Order Code IB10146
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 109th Congress
Updated June 1, 2005
Coordinated by Susan R. 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
Energy and Environment: The Energy Bill
Clean Air Issues
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking Water
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Superfund and Brownfields
Surface Transportation and Environment
Chemicals: Security and Regulatory Issues
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles

---

IB10146
06-01-05
Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress
SUMMARY
Environmental protection concerns span
portation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
a wide variety of issues, including clean air,
(TEA-LU). On May 17, 2005, the Senate
water quality, chemical security, and environ-
passed its version of H.R. 3 (previously S.
mental aspects of other major issue areas such
732), the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and
as energy, transportation and defense. This
Efficient Transportation Equity Act
issue brief provides an overview of key envi-
(SAFETEA). Conferees were appointed by
ronmental issues that are receiving or may
the Senate on May 26, 2005.
receive attention in the 109th Congress.
Appropriations for the Environmental
A number of environmental measures
Protection Agency (EPA) affect many of the
have been the subject of congressional activ-
programs and issues discussed in this issue
ity. On April 21, 2005, the House passed H.R.
brief; therefore, EPA’s annual funding is an
6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the Senate
issue of perennial interest. On May 19, 2005,
Energy and Natural Resources Committee
the House passed the Interior, Environment,
approved its version of the bill May 26, 2005).
and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
An omnibus energy package, the bill contains
H.R. 2361 (H.Rept. 109-80) includes $7.71
numerous environmentally related provisions.
billion for EPA, $187.4 million (2%) more
Perhaps the most controversial include liabil-
than the President’s FY2006 request of $7.52,
ity protection for the gasoline additive methyl
and $318.5 million (4%) less than the $8.03
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a renewable fuel
billion (including a 0.8% rescission) appropri-
standard, streamlined environmental permit-
ated for FY2005. Related issues and action
ting, and opening the Arctic National Wildlife
are the subject of the first section below.
Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas explorations.
FY2006 defense authorization (H.R.
Early in the year the Senate Environment
1815 and S. 1042) and appropriations (H.R.
and Public Works Committee held hearings
2528) have been the subject of congressional
and scheduled markup of S. 131, the Clear
action; however, bills acted on thus far do not
Skies Act. However, the bill failed on a tie
contain the environmental exemptions DOD
vote March 9, 2005, owing to the contentious
requested.
nature of the debate over whether clean air
regulation would be made more effective or
As bills receive committee or floor ac-
weakened by the legislation, and whether it
tion, they will appear in a table at the end of
should include carbon dioxide. On March 16,
this report, providing a brief description of
2005, the same committee ordered reported S.
each bill and its current status. The sections on
606, the Reliable Fuels Act, which would
specific issues below contain references to
amend the Clean Air Act to ban the gasoline
more detailed CRS reports.
additive MTBE, and providing for a replace-
ment additive — ethanol.
[It should be noted that this issue brief
treats mainly pollution-related matters; for
Both the House and the Senate have
natural resource management issues, see CRS
passed transportation reauthorization bills that
Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected
contain environmental provisions. On March
Issues for the 109th Congress.]
10, 2005, the House passed H.R. 3, the Trans-
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10146
06-01-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Congress has taken action on a number of defense/environment issues. On May 26,
2005, the House passed the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act
for FY2006 (H.R. 2528), which would appropriate nearly $1.75 billion for environmental
cleanup at active, closed, and other former Department of Defense (DOD) installations. On
May 25, 2005, the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006 (H.R.
1815), which would authorize the same amount as in H.R. 2528 for cleanup at DOD sites,
and another $6.31 billion for the cleanup of former nuclear weapons sites by the Department
of Energy (DOE). On May 24, 2005, the House passed the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act for FY2006 (H.R. 2419), which would appropriate $6.47 billion for
environmental cleanup at former nuclear weapons sites, more than the authorized amount in
H.R. 1815.

The Senate Armed Services Committee reported its version of the FY2006 defense
authorization bill (S. 1042) on May 17, 2005, recommending the same authorized amount
as the House for the cleanup of DOD sites, but a lower amount of $6.19 billion for DOE’s
cleanup of former nuclear weapons sites. None of the above defense authorization and
appropriations bills contain the environmental exemptions from certain air quality and
hazardous waste cleanup requirements for military readiness activities, which DOD had
requested.
On April 21, 2005, the House passed H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. An
omnibus energy package, the bills contains numerous environmentally related provisions.
Among these, key provisions include liability protection for producers of the gasoline
additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a requirement that motor fuel contain renewable
fuel, streamlined environmental permitting, and a postponed deadline for meeting certain air
quality standards. As of this writing Senate committees are discussing various energy bill
titles.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The 109th Congress has before it a variety of disparate environmental measures. Many
of these reflect continuing consideration of issues that were before the 108th and prior
Congresses. These include issues that were considered but not enacted, as well as annually
occurring legislation on such matters as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
appropriations, and defense and environment. In light of major concerns over the current
federal budget deficit, many of the issues present difficult or potentially controversial
choices.
Environmental issues considered by Congress tend to fall into several major categories:
(1) funding issues — whether funding levels are adequate and/or focused on appropriate
priorities; in light of the current federal budget deficit, reductions in the budget request for
EPA and other programs will present difficult choices, and questions about the adequacy of
funding levels will continue to be debated in such areas as water quality infrastructure and
Superfund cleanup; (2) expanding, renewing, or refocusing existing environmental policies
or programs — consideration of proposals that would refocus air quality requirements in the
current Congress, for example; (3) environmental issues that are important elements of other
CRS-1

