Congress in 1985: Much Unfinished Business

Victoria A. Leonhart

Editors' Summary: This comment surveys the environmental activity of the first session of the 99th Congress. While Congress could have passed reauthorizations of most major environmental programs including hazardous waste management, clean water, and clean air, it focused instead on money — the budget, departmental appropriations, and tax reform. Numerous bills progressed during the session, but few actually passed — the farm bill and the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act being the notable exceptions.

[16 ELR 10034]

Nineteen eighty-five may prove to be the year when the emphasis of environmental legislation shifted from substance to budgets. Although most major pollution control laws, except the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),¹ were due or past due for reauthorization,² none were reauthorized. Only the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund),³ the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA),⁴ and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)⁵ passed both houses. The first session ended, however, with the bills either stalled in conference or awaiting conference scheduling.

On the other hand, Congress, responding to the Administration's call for fiscal restraint, passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act, which requires a balanced federal budget by 1991.⁶ No one can say how the balancing will be accomplished, but program cuts of up to 5 percent are expected for fiscal year 1986 (FY 1986).⁷ Debate over appropriations for federal departments and agencies and revisions to the tax code dominated the session, but few fiscal bills actually became law. The session ended with most federal offices operating under a continuing resolution.⁸

This Comment chronicles the activities of the first session of the 99th Congress, activities that have set the stage for the second session, which should begin with the Superfund conference.

Toxic and Hazardous Substances

CERCLA activity well illustrates the pattern of this past session: much debate but little action. The CERCLA taxing authorization expired on September 30 and initially both houses pushed to enact the new taxing authority before then. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) threatened to halt or delay cleanup at 114 Superfund sites if Congress failed to renew the tax on time. The Senate did pass its bill, S. 51, on September 26,⁹ but the House became ensnarled in inter-committee battles between the Public Works and Transportation and the Energy and Natural Resources Committees. First, the committees disagreed over which taxing scheme to use — a broad-based excise tax or a tax on petroleum and raw products. Then they disagreed on the rule to attach to the bill on the floor — whether to allow amendments or not and if so how many. Finally, on December 10, the House passed its bill, H.R. 2817.¹⁰ The conference committee, which will try to work out the differences in the bills, is expected to get under way early in the second session — assuming the various committee members can decide among themselves who will sit in conference.

The Senate bill is a $7.5 billion, five-year reauthorization based upon a broad-based manufacturers' excise tax. Compared to the House bill, it leaves EPA much discretion in CERCLA management. However, it would amend the current law to establish emergency planning for toxic [16 ELR 10035] releases and require owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities to file data sheets on chemicals located at the facilities (citizen right-to-know provision). Both of these provisions are reactions to the disaster at Bhopal. It would also increase civil penalties for violations, direct EPA to initiate comprehensive review of emergency systems for monitoring, revise the hazard ranking system for sites eligible for the national priority list, and allow EPA more flexibility in selecting alternative cleanup procedures.

The House bill is a stronger, $10.3 billion, five-year reauthorization. It is based on feedstock and waste-end taxes and general revenues and contains a strong reporting requirement for companies. Among key provisions not contained in the Senate bill are the requirement that Superfund cleanups comply with all other environmental laws, with a priority placed upon permanent treatment; the mandate to EPA to begin to clean up 600 sites over the next five years and to place an additional 1,600 sites on the national priority list, as well as prepare a report on its progress; the requirement that companies report annually on all releases of chemicals that can cause chronic health hazards; a citizen suit provision for sites that pose an "imminent danger to human health"; a provision for cleanup of leaking underground storage tanks; and a prohibition against premature settlements that shift to the public the cleanup costs for future problems. How the final bill will read is an open question, but reauthorization is expected.

