Order Code IB10115
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 108th Congress
Updated June 21, 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
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
06-21-04
Environmental Protection Issues in the 108th Congress
SUMMARY
This issue brief provides an overview of
The 108th Congress has acted on legisla-
the key environmental protection issues that
tion to address a number of other key issues,
have received attention in the 108th Congress.
including leaking underground storage tanks
The sections on specific issues reference more
that may contaminate water supplies,
detailed CRS reports. (This issue brief
wastewater treatment utility and chemical
emphasizes pollution-related matters; natural
facility security, expanding authority for an
resource management issues are not included.)
EPA ombudsman, environmental concerns in

surface transportation reauthorization legisla-
Appropriations for the Environmental
tion, brownfields grants, environmental issues
Protection Agency (EPA) affect many of the
in comprehensive energy legislation, and
programs and issues discussed in this issue
defense cleanup and military/environment
brief (e.g., funding for state environmental
issues. These issues are discussed in this
programs, enforcement, and water infrastruc-
report along with other matters on the agenda
ture projects); thus, EPA’s funding has been
including issues involving the Clean Air Act,
an issue of perennial interest. At the begin-
Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,
ning of the second session, Congress com-
and alternative fuels and vehicles.
pleted consideration of a consolidated appro-
priations act (P.L. 108-199, H.R. 2673), which
The status of committee and floor action
provided $8.4 billion for EPA in FY2004.
on environmental legislation is shown in
Table 1 at the end of this issue brief. Bills
The second session is now focusing on
receiving congressional action include the
the FY2005 EPA appropriation. The Admin-
conference report on the energy bill, H.R. 6;
istration has requested $7.8 billion for EPA,
the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act
about $600 million less than Congress pro-
of 2003, H.R. 866 and S. 1039; the Under-
vided for FY2004. Among the largest de-
ground Storage Tank Compliance Act of
creases would be a $500 million cut in fund-
2003, S. 195; the Ombudsman Reauthoriza-
ing for wastewater infrastructure projects, a
tion Act, S. 515; the Brownfields Redevelop-
discontinuance of funding for congressionally
ment Enhancement Act, H.R. 239; the Chemi-
mandated projects in FY2004, and a $100
cal Facility Security Act, S. 994; POPs,
million cut in support for science and technol-
LRTAP POPs and PIC Implementation Act of
ogy programs. However, the request includes
2003, S. 1486; the Water Quality Financing
significant increases for other activities, such
Act of 2003, H.R. 1560; and the National
as a $132 million increase for the cleanup of
Defense Authorization Act for 2004 (P.L.
hazardous waste sites under the Superfund
108-136), which includes several environmen-
program. The adequacy of funding for these
tal provisions.
and other activities has been controversial.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10115
06-21-04
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Conferees began meeting June 9, 2004, to resolve differences between the House and
Senate bills reauthorizing federal highway and transit programs from FY2004 through
FY2009, including funding for air and water quality projects and other environmental
activities. The House passed its version of this legislation (H.R. 3550) on April 2, 2004; the
Senate passed its version, S. 1072, on February 12, 2004. Extension legislation (P.L. 108-
224, H.R. 4219) continues funding for federal highway and transit programs at FY2003
levels through June 30, 2004, while Congress works on a comprehensive reauthorization bill.
On June 15, 2004, the House passed H.R. 4503, which is identical to the conference
version of the energy bill (H.R. 6, H.Rept. 108-375). On May 11, 2004, the Senate passed
the corporate tax bill, S. 1637, including tax provisions from the energy bill, H.R. 6. Also on
May 11, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported the National Defense Authorization
Act for FY2005 (S. 2400, S.Rept. 108-260), which would authorize funding for cleanup and
other environmental activities at defense sites. It does not include environmental exemptions
that the Department of Defense had proposed earlier this year. (Table 1 at the end of this
issue brief shows action on a large number of environmentally related bills.)
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The 108th Congress has acted on a number of environmental measures, some of which
represent proposals or initiatives that were under consideration in the 107th Congress. Bills
have been passed to address security at sewage treatment facilities; funding for clean water
infrastructure projects; MTBE contamination from leaking underground storage tanks; and
brownfields. Other measures include the comprehensive energy bill, which contains
provisions affecting several environmental laws; as well as legislation to reauthorize federal
highway and transit programs, including air and water quality projects and other
environmental activities. Congress also continues to address Department of Energy and
Department of Defense cleanup programs and related environmental issues.
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 legislation
concerning treaties controlling certain persistent pesticide and other pollutants. Also under
consideration are oversight of various programs, including a Clean Water Act program for
restoring pollution-impaired waters, and New Source Review regulations implementing
provisions of the Clean Air Act. All of these are discussed in the sections below. 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.
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 key
issues and activity in the 108th Congress. It is not intended to include comprehensive
CRS-1

