account, a 19% decrease, as noted. These planned reductions for popular wastewater state
revolving funds and direct grants were controversial.
On July 25, 2003, the House approved $8.0 billion in H.R. 2861 (H.Rept. 108-235). The
House-passed version reinstated some of the funds for the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund, providing $1.25 billion rather than the $850 million requested. The House also
provided $180 million for targeted water infrastructure grants; the Administration sought $8
CRS-2

---

IB10115
01-28-04
million. In bill language, the House prohibited EPA from using a numerical estimate that
could devalue the lives of the elderly and continued a ban on human testing of pesticides.
The Senate approved $8.1 billion in H.R. 2861, as amended (S. 1584, S.Rept. 108-143), on
November 18. The Senate action also reinstated wastewater funds and included controversial
bill language on off-road engine emissions that affect air quality. Beginning October 1,
2003, continuing resolutions (CRs) funded EPA at the FY2003 level of $8.08 billion,
potentially effective through January 31, 2004. The House- and Senate-passed versions of
H.R. 2861 were incorporated into an omnibus appropriations measure, H.R. 2673, approved
by conferees (H.Rept. 108-401) on November 25, 2003. The conference report was approved
by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law on January 23, 2004. It funds EPA at
$8.4 billion, restores most of the water infrastructure funding, and includes a modified
provision on regulation of off-road engine emissions.
Earlier, while considering the FY2004 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 23), the Senate
adopted a provision allowing for the increased wastewater and clean water funds by as much
as $3 billion, and rejected provisions to restore the Superfund tax and to increase natural
resources and environment funding overall. See CRS Issue Brief IB10125, The
Environmental Protection Agency’s FY2004 Budget, for further discussion.
[This section prepared by Martin R. Lee, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7260.]
Clean Air Issues
The conference report on the energy bill (H.R. 6), which came to the floor in the House
and Senate for action the week of November 17, contains several Clean Air Act provisions.
The most prominent of these concern the gasoline additives MTBE and ethanol, which are
used to meet Clean Air Act requirements that gasoline sold in the nation’s worst ozone
nonattainment areas (reformulated gasoline, RFG) contain at least 2% oxygen, to improve
combustion. MTBE has been implicated in numerous incidents of groundwater
contamination, and 17 states have taken steps to ban or regulate its use. H.R. 6 would ban
the use of MTBE as a fuel additive nationwide, except in states that specifically authorize
its use, after December 31, 2014, unless the President determines not to ban it. It would
repeal the requirement that RFG contain oxygen. In place of this requirement, it would
provide a major new stimulus to the use of ethanol: by 2012, annual production of gasoline
would be required to contain at least 5 billion gallons of ethanol or other renewable fuel
(more than double current ethanol production). The bill authorizes $2 billion in grants to
assist merchant MTBE production facilities in converting to the production of other fuel
additives; it authorizes funds for MTBE cleanup; and it would provide a “safe harbor” from
product liability lawsuits for producers of MTBE, ethanol, and other renewable fuels.
H.R. 6 would also extend Clean Air Act deadlines for areas that have not attained
ozone air quality standards, if upwind areas contribute to their nonattainment. The
conference report on H.R. 6 was approved by the House on November 18, but a cloture vote
failed in the Senate, leaving the bill pending further action.
Besides the provisions in the energy bill, the most prominent air quality issue in recent
months has been what to do about emissions from coal-fired electric power plants. The
Administration and several members of Congress have proposed legislation on the subject
— a group of bills referred to as “multi-pollutant” legislation. The Administration version
(the Clear Skies Act, H.R. 999/S. 485) and a variant of it introduced by Senator Inhofe (S.
1844) propose to replace numerous existing Clean Air Act requirements with a national cap
and trade program for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. Senators Jeffords and
Carper and Representatives Sweeney, Waxman, and Bass have also introduced bills (S. 366,
CRS-3