In other toxics action, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee through Senator Helms (R-N.C.) introduced a simple reauthorization of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),¹¹ while Senator Proxmire (D-Wis.) and Representatives Bedell (D-Iowa) and Brown (D-Cal.) introduced substantial amendments.¹² The amendments would expand the definition of "active ingredient" to include inerts; require EPA to review the registration of pesticides based on current data on health and safety effects; suspend the use of pesticides whose original EPA registration was based on invalid data; require manufacturers to provide health and safety information to local communities; place restrictions on the export of banned pesticides; and provide for an expedited EPA emergency ban procedure. The amendments would also establish a new groundwater protection program and a citizen suit provision for either damages or injunctive relief. These amendments arose from an "agreement in principle" signed by representatives of the agricultural chemical industry and a coalition of national environmental, consumer, and labor organizations and are designed to end a 13-year impass on FIFRA amendments.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported a simple one-year reauthorization of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).¹³ Also, the House passed a bill that would extend the deadline from November 1985 to November 1986 for landfills to obtain liability insurance under RCRA requirements.¹⁴ Both bills should see further action in the next session.

Air

Again this year, Congress made no progress on revising the Clean Air Act. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held hearings on the progress of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program.¹⁵ Senator Stafford (R-Vt.) and Representative Udall (D-Ariz.) introduced bills aimed at a 10 million-ton reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions in states east of the Mississippi over the next 13 years.¹⁶ Representative Waxman (D-Cal.), Chairman of the House Health and Environment Subcommittee, probably will introduce a comprehensive nationwide acid rain control bill early in the second session calling for a 10 to 12 million-ton reduction in sulfur dioxide, a 40 percent reduction in nitric oxide by 1995, sharing of pollution control costs among power users, and protections for coal producers and midwest electric utilities. The key debate in any comprehensive acid rain legislation will be the issue of who should pay for cleanup — the polluter or everyone through a nation-wide cost sharing program.

Any real amendments to the Clean Air Act itself are probably at least two years away. A coalition of environmentalists and industry leaders has formed a steering committee, chaired by Jay Hair of the National Wildlife Federation and David Roderick of the U.S. Steel Corporation, to take a new look at the reauthorization issues. In addition, the committee is exploring the possibility of creating a Clean Air Forum where participants could present recommendations for changes to the Act. Essentially, environmentalists are looking for a more effective system for removing pollutants, and industry representatives want a more predictable, equitable system of controls.¹⁷

In reaction to the Bhopal disaster, Congressman Wirth (D-Colo.) introduced the Toxic Release Control Act,¹⁸ which would establish a new national program to safeguard the public from exposure to toxic substances in the air. It would designate 85 chemicals as hazardous air pollutants and would establish mandatory procedures for identifying new toxic air pollutants. The bill also contains both right-to-know and citizen suit provisions. The Senate does not yet have a companion bill. In response to a growing awareness of the importance of forests for both the United States and foreign countries,¹⁹ the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee reported out H.R. 2963, the Endangered Forest Research Act.²⁰ The bill would study the effects of air pollution on the growth and productivity of public and private forest reserves. Again, the Senate lags behind in introducing companion legislation.

Indoor air pollution also received attention in the Congress [16 ELR 10036] with a variety of bills introduced.²¹ Currently, Congress appears unsure whether to establish a new national program for indoor air pollution or to regulate through an existing law such as the Clean Air Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, or TSCA. Once that threshold issue is resolved, Congress will still have to decide which agency should be given primary responsibility for the program and how to regulate within a private building or home. EPA, even though it had not asked for such funds, received an appropriation to study indoor air pollution in the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Independent Agency appropriations bill.²²

Water

FWPCA amendments passed both houses before the August recess,²³ but no progress has been made since then. Both bills contain a new section, § 319, which would require each state to report on its nonpoint source pollution programs as well as identify nonpoint source water quality problem areas. The bills also would require cleanup of "hot spots,"²⁴ establish protection for estuaries through interstate management plans, prohibit ocean dumping without primary treatment, and establish tougher civil and criminal penalties. But key differences do exist between the bills: the funding formula for sewer construction grants (a program the Administration wants to abolish); the timetables for the transition to state-based revolving funds and the formula for the allocation of such funds; the renewal period of pollution discharge permits; the language for anti-backsliding when permits are renewed; and the House's proposal for a split in national pollutant discharge elimination system permits, by which five-year permits would be allowed for toxic and non-conventional pollutants, and ten-year permits for other pollutants.