---

IB10146
06-01-05
major areas of concern; for example, the issue of streamlining environmental reviews in
energy and transportation reauthorization legislation, and other environmental provisions in
comprehensive energy bills, or including environmental issues in defense authorization or
appropriations; and (4) terrorism and infrastructure protection in areas such as water
infrastructure and chemical facilities.
In the 109th Congress, early action occurred on S. 131, Clear Skies legislation, originally
scheduled for markup in February but rescheduled several times for dates in March, due to
the highly contentious nature of the debate over whether clean air regulation would be
improved or weakened by the bill. Another aspect of the bill over which there were divisions
in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee — and in Congress generally —
was whether carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas contributing to climate change,
should be regulated in this legislation. Markup occurred on March 9, but the bill failed on
a tie vote in committee, which prevented it from being reported to the floor.
While the overall authorizations for most environmental protection statutes have
expired, program activities continue, as Congress has regularly appropriated funds to
implement these laws. Thus, the fact that authorizations have expired has not been a
significant impetus for legislative activity to reauthorize them. However, demands for or
constraints on funding programs will present particularly difficult choices and decisions in
the 109th Congress.
The discussion of major environmental protection issues below focuses on selected key
environmental concerns and related activity in the 109th Congress. It is not intended to
provide comprehensive coverage of all environmental issues; in particular, it does not
address issues involving public lands and natural resources (for information on the latter, see
CRS Report RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues for the 109th Congress). For an
overview of major environmental pollution control laws, see CRS Report RL30798,
Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations
(By Robert Esworthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7236)
The 109th Congress has been discussing the FY2006 appropriations for various federal
agencies since early in the session. The consideration of annual appropriations involves
numerous steps leading up to enactment. In the 109th Congress, committee hearings have
been held in the House and Senate to examine the President’s FY2006 budget request for
EPA. Following hearings, the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees mark up their
respective bills for full committee consideration. Each full committee then marks up and
reports each bill — it is only at that time that bill numbers are assigned — followed by floor
consideration.
Historically, EPA’s funding has been determined as part of a suballocation for
VA-HUD and Independent Agencies and its corresponding subcommittee. However, at the
beginning of the 109th Congress, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
reorganized their subcommittees, including placing EPA’s appropriation under the Interior
subcommittee after eliminating the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies subcommittee.
CRS-2

---

IB10146
06-01-05
On May 19, 2005, the House passed the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill, H.R. 2361 (H. Rept.109-80), providing $26.11 billion for FY2006. Title
II of H.R. 2361 as passed included $7.71 billion for EPA, $187.4 million (2%) more than the
President’s FY2006 request of $7.52 billion submitted to Congress February 7, 2005, and
$318.5 million (4%) less than the $8.03 billion (including a 0.8% rescission) appropriated
for FY2005.1 An additional $100.0 million is to be made available by “rescinding” expired
grant and contract unobligated funds previously appropriated to EPA, to increase support for
the clean water state revolving fund (SRF). Among individual programs, H.R. 2361 reflects
decreases and increases throughout the various EPA appropriations accounts when compared
to the President’s FY2006 request and the FY2005 funding levels. (For more information,
see CRS Report RS22064, Environmental Protection Agency: Highlights of FY2006
Appropriations, and CRS Report RL32856, Environmental Protection Agency:
Appropriations for FY2006.)
Most of the reductions within H.R. 2361 and in the President’s request for FY2006
relative to FY2005 were for federal assistance to states and tribes for wastewater
infrastructure projects. These funds provide loans to communities for wastewater
infrastructure, such as sewage treatment plants. H.R. 2361 includes a total of $850.0 million
(including the $100 million in funds rescinded from expired contracts, grants, etc.) for the
clean water SRF for FY2006. This amount is $120.0 million (16%) more than the $730
million requested, and $241.2 (22%) less than the $1.09 billion appropriated for FY2005.
Reducing funding for the clean water SRF has been contentious, as there is disagreement
over the adequacy of funding to meet these needs. In recent years, Congress has appropriated
significantly more funding than the Administration has requested for the clean water SRF.
In addition to water infrastructure, funding for scientific research, cleanup of hazardous
waste sites under the Superfund program, and the Brownfields program have been among the
prominent issues of debate. With regard to the Superfund program, some have advocated
an increase in funding to speed the pace of cleanup. Another point of contention has been
whether special taxes on industry should be reinstated to reduce the use of general Treasury
revenues to support the Superfund program. Other issues debated include funding for EPA’s
homeland security activities, and the extent to which funding should be earmarked for certain
activities.
Earlier in the 109th Congress, on April 28, 2005, the House and Senate agreed to the
conference report to the FY2006 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 109-62),
including budget authority (BA) allocations for the Natural Resource and Environment
function (300). This function includes several federal land management agencies and EPA.
The concurrent resolution provides the framework for the consideration of appropriations,
and its amounts are non-binding. The resolution included $30.02 billion (BA) for function
300; however, as in past years it did not specify funding among the agencies. Rather, specific
funding levels for EPA and other federal agencies are determined in the appropriations
process.
1 The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447) provided $8.09 billion for EPA,
less an across-the-board rescission of 0.8%. The rescinded amount and a $3 million supplemental
(P.L. 108-324) yielded an appropriation of $8.03 billion enacted for FY2005. For more information
on EPA’s FY2005 appropriations, see CRS Report RL32441, Environmental Protection Agency:
Appropriations for FY2005.
CRS-3