---

IB10115
01-28-04
S. 843, H.R. 203, H.R. 2042, and H.R. 3093 respectively). These bills are all more stringent
than Clear Skies, and four of the five would regulate carbon dioxide in addition to the other
pollutants. Markup has not been scheduled on any of these bills.
Controversy has also arisen over EPA’s proposed and promulgated changes to the Clean
Air Act’s New Source Review (NSR) requirements. NSR imposes emission controls on
modifications of power plants and other major facilities. Since December 31, 2002, EPA has
promulgated several changes to streamline (and, many argue, weaken) the NSR
requirements. On January 22, 2003, the Senate approved an amendment to H.J.Res. 2 that
directed the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the NSR changes. The
President signed the bill, with the amendment, on February 20 (P.L. 108-7).
The 108th Congress also included changes to the “small engine” provisions of the Clean
Air Act in the EPA appropriations bill that is part of P.L. 108-199 (H.R. 2673), the omnibus
bill for FY2004. Changes to the requirement that metropolitan area transportation plans
“conform” to state plans for attaining air quality standards are included in the transportation
authorization bill, S. 1072. (For additional information on clean air issues, see CRS Issue
Brief IB10107, Clean Air Act Issues in the 108th Congress.)
[This section prepared by Jim McCarthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7225.]
Climate Change
Climate change issues have been the subject of some activity and several legislative
proposals in the 108th Congress. On October 30, 2003, the Senate voted on an amendment
to S. 139 (S.Amdt. 2028). The original bill would require any entity that emits more than
10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide equivalent) to reduce emissions to
year 2000 levels by 2010, and to 1990 levels by 2016. The amendment would have
eliminated the second phase of the bill. That amendment was rejected 55 to 43 and the bill
was returned to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Three
other bills, H.R. 1245, S. 17, and S. 194, would establish mandatory greenhouse gas
registries, but would not require emission reductions.
Climate change was also discussed when the Senate considered H.R. 6, the
comprehensive energy bill. The Senate passed its version of the bill on July 31, 2003. In
addition to provisions on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy supply, the Senate
version contains three titles directly related to climate change. However, the conference
report on the bill (H.Rept. 108-375) does not contain any language on climate change or
greenhouse gases.
Other congressional action on climate change is proposed in the context of
multi-pollutant legislation. Four multi-pollutant bills introduced in the 108th Congress
include carbon dioxide among the emissions to be reduced: S. 366, introduced by Senator
Jeffords, S. 843, introduced by Senator Carper, H.R. 2042, introduced by Representative
Waxman, and H.R. 3093, introduced by Representative Bass. S. 366 and H.R. 2042 would
require electricity generators to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions to their 1990 levels
by 2009 while S. 843 and H.R. 3093 would require such sources to reduce their emissions
to their 2001 levels by 2013.
As reported, the Senate State Department authorization bill (Section 813 of S. 925)
contained a “Sense of Congress on Climate Change” that urged the United States “... to
demonstrate international leadership and responsibility in reducing the health, environmental,
and economic risks posed by climate change” through a number of actions such as action to
CRS-4

---

IB10115
01-28-04
ensure reductions in greenhouse gases, participating in international negotiations, and others.
A similar provision was removed from the House version (H.R. 1950) during floor debate.
Current U.S. policy on greenhouse gas emissions, according to Administration
statements, is a goal of voluntary actions that result in reducing U.S. greenhouse gas
intensity. Greenhouse gas intensity (the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic
output) is effectively a measure of the efficiency of the economy. The Administration’s
proposal is to reduce greenhouse gas intensity 18% by 2012. Under this scenario, actual
greenhouse gas emissions would still increase if the economy continued to grow.
(For further discussion , see CRS Report RL31931, Climate Change: Federal Laws and
Polices Related to Greenhouse Gas Reductions; CRS Issue Brief IB89005, Global Climate
Change; and CRS Report RL30692, Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol.)
[This section prepared by Brent Yacobucci, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-9662.]
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (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. Although no comprehensive legislation has been enacted since
1987, bills dealing with specific water quality issues have been enacted, and oversight
hearings on the Act and recent Administration water quality initiatives have been held.
Throughout this period, Congress has considered possible actions to implement existing
provisions of the 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
infrastructure and other activities. (For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10108,
Clean Water Act Issues in the 108th Congress.)
Legislation to authorize funding for clean water infrastructure projects is receiving
attention, as it did in the 107th Congress. At issue is how the federal government will assist
states and cities in meeting needs to rebuild, repair, and upgrade wastewater treatment plants,
especially in view of costs that are projected to be as much as $390 billion over the next two
decades. On July 17, 2003, a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
subcommittee approved legislation to authorize $20 billion over 5 years for the Act’s
program that assists municipal wastewater treatment projects (H.R. 1560). It includes several
provisions intended to aid economically disadvantaged and small communities, such as
allowing extended loan repayments (30 years) and additional subsidies, including principal
forgiveness and negative interest loans, for communities that meet a state’s affordability
criteria. Several other bills to reauthorize the CWA’s infrastructure assistance program also
have been introduced in the 108th Congress (H.R. 20/S. 170; H.R. 784/S. 567). In 2002, the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved a bill to extend the Clean
Water Act’s program that assists municipal wastewater treatment projects (H.R. 3930); the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved similar legislation (S. 1961,
S.Rept. 107-228). Neither bill received further action due to controversies about provisions
in both such as a new formula for state-by-state allocation of federal funds and application
of requirements under the Davis-Bacon Act to pay prevailing wages on federally funded
projects.
More generally, since 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 wastewater and drinking water) from possible physical damage,
CRS-5