---

IB10115
06-21-04
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 President’s FY2005 budget request includes $7.8 billion for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), about $600 million less than the appropriation of $8.4 billion for
FY2004. The decrease is mostly due to a reduction in funding for scientific research and
water infrastructure projects, many of which were congressionally mandated projects that
received earmarked funding in FY2004. For more information on EPA appropriations, see
CRS Report RL32441.
While EPA has revised its budget for FY2005 to reflect five performance goals instead
of ten, its budget continues to be organized according to eight appropriations accounts. The
request of $725 million (after transfers) for the Science and Technology account is $100
million less than appropriated for FY2004, and is part of a larger reduction that the
Administration has proposed for non-defense scientific research among several federal
agencies. The budget request includes $2.3 billion for the Environmental Programs and
Management account, $37 million more than appropriated for FY2004.
The request includes $1.3 billion (after transfers) for the Superfund account to clean up
hazardous waste sites, $132 million more than appropriated for FY2004. Key issues are the
adequacy of proposed funding to meet cleanup needs, and the complete reliance on general
Treasury revenues to support this account. An industry-supported trust fund paid for most
of the Superfund program in the past, but it has been expended, as taxing authority for it
expired at the end of 1995.
The request includes $3.2 billion for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
account, $646 million less than appropriated for FY2004. Water infrastructure projects are
funded within this account. The adequacy of funding to meet state and local wastewater and
drinking water needs continues to be an issue. The STAG request includes $850 million for
wastewater infrastructure, about $500 million less than appropriated for FY2004, and $850
million for drinking water infrastructure, the same as appropriated for FY2004. It also
includes $94 million for other water infrastructure needs, $1.3 billion for state and tribal
categorical grants, $65 million for clean school buses, and $181 million for Brownfields
grants.
The request for the following accounts is similar to the FY2004 appropriation:
Buildings and Facilities, Oil Spill Response, Office of the Inspector General, and the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Program.
Hearings have been held in the House and Senate to examine the President’s FY2005
budget request for EPA, and the House has passed the conference agreement on the FY2005
budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 108-498). It would allocate $32.1 billion to the
Natural Resource and Environment Function, about $1.8 billion more than requested. This
functional category includes numerous federal land management agencies and EPA. The
budget resolution includes several nonbinding funding assumptions specific to EPA A stand-
CRS-2

---

IB10115
06-21-04
alone bill has also been introduced (H.R. 4421) that would appropriate $8.8 billion for EPA
in FY2005, about $1 billion more than requested, and has been referred to the House
Appropriations Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. Funding for EPA
is traditionally provided in the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development (VA-
HUD), and Independent Agencies appropriations bill, and is the likely vehicle for further
legislative activity. It will be marked up by the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees and formally introduced after markup.
Clean Air Issues (by Jim McCarthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7225)
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, 2003 — but did not pass the Senate —
contains several Clean Air Act provisions. Most of these are also contained in S. 2095, the
revised version of the bill introduced February 12, 2004. The most prominent of the air
provisions 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.
H.R. 6 and S. 2095 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. The bills would repeal the requirement that RFG contain oxygen but
provide a 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 bills authorize $2 billion in grants to assist merchant
MTBE production facilities in converting to the production of other fuel additives, and they
authorize funds for MTBE cleanup. H.R. 6 would provide a “safe harbor” from product
liability lawsuits for producers of MTBE and renewable fuels; S. 2095 would not. Both bills
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. In February, S. 2095 was introduced as an alternative to H.R. 6.
One of its major differences is the absence of the controversial safe harbor provision.
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. On
January 30, 2004, EPA proposed standards for mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide
emissions from power plants. The proposed mercury standards have been particularly
controversial: EPA claims that technology to achieve more than a 30% reduction in
emissions cannot be implemented until 2018, an assertion widely disputed. Legislation has
also been proposed 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/S. 1844)
proposes 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. 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
CRS-3