---

IB10146
06-01-05
Energy and Environment: The Energy Bill
(By Brent Yacobucci, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-9662)
In response to high energy prices, increasing energy imports, and concerns over
environmental quality, the 109th Congress is once again considering omnibus energy
legislation. The debate over a national energy policy has been ongoing since the 107th
Congress. Both the 107th and 108th Congresses were unable to complete action on an
omnibus energy bill due to the broad scope of the bills and several contentious issues that
eluded agreement. Many of these issues are again before Congress in the current energy
legislation (see discussion below).
The House version of an omnibus energy bill (H.R. 6) passed the House April 21, 2005.
As of this writing, Senate committees are considering drafts of various energy bill titles.
H.R. 6, as passed by the House, contains various provisions involving environmental
protection and regulation. Topics include the treatment of MTBE and renewable fuels,
stricter regulation of underground storage tanks, environmental exemptions for oil and gas
exploration and production, ozone compliance deadlines, and streamlining of environmental
regulations.
As passed by the House, H.R. 6 would ban the use of MTBE (a fuel additive in gasoline
found to contaminate drinking water supplies, primarily due to leaking underground storage
tanks), except in states that specifically allow its use. It would also provide a “safe harbor”
from defective liability lawsuits for MTBE and renewable fuels. This safe harbor for MTBE
was seen as a key impediment to the passage of an energy bill in the 108th Congress.
Proponents of the safe harbor contend that oxygen standards for reformulated gasoline in the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 virtually mandated the use of MTBE, while critics
contend that there were options other than MTBE, and that gasoline producers were aware
of the potential for groundwater contamination. Further, some stakeholders are concerned
that the fuels provisions of the bill would actually raise gasoline prices. An analysis by the
Energy Information Administration on a similar bill in the 108th Congress showed that the
fuels provisions could raise conventional gasoline prices by as much as 3 cents per gallon.
(For more information on MTBE, see the sections of this issue brief on “Clean Air Issues”
and “Leaking Underground Storage Tanks.”)
The House-passed bill would also streamline the process for environmental permitting
for a variety of energy projects. Further, it would postpone deadlines for compliance with
ozone pollution standards in certain areas. H.R. 6 would also provide Clean Water Act and
Safe Drinking Water Act exemptions for oil and gas exploration and production (related to
stormwater runoff and hydraulic fracturing). The above provisions are seen by some as
necessary to promote increased domestic energy supplies, while critics argue that they would
allow energy producers to sidestep environmental laws. (For further discussion, see CRS
Report RL32873, Selected Environmental Issues Related to the Omnibus Energy Bill (H.R.
6), 109th Congress.)
Clean Air Issues
(By Jim McCarthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7225)
Many of the air quality issues now under consideration are holdovers from the 108th
Congress, but they gained new impetus as a result of the election and looming judicial and
CRS-4

---

IB10146
06-01-05
legislative deadlines. Specific issues include what to do about emissions of mercury and
other pollutants from coal-fired electric power plants; whether to restrict use of the gasoline
additive MTBE and other possible changes to the reformulated gasoline program; and how
to insure the conformity of local plans for transportation and clean air. Underlying the
specific issues are broad questions regarding the role of federal versus state governments and
the appropriateness of economic versus regulatory approaches.
The Clear Skies Act (S. 131), which would establish a cap-and-trade program to control
emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides from power plants, was among the
first items on the environmental agenda of the 109th Congress. The bill was scheduled for
markup by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee March 9. But the
committee failed to approve it, on a 9-9 tie vote, in large part because of complaints that the
bill would weaken existing Clean Air Act requirements and delay emission reductions that
could be achieved under current law.
A deadline for mercury regulations has helped drive the Clear Skies debate: EPA faced
a judicial deadline of March 15, 2005, to promulgate standards for mercury emissions from
electric power plants. The agency met this deadline, but the specifics of its chosen regulation
have been widely criticized and have been challenged in court by 13 states. The agency also
finalized, on March10, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which will cap emissions of
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants in 28 eastern states and the District of
Columbia. (For more detailed discussion, see CRS Report RL32868, Mercury Emissions
from Electric Power Plants: An Analysis of EPA’s Cap-and-Trade Regulations).

Rather than promulgate these rules, the Administration would have preferred that
Congress pass the Clear Skies Act, which would replace half a dozen other Clean Air Act
regulatory programs with a market-based approach to controlling power plant pollution.
Under Clear Skies (as under the promulgated mercury and CAIR regulations), there would
be national or regional caps on emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides;
utilities would receive a set number of allowances; and a trading regime would permit
compliance through installation of pollution controls or the purchase and use of excess
allowances. The CAIR and mercury regulations mimic much of the Clear Skies’ cap-and-
trade approach, but EPA cannot remove existing Clean Air Act requirements without new
legislation. Whether to remove (or modify) such requirements as New Source Review,
deadlines for nonattainment areas, and provisions dealing with interstate air pollution are
among the key issues in the Clear Skies debate. Other issues that Congress and EPA face
include the costs and benefits of various levels of control, the availability of control
technology, and legal issues related to the mercury standard.
Besides Clear Skies, several other bills have been introduced on these issues in the
109th Congress: all of these have more stringent deadlines than the Clear Skies proposal, and
many set a cap on emissions of carbon dioxide in addition to the three pollutants included
in the Clear Skies bill. If Clear Skies returns for markup, amendments based on these bills
will likely be offered. Whether carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas associated with
climate change, would be regulated, is a key issue. Several Senators have indicated that their
support would depend on inclusion of carbon dioxide regulation, while others are strongly
opposed to including it.
CRS-5

