Order Code IB10115
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 108th Congress
Updated September 10, 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
Surface Transportation and Environment
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles

---

IB10115
09-10-04
Environmental Protection Issues in the 108th Congress
SUMMARY
This issue brief provides an overview of
The 108th Congress has taken, but in
the key environmental protection issues that
most cases not completed, action on legisla-
are receiving attention in the 108th Congress.
tion to address a number of other key issues,
The sections on specific issues reference more
including leaking underground storage tanks
detailed and extensive CRS reports. (This
that may contaminate water supplies; security
issue brief emphasizes pollution-related mat-
issues related to wastewater treatment and
ters; natural resource management issues are
chemical facilities; expanding authority for an
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 environmental
brief (e.g., funding for state environmental
issues. These issues are discussed in this
programs, enforcement, water infrastructure
report, along with others including issues
projects and many others); thus, EPA’s fund-
involving the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act,
ing is an issue of perennial interest. At the
Safe Drinking Water Act, and alternative fuels
beginning of the second session, Congress
and vehicles.
completed consideration of a consolidated
appropriations act (P.L. 108-199, H.R. 2673),
The status of committee and floor action
which provided $8.4 billion for EPA in
on environmental legislation is shown in
FY2004.
Table 1 at the end of this issue brief. Bills
receiving congressional action include the
For FY2005, the Administration’s EPA
conference report on the energy bill, H.R. 6;
request was $7.8 billion, about $600 million
the Water Infrastructure Financing Act, S.
less than Congress provided for FY2004. The
2550; the Water Quality Financing Act of
House Appropriations Committee marked up
2003, H.R. 1560; the Underground Storage
the FY2005 VA-HUD/ Independent Agencies
Tank Compliance Act of 2003, S. 195; the
appropriations bill (H.R. 5041; H.Rept. 108-
Ombudsman Reauthorization Act, S. 515; the
674), which includes funding for EPA. The
Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement
House markup would provide $7.8 billion for
Act, H.R. 239; the Chemical Facility Security
EPA, which includes a reduction of $36 mil-
Act, S. 994; the POPs, LRTAP POPs, and PIC
lion below the Administration’s request, and
Implementation Act of 2003, S. 1486; the
$613 million less than the FY2004 appropria-
Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of
tion. About $500 million of the decrease,
2003, H.R. 866 and S. 1039; the National
relative to FY2004, would be for wastewater
Defense Authorization Act for FY2004 (P.L.
infrastructure projects. The markup would
108-136); and the National Defense Authori-
provide $1.3 billion for the cleanup of hazard-
zation Act for FY2005 (H.R. 4200 and S.
ous waste sites under the Superfund program,
2400). P.L. 108-136 and S. 2400 include
the same as FY2004. The Senate Appropria-
environmental provisions that have been
tions Committee has not marked up its version
contentious.
of the bill.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10115
09-10-04
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The House Appropriations Committee marked up the Veterans Affairs, Housing
and Urban Development (VA-HUD), and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for
FY2005 (H.Rept. 108-674), which includes $7.8 billion for EPA. The bill, H.R. 5041, was
introduced September 9, 2004.
The House and Senate passed the conference agreement on the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for FY2005 (H.R. 4613, H.Rept. 108-622) on July 22, 2004. It would
provide funding for cleanup and other environmental activities at active and former military
installations. On the same date the House also passed the Military Construction
Appropriations Act for FY2005 (H.R. 4837, H.Rept. 108-607), which would provide funding
for cleanup at military base closure sites. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported
its version of the military construction bill (S. 2674, S.Rept. 108-309) on July 15, 2004.
Prior action has also been taken on other defense appropriations and authorizations bills,
which include environmental provisions.
Conferees began meeting June 9, 2004, to resolve differences between the House and
Senate bills reauthorizing federal highway and transit programs, 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. Each bill includes a variety of environmental provisions; of most
relevance to interested stakeholders are provisions that would change the way the U.S.
Department of Transportation complies with elements of the Clean Air Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Extension legislation passed on July 22, 2004,
continuing funding for federal highway and transit programs at FY2003 levels through
September 2004, while Congress works on reconciling differences on a comprehensive
reauthorization bill.
Several bills on specific water pollution control programs were approved July 21, 2004,
by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (Table 1 at the end of this
issue brief shows congressional action on environmentally related bills.)
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The 108th Congress has acted on a variety of disparate environmental measures; some
of these represent proposals or issues that had been under consideration in the 107th
Congress and earlier. In general, environmental issues have not been high on the
congressional agenda relative to other matters, and prospects for action on major
environmental issues, many of which are contentious, are limited — in part due to the short
time remaining in the 108th Congress.
Environmental issues considered by Congress tend to fall into several major categories:
(1) funding issues — whether funding levels are adequate and focused on appropriate
priorities; (2) expanding, renewing, or refocusing specific environment programs; (3)
environmental issues that are important “subsets” of other major areas of concern, such as
energy, defense, or transportation programs; and more recently, (4) terrorism and infra-
structure protection in areas such as wastewater and chemical facilities.
CRS-1

