Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress

Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress

Order Code IB10146
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Protection Issues
in the 109th Congress
Updated May 22, 2006
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
Table 1. 109th Congress: Environmental Legislation Passed

IB10146
05-22-06
Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress
SUMMARY
Environmental protection concerns span
2006, the FY2007 Interior, Environment, and
a wide variety of issues, including clean air,
Related Agencies appropriations bill (H.R.
water quality, chemical security, and environ-
5386). This bill would provide $7.58 billion
mental aspects of other major issue areas such
for EPA, an increase above the request of
as energy, transportation, and defense. This
$7.32 billion but less than the FY2006 appro-
issue brief provides an overview of key envi-
priation of $7.71 billion.
ronmental issues receiving attention in the
109th Congress. The attention to Hurricanes
The second session also has begun con-
Katrina and Rita involved a number of envi-
sideration of FY2007 defense authorization
ronmental concerns, including legislative
(H.R. 5122 and S. 2766) and appropriations
proposals on matters such as emergency
legislation (H.R. 5385), which include funding
waivers of environmental requirements.
for cleanup and other environmental activities
on military lands. None of these bills include
A number of environmental measures
exemptions from air quality and environmen-
have been the subject of congressional activ-
tal cleanup requirements that DOD requested.
ity, some of them as part of comprehensive

bills and laws on broader subjects such as
Early in 2005, the Senate Environment
energy and transportation. On August 8, 2005,
and Public Works Committee held hearings
President Bush signed P.L. 109-58 (H.R. 6),
and scheduled markup of S.131, the Clear
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, an omnibus
Skies Act. However, the bill failed on a tie
energy package that contains numerous envi-
vote on March 9, 2005, owing to the conten-
ronmentally related provisions. Perhaps the
tious nature of the debate over whether clean
most controversial include a renewable fuel
air regulation would be made more effective
standard and streamlined environmental per-
or weakened by the legislation and whether it
mitting.
should include the greenhouse gas carbon
dioxide. The Administration continues to
On August 10, 2005, the President signed
advocate passage of the clear skies bill.
the transportation reauthorization bill, P.L.
109-59. This law, the Safe, Accountable,
As bills receive floor action, they will be
Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity
listed at the end of this report in Table 1,
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),
which briefly describes each bill and its cur-
contains various environmental provisions.
rent status. The sections on specific issues
contain references to more detailed CRS
Appropriations for the Environmental
reports. [Note: This issue brief treats mainly
Protection Agency (EPA) affect many of the
pollution-related matters; for natural resource
programs and issues discussed in this issue
management issues, see CRS Report
brief, and the adequacy of EPA’s funding has
RL32699, Natural Resources: Selected Issues
been of perennial interest in Congress. In the
for the 109th Congress.]
second session, the House passed on May 18,
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB10146
05-22-06
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On May 18, 2006, the House passed the FY2007 Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 5386, H.Rept. 109-465). Title II of this bill includes more
than the Administration requested for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but less
than Congress enacted for the agency in FY2006.
On May 19, 2006, the House passed the FY2007 Military Quality of Life, Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 5385, H.Rept. 109-464), including
funding for cleanup of military lands. On May 11, 2006, the House passed the National
Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 (H.R. 5122, H.Rept. 109-452) . The Senate Armed
Services Committee reported its version of the bill (S. 2766, S.Rept. 109-254) on May 9,
2006. Both of the latter bills would authorize funding for cleanup on military lands and
former nuclear weapons sites, although in differing amounts, and include numerous
environmental provisions.
On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed P.L. 109-58 (H.R. 6), the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. An omnibus energy package, the bill contains numerous environmentally related
provisions. Among these, key provisions include a requirement that motor fuel contain
renewable fuel, streamlined environmental permitting, and stricter regulation of underground
storage tanks. On August 10, 2005, the President signed the transportation reauthorization
bill, P.L. 109-59. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) contains a variety of environmental provisions,
discussed in this report.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The first session of the 109th Congress saw enactment of several laws that include key
environmental provisions, and Congress currently has before it a variety of remaining
environmental measures. Many of the issues dealt with by this Congress 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.
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 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 alter air quality requirements in the
current Congress, for example; (3) environmental issues that are important elements of other
major areas of concern; for example, the issue of streamlining environmental reviews in
energy and transportation reauthorization legislation, and other environmental provisions in
energy measures, or environmental issues in defense authorization or appropriations; and (4)
security concerns, such as terrorism and infrastructure protection in areas such as water
infrastructure and chemical facilities.
CRS-1