---

IB10146
06-01-05
Like Clear Skies, other air issues that Congress faces are holdovers from the 108th
Congress, including the regulation of fuel additives used in reformulated gasoline. One
particular additive, MTBE, has contaminated groundwater in numerous states, leading 19 of
them (notably California and New York) to ban or limit its use. H.R. 6, the energy bill
passed by the House April 21, would ban MTBE nationwide, with several potential
exceptions, and would grant MTBE producers a “safe harbor” from product liability lawsuits.
S. 606, approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, would ban
MTBE sooner and would not provide MTBE producers a safe harbor. The bills also differ
on how much stimulus to provide for the potential MTBE replacement, ethanol: both would
require the use of increasing amounts of ethanol (or other renewable fuels) in motor fuels by
2012, but the Senate bill would require more.
A third set of issues seeing early action is whether to modify a requirement that state
and local transportation planners demonstrate conformity between their transportation plans
and the timely achievement of air quality standards. Failure to demonstrate conformity can
lead to a temporary suspension of federal highway funds. For additional information, see
CRS Issue Brief IB10137, Clean Air Act Issues in the 109th 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 regulates pollution in the nation’s
lakes, rivers, and coastal waters. It also 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. The
sole CWA legislation enacted by the 108th Congress was a bill to reauthorize the National
Estuary Program, H.R. 4731 (P.L. 108-399). 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 IB10142, Clean Water Act Issues in the 109th
Congress; for background, see CRS Report RL30030, Clean Water Act: A Summary of the
Law.)
Legislation to authorize funding for clean water infrastructure projects was a focus of
attention in the 108th Congress and is likely to be a prominent topic in the 109th Congress as
well. 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 high as $390 billion over the next two decades. In October 2004, the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported legislation to authorize $20
billion over five years for the act’s State Revolving Fund (SRF) program, which assists
municipal wastewater treatment projects (S. 2550). In July 2003, a House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee subcommittee had approved similar legislation (H.R. 1560). Both
bills would 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
CRS-6

---

IB10146
06-01-05
Financing Legislation: Comparison of S. 2550 and H.R. 1560.) No further action occurred
on either bill for several reasons, including controversies over the Davis-Bacon Act and
Administration opposition to funding levels in the bills. In the 109th Congress, the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has approved two bills to reauthorize existing
programs in the CWA. H.R. 624 extends Section 221 of the law, providing federal grants
for sewer overflow projects, and H.R. 1359 extends Section 220, authorizing a pilot program
to develop alternative water supply projects.
Water infrastructure funding also has been an issue in the context of budget and
appropriations. In final action on FY2005 appropriations legislation (P.L. 108-447), the
House and Senate agreed to provide $1.1 billion for clean water SRF grants ($141 million
more than in the President’s budget but $231 million less than in FY2004) and also provided
$402 million for earmarked water infrastructure projects in specified communities. The
President’s FY2006 budget requested $730 million for clean water SRF grants, which is 33%
less than was appropriated in FY2005 and 45.6% below the FY2004 funding level.
Advocates of the SRF program (especially state and local government officials) contend that
the cuts will impair their ability to carry out needed municipal wastewater treatment plant
improvement projects. Administration officials say that cuts for the SRF in FY2006 are
because Congress boosted funds above their requested level in FY2005. On May 19, the
House passed H.R. 2361, providing FY2006 appropriations for EPA. It includes $850
million for clean water SRF grants, but during debate on the bill the House rejected
amendments that would have increased funding for SRF grants. (For information, see CRS
Issue Brief IB89102, Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act.)
Safe Drinking Water
(By Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-5937)
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the principal federal statute regulating the
quality of water provided by public water systems. EPA has issued regulations covering 91
contaminants, and more rules are under development. Public water systems are required to
test and, if needed, treat their water to comply with the standards and treatment requirements
contained in these regulations. Congress last reauthorized this act in 1996, and although
funding authority for most SDWA programs expired in FY2003, broad reauthorization
efforts have not been pursued as EPA, states, and utilities continue efforts to implement the
1996 amendments and related regulations.
Several SDWA issues have received congressional attention in recent years. These
include the ability of water systems, especially small systems, to finance projects needed to
comply with federal drinking water standards (such as the revised arsenic standard); and
contamination problems caused by specific contaminants, such as methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE) and perchlorate (the key ingredient in solid rocket fuel). (See MTBE discussion in
the section below on “Leaking Underground Storage Tanks.”) Another issue has been
whether to exempt from regulation the underground injection of fluids for purposes of
hydraulic fracturing related to oil and gas production. The House-passed energy bill, H.R.
6 (Section 327), and S. 837 would do so; S. 1080 would direct EPA to regulate this practice
as needed, and would prohibit the use of diesel fuel and other currently used pollutants in
hydraulic fracturing operations. (For further discussion, see CRS Report R32873, Selected
Environmental Issues Related to the Omnibus Energy Bill (H.R. 6), 109th Congress.)
CRS-7

---

IB10146
06-01-05
As in the past Congress, legislation has been offered in the 109th Congress to address
perchlorate contamination of water supplies. H.R. 213 would require EPA to set a drinking
water standard for perchlorate by August 2007. EPA has not determined whether to develop
a standard for perchlorate, and uncertainties regarding perchlorate’s health effects and
occurrence, as well as concern about treatment technologies and potential cleanup costs, have
slowed EPA’s efforts to make such a determination. In January 2005, the National Research
Council (NRC) issued a comprehensive review of the health effects of perchlorate ingestion
and made several recommendations to EPA regarding related risk assessment. In February,
EPA adopted the NRC’s recommended reference dose for perchlorate, which translates to
a drinking water equivalent level of 24.5 parts per billion. EPA’s Superfund office plans to
issue new cleanup guidance, based on the NRC reference dose. (For more information, see
CRS Report RS21961, Perchlorate Contamination of Drinking Water: Regulatory Issues and
Legislative Actions.)