Also tied up in conference, in fact waiting for a schedule to be set, are amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act.²⁵ The two bills would provide EPA with a strict schedule for setting maximum contaminate levels for drinking water and would increase the number of regulated contaminants. EPA would have to list 85 contaminants within three years of enactment. The bills have four key areas of difference. The House bill would establish a national groundwater protection program, the Senate's would not; the House bill would allow only the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to review EPA regulatory determinations, the Senate's would allow any court of appeals to review; the House bill would allow $10 million a year for state grants for planning and protection of equifers, the Senate's $20 million a year; and the House bill would establish a "rational" standard for the level of determination to list a contaminant, the Senate's a health-related standard.

Groundwater protection is also a target of attention on the Hill. Senator Mitchell (D-Me) and Representative Bustamante (D-Tex.) introduced identical bills that would provide for the protection of groundwater through state standards, planning, and protection but would require the U.S. Geological Survey and EPA to provide matching grants for program development and implementation.²⁶ The funds for the grants would be allocated by a formula based upon a state's land area, percentage of population using groundwater, the need for groundwater data, and the extent and seriousness of groundwater contamination. EPA would be required to conduct research on groundwater contamination sources such as solid and hazardous waste disposal sites and leaking underground storage tanks, to identify 100 high priority groundwater contaminants within 30 months of enactment, and supply the information to the states. States, for their part, would be required to adopt standards for compliance, create management plans, establish monitoring programs, and would be allowed to designate "special groundwater systems" with special standards, thereby classifying aquifers according to use or contaminant. The standards set would be used in Superfund or RCRA cleanup as well. Some observers believe if Congress removed the groundwater provisions from other environmental bills, such as SDWA, and collected them in a separate bill, the other bills might have an easier time of passage.

Two localized but groundbreaking water bills also passed the House. H.R. 1246 would discourage development in the floodway below the Davis Dam in California by denying federal flood protection and other subsidies.²⁷ H.R. 3113,²⁸ a landmark bill, would establish an agreement between the federal government and California state authorities to coordinate the operation of federal and state Central Valley water projects with the federal government bearing the costs of meeting the stricter federal standards. The Senate has not acted on either bill.

The House also passed H.R. 6, its omnibus water projects bill.²⁹ The Senate's version, S. 1567, has not yet received floor attention.³⁰ H.R. 6, the first water resources bill since 1976, would authorize over 230 new Army Corps of Engineers projects and for the first time would require local governments to pay between 10 and 50 percent of project costs. The bill would also establish an Environmental Protection and Mitigation Fund of $35 million to provide for mitigation before and during new construction. It would authorize up to $7.5 million for mitigation at existing projects and a special $8.2 million to $13 million mitigation fund for the Upper Mississippi System. The bill puts no ceiling on annual mitigation expenditures. H.R. 6 would also establish a cost/benefit requirement for mitigation [16 ELR 10037] projects. S. 1567 contains an even stronger cost-sharing requirement (a mandatory 50 percent) and would provide for mitigation only during actual construction as well as $7.5 million per project at existing sites with an overall national yearly ceiling of $30 million. Enactment possibilities for either bill appear slim with the costs involved, Gramm-Rudman, and the Administration's opposition. A veto appears the more likely fate.

Agriculture

Congress, paying attention to the farm crisis, passed a $52 billion farm bill, which the President signed on December 23, 1985.³¹ The Food Security Act of 1985 extends and revises agricultural price supports and related programs and contains substantial conservation provisions. The conservation title provides for a 40-million acre conservation reserve that will be phased in over the next five years.³² However, the government may reduce the total of land placed in the reserve by 25 percent for budgetary reasons. Also included in the bill are sodbuster and swampbuster provisions that deny federal farm benefits to anyone who plants any part of their crop on newly-plowed, erodible land or who drains, dredges, fills, levels, or otherwise converts wetlands. Exemptions do exist, but the law should make major strides in protecting marginal or fragile land and preventing wetland losses. It also contains a conservation compliance provision that requires farmers to implement government-approved conservation practices by 1995 and allows the government to purchase conservation easements to reduce the debts of farmers close to defaulting on Farmers Home Administration loans. The easements so purchased will be managed for wetland restoration, wildlife protection, reforestation, or recreation.