---

IB10115
09-10-04
Bills have been passed by one or both houses of Congress to address several topics,
including security at sewage treatment facilities; MTBE contamination of groundwater 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 (which includes
environmental concerns), and 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 New Source Review regulations
implementing provisions of the Clean Air Act. All of these are discussed in the sections
below. Table 1 at the end of this issue brief provides a summary of action on a wide array
of environmental bills in the 108th Congress.
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 selected
major issues and 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
(By David Bearden, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-2390)
The most controversial issues for the FY2005 budget of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) have been the adequacy of funding for (1) federal assistance to states for
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects; (2) cleanup of hazardous waste sites
under the Superfund program; and (3) scientific research on human health effects, upon
which pollution control standards are based. The President’s FY2005 budget request includes
$7.8 billion for EPA, about $600 million less than the appropriation of $8.4 billion for
FY2004. The requested 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. Although the Administration has
proposed an overall decrease for EPA’s funding, there would be a $124 million increase for
the Superfund program. (For more information on these and other EPA appropriations issues,
see CRS Report RL32441, Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations for FY2005.)
The House Appropriations Committee marked up the Veterans Affairs, Housing and
Urban Development (VA-HUD), and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for FY2005
CRS-2

---

IB10115
09-10-04
(H.Rept. 108-674), which includes funding for EPA, and introduced the bill, H.R. 5041, on
September 9, 2004. The Senate Appropriations Committee has not marked up its version of
the bill as of this writing. According to the press release from the House Appropriations
Committee, its markup of the bill would provide $7.8 billion for EPA in FY2005, which
includes a reduction of $36 million below the Administration’s request and is $613 million
less than the FY2004 appropriation.
Of the $7.8 billion included in the House Appropriations Committee markup, $850
million would be for State Revolving Funds (SRFs) to provide federal assistance for
wastewater infrastructure projects. This amount is the same as requested, and is about $500
million less than the FY2004 appropriation. The markup would provide $845 million for
SRFs that provide federal assistance for drinking water infrastructure, $5 million less than
requested, and the same as the FY2004 appropriation. For the cleanup of hazardous waste
sites under the Superfund program, the markup would provide $1.3 billion, the same as in
FY2004, and $124 million less than requested. The committee’s press release does not
indicate the funding level for EPA’s scientific research activities. The Administration had
requested a $100 million decrease for these activities in FY2005, which has been
controversial.
Clean Air Issues
(By Jim McCarthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7225)
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 such plants. The
proposed mercury standards have been particularly controversial, as critics contend they
should be more stringent; EPA’s proposal is based on an assertion that technology to achieve
more than a 30% reduction in mercury emissions cannot be implemented until 2018, an
assertion widely disputed. (For additional information on this and other clean air issues, see
CRS Issue Brief IB10107, Clean Air Act Issues in the 108th Congress. For additional
information on mercury, see CRS Report RL31881, Mercury Emissions to the Air.)
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 all introduced
bills that are more stringent than Clear Skies; some of these would regulate carbon dioxide
in addition to the other three pollutants.
Controversy has also arisen over EPA’s proposed and promulgated changes to the Clean
Air Act’s New Source Review (NSR) requirements. NSR requires installation of best
available emission controls when power plants and other major facilities are modified. 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, 2003 (P.L.
108-7). The study began in May 2004, with an expected completion date of December 2005.
CRS-3