---

IB10115
01-28-04
biological/chemical attacks, and cyber disruption. (For information, see CRS Report
RS21026, Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector.) In the
108th Congress, the House has passed legislation to authorize grants for wastewater utilities
to assess the vulnerability of their facilities to possible terrorist attack (H.R. 866). The
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has approved a similar bill (S. 1039).
Other water quality issues in the 108th Congress may include interest in whether and
how the Administration will revise the current Clean Water Act program for restoration of
pollution-impaired waters, called the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program, in view
of controversy over Clinton Administration regulatory changes and continuing disagreement
among states, industry, and environmental advocates about program effectiveness and
efficiency. Also of interest are impacts of the Clean Water Act’s wetlands permit program,
long criticized by development groups as being burdensome, but supported by environmental
groups. These latter groups are concerned about a 2001 Supreme Court decision that
narrowed regulatory protection of wetlands, as well as recent administrative actions which
they believe will likewise diminish protection. (For additional background information, see
CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law.)
[This section prepared by Claudia Copeland, Specialist in Resources and Environmental
Policy, 7-7227.]
Safe Drinking Water
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the principal federal statute for regulating the
quality of water provided by public water systems. Congress last reauthorized the Act in
1996, authorizing funding for SDWA programs through FY2003. Key drinking water issues
in the 108th Congress include the availability of funding for infrastructure projects needed to
comply with drinking water standards, and the contamination of water supplies caused by
specific contaminants, including the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
and perchlorate. (See MTBE discussion in the following section on Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks.)
Several bills address contamination by perchlorate (the main ingredient in solid rocket
fuel), which is not regulated under the SDWA. The Department of Defense (DOD)
authorization act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-136) directs the Secretary of Defense to provide for
an independent epidemiological study and endocrinological review of human exposure to
perchlorate in drinking water. H.R. 2123 and S. 502 would require EPA to issue a drinking
water standard for perchlorate by July 1, 2004. H.R. 2123 also would direct EPA to carry
out a loan program to help water suppliers and private well owners address perchlorate
contamination.
A long-standing SDWA issue concerns the ability of public water systems to upgrade
or replace infrastructure to comply with drinking water regulations and to ensure the
provision of a safe water supply. In the 1996 SDWA Amendments, Congress authorized a
drinking water state revolving loan fund (DWSRF) program to help water systems finance
infrastructure projects needed to meet SDWA standards and to address serious health risks.
Since FY1997, Congress has provided some $6 billion for the program, including nearly
$850 million for FY2003. However, a large existing funding gap is expected to grow as EPA
issues new standards, and infrastructure ages. The Administration has requested $850
million for the DWSRF program for FY2004, and both the House and Senate versions of
EPA’s appropriations bill for FY2004 (H.R. 2861) include this amount, as does H.R. 2673,
the consolidated appropriations bill. Other bills addressing drinking water infrastructure
funding have been introduced in this Congress, including H.R. 3382 and S. 1432, which
CRS-6

---

IB10115
01-28-04
would establish a grant program at EPA to help small communities comply with SDWA. S.
1732 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a grant program for rural
communities in Reclamation states for projects to ensure a safe and reliable water supply.
S. 1413 would authorize appropriations of $2 billion for the DWSRF for FY2004. However,
in the current environment of tight budgets and competing priorities, questions concerning
the appropriate federal role in funding water infrastructure could receive renewed attention.
(For further discussion of drinking water issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10118, Safe Drinking
Water Act: Implementation and Issues. For a review of the SDWA, see CRS Report
RL31243, Safe Drinking Water Act: A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements.)
[This section prepared by Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-5937.]
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
In 1984, Congress established a leak prevention, detection, and corrective action
program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to address a
widespread problem of leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) that store petroleum or
hazardous chemicals. In 1986, Congress created the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Trust Fund to help the EPA and states cover the costs of responding to leaking
petroleum USTs where tank owners fail to do so, and to oversee cleanup activities. Much
progress has been made in the tank program, but several issues have emerged. One issue is
that many states have lacked the resources to fully oversee and enforce UST regulations that
EPA phased in through 1998. A key issue concerns the discovery of methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE) leaks at thousands of LUST sites and in numerous water supplies. This
gasoline additive, used to reduce air pollution from vehicles, is very water soluble and
spreads quickly. Consequently, MTBE leaks are more difficult and costly to cleanup than
conventional gasoline leaks.

States have long sought larger appropriations from the Trust Fund to support the LUST
cleanup program, and have sought flexibility to use LUST funds for the UST leak prevention
program. The House passed such bills in the 104th and 105th Congresses. The subsequent
increase in detections of MTBE in drinking water supplies has boosted congressional interest
in increasing Trust Fund appropriations to respond to MTBE contamination and to enforce
the leak prevention and detection program. The 107th Congress moved several LUST and
MTBE bills, but none were enacted.
The 108th Congress has addressed this issue through various bills, including H.R. 6, the
Energy Policy Act of 2003. The conference report for H.R. 6 (H.Rept. 108-375), which has
been approved by the House, would amend RCRA to strengthen leak prevention provisions
of the federal underground storage tank regulatory program, and broaden the allowable uses
of the LUST Trust Fund. The conference report essentially incorporates the language of H.R.
3335, the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2003, which is similar to S. 195
(S.Rept. 108-13), passed by the Senate. These provisions add new tank inspection and
operator training requirements; prohibit fuel delivery to ineligible tanks; expand UST
requirements for federal facilities; authorize states to use LUST funds to help tank owners
or operators pay the costs of cleanup in cases of financial hardship; and allow LUST funds
to be used to enforce leak prevention and detection requirements. The conference report
authorizes LUST Trust Fund appropriations of $200 million for each of FY2004 through
FY2008 for remediating tank leaks generally, and the same amount for responding to leaks
containing MTBE or other oxygenated fuel additives (e.g., ethanol). The conference report
also phases out MTBE and provides a product liability safe harbor for MTBE and renewable
fuels. It removes the Clean Air Act’s oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline,
which prompted the increased use of MTBE. (For more information on this issue and related
CRS-7