IB10146
05-22-06
The hurricanes that damaged large areas of the U.S. Gulf Coast in late August and
September have been a major focus of congressional attention, including a number of
environmental concerns. Wide-ranging oversight and legislative efforts are examining short-
term responses to the disasters, as well as options for policies and programs that may be
needed for longer term clean-up and recovery. Among the many issues of interest are
environmental considerations related to the hurricane cleanup effort, involving a large
amount of contaminated — and uncontaminated — substances and debris; the possible need
for modification of environmental laws or rules to expedite disaster response and recovery;
and measures needed to speed delivery of assistance to restore public services, including
water infrastructure facilities. (For discussion and analysis of the environmental aspects of
hurricane-related issues and concerns, see CRS Report RS22248 and CRS Report RS22285
on water facilities and infrastructure; CRS Report RL33107 on emergency waivers of
environmental regulations; CRS Report RL33115 on cleanup issues; CRS Report RL33104
on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and hurricane response; and CRS Report
RL33117 on impacts on biological resources.)
Major attention in the first session of the 109th Congress was focused on both energy
and transportation legislation, which was enacted in 2005. Environmental provisions were
key aspects of these laws, as discussed below. Early action occurred on S. 131, Clear Skies
legislation, which was originally scheduled for markup in February but rescheduled several
times due to the contentious nature of the debate over whether clean air regulation would be
improved or weakened by the bill. Markup occurred on March 9, 2005, but the bill failed
on a tie vote in committee, which prevented it from being reported to the floor.
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, parks, and other 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)
Early in the first session, the 109th Congress eliminated the Veterans Affairs, Housing
and Urban Development (VA-HUD), and Independent Agencies appropriations
subcommittee and moved funding jurisdiction for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to the Interior subcommittee. As enacted during the first session in August 2005, Title
II of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2006 (P.L.
109-54, H.R. 2361) provided $7.73 billion for EPA. The final appropriation for the agency
was reduced to $7.71 billion, as a result of a 0.476% across-the-board rescission required in
P.L. 109-54, and a 1% government-wide rescission required in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for FY2006 (P.L. 109-148). Overall, P.L. 109-54 provided more funding
for EPA in FY2006 than the Administration’s request of $7.52 billion, but less than the
FY2005 appropriation of $8.03 billion. Among individual programs, funding decreased for
some activities, and increased for others, compared with the FY2006 request and the FY2005
appropriation. (For more information, see CRS Report RL32856, Environmental Protection
CRS-2

IB10146
05-22-06
Agency: Appropriations for FY2006, and CRS Report RS22064, Environmental Protection
Agency: FY2006 Appropriations Highlights.)
On May 18, 2006, the House passed the FY2007 Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 5386, H.Rept. 109-465). Title II of the bill includes a
total of $7.58 billion for EPA, an amount that is $261.2 million more than the President’s
request of $7.32 billion but $128.7 million less than the total FY2006 appropriation of $7.71
billion. As in the FY2006 appropriations debate, considerable attention has focused on the
adequacy of the President’s request for federal assistance to states for the clean water and
drinking water State Revolving Funds (SRFs), from which states issue loans to communities
for constructing and upgrading wastewater and drinking water infrastructure to meet federal
requirements. Also similar to the FY2006 debate, other prominent issues include the
adequacy of the President’s request for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the
Superfund program and the cleanup of commercial and industrial sites referred to as
brownfields. There also has been broad congressional interest in the adequacy of funding for
scientific research, air quality programs, and EPA’s homeland security activities. The extent
to which funding for individual grant recipients should be congressionally designated (often
referred to as earmarks) is also a continuing issue. (For more information, see CRS Report
RL33399, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations, and CRS
Report RS22386, Environmental Protection Agency: Highlights of the President’s FY2007
Request.)
Energy and Environment: The Energy Bill
(By Brent D. Yacobucci, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-9662)
After lengthy debate over U.S. energy policy, the 109th Congress enacted omnibus
energy legislation in July 2005. The debate over 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 stalemates over
several contentious issues. Many of these contentious issues were addressed in various
versions of energy legislation in the 109th Congress, although some of them were dropped
from the final version of the bill. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6) was
signed by President Bush August 8, 2005. The final version of the bill contains many
provisions involving environmental protection and regulation, including the treatment of
renewable fuels, stricter regulation of underground fuel storage tanks, and environmental
exemptions for oil and gas exploration and production.
A key component of P.L. 109-58 is a requirement that gasoline sold in the United States
must contain 7.5 billion gallons annually of ethanol and other renewable fuels by 2012. The
measure also eliminates Clean Air Act requirements for the use of oxygenates in
reformulated gasoline. The oxygenate standard led to the increased use of MTBE in
gasoline. (MTBE is a fuel additive used to increase combustion efficiency that was found to
contaminate drinking water supplies, primarily due to leaking underground fuel storage
tanks). The voluntary transition away from MTBE by gasoline suppliers in spring 2006
(along with high petroleum prices) led to historically high gasoline prices and to concerns
over the supply of ethanol for blending into gasoline. (For more information, see CRS
Report RL32865, Renewable Fuels and MTBE: A Comparison of Selected Provisions in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6), and CRS Report RL31361, “Boutique Fuels” and
Reformulated Gasoline: Harmonization of Fuel Standards.
CRS-3