---

IB10115
06-21-04
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 (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 surface
transportation reauthorization bills, S. 1072/H.R. 3550. (For additional information on clean
air issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10107, Clean Air Act Issues in the 108th Congress.)
Clean Water Act
(by Claudia Copeland, Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy, 7-7227)
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 some
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 five 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). Water
infrastructure funding also is likely to be an issue in the context of budget and appropriations,
because the President’s FY2005 budget request seeks $492 million less in Clean Water Act
assistance for next year (the $850 million request is the same as was requested for FY2004)
than Congress provided in FY2004 appropriations. Similarly, while appropriators designated
$425 million for EPA grants to congressionally earmarked water infrastructure projects in
FY2004, the President’s budget seeks no funds for such projects in FY2005.
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-4

---

IB10115
06-21-04
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).
(For background information and discussion of additional issues, see CRS Report RL30030,
Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law.)
Safe Drinking Water (by Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-5937)
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the principal federal statute for regulating the
quality of water provided by public water systems. Congress reauthorized the act in 1996,
and authorized 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.) Additionally, elevated lead levels in Washington D.C.’s drinking water have
raised concerns about the implementation and enforcement of EPA’s lead regulation, as well
as concerns about the rule’s effectiveness. H.R. 4268 and S. 2377 have been introduced to
strengthen the regulation of lead in drinking water; hasten the replacement of lead service
lines; increase monitoring, public notification, and education requirements; remediate lead
in school drinking water; and for other purposes. (See CRS Report RS21831, Lead in
Drinking Water: Washington, D.C. Issue and Broader Regulatory Implications.)
Several bills address drinking water contamination by perchlorate (the main ingredient
in solid rocket fuel). EPA is evaluating the health effects and occurrence of perchlorate for
potential regulation under SDWA, but no federal standard exists at this time. The
Department of Defense (DOD) authorization act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-136) directed 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 and S. 820 also would direct EPA to carry out a loan program to help water
suppliers and private well owners address perchlorate contamination. Significant scientific
uncertainty regarding the health risks of exposure to low levels of perchlorate has stymied
federal and state efforts to establish a drinking water standard for this contaminant. In March
2003, EPA, DOD, and other agencies requested the National Academies of Science (NAS)
to review EPA’s draft risk assessment on perchlorate and to advise EPA on questions related
to that assessment. The NAS review is expected to be completed late in 2004.
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 $6.9 billion for the program, including $845
million for FY2004, provided in P.L. 108-199, the omnibus appropriations act. The
Administration has requested $850 million for the DWSRF program for FY2005. However,
the current funding gap is expected to grow as water systems act to comply with SDWA
standards, and to replace aging infrastructure. Several bills addressing drinking water
CRS-5

---

IB10115
06-21-04
infrastructure funding have been introduced in this Congress, primarily focused on providing
assistance to small or rural communities. For example, H.R. 3382 and S. 1432 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.(For further
information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10118, Safe Drinking Water Act: Implementation and
Issues, and CRS Report RL31243, Safe Drinking Water Act: A Summary of the Act and Its
Major Requirements.)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (by Mary Tiemann)
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 (LUSTs) that store petroleum or
hazardous chemicals. In 1986, Congress created the 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 public 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 flexibility to use LUST funds to enforce the UST leak prevention
program. The House passed such bills in the 104th and 105th Congresses. Increased detections
of MTBE in water supplies has boosted interest in increasing Trust Fund appropriations to
respond to MTBE contamination and in strengthening the leak prevention and detection
program. The 107th Congress moved several LUST and MTBE bills, but none was enacted.
The 108th Congress has addressed this issue through various means, including three
energy bills: H.R. 6 (the conference report (H.Rept. 108-375) was approved by the House on
November 18, 2003); S. 2095 (placed on the Senate calendar on February 23, 2004); and
H.R. 4503 (passed by the House on June 15, 2004). The three bills 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. They essentially adopt 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. The 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 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 three energy bills and
H.R. 3335 authorize LUST Trust Fund appropriations of $200 million for each of FY2004
through FY2008 for remediating tank leaks generally, and another $200 million each year
for responding to leaks containing MTBE or other oxygenated fuel additives (e.g., ethanol).
Additionally, H.R. 6, H.R. 4503, and S. 2095 phase out MTBE and remove the Clean Air
Act’s oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline, which prompted the increased
use of MTBE. H.R. 6 and H.R. 4503 provide a product liability safe harbor for MTBE and
renewable fuels; S. 2095 does not. Several other bills, including H.R. 1122 and H.R. 2136,
CRS-6