---

IB10115
01-28-04
bills, see CRS Report RS21201, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Program Status and
Issues.)
[This section prepared by Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-5937.]
Superfund and Brownfields
Superfund (created by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, or CERCLA) is the principal federal program for cleaning up hazardous waste
sites; the brownfields program targets less seriously contaminated industrial and commercial
facilities where redevelopment is complicated by potential environmental contamination.
Activity relevant to those issues in the 108th Congress includes House passage of H.R. 2535,
authorizing brownfield grants by the Economic Development Administration (EDA); the
reporting of H.R. 239, making brownfield grants administered by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) more accessible to smaller communities; and Senate passage
of S. 515, the Ombudsman Reauthorization Act. (For more information, see CRS Issue Brief
IB10114, Brownfields and Superfund Issues in the 108th Congress.)
The EDA Reauthorization Act, H.R. 2535, among other things would make brownfield
sites eligible for certain EDA grants and would establish a demonstration program for
“brightfield” sites, which are defined as brownfields that are redeveloped using solar energy
technologies. H.R. 2535 was reported from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
on July 25, 2003 (H.Rept. 108-242), and passed the House on October 21. It is now before
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
The HUD bill, H.R. 239, would remove the connection between HUD’s Brownfield
Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) and the department’s Section 108 loan guarantees.
The effect is to make the BEDI grants more obtainable by a larger number of cities,
particularly smaller communities. The bill would also authorize a HUD pilot program for
national redevelopment of brownfields. The House Financial Services Committee reported
H.R. 239 (H.Rept. 108-22) on March 5, 2003. The president’s FY2004 budget request
proposes eliminating the HUD brownfields program.
Another issue, continued from the 107th Congress, concerns the Ombudsman
Reauthorization Act (S. 515, S.Rept. 108-50), which would provide the EPA ombudsman
increased independence and authority regarding Superfund and brownfields, as well as other
programs in the agency’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
OSWER also administers EPA’s solid waste, leaking underground storage tank, oil spill, and
chemical emergency preparedness and prevention activities. The bill would give the officer
power to conduct investigations, make findings of fact, hold public hearings, and make non-
binding recommendations to the EPA Administrator concerning those programs. The Senate
passed S. 515 on May 21, 2003, and the bill is now before the House Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials. Rep. Bilirakis introduced a
companion bill, H.R. 347, on January 27, 2003.
The financing of Superfund activities continues to be a controversial issue. The taxes
that originally fed the Superfund trust fund expired in 1995, and appropriations in the last
few years have relied on progressively larger amounts from the general fund of the Treasury.
The Superfund trust fund’s unobligated balance is expected to be down to about $159 million
by the end of FY2003. (The program’s annual appropriation has been $1.3-$1.5 billion in
recent years.) Three efforts to reinstate the Superfund taxes or to increase Superfund funding
have been defeated. The House passed an FY2004 appropriation of $1.275 billion for the
Superfund program on July 25, 2003, as part of H.R. 2861. An amendment by
CRS-8