IB10146
05-22-06
P.L. 109-58 provides Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act exemptions for oil
and gas exploration and production (related to stormwater runoff and hydraulic fracturing).
These provisions are seen by some as necessary to promote increased domestic energy
supplies, while critics complain that they will allow energy producers to sidestep
environmental protection requirements and may result in groundwater and surface water
pollution.
P.L. 109-58 also contains provisions on technology to address climate change. Title
XVI establishes programs to promote the adoption of technologies — and their transfer to
developing countries — to reduce greenhouse gas intensity (emissions per unit of economic
output). These provisions are similar to those adopted on the Senate floor in S.Amdt. 817.
The Senate also debated two other climate change amendments that were not included in the
final version of the bill. S.Amdt. 866 expressed the sense of the Senate that Congress should
establish mandatory, market-based limits on greenhouse gas emissions; this amendment was
passed by the Senate in a voice vote, but dropped in conference. S.Amdt. 826 would have
required mandatory emission reductions; this amendment was rejected 38-60. The House
version of H.R. 6 did not address climate change or greenhouse gas emissions. (For further
discussion, see CRS Report RL32873, Key Environmental Issues in the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6.)
Hurricanes along the gulf coast in 2005 led to fuel supply disruptions and high gasoline
and diesel prices in many areas of the country. As a result, there is increased interest in
expanding U.S. refining capacity. Although total refining capacity has increased in recent
years, the number of refineries has steadily declined, and no new U.S. refineries have been
built in decades. Many factors have discouraged investment in new refineries, and
environmental regulations have been cited as one of those factors. H.R. 3893, which passed
the House October 7, 2005, would limit the number of fuel blends across the country and
would streamline federal permitting of refineries, among other provisions. A controversial
amendment to the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review provisions was removed before
passage. (For more information on new source review, see CRS Report RS21608, Clean Air
and New Source Review: Defining Routine Maintenance.)
Clean Air Issues
(By James E. McCarthy, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7225)
The courts and the executive branch face major decisions on clean air issues in 2006,
with Congress more likely playing an oversight role. On March 17, 2006, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down an EPA rule that would have modified the New
Source Review (NSR) provisions of the Clean Air Act, exempting most equipment
replacement projects at power plants and other industrial sites from requirements to install
pollution control equipment. In a 3-0 decision, the court held that EPA’s attempt to change
the NSR regulations was “contrary to the plain language” of the act.
On January 17, 2006, EPA proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for particulate matter. The proposed standards, which were subject to public
comment until April and will be finalized in some form in September 2006, would cut the
allowable concentration of fine particles in the air averaged over 24-hour periods almost in
half, from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 35 µg/m3, avoiding several thousand
premature deaths annually. The EPA Administrator proposed to leave the annual standard
CRS-4

IB10146
05-22-06
for fine particles unchanged at 15 µg/m3, despite the recommendation of his independent
scientific advisory committee that it be reduced to 13 or 14. The committee strongly
disagrees with the Administrator’s action, and it took the unprecedented step of urging him
to reconsider the proposal. The proposed changes are expected to increase the number of
counties in nonattainment areas from 208 to at least 283. More stringent standards might
have tripled the number of counties with readings above the standard, according to the
agency.
Congress acted on several Clean Air Act (CAA) issues in legislation that it passed and
sent to the President in late July 2005. The most significant of these issues, dealing with
ethanol and reformulated gasoline (RFG), were addressed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
H.R. 6 (P.L. 109-58). The act eliminates a requirement that RFG, used in the nation’s most
polluted areas, contain at least 2% oxygen. In its place, the act requires that the total gasoline
supply contain increasing amounts of renewable fuels, a requirement of great interest to the
nation’s agricultural sector. The renewable fuel is most likely to be ethanol, which is
generally made from corn.
Congress also amended the Clean Air Act in H.R. 3 (P.L. 109-59), the transportation
bill that the President signed on August 10, 2005 (further discussed below). H.R. 3 addresses
a requirement that state and local transportation planners demonstrate “conformity” between
their transportation plans and the timely achievement of air quality standards. Under the act,
the frequency of conformity determinations and the time frame during which conformity
must be demonstrated will both be reduced. Failure to demonstrate conformity can lead to
a temporary suspension of federal highway funds.
Other Clean Air Act amendments appear to have stalled. A bill that would have
established a cap-and-trade program for emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO ), nitrogen oxides
2
(NOx), and mercury from coal-fired electric power plants was among the first items on the
agenda of the 109th Congress: S. 131 (the Clear Skies Act) was scheduled for markup by the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on March 9, 2005. But the committee
failed to approve the bill, on a 9-9 tie vote, in large part because of complaints that the bill
would weaken existing Clean Air Act requirements. Another issue in the debate was whether
to cap emissions of carbon dioxide (CO ) in addition to the other three pollutants. With Clear
2
Skies stalled, on March10, 2005, EPA finalized the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which
will cap emissions of SO and NOx from power plants in 28 eastern states and the District
2
of Columbia and establish a cap-and-trade system through regulation.
A deadline for mercury regulations helped drive the Clear Skies debate: EPA faced a
judicial deadline of March 15, 2005, to promulgate standards for power plant mercury
emissions. The agency met this deadline, but the specific regulations have been widely
criticized and are now being challenged by at least 15 states. The regulations could have been
overturned if Congress disapproved them under the Congressional Review Act. A resolution
to do so (S.J.Res.20) was defeated by a vote of 51-47 on September 13, 2005. Whether to
modify other requirements of the Clean Air Act (New Source Review, deadlines for non-
attainment areas, and provisions dealing with interstate air pollution) have also been
contentious issues. (For additional information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10137, Clean Air Act
Issues in the 109th Congress, by James E. McCarthy.)
CRS-5