---

IB10115
06-21-04
also would authorize appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund for responding to MTBE
leaks. Two focus on leak prevention through stricter technological requirements for USTs;
H.R. 3940 and S. 2201 would require secondary containment for new tank systems and for
replacement tanks that are near water supplies. (For more information on this issue, see CRS
Report RS21201, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Program Status and Issues.)
Superfund and Brownfields
(by Mark Reisch, Analyst in Environmental Policy, 7-7255)
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. Relevant activity in the 108th Congress includes two bills that passed one chamber,
one reported bill, and a provision that passed both houses in different bills. (Also 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, 2003. 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.
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 provide 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. Representative
Bilirakis introduced a companion bill, H.R. 347, on January 27, 2003.
The brownfields tax incentive, which expired on December 31, 2003, would be
reinstated retroactively for two years (to December 31, 2005) by both the House- and Senate-
passed tax bills, H.R. 4520 and S. 1637. The incentive allows developers of brownfield
properties to deduct cleanup costs in the current year, rather than spreading them out over a
number of years.
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
CRS-7

---

IB10115
06-21-04
few years have relied on progressively larger amounts from the general fund of the Treasury.
The Superfund trust fund’s unobligated balance was zero by the end of FY2003. (The
program’s annual appropriation has been $1.3-$1.5 billion in recent years.) Four efforts in
the 108th Congress to reinstate the Superfund taxes or to increase Superfund funding have
been defeated. (For further details and discussion, see CRS Report RL31410, Superfund
Taxes or General Revenues: Future Funding Options for the Superfund Program.)
Chemical Security and Toxic Substance Control Issues
(by Linda Schierow, Environmental Policy Specialist, 7-7279)
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 reported S. 994 May
11, 2004. 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 reported, 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 2,200
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 Issue Brief 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-8

---

IB10115
06-21-04
Other chemical issues that Congress is addressing include proposed legislation (S. 1486)
to allow U.S. implementation of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
(POPs). The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Words reported this bill April
29, 2004. (See CRS Report RL32150, International Agreements on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPS): Background and Issues for Congress.)
Environmental Issues and Surface Transportation
(by Linda Luther, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-6852)
Balancing surface transportation needs with environmental protection has long been a
challenge to states and local communities. Legislation authorizing the Department of
Transportation’s (DOT) federal surface transportation program includes funding for a variety
of activities intended to mitigate environmental impacts related to its projects. This
legislation has also specified procedures to be undertaken by DOT to demonstrate
compliance with environmental laws triggered by its projects. The most recent authorization
for highways, highway safety, and transit, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21, P.L. 105-178), funded programs for FY1998-2003. Since TEA-21 expired on
September 30, 2003, Congress has passed a series of extension bills to continue funding for
federal highway and transit programs at FY2003 levels. The most recent extension (P.L.
108-224, H.R. 4219) expires on June 30, 2004.
Legislation to reauthorize federal highway, highway safety, and transit programs from
FY2004 to FY2009 was passed by the Senate and House. The Senate’s Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA, S. 1072) passed on
February 12, 2004. The House’s Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU,
H.R. 3550) passed on April 2, 2004. The bills have moved to conference. Each bill includes
provisions related to the environment. Certain provisions have garnered significant attention
and debate from Members of Congress and interested stakeholders (e.g., state transportation
agencies, transportation construction organizations, and environmental groups), particularly
provisions involving either funding for or procedures for compliance with certain
requirements of the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
With regard to the Clean Air Act, both H.R. 3550 and S. 1072 make changes to how and
when transportation planners are required to demonstrated that their transportation plans
conform to the state’s air quality implementation plan. (For information on this topic, see
CRS Report RL32106, Transportation Conformity Under the Clean Air Act: In Need of
Reform? by James McCarthy.) Also, both the House and Senate bills have increased funding
authorized under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)
Program. This program is intended to assist states in meeting national air quality standards
required under the Clean Air Act by funding projects. TEA-21 set aside $8 billion for the
CMAQ program. S. 1072 would authorize a total of $13.4 billion over the authorization
period for the CMAQ program. H.R. 3550 would authorize a total of $9.4 billion. In
addition to changes in funding levels, both the House and Senate bills would expand
eligibility for projects funded under CMAQ.
Also related to air quality, H.R. 3550 would set aside $525 million for the purchase
clean fuel buses (compared to $1 billion set aside under TEA-21). The Senate bill would not
dedicate funding exclusively for the purchase of clean fuel buses. However, there are no
provisions in the Senate bill that would restrict a transit agency from using its funds to
purchase such buses. Both bills would reauthorize the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane
CRS-9