---

IB10115
01-28-04
Representative Markey to increase the amount to the $1.39 billion requested by the
Administration was defeated 114-309. In January 2003 an amendment by Senator
Lautenberg to increase the FY2003 Superfund appropriation by $100 million to $1.373
billion was defeated (H.J.Res. 2), and in March 2003 a Lautenberg amendment to the
FY2004 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 23) to renew the Superfund taxes also lost. Bills to
reinstate the Superfund taxes are Senator Boxer’s S. 173 and Representative Pallone’s H.R.
610. (For further discussion, see CRS Report RL31410, Superfund Taxes or General
Revenues: Future Funding Options for the Superfund Program.)
[This section prepared by Mark Reisch, Analyst in Environmental Policy, 7-7255.]
Chemical Security and Toxic Substance Control Issues
The 108th Congress is considering the federal role in managing risks associated with
terrorism aimed at facilities storing or handling large quantities of potentially dangerous
chemicals. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works amended and
approved legislation, S. 994, on October 23, 2003. In accord with the views of the Bush
Administration, S. 994 would require owners or operators of facilities designated by the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to conduct vulnerability
assessments and develop security and emergency response plans. As amended, S. 994 directs
facility owners and operators to submit assessments and plans to DHS. Another proposal,
S. 157 (also contained in Title XI of S. 6 and in H.R. 1861), would require vulnerability
assessments, risk reduction plans, and risk reduction, in part by use of “inherently safer”
technologies, if practicable. S. 157 would require submission of assessments and plans to
EPA, and EPA approval. For a comparison of the Senate bills as introduced, see CRS Report
RL31957, Chemical Facility Security: A Comparison of S. 157 and S. 994.
A third proposal introduced July 25, 2003, H.R. 2901, is similar to S. 994 with a few
exceptions. For example, the House bill would exempt from its requirements drinking water
treatment facilities required to conduct vulnerability assessment under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, unless the owner or operator of such a facility petitioned the Secretary to be
subject to the requirements of this act in lieu of the former act. Other proposals, S. 565/H.R.
1593 and S. 87/H.R. 1007, would provide funding for grants to state and local governments
that could be used to improve security at chemical plants, as well as to enhance emergency
planning and preparedness for terrorist acts. The law that established the DHS (P.L.
107-296) limits access to sensitive information potentially useful to terrorists, by exempting
information about critical infrastructures from disclosure requirements of the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), if the information is submitted voluntarily to DHS. S. 609/H.R.
2526 would narrow this FOIA exemption to “records” concerning the “vulnerability of and
threats to critical infrastructure protection.” (For more on this topic, see CRS Report
RL31530, Chemical Plant Security.)
Another issue of potential interest to Congress is EPA’s “High Production Volume
(HPV) Challenge” program. Under this initiative, chemical manufacturers will voluntarily
gather the basic data that are needed to assess the potential toxicity of approximately 3,000
chemicals produced in the United States in volumes greater than one million pounds per year,
and to make those data available to the general public before 2005. At issue is whether a
voluntary initiative or a compulsory rule is the better way to obtain data. (For more on this
issue, see CRS Report IB94036, The Role of Risk Analysis and Risk Management in
Environmental Protection. Background information on EPA’s statutory authority for
regulating chemicals is provided in CRS Report RL31905, The Toxic Substances Control
Act: A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements.)

CRS-9

---

IB10115
01-28-04
Other chemical issues that Congress might address include funding for lead hazard
abatement and proposed legislation (S. 1486) to allow U.S. implementation of the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). (For a discussion of the latter, see CRS
Report RL32150, International Agreements on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS):
Background and Issues for Congress.)
[This section prepared by Linda Schierow, Environmental Policy Specialist, 7-7279.]
Environmental Issues and Surface Transportation
Balancing surface transportation needs with environmental protection has long been a
challenge to states and local communities. The Department of Transportation implements
several programs designed to help mitigate the environmental impacts of surface
transportation. The most recent multi-year funding authorization for federal highway and
transit programs, including environmental activities, expired at the end of FY2003.
Reauthorization is a major issue for the 108th Congress. The Administration’s
reauthorization proposal, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA), was introduced by request (H.R. 2088 and S. 1072) in May
2003. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported its version of S.
1072 (S.Rept. 108-222) on January 9, 2004. Representative Young, Chairman of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, introduced another reauthorizing bill, the
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (H.R. 3550, TEA-LU), on November 20,
2003. The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-88, H.R. 3087) extends
funding for federal highway and transit programs at FY2003 levels through February 29,
2004, while Congress works on a comprehensive reauthorizing bill.
The most recent funding authorization for surface transportation projects is contained
in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The law authorized a total
of $218 billion for federal highway and transit programs from FY1998 — FY2003. It set
aside $9 billion for air quality projects, including $8 billion for the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) to offset some of the emissions from
highway travel, as a means to assist states in complying with federal air quality standards.
The other $1 billion was authorized to assist local transit agencies in purchasing clean fuel
buses. TEA-21 also expanded eligibility under the Surface Transportation Program, and the
Transportation Enhancements set-aside within that program, to allow states to use federal
highway funds for mitigating water pollution from highway runoff. However, no specific
amount was set aside exclusively to address water quality needs. The law also authorized
funding for environmental research and the development of advanced vehicle technologies,
and it included several other provisions related to environmental protection.
Among the above activities, the reauthorization of the CMAQ program has received
significant attention because of the potential need for greater reductions in emissions as new
nonattainment areas are designated for the stricter ozone and fine particulate standards,
which is scheduled in 2004. The Administration’s bill, S. 1072 as reported, and H.R. 3550
as introduced would retain the basic structure of the CMAQ program and continue its focus
on reducing emissions from highway travel. All three bills would increase funding for the
program, although in differing amounts. The Administration’s bill would authorize a total
of $8.9 billion for the program from FY2004 through FY2009. As reported, S. 1072 would
authorize a total of $13.0 billion over this time frame, and H.R. 3550 would authorize a total
of $11.0 billion. While the House and Senate amounts are significantly larger than the
previous authorization and the Administration’s proposal, some critics argue that even more
funding will be needed to meet air quality needs in states where new nonattainment areas are
likely to be designated. The Administration’s bill, and S. 1072 as reported, also include other
CRS-10