IB10146
05-22-06
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.
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.)
During the first session of the 109th Congress, some legislative action occurred on
specific CWA programs. In December 2005, Congress passed H.R. 3963 (H.Rept. 109-293),
authorizing $40 million per year for six years to extend the Long Island Sound program
under Section 119 of the act. President Bush signed it on December 22 (P.L. 109-137). Also
in December, the House approved H.R. 1721 (H.Rept. 109-292), to extend the coastal water
quality program in Section 406 of the act and to authorize $30 million over six years for
coastal water quality monitoring activities. In May 2005, the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee approved bills to reauthorize two other existing CWA programs.
The bills are (1) H.R. 624 (H.Rept. 109-166), to reauthorize Section 221 of the act and
provide $1.5 billion over six years for sewer overflow projects (identical to H.R. 784 from
the 108th Congress), and (2) H.R. 1359 (H.Rept. 109-167), to extend Section 220 of the act,
authorizing a pilot program for alternative water source projects.
Legislation to authorize funding for clean water infrastructure projects has received
attention in the 109th Congress. At issue is how the federal government will help states and
cities meet 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
July 2005, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved S. 1400 (S.Rept.
109-186), authorizing federal funds for water quality and drinking water State Revolving
Fund programs. In the House, several clean water infrastructure funding bills have been
introduced (H.R. 2684, H.R. 4560) but no further action has occurred. Prospects for future
action on these legislative proposals is uncertain.
The hurricanes that damaged large areas of the U.S. Gulf Coast in August and
September 2005 have been a major focus of congressional attention. One area of interest is
restoring public services that were disabled by the storms, including water infrastructure
facilities that experienced flooding and wind damage. States and EPA are assessing needs
to repair or rebuild these facilities. On September 27, 2005, the Senate passed a bill intended
to streamline delivery of funds through existing EPA programs to repair storm-damaged
sewage treatment and drinking water plants (S. 1709). (For information, see CRS Report
RS22285, Hurricane-Damaged Drinking Water and Wastewater Facilities: Impacts, Needs,
and Response.)
CRS-6

IB10146
05-22-06
Water infrastructure funding also has been an issue in the context of the federal budget
and appropriations. In final action on FY2006 appropriations legislation for EPA (P.L. 109-
54), Congress agreed to provide $887 million for grants to capitalize clean water SRFs, $157
million more than the Administration requested, but a 18.7% reduction from the FY2005
appropriated level for this program. In addition to funds for SRF grants, the FY2006
appropriation included $281 million for congressionally earmarked water infrastructure
project grants. Congress is likely to revisit these issues, because the President’s FY2007
budget requested $687.6 million for clean water SRF grants, which is 22% less than was
appropriated in FY2006 and 37% below the FY2005 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 FY2007 are necessary because Congress
boosted funds above the requested level in FY2005 and 2006. (For additional 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 put in place regulations
covering 91 contaminants, and more rules are pending. 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.
SDWA issues receiving congressional attention 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 and radium standards); and contamination problems
caused by specific contaminants, such as the fuel additive 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.”) An issue in the first session was
whether to exempt from SDWA regulation the underground injection of fluids for purposes
of hydraulic fracturing related to oil and gas production activities. The Energy Policy Act of
2005, P.L. 109-58, Section 322, exempts all fracturing fluids, except diesel fuel, from
regulation. (For further discussion, see CRS Report RL32873, Key Environmental Issues
in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6).) 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.
The House has passed two bills, H.R. 186 and H.R. 18, to address perchlorate
contamination of groundwater in California. Companion bills, H.R. 4798/S. 2298, would
authorize grants for remediating California water supplies and sources contaminated by
perchlorate; authorize grants for developing perchlorate cleanup technologies; and express
the sense of Congress that EPA should establish a perchlorate drinking water standard. H.R.
213 would require EPA to set a drinking water standard for perchlorate in 2007. EPA has not
determined whether a national standard for perchlorate is needed, citing uncertainties
regarding perchlorate’s health risk and occurrence, and concern about the cost of treatment.
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 its draft perchlorate risk assessment. In February 2005, EPA adopted the NRC’s
CRS-7

IB10146
05-22-06
recommended reference dose for perchlorate, which translates to a drinking water equivalent
level of 24.5 parts per billion. (For more information, see CRS Report RS21961,
Perchlorate Contamination of Drinking Water: Regulatory Issues and Legislative Actions.)
A key issue concerns the ability of water systems to improve infrastructure to comply
with drinking water standards and to ensure the safety of water supplies. In 1996, Congress
created a drinking water state revolving loan fund (DWSRF) program to help systems finance
projects needed to meet standards and address health risks. For FY2006, in P.L. 109-54,
Congress provided $837.5 million for the DWSRF program. The President has requested
$841.5 million for FY2007. Despite this program, an infrastructure funding gap is expected
to grow, as systems act to meet new standards and repair aging facilities. EPA’s latest needs
survey indicates that water systems require a capital investment of $277 billion over 20 years.
S. 1400 (S.Rept. 109-186), the Water Infrastructure Financing Act, which would reauthorize
and increase funding authority for the DWSRF. Senate-passed S. 1709 would add flexibility
to the drinking water and clean water SRF programs to facilitate their use to repair water and
wastewater systems damaged by Hurricane Katrina. For information on hurricane-related
issues, see CRS Report RS22248, Federal Disaster and Emergency Assistance for Water
Infrastructure Facilities and Supplies; and CRS Report RL33115, Cleanup after Hurricane
Katrina: Environmental Considerations. (For more on SDWA issues and legislative action,
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. For
FY2005, Congress provided $69.4 million from the trust fund for EPA and states to
administer the LUST cleanup program. For FY2006, Congress provided the requested $73
million in P.L. 109-54, and then provided another $8 million in P.L. 109-148 for cleaning
up releases from tanks damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. For FY2007, the President
has requested $72.8 million. The fund balance currently exceeds $2.4 billion and it earned
some $77 million in interest during FY2005.
Although much progress has been made in the LUST cleanup program, more than
119,000 leaking tank sites still require remediation. One issue is that cleanup costs have
increased because of the presence of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) at thousands of
LUST sites; MTBE leaks have contaminated numerous drinking water supplies, usually at
low levels. (As discussed above in the section on air quality, 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 air quality standard.) Another issue is that most states
have not had adequate resources to fully enforce UST leak prevention regulations. 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.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6) extends the gas tax that supports
the LUST Trust Fund through March 2011 (§1362), and removes the Clean Air Act
CRS-8