The House also acted to further protect against soil erosion. It passed a sustainable agriculture bill that would establish 48 on-farm pilot research projects to investigate the effects of a transition from energy-intensive to sustainable farming.³³ It would also establish a program to assist farmers who inter-crop,³⁴ would inventory available research material, and recommend new research. The House also passed an erosion control project for the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area.³⁵ But a bill that would have established a program to ensure the stockpiling and replacement of topsoil on public lands and federal projects failed to pass the House under suspension of the rules.³⁶ This is the sixth year that bills designed to help prevent runoff and soil erosion on federal projects, especially strip mining, have failed to pass the House. The Senate has been quiet on these issues.

Habitat

Both the Senate and the House considered habitat and wetland protection in a number of ways in the first session. The Senate, on December 4, confirmed Robert K. Dawson as Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.³⁷ The nomination had caused a great deal of controversy centered around Mr. Dawson's administration of FWPCA § 404 and his failure to use the section aggressively to protect wetlands. Further, Senator Chafee (R-R.I.) and Representative Breaux (D-La.) introduced the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act,³⁸ that would increase funds available for wetlands by increasing the price of duck stamps, authorizing entry fees (user fees) at certain designated national wildlife refuges, and, in S. 740, directing that duties collected on arms and ammunition be used for wetlands acquisition. The Act would also allow up to $50 million, transferred from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, to be used for matching grants to states. In addition, Representative Chappell (D-Fla.) introduced a bill that would require the government to classify and inventory wetland resources, to measure their degradation, and evaluate their environmental contribution.³⁹

The House passed an amendment⁴⁰ to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the law that requires federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and appropriate state fish and wildlife agencies about the effects of their projects on wildlife.⁴¹ The amendment would allow off-site and on-site mitigation measures; require agencies responsible for a federal project to provide money to the federal fish and wildlife agencies for their impact studies; require the government to prepare a study to assess the effectiveness of permit conditions; and authorize the government to enter into agreements with state and local governments and private groups to promote wildlife habitat conservation in large project development. No companion bill exists in the Senate.

Both houses have made progress on the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act.⁴² Representative Breaux (D-La.) introduced H.R. 1027, which passed the House in July.⁴³ Senator Chafee (R-R.I.) introduced S. 725 that was reported out by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in December.⁴⁴ S. 725 is a simple [16 ELR 10038] reauthorization, while H.R. 1027 would increase funding, require the implementation of a candidate species monitoring program, establish a translocation of California sea otters on a test basis, and allow for the incidental taking of marine mammals. The House bill, as passed, does not deal with several controversial issues that many environmentalists hoped would be included — limiting the taking of bald eagles on Indian reservations for traditional purposes, increasing protection for raptor species, and strengthening protection for endangered or threatened plants on private lands.⁴⁵

Other miscellaneous bills for habitat protection introduced in 1985 included H.R. 1876, to amend the Fishery Conservation and Management Act⁴⁶ to require inclusion of information on fisheries; H.R. 1406, which passed the House,⁴⁷ to reauthorize the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act⁴⁸; H.R. 1202, the Sikes Act⁴⁹ reappropriations, to authorize funds to carry out cooperative fish and wildlife conservation programs on military reservations and public lands; S. 991, which passed the Senate,⁵⁰ to provide funds for various fishery statutes; and S.J. Res. 95, to establish a national policy on the taking of predatory and scavenging snimals on public lands.