---

IB10115
09-10-04
(For additional information on new source review, see CRS Report RS21608, Clean Air and
New Source Review.)
The conference report on the energy bill (H.R. 6), which came to the House and Senate
floor for action the week of November 17, 2003, contained several Clean Air Act provisions.
Most of these are also contained in S. 2095, a revised version of the bill introduced February
12, 2004, and in H.R. 4503, which passed the House on June 15, 2004. Most of the air
provisions concern the gasoline additives MTBE and ethanol, used to meet Clean Air Act
requirements that reformulated gasoline (RFG) sold in the nation’s worst ozone
nonattainment areas contain at least 2% oxygen, to improve combustion. MTBE has
contaminated ground water in several states. All three bills would ban the use of MTBE as
a fuel additive nationwide, except in states that specifically authorize its use, after December
31, 2014; repeal the requirement that RFG contain oxygen; provide a major new stimulus to
the use of ethanol; authorize $2 billion in grants to assist merchant MTBE production
facilities in converting to the production of other fuel additives; and authorize funds for
MTBE cleanup. H.R. 6 and H.R. 4503 would also provide a “safe harbor” from product
liability lawsuits for producers of MTBE and renewable fuels; S. 2095 would not. (For
additional information, see CRS Report RL31912, Renewable Fuels and MTBE.)
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; for background on the Clean Water Act, see
CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law.)
Legislation to authorize funding for clean water infrastructure projects has been a focus
of attention in the 108th 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 State
Revolving Fund (SRF) program that assists municipal wastewater treatment projects (H.R.
1560), and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved similar
legislation June 23, 2004 (S. 2550). Both bills add provisions allowing states to offer
additional subsidization to disadvantaged communities and longer loan repayment periods.
They differ in a number of respects, such as how to revise the formula for state-by-state
allotment of SRF grants and whether to apply prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-
Bacon Act to projects that receive SRF funding (in S. 2550 only). (For information, see CRS
Report RL32503, Water Infrastructure Financing Legislation: Comparison of S. 2550 and
H.R. 1560.)
CRS-4

---

IB10115
09-10-04
Future prospects for this legislation are uncertain for several reasons, including
controversies over the Davis-Bacon Act, Administration opposition to funding levels in the
bills, and limited legislative time remaining in the 108th Congress. Water infrastructure
funding also is 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
($850 million total) than Congress provided in FY2004 appropriations, and on July 22, the
House Appropriations Committee approved a bill that provides SRF funds at the request
level. In addition, 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),
and the Senate has approved a similar bill (S. 1039).
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. Key issues in the 108th Congress include
the availability of funding for infrastructure projects needed to comply with drinking water
standards, and the contamination of drinking water by specific contaminants, including
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and perchlorate (the main ingredient in solid rocket fuel).
(See MTBE discussion in the section below on “Leaking Underground Storage Tanks.”)
Also, high lead levels in Washington DC’s tap water have raised questions about the
adequacy of, and compliance with, EPA’s lead in drinking water rule. H.R. 4268 and S.
2377 would strengthen the lead rule, hasten the replacement of lead service lines, and address
lead in school drinking water. (See CRS Report RS21831, Lead in Drinking Water:
Washington, D.C. Issue and Broader Regulatory Implications.)
Several bills address drinking water contamination by perchlorate, which is not
regulated under SDWA. The Department of Defense (DOD) authorization act for FY2004
(P.L. 108-136) directed the DOD to provide for independent health studies of 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 would direct EPA to carry out a loan
program to help water suppliers and private well owners meet perchlorate standards.
Scientific uncertainty regarding the health risks of exposure to low levels of perchlorate has
stymied EPA’s efforts to set a 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 is scheduled to complete this review in January 2005.
A major SDWA issue concerns the ability of 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 systems finance projects needed to meet
SDWA standards and to address health risks. Since FY1997, Congress has provided $6.9
billion for the program, including $845 million for FY2004. The Administration has
requested $850 million for FY2005. However, the current funding gap is expected to grow
as water systems act to comply with new standards and to repair aging infrastructure. Several
water infrastructure funding bills have been introduced in this Congress, primarily focused
on providing assistance to small systems. H.R. 3382 and S. 1432, for example, would
establish a grant program to help small communities comply with SDWA. In June 2004, the
CRS-5