IB10146
05-22-06
oxygenated fuel requirement that promoted greater use of MTBE. As amended by P.L. 109-
168 in January 2006, the energy act authorizes the appropriation of $200 million from the
fund annually for six years for EPA and states to address leaks involving MTBE or
renewable fuels, and another $200 million annually for six years for EPA and states to
administer the general leaking petroleum tank cleanup program. To better prevent leaks, P.L
109-58 adds new tank inspection, operator training, and other requirements to the UST
regulatory program. Although the UST subtitle of the Energy Policy Act authorizes
appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund for states to use to administer and enforce UST
leak prevention requirements; the tax extension language in the act prohibits the use of
appropriations from the trust fund for any new purposes. Consequently, the energy policy act
imposes new leak prevention requirements on the states, but prohibits the use of the Trust
Fund to support state implementation efforts. (For more information, see CRS Report
RS21201, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Program Status and Issues; CRS Report
RL32865, Renewable Fuels and MTBE: A Comparison of Selected Provisions in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6); and CRS Report RL32787, MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and
Drinking Water Issues.)
Superfund and Brownfields
(By Mark Reisch, 7-7255, and Jonathan L. Ramseur, 7-7919, Analysts in Environmental Policy)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675) established the Superfund program to clean up
contamination at sites that pose significant threats to human health and the environment. At
federal facilities, the federal agency determined to have caused the contamination pays for
the cleanup out of its budget, subject to appropriations by Congress. Although Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) are liable for cleanup costs at private sector sites, EPA’s
Superfund account pays for the cleanup of sites where there is no financially viable
responsible party.
The adequacy of funding to clean up Superfund sites has been a longstanding issue.
Findings of independent studies that cleanup has been underfunded, and the declining trend
in completing construction of cleanup remedies, have motivated support for greater
resources. The House Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies FY2007 appropriations
bill (H.R. 5386, H.Rept. 109-465), passed on May 18, 2006, would provide a total of $1.26
billion for EPA’s Superfund account (prior to transfers to other accounts). This amount is
$14.8 million more than the FY2006 appropriation, but $2.1 million less than the President’s
FY2007 request. Of the total amount included in the House bill for the Superfund account,
$832.9 million would be for “actual” (i.e., physical) cleanup of contaminated sites, $1
million less than the FY2006 appropriation and $10 million more than the President’s
FY2007 request.
In earlier years, general Treasury revenues on average accounted for 17% to 20% of the
total funding for the Superfund program, and the balance of the appropriation came from a
dedicated trust fund supported by taxes on industry. Authority for collecting these taxes
expired at the end of 1995, and the balance of the trust fund declined from a high of $3.8
billion in FY1997 to essentially zero in FY2004. Cost recoveries, penalties, and interest do
continue to contribute some revenues to the trust fund. However, these revenues have been
relatively small, resulting in the bulk of the appropriation being provided from general
Treasury revenues. There has been ongoing interest among some Members of Congress in
CRS-9

IB10146
05-22-06
reinstating Superfund taxes on industry to reduce the reliance on General Treasury revenues,
and at least three bills were introduced in the first session to reinstate the taxes, none of
which have received committee action to date. (See CRS Report RL31410, Superfund Taxes
or General Revenues: Future Funding Options for the Superfund Program.)
Numerous bills were introduced in the first session to address various cleanup issues
under Superfund, none of which has received congressional action. Four bills, including two
offered in the second session, were introduced to encourage cleanup at abandoned mines.
At least one bill was introduced to exempt gasoline service station dealers from liability for
cleanup of waste oil. Two other bills addressed health hazards from lead-based paint and
would give priority consideration to Superfund sites in awarding federal grants for
remediation of this substance. One bill was offered to exclude manure from the definition
of hazardous substance.
After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, at least four bills were introduced to address the use
of Superfund authorities to respond to public health threats from releases of hazardous
substances that may have occurred during the two storms and subsequent flooding. Two
resolutions also were introduced expressing the sense of the House and Senate that the
“crisis” of Hurricane Katrina should not be used as justification to waive or relax
environmental requirements in order to hasten redevelopment.
CERCLA also authorizes EPA to provide assistance to states and tribes for the cleanup
of abandoned, idled, or underutilized commercial and industrial sites, commonly referred to
as “brownfields.” Although brownfields typically are less contaminated than Superfund
sites, they often require cleanup to make them safe for redevelopment. The House FY2007
appropriations bill (H.R. 5386, H.Rept. 109-465) approved the President’s request of $163.3
million for FY2007 for EPA’s Brownfields program, a slight increase above the FY2006
appropriation of $162.5 million (after rescissions). Additional federal assistance for
economic redevelopment of brownfields is provided through the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD).
In addition to brownfields funding, the 109th Congress considered numerous bills
addressing the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. In the first session, P.L. 109-59
(H.R. 3) reauthorized funding for federal surface transportation programs and authorized a
pilot program to support planning activities for highway and public transportation projects,
including brownfields redevelopment planning. As passed by the House, H.R. 280 would
make HUD brownfields grants more accessible to smaller communities. Five other bills
were introduced to provide similar tax incentives, but they did not receive committee action.
In the second session, Congress passed budget reconciliation legislation that was signed
by the President on May 17, 2006 (P.L. 109-222). The House and Senate versions of this
legislation would have extended (for two years and one year, respectively) tax incentives that
encourage the redevelopment of brownfields. The tax incentives expired January 1, 2006.
However, the bill agreed to in conference, which subsequently passed both chambers, did not
extend the provisions.
CRS-10