---

IB10115
06-21-04
exemptions, allowed under TEA-21, for single-occupant “Inherently Low Emission
Vehicles” and expand the exemption to include hybrid vehicles. Also, the Senate bill’s
proposed Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit would eliminate the current excise tax
exemption for ethanol-blended gasoline and replace it with a tax credit. (For more
information on these topics, see CRS Issue Brief IB10128, Alternative Fuels and Advanced
Technology Vehicles: Issues in Congress, by Brent Yacobucci.)
With regard to NEPA, both the House and Senate bills include provisions intended to
expedite the environmental review process required for highway and transit projects. Some
Members of Congress have expressed concerns that the environmental review process,
particularly for large, complex highway projects, can be inefficient, leading to significant
delays. To address this concern, both H.R. 3550 and S. 1072 would repeal “environmental
streamlining” provisions included in TEA-21 and create new environmental review
procedures. Elements common to each bill include the designation of DOT as the lead
agency to define a project’s purpose and need and to determine the range of alternatives
considered; the creation of a dispute resolution process to address issues of concern between
agencies; and amendments to current statutory requirements that prohibit the use of certain
public lands or historic sites for transportation projects. For further discussion, refer to CRS
Report RL32032, Streamlining Environmental Reviews of Highway and Transit Projects:
Analysis of SAFETEA and Recent Legislative Activities, and CRS Report RL32024,
Background on NEPA Implementation for Highway Projects: Streamlining the Process.
Additional provisions in the House and/or Senate bills, related to the environment,
include funding for environmental research and development activities; funding for a
highway stormwater discharge program (only in the Senate bill); and an expansion in
eligibility for certain highway funds to include environmental restoration and pollution
abatement activities and the control of invasive species and establishment of native species.
(For further background discussion of these and other key issues for reauthorization, refer
to CRS Report RL32057, Highway and Transit Program Reauthorization: An Analysis of
Environmental Protection Issues, by David Bearden).
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues
(by David Bearden, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-2390)
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. EPA and the
states provide oversight of these activities to ensure that DOD and DOE comply with
applicable requirements. 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 adequacy of existing
environmental exemptions to preserve military readiness capabilities.
The first session of the 108th Congress enacted legislation to authorize and appropriate
funding for national defense programs, including funding for DOD and DOE’s defense-
related environmental activities. This legislation includes the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-136, H.R. 1588), Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-87, H.R. 2658), Military Construction
CRS-10

---

IB10115
06-21-04
Appropriations Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-132, H.R. 2559), and Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-137, H.R. 2754). In addition to
authorizing funding, the final FY2004 defense authorization bill included modified versions
of waivers that DOD had requested from specific requirements under the Endangered Species
Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which had been controversial. (For further
discussion, refer to CRS Report RL32183, Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs:
Authorization and Appropriations for FY2004. )
Attention in the second session has turned to the President’s request for FY2005. The
President’s budget includes $3.82 billion for DOD’s environmental programs, $17 million
more than appropriated in FY2004. In addition to funding, DOD submitted a military
readiness proposal to Congress for FY2005 that would provide targeted exemptions for
training activities from the Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). DOD proposed the exemptions stating that they are necessary to preserve
training capabilities and that they would have a minimal impact on the environment.
Members of Congress, numerous states, and environmental organizations argue that DOD
has provided insufficient evidence of the need for the exemptions to permit necessary
training activities. They also argue that the exemptions would be broader than DOD has
characterized, resulting in weaker protections for human health and the environment.
The budget request includes $6.95 billion for DOE’s management and cleanup of
defense nuclear waste, $350 million more than the FY2004 appropriation. The increase
requested for DOE would be used to implement a “High-level Waste Proposal” intended to
speed the closure of waste storage tanks at the Hanford and Savannah River sites and at the
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). Tank closure would
be accelerated by leaving some of the wastes in place and sealing it with a “grout.” This
proposal has been controversial due to concern about the long-term reliability of the grout
to prevent the waste from leaking and migrating through groundwater. Legal issues have
also been raised, as a U.S. district court ruled in 2003 that DOE does not have the authority
to leave some of the wastes in the tanks. DOE has asked Congress to enact legislation that
would provide this authority.
Consideration of legislation is underway to authorize national defense programs for
FY2005, including DOD and DOE’s environmental activities. As passed by the House, H.R.
4200 (H.Rept. 108-491) would authorize $1.31 billion for cleanup at active and former
military installations, the same as requested. As reported by the Senate Armed Services
Committee, S. 2400 (S.Rept. 108-260) would authorize $1.35 billion for cleanup at these
sites. This increase would be devoted to the cleanup of Formerly Used Defense Sites
(FUDS) that were decommissioned prior to the first round of base closings in 1988. Both
bills would authorize $246 million for base closure activities, including environmental
cleanup, the same as requested. Neither bill includes specific funding levels for DOD’s other
environmental programs, as there are no line-item accounts for these activities. Rather,
funding would be authorized for them mostly under the Operation and Maintenance
Accounts. Neither bill includes DOD’s military readiness proposal for expanded
environmental exemption authority.
As passed, H.R. 4200 would also authorize $6.91 billion for DOE’s management and
cleanup of defense nuclear waste, including funding for activities specified in DOE’s tank
waste proposal that are “not prevented by the federal district court ruling or are not otherwise
CRS-11