Coasts and Oceans

The coasts and oceans were the focus of some congressional attention in the session. Both houses considered bills to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act.⁵¹ The House passed H.R. 2121 in July⁵² and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee reported S. 959 in May.⁵³ The House bill would provide for increased state coastal matching funds, allow the government to review changes in coastal zone programs, and reduce funds to states not making satisfactory progress in identifying coastal resources of national significance. H.R. 2121 would also create the National Estuarine Reserve Research System from the existing estuarine sanctuaries. The Senate bill is a simple reauthorization at the current funding level (half of the 1985 appropriation). In addition, both houses saw legislation introduced to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Secretary of the Interior v. California⁵⁴ by specifying that the Department of the Interior conduct outer continental shelf (OCS) oil and gas lease sales in a manner fully consistent with approved state coastal zone management plans.⁵⁵ Members have introduced various other OCS bills both for revenue sharing and moratoriums.⁵⁶

Members also showed concern over ocean pollution in the first session. The House passed H.R. 1957, a bill to halt ocean dumping at the New York Bight Area, create a new site for authorized parties (New York and New Jersey), require that ocean disposal of sludge meet FWPCA pretreatment standards by 1986, require a restoration plan for the Bight, and ban certain harmful ocean sludge disposal 18 months after enactment.⁵⁷ Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate.⁵⁸ In addition, Senator Cranston (D-Cal.) and Representative Boxer (D-Cal.) introduced legislation that would place a three-year moratorium on ocean incineration of hazardous wastes, pending EPA's submission of a detailed report on environmental impacts and recommendation of legislation to ensure that operators of incinerator vessels and generators of wastes will be liable for damages for releases.⁵⁹

Public Lands

One busy area for Congress in 1985 was public lands. Congress passed an amendment to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act⁶⁰ to grant to the Nana Regional Corporation an easement through Cape Krusenstern National Monument for roads to mineral deposits, and to ratify a land exchange agreement between Nana and the Department of the Interior.⁶¹ The President signed the Kentucky Wilderness Act, which created the Clifty Wilderness Area in the Daniel Boone National Forest and expanded the wilderness system by approximately 13,000 acres.⁶² Members in both the House and the Senate proposed other additions to the wilderness system,⁶³ the national park system,⁶⁴ the national wildlife refuge system,⁶⁵ the national lakeshore system,⁶⁶ and the national wild and scenic river system.⁶⁷ In addition, Representative Pashayan (R-Cal.) introduced H.R. 3934, a bill that would require any federal agency charged with administration of a wild and scenic river to prepare a management plan and to be consistent in boundary measurement.

The American Conservation Corps resurfaced in Congress with changes from the measure vetoed by President Reagan in 1984.⁶⁸ The changes would cap costs and encourage greater cost sharing by the states. Other lands bills proposed would provide for a cleanup and maintenance program on federal lands through volunteer assistance,⁶⁹ would clarify treatment of mineral rights on public lands,⁷⁰ and would establish competitive oil and gas leasing for public lands.⁷¹

What failed to be introduced is the so-called range bill. The Public Rangeland Improvement Act, which set grazing fees on public lands, expired on December 31, 1985.⁷² The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior will now be able to establish the new fee schedule. Environmentalists had hoped to see a bill with higher fees, closer to the market rate, and a requirement to restore riparian zones, believing that the lower fees encourage overgrazing on these lands and thus lead to their degradation. Observers expect, especially in light of Gramm-Rudman, that the new fee structure will be higher.

Energy

The big energy news for the states from Congress concerned nuclear disposal. Both houses passed a bill that would modify implementation procedures of compacts providing for establishment and operation of regional disposal facilities for low-level nuclear wastes.⁷³ The Senate tabled its bill, S. 1578, in favor of the House bill, H.R. 1083.⁷⁴ The bill would also establish seven regional compacts: Southeast, Northeast, Northwest, Central, Central Midwest, Midwest, and Rocky Mountain. H.R. 1083 would require unsited states or regions to make significant progress toward opening their own disposal facilities by December 1992. Failure to meet certain designated deadlines could mean the loss of access to the three existing sites in Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington, unless a showing could be made that undisposed waste management might create a health hazard.