IB10146
05-22-06
Surface Transportation and Environment
(By Linda Luther, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-6852)
On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed P.L. 109-59 (H.R. 3), the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU, also known as SAFETEA). The act authorizes federal surface
transportation programs (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) through FY2009.
During the reauthorization process, a number of environmental issues garnered
significant attention from both Members of Congress and interested stakeholders (e.g., state
transportation agencies, transportation construction organizations, and environmental
groups). This attention was due to both the impact that surface transportation projects can
have on the environment (and the possible costs associated with addressing those impacts)
and the impact that compliance with environmental requirements can have on project
delivery.
The key environmental provisions in SAFETEA generally do one of the following:
authorize funding to eliminate, control, mitigate, or minimize environmental impacts
associated with surface transportation programs or projects; or specify procedures required
to be undertaken to expedite compliance with certain environmental requirements. With
regard to the latter, environmental provisions in SAFETEA that have garnered the most
attention and debate are those that change the procedures DOT will be required to follow to
comply with the Clean Air Act’s (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) conformity requirements; to
“streamline” compliance with environmental review requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.); and to streamline compliance
with “Section 4(f)” requirements regarding the use of publicly owned parks and recreation
areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and publicly or privately owned historic sites. (For
additional information on these issues, see CRS Report RL33057, Surface Transportation
Reauthorization: Environmental Issues and Legislative Provisions in SAFETEA-LU (H.R.
3, P.L. 109-59); and CRS Report RL32106, Transportation Conformity Under the Clean Air
Act: In Need of Reform?.)
Chemicals: Security and Regulatory Issues
(By Linda-Jo Schierow, Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7279)
The 109th Congress is considering how best to ensure enhanced security against
terrorism for privately owned facilities storing or handling large quantities of potentially
dangerous chemicals. Several bills have been introduced that 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, S. 2145/H.R. 4999, and
S. 2486 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 and S. 2486
also would require consideration and use of “inherently safer” technologies, if practicable.
S. 2145/H.R. 4999 would direct DHS to establish security performance standards for
facilities based on relative risk and would allow facility owners to develop site-specific
security measures to meet those standards. Congress enacted H.R. 2360, which became P.L.
CRS-11

IB10146
05-22-06
109-90, providing appropriations for FY2006 to the DHS. The conference report for the bill
required DHS to complete a national security strategy for the chemical sector and submit a
report by February 10, 2006, on the resources needed to establish and implement security
requirements and ensure compliance by the regulated facilities. The conferees also directed
the Secretary to complete vulnerability assessments for the highest risk chemical facilities
by December 2006. Other bills aim to enhance security for agricultural businesses (S.
2052/H.R. 713) and wastewater treatment facilities (S. 1995) and to secure supplies of
ammonium nitrate, an explosive (H.R. 3197/S. 1141, H.R. 1389). (See CRS Report
RL31530, Chemical Facility Security, and CRS Report RL33043, Legislative Approaches
to Chemical Facility Security.)

Legislation also has been introduced that would 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, enabling legislation is necessary prior to U.S. ratification. Four bills have been
introduced into the 109th Congress. H.R. 3849 and S. 2042 would amend the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which governs pesticidal uses of the
chemicals. H.R. 4591 and H.R. 4800 would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), which more generally authorizes EPA regulation of U.S. commerce in chemicals.
The Administration and the chemical industry have been urging Congress to enact
implementing legislation for several years, but particular legislative provisions have been
controversial, especially with regard to proposed changes to EPA’s existing regulatory
authority for POPs under TSCA and FIFRA. (See CRS Report RS22379, Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPS): Fact Sheet on Three International Agreements and CRS Report
RL33336, Implementing International Agreements on Persistent, Organic Pollutants
(POPs): Proposed Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act, by Linda-Jo Schierow.)
Defense Environmental Cleanup and Other Issues
(By David M. Bearden, Environmental Policy Analyst, 7-2390)
The Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for cleaning up contamination and
complying with other environmental requirements on approximately 29 million acres of
military lands. 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 on former nuclear weapons sites. The first session of the 109th Congress
enacted the FY2006 appropriations bills that fund these activities, including funding for the
cleanup of closed military bases (P.L. 109-114, H.R. 2528), active installations and other
former military properties (P.L. 109-148, H.R. 2863), and former nuclear weapons sites (P.L.
109-103, H.R. 2419). The first session also enacted FY2006 defense authorization
legislation (P.L. 109-163, H.R. 1815), which included specific funding authorizations for
cleanup of military lands and former nuclear weapons sites.
Attention in the second session has turned to authorization and appropriation of funds
for FY2007. The House passed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 (H.R.
5122, H.Rept. 109-452) on May 11, 2006; the Senate Armed Services Committee reported
is version of the bill (S. 2766, S.Rept. 109-254) on May 9, 2006. Both bills would authorize
funding for cleanup on current and former military lands and former nuclear weapons sites,
although in differing amounts. Both bills also include numerous environmental provisions,
CRS-12