---

IB10115
09-10-04
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ordered reported S. 2550, a water
infrastructure financing bill that would increase funding for the DWSRF, establish a small
system grant program, and provide funding to address lead contamination.
Drinking water security issues were addressed by the 107th Congress in the Bioterrorism
Preparedness Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-188), which amended SDWA to require community
water systems to conduct vulnerability assessments and prepare emergency response plans.
The act authorized funding for these activities and for basic security improvements and water
security research. In the 108th Congress, attention has focused on the implementation of
these provisions and other efforts to improve water security, as well as the adequacy of
funding to support these efforts. (For more information, see CRS Report RL31294,
Safeguarding the Nation’s Drinking Water: EPA and Congressional Actions and CRS Issue
Brief IB10118, Safe Drinking Water Act: Implementation and Issues.)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
(By Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-5937)
In 1984, Congress established a leak prevention, detection, and cleanup program under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to address a national 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 is that many states have not dedicated, or have lacked, adequate resources to
fully enforce UST regulations. A related issue concerns the discovery of methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE) leaks at thousands of LUST sites and in many water supplies. This gasoline
additive, used to reduce air pollution from vehicles, is very water soluble and spreads
quickly. Thus, MTBE leaks are more costly to clean up than conventional gasoline leaks.
The 108th Congress has addressed this issue, particularly through three broad energy
bills: H.R. 6 (the conference report (H.Rept. 108-375) was approved by the House in
November 2003); S. 2095 (now on the Senate calendar); and H.R. 4503 (passed by the House
in June 2004). These bills would strengthen leak prevention provisions of the UST regulatory
program and broaden the uses of the LUST Trust Fund. They adopt the language of H.R.
3335, the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2003, which is similar to Senate-
passed S. 195 (S.Rept. 108-13). The bills all add new tank inspection and operator training
requirements; prohibit fuel delivery to ineligible tanks; authorize states to use LUST funds
to help tank owners pay cleanup costs in cases of financial hardship; and allow LUST funds
to be used to enforce leak prevention and detection requirements. The energy bills and H.R.
3335 authorize appropriations from the Trust Fund 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 oxygenated fuel additives (e.g., MTBE and ethanol). 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 had 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, also would
authorize appropriations from the Trust Fund for responding to MTBE leaks. H.R. 3940 and
S. 2201 focus on leak prevention by requiring secondary containment for tank systems
CRS-6