A perennial issue concerns the ability of water systems to improve infrastructure to
comply with drinking water standards and to ensure the safety of water supplies. The 1996
SDWA amendments created a drinking water state revolving loan fund (DWSRF) program
to help systems finance projects needed to meet standards and address health risks. Congress
has provided $7.7 billion for this program, including $843 million for FY2005. In H.R.
2316, the House provided $850 million for the program for FY2006, as requested. However,
a funding gap is expected to grow, as systems act to meet new standards and repair aging
infrastructure. Water infrastructure financing bills were reported in the past two Congresses,
and this issue remains on the agenda. S. 689 would establish a grant program to help small
communities comply with drinking water standards and to delay enforcement of the arsenic
standard until the program is implemented. H.R. 1315 and S. 41 would direct states to grant
temporary exemptions to eligible, small water systems from regulations for certain naturally
occurring contaminants (e.g., arsenic and radium). In the past two Congresses, broad water
infrastructure financing bills have been reported; however, given the federal budget deficit
and competing priorities, it is uncertain whether similar legislation, or a new approach, will
be considered in the 109th Congress. (For a discussion of various SDWA issues, see 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 created a leak prevention, detection, and cleanup program under the
Solid Waste Disposal Act to address a nationwide 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. Congress
provided $69.4 million from the trust fund for FY2005, and the President has requested $73
million for FY2006. The fund balance currently exceeds $2 billion. On March 31, 2005, the
President signed H.R. 1270 (P.L. 106-9), extending through September 2005 the 0.1 cent-
per-gallon motor fuels tax that supports the LUST Trust Fund.
Significant progress has been made in the tank program, but nearly 130,000 leaking tank
sites still require remediation. A key issue is that cleanup costs have increased because of
the presence of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) at thousands of LUST sites; and MTBE
CRS-8

---

IB10146
06-01-05
leaks have contaminated numerous drinking water supplies, usually at low levels. (MTBE
has been used widely to meet the 1990 Clean Air Act requirement that oxygenated gasoline
must be used in areas that fail to meet the federal ozone standard.) Another issue is that most
states have not had adequate resources to fully enforce UST leak prevention regulations.
Some states have urged Congress to increase trust fund appropriations for LUST cleanup
activities, and to allow the fund to be used to enforce the leak prevention program.
On April 21, the House passed H.R. 6, the omnibus energy bill, which would add new
leak prevention provisions to the UST regulatory program and authorize funding for the
remediation of petroleum tank leaks that involve MTBE. (These UST provisions are nearly
identical to those contained in the conference report for H.R. 6 in the 108th Congress.)
Among its provisions, the new H.R. 6 would add tank inspection and operator training
requirements, and would require EPA or a state, when determining the portion of cleanup
costs to recover from a tank owner, to consider the tank owner’s ability to pay for cleanup
and still maintain business operations. H.R. 6 would authorize the appropriation of $200
million from the LUST Trust Fund annually for five years for cleaning up leaks involving
MTBE or renewable fuels (e.g., ethanol), and another $200 million annually for five years
for EPA and states to administer the regular leaking petroleum tank cleanup program. H.R.
6 also would provide a retroactive shield from products liability lawsuits to MTBE
manufacturers. In March, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ordered
reported S. 606, the Reliable Fuels Act, which would authorize a one-time appropriation of
$200 million from the LUST Trust Fund for responding to releases of MTBE and other fuel
ethers (but not ethanol). S. 606 includes a products liability safe harbor for renewable fuels,
but not for MTBE. Both bills would allow EPA and states to use LUST funds to enforce
UST leak prevention regulations and would authorize trust fund appropriations for this
purpose. (For more information, see CRS Report RS21676, The Safe-Harbor Provision for
MTBE. See also CRS Report RL32787, MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water
Issues, and CRS Report RS21201, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Program Status
and Issues.)
Superfund and Brownfields
(By Mark Reisch, Analyst in Environmental Policy, 7-7255)
Increasing funding for cleanup of the nation’s hazardous waste sites, and expanding
exemptions from Superfund liability, may be areas of congressional interest in the 109th
Congress. The Superfund program addresses sites that pose significant threats to human
health and the environment; the brownfields effort targets less seriously contaminated sites.
Authority for the taxes on industry that brought in about $1.48 billion annually to the
Superfund Trust Fund expired in 1995. The FY2004 and FY2005 appropriations (including
rescissions, $1.258 billion and $1.247 billion, respectively) came entirely from the general
fund of the Treasury, whereas in earlier years the general fund contributed 17% to 20%, and
the balance of the appropriation was from the trust fund. The FY2006 request is for $1.279
billion, and the House approved $1.258 billion (H.R. 2361). EPA has said that lack of funds
prevented the initiation of cleanup work at 34 sites in FY2004. The agency has also said that
on average, new sites being addressed are more costly, larger, and more complex than sites
in the past.
CRS-9