The President signed an extension of Title I and Title II of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.⁷⁵ It extends for four years the Act's oil emergency provisions, including the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The President also signed amendments to the Biomass Energy and Alcohol Fuels Act.⁷⁶ The amendments allow until September 30, 1985 for completion of negotiations on the four alcohol fuel projects with conditional loan guarantee commitments from the Department of Energy ensuring that the projects would not be cut off prematurely.

Another bill slowly making its way through Congress is one to amend the Federal Power Act.⁷⁷ The amendments would clarify what measures the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) should take to decide between private investor-owned utilities and publicly-owned power systems for hydropower licensing.⁷⁸ They would prohibit FERC from accepting new applications for small hydro licenses for two years while it studies the program. In addition, FERC would be required to make adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife an important criterion to consider in licensing or permitting new hydropower dams. FERC would also be required to consider beneficial public uses from projects such as irrigation, flood control, and water supply.

Government Organization and Spending

If any one topic dominated the first session of the 99th Congress, it was the budget — or at the end, the lack of a budget. Little legislation that would actually appropriate funds to federal agencies passed Congress or was signed by the President. He did sign an FY 1986 appropriations bill for energy and water development projects.⁷⁹ The legislation includes funds for the Garrison Diversion.⁸⁰ The President also signed the HUD and Independent Agencies FY 1986 appropriations bill.⁸¹ It includes funds for EPA ($2.4 billion) and $900 million for Superfund, only $60 million of which can be spent until the law's taxing authority is restored (it expired on September 30, 1985). The appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior and related agencies failed to be enacted.⁸² While funds for numerous programs were tied up in the budgetary battles, Congress enacted various continuing resolutions to keep the government going and projects funded. Congress closed the session with a final continuing resolution.⁸³ It provides appropriations for FY 1986 of approximately $8 billion for the Interior Department and related agencies and $2.4 billion for EPA's municipal sewage treatment plant construction grants; however, only $600 million can be spent until Congress renews the FWPCA.

Donald P. Hodel became the Secretary of the Interior,⁸⁴ John S. Herrington, the Secretary of Energy,⁸⁵ Lee M. Thomas, the Administrator of EPA,⁸⁶ Anthony J. Calio, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,⁸⁷ and James C. Miller, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.⁸⁸ The Senate approved appointments to numerous other key environmental and conservation posts.

Equal Access to Justice

Congress reauthorized the Equal Access to Justice Act, which allows attorneys fees to be awarded against the government when it acts without substantial justification.⁸⁹ The President had refused to sign the bill last session,⁹⁰ but Congress made changes in the legislation. The law provides that in determining whether the position of the government was substantially justified, a court or adjudicative officer shall evaluate both the government's arguments made during the litigation and the agency action that is the basis for the litigation. The law limits the fee inquiry to the agency action at issue and prevents inquiries outside the record. The Act's coverage is retroactive to October 1, 1984 in order to avoid having a claimant left without relief as a result of the failure to enact the reauthorization in the last Congress.

Conclusion

Regardless of how Congress acted or did not act in the first session of the 99th Congress, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings casts a shadow both behind it and on the activities of the second session. Most federal programs, whether funded through separate major appropriations bills or the continuing resolutions, will be exposed to the directive to cut $11.7 billion from the FY 1986 budget. More than half of the FY 1986 budget ($565 billion) is exempt from the cuts, including social security, aid to families with dependent children, interest on the national debt, existing contractural obligations, the operating budget of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Certain other programs, such as Medicare, can face only limited cuts. Essentially, this means that all other domestic programs, including most environmental and natural resource programs, will be cut by 4.6 percent and the vulnerable part of the military by 4.9 percent. The Gramm-Rudman formula, however, does not allow any program to be eliminated, any salary to be cut, or any military base to be closed. It will require Congress and the President to cut an additional $40 billion for the FY 1987 budget.

Many hoped the budget would be behind Congress in the second session, but now many believe that much time will be spent with interest groups fighting cuts and the balanced-budgeters sharpening their knives or scissors. However, since this is an election year, special interest, localized bills should fare well along with legislation that is seen as proenvironment. Perhaps the long overdue reauthorization of major environmental measures — CERCLA, FWPCA, SDWA, FIFRA, the Endangered Species Act — can break through the congressional logjam of the last several years.