---

IB10115
09-10-04
installed near water supplies. (See also CRS Report RS21201, Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks: Program Status and Issues.)
Superfund and Brownfields
(By Mark Reisch, Analyst in Environmental Policy, 7-7255)
The Superfund and brownfield programs are the principal federal efforts to clean up
hazardous waste sites. The financing of Superfund activities is a controversial issue. The
taxes that originally fed the Superfund trust fund expired in 1995, and the fund is empty.
Appropriations are now entirely from the general fund of the Treasury. Four efforts in the
108th Congress to reinstate the Superfund taxes or to increase Superfund funding have been
defeated. (See CRS Report RL31410, Superfund Taxes or General Revenues: Future
Funding Options for the Superfund Program.)
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) Reauthorization Act, H.R. 2535
(H.Rept. 108-242), passed the House on October 21, 2003. Among other things, it would
make brownfield sites eligible for certain EDA grants and would establish a demonstration
program for “brightfield” sites (brownfields that are redeveloped using solar energy
technologies). H.R. 239 (H.Rept. 108-22) was reported on March 5, 2003. It would remove
the connection between HUD’s brownfield program and the department’s Section 108 loan
guarantees, making the grants more obtainable by a larger number of cities, particularly
smaller ones.
The Ombudsman Reauthorization Act, S. 515 (S.Rept. 108-50), passed the Senate on
May 21, 2003. It would provide the EPA ombudsman increased independence and authority
regarding Superfund and brownfields, as well as EPA’s solid waste, leaking underground
storage tank, oil spill, and chemical emergency preparedness and prevention programs.
The brownfields tax incentive, which aids property developers, and which expired on
December 31, 2003, would be reinstated retroactively for two years (to December 31, 2005)
by both the House- and Senate-passed versions of the tax bill, H.R. 4520, which is in
conference. (Also see CRS Issue Brief IB10114, Brownfields and Superfund Issues in the
108th Congress.)
Chemical Security and Toxic Substance Control Issues
(By Linda Schierow, Environmental Policy Specialist, 7-7279)
The 108th Congress has focused on the need for federal oversight of security
arrangements against terrorism for privately owned facilities storing or handling large
quantities of potentially dangerous chemicals. At issue are the role of the federal government
in protecting such facilities from terrorist acts and the means by which facilities should
address concerns about terrorism. On May 11, 2004, the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works reported S. 994, a bill that reflects the views of the Bush Administration.
As reported, S. 994 would require submission to the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) of vulnerability assessments and security and emergency response plans for facilities
designated by the DHS Secretary. A competing proposal, S. 157, in addition to vulnerability
assessments and risk reduction plans, would require risk reduction, including 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
CRS-7

---

IB10115
09-10-04
introduced, see CRS Report RL31957, Chemical Facility Security: A Comparison of S. 157
and S. 994. H.R. 2901 is similar to S. 994 with a few exceptions. For example, the House
bill would protect more information from public disclosure. In contrast, S. 609/H.R. 2526
would allow more information to be publicly disclosed. (For more on this topic, see CRS
Report RL31530, Chemical Plant Security.)

Congress also considered legislation to allow U.S. implementation of the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Discussion centered on rulemaking
authority for POPs, and the extent to which it should differ from EPA’s existing regulatory
authority for toxic chemicals and pesticides. On April 29, 2004, the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works reported S. 1486, which includes amendments to the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) that would facilitate EPA regulation of POPs in accord with
treaty requirements. The House Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing on a competing discussion draft
on July 13, 2004. The subcommittee’s draft bill would ensure that EPA regulations met
criteria established by U.S. laws and were developed according to standard administrative
procedures. For the Stockholm treaty to be ratified, Congress also would also have to enact
amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), over which
the House and Senate Agriculture Committees have jurisdiction. (For more on implementing
legislation, see CRS Report RL32150, International Agreements on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPS): Background and Issues for Congress.)
Surface Transportation and Environment
(By Linda Luther, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-6852)
Both the House and Senate have passed bills that would reauthorize surface
transportation programs for FY2004-FY2009 and include environmental provisions. These
programs involve federal highway, highway safety, and transit programs undertaken by the
U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Senate bill (S. 1072), the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA), passed on February
12, 2004. The House passed its bill (H.R. 3550), the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (TEA-LU), on April 2, 2004. The bills are currently in conference.
During the reauthorization process, certain environmental issues have garnered
significant attention from both Members of Congress and interested stakeholders (e.g., state
transportation agencies, transportation construction organizations, and environmental
groups). This attention is due to both the impact that surface transportation projects can have
on the environment and the impact that compliance with environmental requirements can
have on project delivery.
Both the House and Senate bills include many provisions that relate to the environment.
Generally, the provisions do one of the following: authorize funding to eliminate, control,
mitigate, or minimize regulated environmental impacts associated with a surface
transportation program or project; or specify procedures required to be undertaken to comply
with certain environmental requirements. In particular, both bills include provisions that
would change the procedures DOT would be required to follow to comply with the Clean Air
Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). (For information on these issues,
see CRS Report RL32454, Environmental Provisions in Surface Transportation
CRS-8