---

IB10146
06-01-05
Limiting the exposure of certain parties to Superfund liability may also be examined by
Congress. The Superfund law’s stringent liability scheme often subjects a wide variety of
persons — including the present owner of a facility — to strict, joint, and several liability for
cleanup and other costs. Past Congresses have limited the liability of financial institutions
and recyclers, as well as protecting those who sent only very small quantities of hazardous
waste to a Superfund site, those who only sent municipal solid waste, and several categories
of “innocent parties.” For several years service station dealers have been seeking to expand
a limited existing exemption from liability for waste oil, and the issue may be taken up in the
109th Congress.
Appropriations for EPA’s brownfields program were $168.5 million in FY2004, and
$163.7 million in FY2005 (after rescissions both years). The administration’s FY2006
budget request is $210.1 million, and the House approved $147.5 million.
In the 109th Congress, the Financial Services Committee ordered H.R. 280 reported on
March 16, 2005. The bill would make HUD brownfield grants more accessible to smaller
communities. Also, the transportation bill, H.R. 3 (H.Rept. 109-12, parts 1 and 2), which
passed the House on March 10, 2005, would establish a pilot program to support planning
activities (including brownfield redevelopment planning) related to highway and public
transportation projects. Three other brownfield bills have been introduced. H.R. 336 and
H.R. 1237 would authorize funds for five years for the Economic Development
Administration to make grants of up to 75% of the cost of brownfield development projects.
And H.R. 1680 would allow a limited tax credit to holders of qualified brownfields cleanup
bonds. Superfund bills in the 109th Congress include H.R. 434, which would redirect $124
million per year for five years from EPA’s science and technology programs to the Superfund
program, would limit the program’s management and administrative expenditures, and would
suspend new listings of Superfund sites until all remedial actions have been completed at all
sites currently on the National Priorities List.
Surface Transportation and Environment
(By Linda Luther, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-6852)
Both the House and Senate have passed legislation to reauthorize surface transportation
programs for FY2004-FY2009.2 The House passed H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU). The Senate inserted language from S. 732, the Safe
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA), into
its version of H.R. 3, and it was passed on May 17, 2005. During the 108th Congress, the
House and Senate passed legislation (H.R. 3550 and S. 1072) with policy provisions that are
essentially identical to their respective bills passed in this session. However, conferees were
unable to reach agreement on a final bill before the 108th Congress adjourned.
During the reauthorization process, environmental issues have garnered significant
attention from both Members of Congress and interested stakeholders (e.g., state
transportation agencies, transportation construction organizations, and environmental
2 Surface transportation programs include 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).
CRS-10

---

IB10146
06-01-05
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. As a result of this concern, legislation proposed in both the House
and Senate has included a variety of environmental provisions.
Generally, those provisions propose to do one of the following: authorize funding to
eliminate, control, mitigate, or minimize regulated environmental impacts associated with
surface transportation programs or projects; or specify procedures required to be undertaken
to comply with certain environmental requirements, often with the intention of simplifying
or expediting them. In particular, both the House and Senate have proposed changes to the
procedures DOT would be required to follow to comply with certain provisions of the Clean
Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). (For additional information on
these issues, see CRS Report RL32032, Streamlining Environmental Reviews of Highway
and Transit Projects: Analysis of Legislative Proposals in the 108th Congress, CRS Report
RL32454, Environmental Provisions in Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation:
H.R. 3 and S. 732; and CRS Report RL32106, Transportation Conformity Under the Clean
Air Act: In Need of Reform?)
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 considers reauthorization proposals. The
most recent extension, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2005 (H.R. 2566),
extends funding until June 30, 2005.
Chemicals: Security and Regulatory Issues
(By Linda Schierow, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7279)
The 109th Congress is considering whether there is a 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 how facilities should address
concerns about terrorism. In the 109th Congress, two House bills would require designated
facilities to prepare vulnerability assessments and plans for increasing facility safety and/or
security and responding in the event of an emergency. H.R. 1562 would require submission
of assessments and plans to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), while H.R. 2237
would require submission to EPA. H.R. 2237 also would require consideration and use of
“inherently safer” technologies, if practicable. No bill has been introduced into the Senate
to date, but the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held a hearing
April 27, 2005. The House Homeland Security Committee scheduled a hearing for June
2005. (For more information, see CRS Report RL31530, Chemical Plant Security.)

The 109th Congress also may consider amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), so as to allow
implementation of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The
Stockholm Convention bans or severely restricts production, trade, and use of 12 POPs,
including DDT, PCBs, and other chemicals that generally are no longer in U.S. commerce.
Although the President has signed the treaty, implementing legislation is necessary prior to
CRS-11

---

IB10146
06-01-05
U.S. ratification. Discussion in the 108th Congress centered on EPA authority for rulemaking
concerning POPs (especially POPs which might be listed in future amendments to the treaty),
and the extent to which this authority should differ from EPA’s existing authority for
regulating toxic chemicals and pesticides. The Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works reported a bill, S. 1486, that proposed amendments to TSCA. A competing
proposal was considered but not acted upon by the House Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Neither the House nor
the Senate Agriculture Committee has yet held a hearing to consider amendments to FIFRA.
(For more information, see CRS Report RL32150, International Agreements on Persistent
Organic Pollutants (POPS): Background and Issues for Congress.)
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues
(By David Bearden, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-2390)
The Department of Defense (DOD) administers five programs to address the cleanup
of hazardous waste and other environmental needs on over 30 million acres of land located
on active military installations and former military properties. In addition to these activities,
the Department of Energy (DOE), as part of its overall responsibility for U.S. nuclear
weapons programs, is responsible for cleaning up contamination at former nuclear weapons
sites. Issues include the adequacy, pace, and cost of cleaning up environmental
contamination, and whether further environmental exemptions are necessary to preserve
military training capabilities.
Action is underway in the 109th Congress on legislation to authorize and appropriate
funding for national defense programs for FY2006, including DOD and DOE’s defense-
related environmental activities. As passed by the House, the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2006 (H.R. 1815) would authorize the Administration’s request of
$1.37 billion for environmental cleanup on active bases and former installations
decommissioned prior to the first round of base closing in 1988, slightly more than the
FY2005 appropriation of $1.36 billion. The House also has passed the Military Quality of
Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for FY2006 (H.R. 2528), which would provide
the House’s authorized amount of $1.37 billion. In reporting its version of the FY2006
defense authorization bill (S. 1042), the Senate Armed Services Committee authorized $1.41
billion for cleanup at these sites, with the increase devoted to former military installations.
Both H.R. 1815 and S. 1042 would authorize the Administration’s request of nearly
$378 million for cleanup at bases closed since 1988. H.R. 2528 would appropriate the same
amount. The total budget authority for this purpose would be $449 million, including
carried over funds in unobligated balances from prior year appropriations and proceeds from
the sale and lease of properties on closed bases, an increase above budget authority of $328
million for FY2005. Funds that would be authorized or appropriated in each of the above
bills for bases that may be closed in the 2005 round would be for expenses related to the
closure of only those installations, and would not be available for cleanup at bases closed
under prior rounds. Both H.R. 1815 and S. 1042 also include DOD’s requested provision
to authorize private owners of property transferred from a closed base to perform
environmental cleanup, the cost for which would be reimbursed by DOD subject to
availability of appropriations in the base closure account. (For a discussion of issues related
to cleanup and redevelopment of closed bases, see CRS Report RS22065, Military Base
Closures: Role and Costs of Environmental Cleanup.)
CRS-12