1. 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6987, ELR STAT. 41901.

2. Among the acts due for reauthorization are the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7642, ELR STAT. 42201; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) or the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1376, ELR STAT. 42101; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 135-136y, ELR STAT. 42301; the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f-300j-10, ELR STAT. 41101; and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2629, ELR STAT. 41335.

3. 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9657, ELR STAT. 41941. See infra text accompanying notes 9-10 for a discussion of the proposed amendments.

4. See infra text accompanying notes 23-24 for a discussion of the proposed amendments.

5. See infra text accompanying note 25 for a discussion of the proposed amendments.

6. Pub. L. No. 99-177, 99 Stat. 1937.

7. At press time, the Congressional Budget Office had not yet recommended where those cuts should be made to the General Accounting Office. The Act itself, morever, has been challenged in court as an improper delegation of power by Congress.

8. Pub. L. No. 99-190, 99 Stat. 1185.

9. By a vote of 86-13, 131 CONG. REC. S12184 (daily ed. Sept. 26, 1985).

10. By a vote of 391-33, 131 CONG. REC. H11547 (daily ed. Dec. 10, 1985).

11. S. 1776. It would authorize approximately $57 million for FY 1986 and such sums as needed for FY 1987.

12. S. 1303, H.R. 2482, and H.R. 2580 respectively.

13. S. 1143, S. REP. NO. 57, 131 CONG. REC. S6248 (daily ed. May 15, 1985).

14. H.R. 3917, 131 CONG REC. H12001, H12007 (daily ed. Dec. 16, 1985).

15. The hearings were held on December 11.

16. S. 52 and H.R. 2679 respectively. In addition, Representative Solomon (R-N.Y.) introduced an acid rain bill, H.R. 3677.

17. See National Wildlife Federation Leads Effort to Break Five-Year Deadlock over Clean Air Act [16 Current Developments], ENVT. REP. (BNA) 1506 (Dec. 6, 1985).

18. H.R. 2576.

19. Bills to protect rain forests and biological diversity were introduced in both the Senate and the House — S. 1747, S. 1748, H.R. 2957, H.R. 2958, and H.R. 3973.

20. H.R. REP. NO. 334, 131 CONG. REC. H9462 (daily ed. Oct. 30, 1985). Representative Whitley (D-N.C.), the chairman of the Forest Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee, introduced a similar bill, H.R. 2631.

21. S. 1440 (designating no smoking areas in federal buildings); H.R. 2101 and S. 1198 (providing for a two-year, $3 million EPA research program for sources of indoor air pollution); and H.R. 3390 (authorizing research on the effects of radon exposure).

22. Pub. L. No. 99-160, 99 Stat. 909.

23. S. 1128, a $14 billion, five-year reauthorization with amendments, passed the Senate by a vote of 94-0 on June 13, 131 CONG. REC. S8080 (daily ed. June 13, 1985) and the House, with a substituted text of H.R. 8, a $23 billion, five-year reauthorization with amendments, by a vote of 340-83 on July 23, 131 CONG. REC. H6025 (daily ed. July 23, 1985) — differences to be resolved in conference committee.

24. "Hot spots" are areas that, even after all requirements had been met, still would be hazardous to health.

25. S. 124, passed by a voice vote on May 16, 131 CONG. REC. 6391 (daily ed. May 16, 1985), and H.R. 1605 passed under suspension of the rules on June 17. 131 CONG. REC. H4290 (daily ed. June 17, 1985).

26. S. 1836 and H.R. 3803 respectively.

27. 131 CONG. REC. H7728 (daily ed. Sept. 24, 1985).

28. 131 CONG. REC. H7296 (daily ed. Sept. 9, 1985).

29. H.R. 6 (clean bill H.R. 3670) passed by a vote of 358-60 on November 13. 131 CONG. REC. H10150 (daily ed. Nov. 13, 1985).

30. S. 1567, reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee on August 1, S. REP. NO. 126, 131 CONG. REC. S10797 (daily ed. Aug. 1, 1985), is pending before the Finance Committee.