---

IB10115
09-10-04
Reauthorization Legislation: SAFETEA (S. 1072) and TEA-LU (H.R. 3550), by Linda Luther;
CRS Report RL32106, Transportation Conformity Under the Clean Air Act: In Need of
Reform? by James McCarthy; and CRS Report RL32032, Streamlining Environmental
Reviews of Highway and Transit Projects: Analysis of SAFETEA and Recent Legislative
Activities, by Linda Luther.)
Authorization legislation for FY1998-FY2003, the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21, P.L. 105-178), expired on September 30, 2003. In accordance with
a series of extension bills, all existing surface transportation programs continue to operate
according to provisions of TEA-21 while Congress continues to consider reauthorization
proposals. The most recent extension, P.L. 108-280 (H.R. 4916), runs until September 24,
2004, for highway programs and until September 30 for transit and safety programs.
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues
(By David Bearden, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-2390)
Several environmental issues associated with military installations and former nuclear
weapons sites have received attention in the 108th Congress. Among the most prominent
issues have been the adequacy, cost, and pace of environmental cleanup, and whether
additional environmental exemptions are needed to preserve military training capabilities.
The first session of the 108th Congress enacted several bills that authorized and appropriated
funding for cleanup and other environmental activities conducted by the Department of
Defense (DOD) at military installations, as well as cleanup at former nuclear weapons sites
performed by the Department of Energy (DOE). (See Table 1 for a list of these bills.) In the
first session, Congress also approved exemptions from certain requirements of the
Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-136, H.R. 1588), 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 authorization and appropriation of funding
for FY2005. Several bills have received action to date, including H.R. 4200, H.R. 4613,
H.R. 4614, H.R. 4837, S. 2400, and S. 2674. (See Table 1.) Among the environmental
issues regarding DOD’s FY2005 request were whether to provide additional environmental
exemptions for military training exercises, as proposed by the Administration. These
exemptions would remove DOD from the responsibility of complying with certain
requirements of the Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
DOD’s proposal has been controversial among Members of Congress, the states, and
environmental organizations due to concerns about the weakening of environmental
protection and the lack of data to justify the need for the exemptions. None of the above
defense authorization or appropriations bills for FY2005 contains the Administration’s
requested exemptions, either as proposed or in modified form.
Another prominent issue in the FY2005 debate has been whether to provide DOE with
the authority to classify certain high-level radioactive wastes at former nuclear weapons sites
in a manner that would permit these wastes to be permanently disposed of on-site in the
states of Washington, Idaho, and South Carolina. These wastes are currently stored in
underground tanks. DOE’s proposed disposal method would be to seal some of these wastes
CRS-9