IB10146
05-22-06
such as a requirement for a study of the past disposal of chemical and conventional munitions
in the ocean. As reported, S. 2766 also includes a requirement for DOD to prepare a
comprehensive plan for cleaning up munitions on the land, according to time frames
specified in the bill. In addition to authorization legislation, the House passed the FY2007
Military Quality of Life, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill (H.R.
5385, H.Rept. 109-464) on May 19, 2006. This bill would appropriate funding for cleanup
of active military installations, closed bases, and other former military lands.
The adequacy of funding to clean up contamination on military lands is a long-standing
issue. Although DOD is required to clean up all contaminated lands within its jurisdiction,
closed bases have been of particular concern, because cleanup generally must occur before
the land can be transferred for civilian reuse. Most of the land on bases closed in past rounds
from 1988 through 1995 has been cleaned up and transferred for redevelopment. However,
some of the land has yet to be cleaned up and has been awaiting transfer for many years —
over a decade in some instances. The closure of additional bases approved in the 2005 round
will increase the inventory of military properties slated for civilian reuse. There has been
rising interest among affected communities in the extent to which contamination on these
properties could delay or affect the potential for economic redevelopment to replace lost jobs.
(See CRS Report RS22065, Military Base Closures: Role and Costs of Environmental
Cleanup.)
Another issue affecting DOD has been whether broader environmental exemptions than
provided in current law are necessary to preserve military training capabilities. The 107th and
108th Congresses enacted the exemptions from certain wildlife protection requirements that
DOD requested. However, Congress has not enacted exemptions from certain air quality and
hazardous waste cleanup requirements that DOD also has sought since FY2003. These
exemptions have been controversial, based on concerns about human health risks. DOD
requested these exemptions again in its FY2007 defense authorization proposal, but none of
the above FY2007 defense authorization or appropriations bills include these exemptions.
(See CRS Report RS22149, Exemptions from Environmental Law for the Department of
Defense: An Overview of Congressional Action.)
The adequacy and pace of cleanup at former nuclear weapons sites also is a long-
standing issue. DOE has disposed of substantial volumes of radioactive and hazardous
wastes and remediated contamination in buildings, soil, and groundwater at many nuclear
weapons sites. However, sites with the greatest cleanup challenges are not scheduled for
completion until more than a decade from now, with the last sites not expected to be
complete until 2035. Among the most complex and costliest needs are the removal and
disposal of high-level radioactive wastes stored in underground tanks at three sites, including
Hanford in Washington State, Savannah River in South Carolina, and the Idaho National
Laboratory. The extent to which these wastes can be removed safely from the tanks to
prepare them for closure has been of particular concern among Members of Congress,
affected states, and environmental organizations. (See CRS Report RS21988, Radioactive
Tank Wastes: Disposal Authority in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization
Act for FY2005.)
CRS-13

IB10146
05-22-06
Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles
(By Brent D. 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
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 enacted comprehensive energy legislation, similar
to unfinished legislation in the 108th Congress. Signed by President Bush August 8, 2005,
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58; H.R. 6) authorizes increased funding for
hydrogen and fuel cell research, establishes tax credits for the purchase of alternative fuel and
advanced technology vehicles, and promotes biofuels. A key component of H.R. 6, a
renewable fuels standard (RFS), requires the use of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel in
gasoline by 2012. Earlier versions of the bill would have granted blenders of renewable fuels
and MTBE (another gasoline additive) a “safe harbor” from defective product liability, but
these provisions were not included in the final bill. 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.
The 109th Congress enacted legislation to reauthorize federal highway and transit
programs. As discussed above, on August 10, 2005, President Bush signed the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (P.L. 109-59,
H.R. 3), discussed above. Among other provisions, the highway bill reauthorizes funding
for various projects, including advanced technology and alternative fuel transit buses.
Further, the bill allows states to exempt certain alternative fuel and high-efficiency vehicles
from high occupancy vehicle (HOV) restrictions.
A key component of the Bush Administration’s environmental goals focuses on research
on hydrogen fuel and fuel cells — through the Hydrogen Fuel and FreedomCAR initiatives.
For FY2006, Congress appropriated approximately $340 million for these initiatives, about
$20 million below the Administration’s request (Energy and Water Appropriations bill, P.L.
109-103). In his January 2006 State of the Union Address, President Bush also announced
a new Biofuels Initiative to promote R&D on fuels produced from biomass. The
administration is requesting $150 million for this initiative in FY2007, which is a 65%
increase above FY2006. (For further discussion, see CRS Issue Brief IB10128, Alternative
Fuels and Vehicles: Issues in Congress, by Brent D. Yacobucci.)
Recent high gasoline prices in spring 2006 have led to increased interest in alternative
fuels, especially ethanol. A rapid voluntary phase-out of MTBE by refiners, along with the
transition from winter to summer air quality specifications, put a strain on gasoline and
ethanol supplies. These supply issues raised interest in simplifying U.S. gasoline supply
system, which has been criticized as a “patchwork” or federal and state regulations. (For
more information, see CRS Report RL31361, “Boutique Fuels” and Reformulated Gasoline:
Harmonization of Gasoline Standards.) The tight supply for ethanol raised interest by some
CRS-14