---

IB10146
06-01-05
Neither H.R. 1815, S. 1042, nor H.R. 2528 includes exemptions from air quality and
hazardous waste cleanup requirements for military activities that DOD requested. The
Department has submitted requests for similar exemptions each year since FY2003. It
argues that the exemptions are necessary to prevent possible restrictions on combat training
activities critical to military readiness, and that the exemptions would have a minimal
environmental impact. Some Members, states, environmental organizations, and
communities have opposed these exemptions, arguing that the impacts would reach beyond
what DOD has stated. They contend that the exemptions could result in potential exposure
to air pollution and hazardous substances, and thereby pose a risk to human health. (For
further discussion, see CRS Report RS22149, Exemptions from Environmental Law for the
Department of Defense: An Overview of Congressional Action.)
As in past years, there are no line-item accounts for DOD’s other environmental
activities in the defense authorization or appropriations bills for FY2006. These activities
include compliance, pollution prevention, conservation, and environmental technology.
Congress historically has granted DOD the discretion to determine the allocation of funding
for these activities primarily out of the accounts for Operation and Maintenance,
Procurement, and Research and Development. The Administration has proposed to allocate
a total of $2.12 billion from these accounts for FY2006 for the above environmental
activities, subject to availability of appropriations. DOD reports that it allocated $2.26
billion for these activities for FY2005.
In addition to funding for DOD, H.R. 1815 and S. 1042 would authorize funding for
DOE’s cleanup of former nuclear weapons sites, although in differing amounts. H.R. 1815
would authorize $6.31 billion for these activities, whereas S. 1042 would authorize $6.19
billion. The Administration had requested $6.02 billion. Congress appropriated $6.81
billion for FY2005. As passed by the House, the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act for FY2006 (H.R. 2419) would provide $6.47 billion for cleanup of
former nuclear weapons sites, more than authorized in either H.R. 1815 or S. 1042. H.R.
2419 also would combine the two existing accounts that fund these activities, the Defense
Site Acceleration Completion account and the Defense Environmental Services account, into
one Defense Environmental Cleanup account. (For further discussion, see the
“Environmental Management” section in CRS Report RL32852, Energy and Water
Development: FY2006 Appropriations)

Among the prominent issues regarding the cleanup of former nuclear weapons sites has
been how to safely dispose of high-level radioactive wastes stored in underground tanks.
The 108th Congress approved targeted authority to permanently dispose of some of these
wastes at the Idaho National Laboratory and the Savannah River site by sealing them in the
tanks with a cement-like “grout.” (For further discussion, see CRS Report RS21988,
Radioactive Tank Wastes: Disposal Authority in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2005.)
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles
(By Brent Yacobucci, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-9662)
The development of alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles has emerged
as a key issue in Congress. Advanced technology vehicles, such as hybrids and fuel cell
CRS-13

---

IB10146
06-01-05
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 in legislatively supporting vehicle and fuel development, and promoting their
entry into the marketplace.
As noted above, the 109th Congress is considering comprehensive energy legislation,
similar to unfinished legislation in the 108th Congress. As passed by the House April 21,
2005, H.R. 6 would authorize increased funding for hydrogen and fuel cell research, establish
tax credits for the purchase of lean-burn vehicles, and promote biofuels. A key component
of H.R. 6, a renewable fuels standard (RFS), would require the use of 5 billion gallons of
renewable fuel in gasoline by 2012. Further, the bill grants blenders of renewable fuels and
MTBE (another gasoline additive) a “safe harbor” from defective product liability. Similar
liability protection for MTBE was included in the energy bill in the 108th Congress, and was
cited as one of the impediments to the bill’s passage. On March 16, 2005, the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works ordered reported S. 606, the Reliable Fuels
Act. This bill would require the use of 6 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012, and
would also grant safe harbor protection to renewable fuels, but not MTBE. On March 25,
2005, in markup on a draft energy bill, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources (ENR) agreed to an amendment to require an RFS of 8 billion gallons by 2012.
The 109th Congress is also considering reauthorization of the highway authorization
bill, TEA-21 (see above discussion on “Surface Transportation and Environment”). On
March 10, 2005, the House passed its version of H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users. Among other provisions, the House bill would reauthorize funding for
various projects, including advanced technology and alternative fuel transit buses. Further,
the House bill would allow states to exempt certain alternative fuel and high-efficiency
vehicles from high occupancy vehicle (HOV) restrictions. The Senate version of H.R. 3,
which passed May 17, 2005, would also provide funding for bus projects and grant states the
authority to exempt certain vehicles from HOV restrictions. In addition, the Senate version
establish a 50-cent-per-gallon tax credit for the sale of alternative fuels.
On October 22, 2004, the President signed P.L. 108 -357 (H.R. 4520), the American
Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Among other provisions, the act eliminates the existing tax
exemption for ethanol-blended gasoline and replaces it with a refundable tax credit. The law
also establishes tax credits for the production and use of biodiesel fuel.
A key component of the Bush Administration’s environmental goals is focused on
research on hydrogen fuel and fuel cells — through the Hydrogen Fuel and FreedomCAR
initiatives. For FY2005, Congress appropriated a total of $264 million for these initiatives;
the Administration has requested a total of $283 million for FY2006. Funding for these is
considered in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill and the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill. (For further discussion, see CRS Issue Brief IB10128,
Alternative Fuels and Vehicles: Issues in Congress.)
CRS-14