---

IB10115
09-10-04
in the tanks with a cement “grout.” However, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires all of
the wastes to be removed from the tanks and disposed of in a centralized geologic repository,
such as Yucca Mountain. DOE has asked for the authority to leave some of the wastes in the
tanks, as a means to lower costs and speed the closure of the tanks.
DOE’s proposal has been controversial among Members of Congress, the states, and
environmental organizations due to concern about the possibility of tank wastes leaking and
migrating into the soil and groundwater. Some of the tanks are already known or suspected
to have leaked. As passed by the Senate, the National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2005 (S. 2400) would provide targeted authority for DOE’s tank waste proposal only in
South Carolina. As of the August recess, this bill had moved to conference with the House.
The House bill (H.R. 4200) does not contain this authority. (See a forthcoming CRS report
for more information, Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs: Authorization and
Appropriations for FY2005).
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles
(By Brent Yacobucci, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-9662)
The development of alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles has 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 such vehicles is currently cost-prohibitive, and many technical and cost barriers are
associated with producing, storing, and delivering these alternative fuels. Therefore, there
is interest in Congress and the Administration to support vehicle and fuel development, and
promote their entry into the marketplace.
Congress is currently considering comprehensive energy legislation. The conference
report on H.R. 6 (H.Rept. 108-375) would authorize increased funding for hydrogen and fuel
cell research, establish tax credits for the purchase of hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles,
and promote biofuels. H.R. 6 has stalled in the Senate, and S. 2095 was introduced in the
Senate as an alternative to H.R. 6. 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. A key component
of the energy bill is the renewable fuels standard (RFS). All three versions of the bill would
require the use of 5 billion gallons of renewable fuels 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. This provision has been
highly controversial, and has been cited as one of the key impediments to passage of the bill.
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 Issue Brief IB10128, Alternative
Fuels and Vehicles: Issues in Congress; and CRS Report RS21442, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.)
CRS-10

---

IB10115
09-10-04
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
H.R. 4520
Passed House June 17, 2004
Contains tax credits for electricity from renewable sources and
American Jobs Creation Act
Passed Senate July 15, 2004
for ethanol.
of 2004
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
Inserted into H.R. 4520
renewable energy, alternative fuels, and petroleum and natural
Strength (JOBS) Act
July 15, 2004
gas development.
S. 2095
Introduced February 11, 2004.
Among environmental provisions, amends the Clean Air Act’s
Energy Policy Act of 2003
Taken up on Senate floor for
reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, and includes provisions
debate March 5, 2004
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. 784
Approved by House
Reauthorizes appropriations for sewer overflow control grants.
Water Quality Investment
Transportation and Infrastructure
Act of 2003
Committee
July 21, 2004
H.R. 866, Wastewater
Passed House May 7, 2003
Authorizes funds for wastewater utilities to conduct 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 Financing Transportation and Infrastructure pollution control revolving funds (SRFs).
Act of 2003
Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment July
17, 2003.
CRS-11

---

IB10115
09-10-04
Bill Status
Purpose
H.R. 4470
Approved by House
Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the
To amend the Federal Water Transportation and Infrastructure authorization of appropriations for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin
Pollution Control Act to
Committee
Restoration Program for fiscal years 2005 to 2010.
extend the authorization of
July 21, 2004
appropriations for the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin
Restoration Program from
FY2005 to FY2010.
H.R. 4688
Approved by House
Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize
To amend the Federal Water Transportation and Infrastructure the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Pollution Control Act to
Committee
reauthorize the Chesapeake
July 21, 2004
Bay Program.
H.R. 4731
Approved by House
Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize
To amend the Federal Water Transportation and Infrastructure the National Estuary Program.
Pollution Control Act to
Committee
reauthorize the National
July 21, 2004
Estuary Program.
S. 1039, Wastewater
Reported by Senate
Authorizes funds for wastewater utilities to conduct vulnerability
Treatment Works Security
Environment and Public Works
assessments.
Act of 2003
Committee May 15, 2003
(S.Rept. 108-149).
S. 2550
Approved by Senate
Authorizes appropriations to Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking
Water Infrastructure
Environment and Public Works
Water Act for State Revolving Loan Funds (SRFs).
Financing Act
Committee
June 23, 2004
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).
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
H.R. 5041 VA-HUD
Reported and introduced by
House markup would fund EPA at $7.8 billion.
Appropriations FY2005
House Appropriations
Committee
September 9, 2004
(H.Rept. 108-674)
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,
Appropriations Act FY2004
2003 (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)
CRS-12