---

IB10115
06-21-04
deemed inappropriate due to the legal uncertainty resulting from the court ruling.” As
reported, S. 2400 would authorize $6.95 billion for DOE’s management and cleanup of
defense nuclear waste, and would provide targeted authority for grouting some of the tank
wastes in South Carolina (i.e., at the Savannah River site), but not in other states. Floor
consideration of S. 2400 began on May 18, 2004. Senator Graham proposed an amendment
that passed by voice vote, clarifying that $350 million of the authorization would be available
for implementing the targeted authority for grouting some of the tank wastes in South
Carolina, and for tank management and cleanup activities other than the grouting of wastes
at Hanford and the INEEL. Senator Cantwell proposed an amendment that failed to pass,
which would have stricken the targeted authority for South Carolina and not made any
funding available for the grouting of tank wastes at any site.
In addition to authorization legislation, consideration of appropriations for DOD and
DOE has also begun. As reported by the House Appropriations Committee, the Department
of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2005 (H.R. 4613, H.Rept. 108-553) would provide
$1.31 billion for cleanup at current and former military installations, $3 million more than
the House authorized and the Administration requested. The increase would be allocated
to cleanup at “defense-wide” sites that are under the broad jurisdiction of DOD, rather than
a branch of military service (i.e., Army, Navy, or Air Force). As in defense authorization
legislation, the amounts that would be appropriated for DOD’s other environmental programs
are not specified in the bill, as there are no line-items for these activities. Rather, DOD
would allocate funding for them primarily out of appropriations for the Operation and
Maintenance Accounts. As reported, H.R. 4613 does not include the environmental
exemptions that DOD had proposed for military readiness activities.
As reported by the House Appropriations Committee, the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act for FY2005 (H.R. 4614, H.Rept. 108-554) would provide
$6.89 billion for DOE’s defense nuclear waste management and cleanup activities. Of this
amount, $274 million would be provided for tank waste management and cleanup activities
at the Hanford and Savannah River sites and the INEEL, which are not “precluded” by the
2003 district court ruling. In report language, the committee specified that it “supports
resolution of this issue through the judicial appeals process or through comprehensive
legislation that would address the problem in a consistent manner nationwide,” rather than
only in selected states. The committee also expressed concern about the feasibility of DOE’s
overall plans to accelerate cleanup and lower costs across the 114 sites that make up the
former defense nuclear weapons complex, due to recent delays in cleanup schedules and cost
overruns of certain projects.
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles
(by Brent Yacobucci, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-9662)
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.
CRS-12

---

IB10115
06-21-04
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
five 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 (P.L. 108-137) and the FY2004
Interior and Related Agencies appropriations (P.L. 108-108). For FY2004, the
Administration requested a total of $257 million for these activities; $237 million was
appropriated. For FY2005, the Administration has requested a total of $264 million.
However, the House Appropriations Committee has recommended $227 million — nearly
$40 million less than requested and $10 million less than was appropriated for FY2004.
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 five years. The conference committee removed a provision from
the Senate version of H.R. 6 that would have established the goal of producing 100,000 fuel
cell vehicles by 2010 and 2.5 million by 2020. However, this bill has stalled in the Senate.
As an alternative to H.R. 6, S. 2095 was introduced in the Senate. S. 2095 would authorize
similar fuel cell funding. Floor consideration of S. 2095 began on April 5, 2004. It is
unclear when further action will be taken on the bill. In the House, on June 15, 2004, H.R.
4503 was passed. This bill is identical to the H.R. 6 conference report. H.R. 4503 has been
referred to the Senate, but no action has been taken as of this writing.
Another key component of the energy bill would be a renewable fuels standard (RFS).
All versions of the bill would require the use of 5 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012.
Further, H.R. 6 and H.R. 4503 would exempt blenders of renewable fuels and MTBE
(another gasoline additive) from defective product liability; S. 2095 does not contain this
exemption. All three bills 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).
Among other provisions, the House and Senate bills (H.R. 3550 and S. 1072) would
eliminate the existing tax exemption for ethanol-blended gasoline and replace it with a
refundable tax credit. (For further discussion, see CRS Report RS21442, Hydrogen and Fuel
Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, and CRS
Issue Brief IB10128, Alternative Fuels and Vehicles: Issues in Congress.)
CRS-13