IB10146
05-22-06
members in postponing the implementation of the RFS established in P.L. 109-58.
Questions were also raised on the effects of eliminating import duties for ethanol from
countries such as Brazil.
Table 1. 109th Congress: Environmental
Legislation Passed
Bill Status
Purpose
H.R. 3 (P.L. 109-59)
Signed by the President
Among other provisions, amends the
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible August 10, 2005
Clean Air Act conformity provisions,
and Efficient Transportation Conf. Report 109-203
and specifies procedures to perform
Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for
environmental reviews under NEPA
Users (SAFETEA-LU)
for transportation projects. 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
H.R. 6 (P.L. 109-58)
Signed by the President
An omnibus energy bill. Various
Energy Policy Act of 2005
August 8, 2005
environmental provisions include
Conf. Report (H.Rept. 109-190)
expediting permitting, amendments to
the Clean Air Act fuels requirements,
funding for MTBE cleanup, and a
renewable fuels standard (RFS).
H.R. 280
Passed the House
Makes HUD brownfields grants more
Brownfields Redevelopment December 13, 2005
accessible to smaller communities.
Enhancement Act
(H.Rept. 109-138)
Establishes a pilot program that
includes brownfield planning.
H.R. 1721
Passed the House
Amends the Clean Water Act to
Coastal Recreation Water Quality December 7, 2005
reauthorize coastal recreation water
and Monitoring
(H.Rept. 109-292)
quality programs (Section 406)
H.R. 1815 (P.L. 109-163)
Signed by the President
Authorized funding for national
National Defense Authorization January 6, 2006
defense programs, including
Act for FY2006
(H.Rept. 109-360)
environmental cleanup at active,
closed, and other former military
installations, and former defense
nuclear weapons sites. Did not
include exemptions from the Clean
Air Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act,
and CERCLA that DOD had
requested.
H.R. 2361 (P.L. 109-54)
Signed by the President
Funds EPA at $7.73 billion for
Interior, Environment and Related August 2, 2005
FY2006 (subject to a 0.476% across-
Agencies Appropriations Act (H.Rept. 109-188)
the-board rescission and a 1%
FY2006
government-wide recision in P.L.
109-148).
H.R. 2419 (P.L. 109-103)
Signed by the President
A p p r o p r i a t e d f u n d i n g f o r
Energy and Water Development November 19, 2005
environmental cleanup at former
Appropriations Act for FY2006
(H.Rept. 109-275)
defense nuclear weapons sites.
CRS-15

IB10146
05-22-06
Bill Status
Purpose
H.R. 2528 (P.L. 109-114)
Signed by the President
Appropriated funding for national
Military Quality of Life, Military November 30, 2005
defense programs, including
Construction, Veterans Affairs (H.Rept. 109-305)
environmental cleanup at closed
a n d R e l a t e d A g e n c i e s
military installations.
Appropriations Act for FY2006
H.R. 2863 (P.L. 109-148)
Signed by the President
Appropriated funding for national
D e p a r t m e n t o f D e f e n s e December 30, 2005
defense programs; including funding
Appropriations Act for FY2006 (H. Rept 109-359)
for cleanup of active and former
military installations. Included a 1%
government-wide recision and
reallocated $8 million to EPA for
responding to leaking underground
storage tanks in areas affected by
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
H.R. 3893
Passed the House
A bill to expedite the construction of
Gasoline for America’s Security October 7, 2005
new U.S. refining capacity. Among
Act of 2005
(H.Rept. 109-244)
other provisions the bill would
streamline federal permitting and
limit the number of fuel blends
nationwide.
H.R. 3963 (P.L. 109-137)
Signed by the President
Amends the Clean Water Act to
Long Island Sound Authorization December 22, 2005
reauthorize the Long Island Sound
of Appropriations
(H.Rept. 109-293)
Program (Sec. 119)
H.R. 5122
Passed the House
Would authorize funding for national
National Defense Authorization May 11, 2006
defense programs, including cleanup
Act for FY2007
(H.Rept. 109-452)
on military lands and former nuclear
weapons sites. Includes numerous
other environmental provisions, but
does not include exemptions from air
quality and cleanup requirements
DOD requested.
H.R. 5385
Passed the House
Would appropriate funding for
FY2007 Military Quality of Life, May 18, 2006
military and other activities, including
Veterans Affairs, and Related (H.Rept. 109-464)
cleanup on military lands. Does not
Agencies appropriations bill
include exemptions from air quality
and cleanup requirements DOD
requested.
H.R. 5386
Passed the House
Would appropriate funding for the
FY2007 Interior, Environment, May 19, 2006
Environmental Protection Agency
a n d R e l a t e d A g e n c i e s (H.Rept. 109-465)
(EPA) and numerous other agencies.
appropriations bill
S. 1709
Passed by Senate September 27, Adds flexibility to the clean water
Gulf Coast Emergency
2005 (no written report)
and drinking water state revolving
Water Assistance Act
fund programs to facilitate use of
funds to repair water infrastructure
damaged by Hurricane Katrina or
related conditions.
S. 2020
Passed the Senate
Budget reconciliation legislation.
Tax Relief Act of 2005
November 11, 2005
Includes provisions that would extend
(no written report)
incentives for the cleanup of
brownfields.
CRS-16