---

IB10146
06-01-05
Table 1. Action on Environmental Legislation in the 109th Congress
Bill Status
Purpose
H.R. 3
Passed the House March 10, 2005 Among other provisions, would
Transportation Equity Act:
(H.Rept. 109-12).
amend the Clean Air Act conformity
A Legacy for Users
Passed the Senate May 17, 2005
provisions, and specify procedures
to perform environmental reviews
under NEPA for transportation
[S. 732, the Safe, Accountable,
projects. Would amend the DOT
Flexible and Efficient
Act of 1966 regarding protection of
Transportation Equity Act of
historic sites, and specifies funding
2005 (SAFETEA)]
levels for projects intended to
improve air quality and mitigate
other environmental impacts
H.R. 6
Passed the House
An omnibus energy bill. Various
Energy Policy Act of 2005
April 21, 2005
environmental provisions include
Ordered Reported by the Senate
expediting permitting, amendments
Energy and Natural Resources
to the Clean Air Act fuels
Committee May 26, 2005
requirements, funding for MTBE
cleanup, and liability protection for
renewable fuels producers.
H.R. 280
Ordered reported from House
Makes HUD brownfields grants
Brownfields Redevelopment
Financial Services Committee on
more accessible to smaller
Enhancement Act
March 16, 2005.
communities. Establishes a pilot
program that includes brownfield
planning.
H.R. 624
Approved by House
Amends the Clean Water Act to re-
To amend the Federal Water
Transportation and Infrastructure
authorize appropriations for sewer
Pollution Control Act to
Committee
overflow grants (sec. 221)
authorize appropriations for
May 18, 2005
sewer overflow control grants.
H.R. 1359
Approved by House
Amends the Clean Water Act to re-
To amend the Federal Water
Transportation and Infrastructure
authorize pilot program for
Pollution Control Act to extend
Committee
alternative water source projects.
the pilot program for alternative May 18, 2005
water source projects.
H.R. 1815
Passed the House May 25, 2005
Would authorize funding for
National Defense Authorization
(H.Rept. 109-89).
national defense programs,
Act for FY2006
including environmental cleanup at
active, closed, and other former
military installations, and former
defense nuclear weapons sites.
Does not include exemptions from
the Clean Air Act, Solid Waste
Disposal Act, and CERCLA that
DOD had requested.
H.R. 2361
Passed the House May 19, 2005
Funds EPA at $7.8 billion for
Interior, Environment and
(H.Rept. 109-80)
FY2006.
Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill FY2006
CRS-15

---

IB10146
06-01-05
Bill Status
Purpose
H.R. 2419
Passed the House May 24, 2005
Would appropriate funding for
Energy and Water Development (H.Rept. 109-86).
environmental cleanup at former
Appropriations Act for FY2006
defense nuclear weapons sites.
H.R. 2528
Passed the House May 26, 2005
Would appropriate funding for
Military Quality of Life and
(H.Rept. 109-95).
national defense programs,
Veterans Affairs Appropriations
including environmental cleanup at
Act for FY2006
active, closed, and other former
military installations. Does not
include exemptions from the Clean
Air Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act,
and CERCLA that DOD had
requested.
S. 131
Markup failed on a tie vote March A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to
Clear Skies Act
9, 2005.
reduce air pollution from electric
utilities through expansion of cap
and trade programs, and to alter or
delete current provisions of the
Clean Air Act applicable to electric
utilities.
S. 606
Reported by Senate Committee
Requires the use of 6 billion gallons
Reliable Fuels Act
on Environment and Public
of renewable fuel by 2012. Bans
Works on May 26, 2005
the use of MTBE
(S.Rept. 109-74).
nationwide four years after
enactment. Eliminates reformulated
gasoline oxygen requirements.
S. 732 (H.R. 3)
Approved by Senate Environment Environmental provisions similar to
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Public Works Committee on
H.R. 3. In addition to historic sites,
and Efficient Transportation
March 17, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-53). amendments to the DOT Act of
Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA) Passed as H.R. 3 May 17, 2005
1966 would apply to publicly owned
parks, recreation areas, wildlife and
waterfowl refuges.
S. 1042
Reported by the Senate Armed
Would authorize funding for
National Defense Authorization
Services Committee on May 17,
national defense programs,
Act for FY2006
2005 (S.Rept. 109-69).
including environmental cleanup at
active, closed, and other former
military installations, and former
defense nuclear weapons sites.
Does not include exemptions from
the Clean Air Act, Solid Waste
Disposal Act, and CERCLA that
DOD had requested.
CRS-16

---