---

IB10115
01-28-04
key air quality provisions that would allow states more time to demonstrate that their
transportation plans conform to their air quality plans. (For more information on this
legislation and an analysis of related issues, see CRS Report RL32057, Highway and Transit
Program Reauthorization: Environmental Protection Issues and Legislation.)
Whether and how to streamline the environmental review process for surface
transportation projects is another significant environmental issue for reauthorization. While
TEA-21 required the Secretary of Transportation to streamline this process, regulations have
yet to be finalized, and most actions have been administrative in nature. The
Administration’s bill, and S. 1072 as reported, would build upon and clarify provisions in
TEA-21 intended to streamline the process in order to expedite environmental reviews. Both
bills would attempt to improve the existing process through enhancing the coordination of
project reviews and allowing greater participation of project sponsors and states, although
in differing ways. While some argue that these changes would speed project approvals,
others believe that environmental protection might be compromised. As introduced, H.R.
3550 would not alter the existing environmental review process. (For further discussion, see
CRS Report RL32032, Streamlining Environmental Reviews of Highway and Transit
Projects: Analysis of SAFETEA and Recent Legislative Activities.)
[This section prepared by David Bearden, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-2390.]
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues
While EPA is the primary federal agency responsible for the control of pollution and
the cleanup of civilian environmental contamination, the Department of Defense (DOD)
administers five programs to address environmental and conservation needs on 25 million
acres of land located on military installations. 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. Over the past decade, Congress has
appropriated about $10 billion in annual funding to support these programs.
Some of the major issues associated with defense-related environmental activities are
the adequacy, cost, and pace of cleanup; whether DOD and DOE sufficiently comply with
environmental laws; and the extent to which environmental requirements may conflict with
military readiness. The last of these issues has received increasing attention. While many
environmental laws include exemptions (sometimes referred to as “waivers”) for national
security, DOD argues that obtaining such exemptions on a case-by-case basis is not
practical, due to the great number of training exercises that it conducts. DOD also argues
that the time limitations placed upon most exemptions are not compatible with many training
activities. Instead, DOD favors broader exemptions that would provide greater flexibility.
Some environmental organizations oppose broader exemptions and argue that their
justification is insufficient. In March 2003, DOD submitted its Readiness and Range
Preservation Initiative (RRPI) to Congress to address this issue. The initiative sought
targeted waivers for military readiness activities from five federal environmental laws,
including the Clean Air Act; Endangered Species Act; Solid Waste Disposal Act;
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and
Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The RRPI received significant attention in the first session of the 108th Congress. As
signed by the President, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-136,
H.R. 1588) includes modified versions of the requested waivers from specific requirements
under the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. While the law
does not include the requested waivers from the Clean Air Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act,
CRS-11

---

IB10115
01-28-04
or CERCLA, it does require DOD to identify the extent to which these three statutes have
affected military readiness. The law also requires DOD to study the human health effects of
perchlorate, a substance commonly used in munitions propellants that has contaminated soil
and groundwater on many military installations. The law includes numerous other
environmental provisions and authorizes specific levels of funding for DOD’s cleanup
activities, including $1.31 billion (nearly $40 million more than requested) for remediating
contamination on current and former military installations, and $370 million for cleanup and
other activities at base closure sites, the same as requested. The law authorizes $6.81 billion
for DOE’s cleanup of defense nuclear waste sites, the same as requested.
In addition to the above authorization legislation, Congress has completed the three
appropriations bills that fund DOD and DOE defense-related environmental activities in
FY2004. The Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-87, H.R.
2658) provides nearly $1.35 billion for cleanup at current and former military installations,
$72 million more than requested, and $32 million more than authorized. The increase is
devoted to speeding cleanup at Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS), decommissioned prior
to the rounds of base closings that began in 1988. Cleanup at these sites has been criticized
for proceeding more slowly than at active installations, and states and local communities
have expressed increasing interest in speeding cleanup to ensure public safety. The Military
Construction Appropriations Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-132, H.R. 2559) provides $370
million for cleanup and other activities at base closure sites, the same as requested and
authorized. The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-
137, H.R. 2754) provides $6.64 billion for DOE’s cleanup of defense nuclear waste sites,
nearly $168 million less than requested and authorized. This funding is provided under a
new account structure that DOE requested as part of its cleanup reform initiative to speed
cleanup and lower costs. Conference language indicates that funding for this initiative was
decreased due to concern that DOE has not successfully renegotiated all of its cleanup
agreements to the satisfaction of EPA and the states, in order to implement its proposed
reforms.
For further discussion of the above legislation refer to CRS Report RL32183, Defense
Cleanup and Environmental Programs: Authorization and Appropriations for FY2004.
[This section prepared by David Bearden, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-2390.]
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles
The development of alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles have emerged
as a key issue in the 108th Congress. Advanced technology vehicles, such as gasoline- or
diesel-electric hybrids and fuel cell vehicles, have the potential to significantly increase
passenger vehicle fuel economy and reduce vehicle emissions. However, mass-production
of these vehicles is currently cost-prohibitive, and for alternative fuels there are many
technical and cost barriers associated with producing, storing, and delivering the fuel.
Therefore, there is interest in Congress and the Administration to support vehicle and fuel
development, and promote their entry into the marketplace.
Hydrogen fuel and fuel cell vehicles have received special attention. On January 28,
2003, the Administration announced the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which aims
to increase funding for hydrogen fuel and fuel cell research by $720 million over the next 5
years. This initiative complements the FreedomCAR partnership, announced in January
2002, which focuses on cooperative research and development of fuel cell passenger
vehicles. Funding for research on hydrogen research funding and fuel cells is contained in
the FY2004 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill (H.R. 2754, P.L. 108-137)
CRS-12