---

IB10115
06-21-04
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
Energy Policy Act of 2003
(H.Rept. 108-65). Amended and
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, and includes provisions
passed Senate July 31, 2003
for R&D, energy tax incentives, MTBE cleanup, underground
(with language from H.R. 4,
storage tank regulation and establishes a renewable fuels
107th Cong.). House approved
standard. Includes “safe harbor” from product liability lawsuits
Conference Report Nov. 18,
for MTBE and renewable fuel producers.
2003 (H.Rept. 108-375).
H.R. 4503
Passed House June 15, 2004
Identical to conference version of H.R. 6. Among environmental
Energy Policy Act of 2004
provisions, amends the Clean Air Act’s reformulated gasoline
(RFG) program, and includes provisions for R&D, energy tax
incentives, MTBE cleanup, underground storage tank regulation
and establishes a renewable fuels standard
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 (see above).
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.
S. 791
Reported by Senate Environment Bans MTBE in motor fuels, except in states that specifically
Reliable Fuels Act of 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.
S. 1637
Passed Senate May 11, 2004
Contains tax provisions from H.R. 6, including incentives for
Jumpstart Our Business
renewable energy, alternative fuels, and petroleum and natural
Strength (JOBS) Act
gas development.
S. 2095
Introduced February 11, 2004.
Among environmental provisions, amends the Clean Air Act’s
Energy Policy Act of 2003
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, and includes provisions
for R&D, energy tax incentives, MTBE cleanup, underground
storage tank regulation and establishes a renewable fuels
standard. Does not include “safe harbor” provisions.
Water Quality
H.R. 866, Wastewater
Passed House May 7, 2003
Authorizes funds to wastewater utilities for vulnerability
Treatment Works Security
(H.Rept. 108-33).
assessments.
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, Wastewater
Reported by Senate Environment Authorizes funds to wastewater utilities for vulnerability
Treatment Works Security
and Public Works Committee
assessments.
Act of 2003
May 15, 2003 (S.Rept. 108-
149).
Superfund / Brownfields
H.R. 239
Reported by House Financial
Makes HUD brownfield grants more accessible to small
Brownfields Redevelopment Services Committee March 5,
communities.
and Enhancement Act
2003 (H.Rept. 108-22).
CRS-14