---

IB10115
09-10-04
Bill Status
Purpose
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
at base closure sites. Requires DOD to submit report on
Appropriations Act FY2004
perchlorate contamination, and cleanup plans for these sites.
P.L. 108-87 (H.R. 2658)
Enacted Sept. 30, 2003
Provides funding for the cleanup of environmental contamination
Department of Defense
on active military installations and Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appropriations Act for
(FUDS), which were decommissioned prior to the base closure
FY2004
rounds that began in 1988. Requires DOD and EPA to conduct a
study of perchlorate groundwater contamination.
P.L. 108-137 (H.R. 2754)
Enacted Dec. 1, 2003
Provides funding for the management and cleanup of defense
Energy and Water
nuclear waste.
Development Appropriations
Act FY2004
H.R. 4200
Passed House May 20, 2004
Would authorize funding for cleanup and other environmental
National Defense
(H.Rept. 108-491)
activities at active, former, and closed military installations, and
Authorization Act for
former nuclear weapons sites. Does not include exemptions
FY2005
from the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and CERCLA, which DOD
requested. Does not provide authority for the permanent on-site
disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in storage tanks in
Washington, South Carolina, and Idaho, which DOE requested.
H.R. 4613
Conference report filed July 20,
Would appropriate funding for cleanup and other environmental
Department of Defense
2004
activities at active and former military installations. Does not
Appropriations Act for
(H.Rept. 108-622)
include exemptions from the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and
FY2005
Passed House and Senate July
CERCLA, which DOD requested.
22, 2004
Presented to President July 28,
2004
H.R. 4837
Passed House July 22, 2004
Would appropriate funding for environmental cleanup at military
Military Construction
(H.Rept. 108-607)
base closure sites. Does not include exemptions from the Clean
Appropriations Act for
Air Act, RCRA, and CERCLA, which DOD requested.
FY2005
H.R. 4614
Passed House June 25, 2004
Would appropriate funding for the management of defense
Energy and Water
(H.Rept. 108-554)
nuclear waste and cleanup of former nuclear weapons sites.
Development Appropriations
Would not provide funding for the permanent on-site disposal of
Act for FY2005
high-level radioactive wastes in storage tanks in Washington,
South Carolina, and Idaho.
S. 2400
Passed Senate June 23, 2004
Would authorize funding for cleanup and other environmental
National Defense
(S.Rept. 108-260)
activities at active, former, and closed military installations, and
Authorization Act for
Inserted into H.R. 4200 as a
former nuclear weapons sites. Does not include exemptions
FY2005
substitute amendment
from the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and CERCLA, which DOD
Conferees appointed June 24,
requested. Includes targeted authority for permanent on-site
2004
disposal of certain high-level radioactive wastes in storage tanks
in South Carolina only.
CRS-13

---

IB10115
09-10-04
Bill Status
Purpose
S. 2674
Reported by the Senate
Would appropriate funding for environmental cleanup at military
Military Construction
Appropriations Committee July
base closure sites. Does not include exemptions from the Clean
Appropriations Act for
15, 2004
Air Act, RCRA, and CERCLA, which DOD requested.
FY2005
(S.Rept. 108-309)
Transportation and Environment
H.R. 3550, Transportation
Passed House April 2, 2004
Among other provisions, amends the Clean Air Act conformity
Equity Act: A Legacy for
(H.Rept. 108-452)
provisions, specifies procedures to perform environmental
Users
reviews for transportation projects under NEPA, amends the
DOT Act of 1966 regarding protection of historic sites , and
specifies funding levels for projects intended to improve air
quality and mitigate other environmental impacts.
P.L. 108-280 (H.R. 4916)
Enacted July 30, 2004
Extended funding for highway programs until September 24,
Surface Transportation
2004 and funding for transit and safety programs until September
Extension Act of 2004, Part
30, 2004. Previous extensions were enacted under H.R. 3087,
IV.
H.R. 3850, H.R. 4219 and H.R. 4635.
S. 1072
Reported by Senate Environment Environmental provisions similar to H.R. 3550. In addition to
Safe, Accountable, Flexible
January 9, 2004
historic sites, amendments to the DOT Act of 1966 apply to
and Efficient Transportation
(S.Rept. 108-222)
publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl
Equity Act of 2003
Passed Senate Feb. 12, 2004
refuges.
(SAFETEA)
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-14

---