---

IB10115
01-28-04
and the FY2004 Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 2691, P.L. 108-108).
The House Appropriations Committee reduced funding for hydrogen in H.R.2754 by $20
million below the Administration’s request — from $88 million to $68 million. The Senate
Appropriations Committee restored this funding. The conference committee agreed to a
compromise of $78 million for FY2004 (H.Rept. 108-357).
In addition to appropriations bills, Congress is currently considering comprehensive
energy legislation. The conference report on H.R. 6 (H.Rept. 108-375) would authorize
hydrogen and fuel cell funding at slightly more than Administration’s requested levels — a
total of $2.1 billion over 5 years. The conference committee removed a provision from the
Senate version that would have established the goal of producing 100,000 fuel cell vehicles
by 2010 and 2.5 million by 2020.
Another key component of the energy bill would be a renewable fuels standard (RFS).
The conference report would require the use of 5 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012.
Further, H.R. 6 would exempt blenders of renewable fuels and MTBE (another gasoline
additive) from defective product liability. H.R. 6 would also provide tax credits for the
purchase of advanced technology and alternative fuel vehicles.
The 108th Congress is also in the process of reauthorizing the highway authorization
bill, TEA-21 (see above discussion on Environmental Issues and Surface Transportation).
Possible provisions include increases in research and development funding (above the
Administration’s request); expanded incentives for the development of alternative fuel
infrastructure; and user incentives such as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane exemptions.
(For further discussion, see CRS Report RS21442, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle
R&D: FreedomCAR and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, and CRS Report
RL30758, Alternative Transportation Fuels and Vehicles: Energy, Environment, and
Development Issues.)
[This section prepared by Brent Yacobucci, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-9662]
Table 1. Action on Environmental Legislation in the 108th Congress
Bill Status
Purpose
Energy and Environment / MTBE
H.R. 6
Passed House April 11, 2003
Among environmental provisions, amends the Clean Air Act’s
Omnibus Energy bill
(H.Rept. 108-65).
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, and includes provisions
Amended and passed Senate
for R&D, energy tax incentives, MTBE cleanup, underground
July 31, 2003 (with language
storage tank regulation and establishes a renewable fuels
from H.R. 4, 107th Congress).
standard.
Reported by conference
committee Nov. 17, 2003
(H.Rept. 108-375).
S. 14
H.R. 6 as amended passed in lieu
Energy and environmental provisions included R&D and
Energy Policy Act of 2003 of S. 14.
production incentives; text from S. 791 incorporated as an
amendment bans MTBE in motor fuels, except in states that
specifically authorize its use, and increases production and use of
renewable fuels.
S. 195
Passed Senate May 1, 2003
Among other provisions, establishes a renewable fuels standard,
Underground Storage Tank (S.Rept. 108-13).
bans MTBE, authorizes renewable energy programs, and
Compliance Act of 2003
establishes a greenhouse gas database.
CRS-13