---

IB10115
06-21-04
H.R. 2535, Economic
Passed House Oct. 21, 2003
Among other things, makes brownfields eligible for certain EDA
Development Administration (H.Rept. 108-242, Part I).
grants and establishes a demonstration program for “brightfields”
Reauthorization Act
(brownfields redeveloped using solar energy technologies).
Environmental Protection Agency
P.L. 108-199 (H.R. 2673)
Enacted January 23, 2004
Funds EPA at $8.4 billion in FY2004.
Consolidated (Omnibus)
Conf. Report filed Nov. 25, 2003
Appropriations Act FY2004 (H.Rept. 108-401).
H.R. 2861, VA-HUD
Passed House July 25, 2003
House version would have funded EPA at $8.0 billion; Senate
Appropriations FY2004
Passed Senate Nov. 18, 2003
version at $8.1 billion.
Included in P.L. 108-199.
P.L.108-7 (H.J.Res. 2)
Enacted Feb. 20, 2003
Funded EPA at $8.1 billion in FY2003.
Omnibus FY2003
Conf. Report filed Feb. 13, 2003
(H.Rept. 108-10)
S. 515, Ombudsman
Passed Senate May 21, 2003
Expands Ombudsman’s authority and independence.
Reauthorization Act
(S.Rept. 108-50)
Defense and Environment
P.L. 108-136 (H.R. 1588)
Enacted Nov. 24, 2003.
Among major environmental provisions, authorizes funding for
National Defense
Passed House Nov. 7, 2003
environmental cleanup, provides greater compliance flexibility
Authorization Act for
Passed Senate Nov. 11, 2003
for DOD under the Endangered Species Act and Marine
FY2004
Mammal Protection Act, requires a report on the impact of the
Clean Air 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.
P.L. 108-132 ( H.R. 2559)
Enacted Nov. 22, 2003
Provides funding for the cleanup of environmental contamination
Military Construction
Passed House Nov. 5, 2003
at base closure sites.
Appropriations Act FY2004 Passed Senate Nov. 12, 2003
P.L. 108-132 (H.R. 2658)
Enacted Sept. 30, 2003
Provides funding for the cleanup of environmental contamination
Department of Defense
Passed House Sept. 24, 2003
on active military installations and Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appropriations Act for
Passed Senate Sept. 25, 2003
(FUDS), which were decommissioned prior to the base closure
FY2004
rounds that began in 1988.
P.L. 108-137 (H.R. 2754)
Enacted Dec. 1, 2003 Passed
Provides funding for the management and cleanup of defense
Energy and Water
House Nov. 18, 2003
nuclear waste.
Appropriations Act FY2004 Passed Senate Nov. 11, 2003
H.R. 4200
Reported by House Armed
Would authorize funding for cleanup and other environmental
National Defense
Services Committee May 14,
activities at defense sites. Does not include exemptions from the
Authorization Act for
2004 (H.Rept. 108-491)
Clean Air Act, RCRA and CERCLA that DOD had requested.
FY2005
Passed House May 20, 2004
H.R. 4613
Reported by House
Provides funding for the cleanup of environmental contamination
Department of Defense
Appropriations Committee
on active military installations and Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appropriations Act for
June 18, 2004
(FUDS), which were decommissioned prior to the base closure
FY2005
(H.Rept. 108-553)
rounds that began in 1988.
H.R. 4614
Reported by House
Provides funding for the management and cleanup of defense
Energy and Water
Appropriations Committee
nuclear waste.
Development Appropriations June 18, 2004
Act for FY2005
(H.Rept. 108-554)
S. 2400, National Defense
Reported by Senate Armed
Would authorize funding for cleanup and other environmental
Authorization Act for
Services Committee May 11,
activities at defense sites. Does not include exemptions from the
FY2005
2004 (S.Rept. 108-260)
Clean Air Act, RCRA and CERCLA that DOD had requested.
Transportation and Environment
P.L. 108-88 (H.R. 3087)
Enacted Sept. 30, 2003.
Extends funding for federal highway and transit programs,
Surface Transportation
Passed House Sept. 24, 2003.
including air and water quality projects and other environmental
Extension Act of 2003
Passed Senate Sept. 26, 2003.
activities, through February 29, 2004.
P.L. 108-202 (H.R. 3850)
Enacted Feb. 29, 2004
Extended funding for federal highway and transit programs,
Surface Transportation
Passed House Feb 26, 2004
including air and water quality projects and other environmental
CRS-15

---

IB10115
06-21-04
Extension Act of 2004
Passed Senate Feb. 27, 2004
activities, through April 30, 2004.
P.L. 108-224 (H.R. 4219)
Enacted April 30, 2004
Extended funding for federal highway and transit programs,
Surface Transportation
Passed House April 28, 2004
including air and water quality projects and other environmental
Extension Act of 2004
Passed Senate April 29, 2004
activities, through June 30, 2004.
Part II
H.R. 3550, Transportation
Reported by House
Would authorize funding for federal highway and transit
Equity Act: A Legacy for
Transportation and Infrastructure programs, including air and water quality projects and other
Users
Committee March 29, 2004
environmental activities from FY2004 through FY2009.
(H.Rept. 108-452)
Passed House April 2, 2004
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 Transportation January 9, 2004
environmental activities, from FY2004 through FY2009.
Equity Act of 2003
(S.Rept. 108-222)
Passed Senate Feb. 12, 2004
Other
S. 994
Reported by Senate Environment Requires vulnerability assessments and security plans for
Chemical Facilities Security and Public Works Committee
facilities handling large quantities of hazardous chemicals.
Act
May 11, 2004 (S.Rept. 108-261)
S. 1486
Reported by the Senate
Amends Toxic Substances Control Act and Federal Insecticide,
POPs, LRTAP POPs and
Environment and Public Works
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act to authorize implementation of
PIC Implementation Act of
Committee April 29, 2004
three international agreements limiting manufacture, use, trade
2003
(S.Rept. 108-256)
and disposal of certain persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
CRS-16

---