---

IB10115
01-28-04
Bill Status
Purpose
S. 791
Reported by Senate Environment
Bans MTBE in motor fuels, except in states that specifically
Reliable Fuels Act 2003
and Public Works Committee
authorize its use, addresses MTBE contamination, and increases
June 3, 2003 (S.Rept. 108-57).
production and use of renewable fuels. Similar provisions
incorporated in S. 14, June 5 (S.Amdt. 850), and the Senate
version of H.R. 6, July 31, 2003.
Water Quality
H.R. 866
Passed House May 7, 2003
Authorizes funds to wastewater utilities for vulnerability
Wastewater Treatment
(H.Rept. 108-33).
assessments.
Works Security Act of
2003
H.R. 1560
Approved by House
Authorizes appropriations for Clean Water Act state water
The Water Quality
Transportation and Infrastructure
pollution control revolving funds (SRFs).
Financing Act of 2003
Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment July
17, 2003.
S. 1039
Reported by Senate Environment
Authorizes funds to wastewater utilities for vulnerability
The Wastewater Treatment and Public Works Committee
assessments.
Works Security Act of
May 15, 2003 (S.Rept. 108-149).
2003
Superfund / Brownfields
H.R. 239
Reported by House Financial
Makes HUD brownfield grants more accessible to small
Brownfields
Services Committee March 5,
communities.
Redevelopment and
2003 (H.Rept. 108-22).
Enhancement Act
H.R. 2535
Passed House Oct. 21, 2003
Among other things, makes brownfields eligible for certain EDA
Economic Development
(H.Rept. 108-242, Part I.).
grants, and establishes a demonstration program for
Administration
“brightfields” (brownfields redeveloped using solar energy
Reauthorization Act
technologies).
Environmental Protection Agency
H.R. 2673
Conf. Report filed Nov. 25, 2003
Funds EPA at $8.4 billion.
Omnibus FY2004
(S.Rept. 108-401). Signed into
law January 23, 2004 (P.L. 108-
199)
H.R. 2861
Passed House July 25, 2003
House version funds EPA at $8.0 billion; Senate version at $8.1
VA-HUD Appropriations
Passed Senate Nov. 18, 2003
billion.
FY2004
Included in HR2673
S. 515
Passed Senate May 21, 2003
Expands Ombudsman’s authority and independence.
Ombudsman
(S.Rept. 108-50).
Reauthorization Act
Defense and Environment
H.R. 1588
Passed House Nov. 7, 2003
Among major environmental provisions, authorizes funding for
National Defense
Passed Senate Nov. 11, 2003
environmental cleanup, provides greater compliance flexibility
Authorization Act for
Signed by President Nov. 24,
for DOD under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal
FY2004
2003
Protection Act, requires a report on the impact of the Clean Air
(P.L. 108-136)
Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, and CERCLA on military
installations, and requires a study of exposure to perchlorate
(used in munitions propellents) on human health.
CRS-14

---

IB10115
01-28-04
Bill Status
Purpose
H.R. 2559
Passed House Nov. 5, 2003
Provides funding for the cleanup of environmental contamination
Military Construction
Passed Senate Nov. 12, 2003
at base closure sites.
Appropriations Act for
Signed by President Nov. 22,
FY2004
2003
(P.L. 108-132)
H.R. 2658
Passed House Sept. 24, 2003
Provides funding for the cleanup of environmental contamination
Department of Defense
Passed Senate Sept. 25, 2003
on active military installations and Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appropriations Act for
Signed by President (P.L. 108-
(FUDS), which were decommissioned prior to the base closure
FY2004
87)
rounds that began in 1988.
Sept. 30, 2003
H.R. 2754
Passed House Nov. 18, 2003
Provides funding for the management and cleanup of defense
Energy and Water
Passed Senate Nov. 11, 2003
nuclear waste.
Appropriations Act for
Signed by President Dec. 1, 2003
FY2004
(P.L. 108-137)
S. 1050
Passed by Senate May 22, 2003
Among major environmental provisions, authorizes funding for
National Defense
(S.Rept. 108-46).
environmental cleanup, provides greater compliance flexibility
Authorization Act for
Incorporated into H.R. 1588 as a
for DOD under the Endangered Species Act, and requires a study
FY2004
substitute amendment and passed
of perchlorate exposure, which are similar to H.R. 1588. Unlike
by Senate June 4, 2003. Signed
the House bill, also requires a survey of perchlorate
into law Nov. 24, 2003 (see H.R.
contamination on military installations. Does not include House
1588) — P.L. 108-136.
provisions regarding the Marine Mammal Protection Act or
reporting requirements regarding the Clean Air Act, Solid Waste
Disposal Act, and CERCLA.
Transportation and Environment
H.R. 3087
Signed into law (P.L. 108-88)
Extends funding for federal highway and transit programs,
Surface Transportation
Sept. 30, 2003.
including air and water quality projects and other environmental
Extension Act of 2003
Passed House Sept. 24, 2003.
activities, through February 29, 2004.
Passed Senate Sept. 26, 2003.
Signed by the President
September 30, 2003
S. 1072
Reported by Senate Environment
Would authorize funding for federal highway and transit
Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Public Works Committee
programs, including air and water quality projects and other
and Efficient
January 9, 2004
environmental activities, from FY2004 through FY2009.
Transportation Equity Act
(S.Rept. 108-222)
of 2003
Other
S. 139
S.Amdt. 2028 rejected by the
Requires entities that emit more than 10,00 tons of greenhouse
Climate Stewardship Act of Senate Oct. 30, 2003. Bill
gases per year to reduce emissions to year 2000 levels by 2010,
2003
returned to Senate Commerce
and to 1990 levels by 2016.
Committee.
S. 994
Ordered to be reported by the
Requires vulnerability assessments and security plans for
Chemical Facilities
Senate Environment and Public
facilities handling large quantities of hazardous chemicals.
Security Act
Works Committee
Oct. 23, 2003
CRS-15

---