31. Pub. L. No. 99-198, 99 Stat. 1354.

32. The conservation reserve will be formed as farmers shift designated acreage from active cropping to less intense uses such as planting of grasses, legumes, or trees, or creating habitat for wildlife. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to enter into long-term rental contracts with farmers who place their land in the reserve and provide the farmers with either rental payments in cash or in commodities for the land. In addition, the United States Department of Agriculture will provide farmers with technical assistance and cash aid for installing approved conservation practices. No farmer may receive more than $50,000 per year, apart from other farm program payments.

33. H.R. 1383 passed the House by a voice vote on July 11. 131 CONG. REC. H5591 (daily ed. July 11, 1985).

34. Inter-cropping permits a farmer to plant more than one commodity or soil-preserving crop on the same field.

35. H.R. 934 passed the House under suspension of the rules on May 13. 131 CONG. REC. H3117 (daily ed. May 13, 1985).

36. H.R. 463. 131 CONG. REC. H8928 (daily ed. Oct. 22, 1985).

37. Confirmation occurred after several days of floor debate by a vote of 60-34, 131 CONG. REC. S16864, S16896 (daily ed. Dec. 4, 1985).

38. S. 740 and H.R. 1203. S. 740 has not been reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee, but H.R. 1203 was reported out of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and was discharged by the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. H.R. REP. NO. 86, 131 CONG. REC. H3137 (daily ed. May 13, 1985).

39. H.R. 572.

40. H.R. 2704 passed the House under suspension of the rules on December 2. 131 CONG. REC. H0546 (daily ed. Dec. 2, 1985).

41. 16 U.S.C. §§ 661-666c, ELR STAT. 41801.

42. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1543, ELR STAT. 41825.

43. H.R. 1027 passed the House under suspension of the rules on July 29. 131 CONG. REC. H6466 (daily ed. July 29, 1985).

44. S. 725 was reported on December 4. 131 CONG. REC. S1456 (daily ed. Dec. 4, 1985).

45. The House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee Report, H.R. REP. NO. 124, 131 CONG. REC. H3263 (daily ed. May 15, 1985), does call upon the Fish and Wildlife Service to study alternatives for plant protection.

46. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1882, ELR STAT. 41839.

47. H.R. 1406 passed the House under suspension of the rules on July 29. 131 CONG. REC. 6475 (daily ed. July 29, 1985).

48. 16 U.S.C. §§ 2901-2911, which provides for conservation of non-game species.

49. 16 U.S.C. §§ 670a, 670f, 670g, 670o.

50. S. 991 passed the Senate on a voice vote on October 2. 131 CONG. REC. S12487 (daily ed. Oct. 2, 1985).

51. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451-1464.

52. H.R. 2121 passed the House by voice vote on July 30. 131 CONG. REC. H6795 (daily ed. July 30, 1985).

53. S. REP. NO. 71, 131 CONG. REC. S6848 (daily ed. May 22, 1985).

54. 464 U.S. 312, 14 ELR 20129 (1984).

55. S. 1057 and H.R. 1445.

56. S. 55 (revenue sharing); S. 743 and H.R. 1440 (moratorium off California and Massachusetts); and H.R. 1902 (moratorium in eastern Gulf of Mexico).

57. H.R. 1957 passed the House under suspension of the rules on December 10. CONG. REC. H11530 (daily ed. Dec. 10, 1985).

58. S. 1659 and S. 1838.

59. S. 1039 and H.R. 1295.

60. 63 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1628.

61. Pub. L. No. 99-96, 99 Stat. 460. Other bills affecting Alaska are still under consideration: H.R. 2651 (to amend § 504 of the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA), PUB. L. No. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371 (1980) codified in scatteredsections of 16 and 43 U.S.C. (to promote continued mineral development on Admiralty Island, which otherwise would be closed to such activities), and H.R. 3851 (to amend ANILCA § 901 to extend the statute of limitations for challenges to submerged land ownership).

62. Pub. L. No. 99-197, 99 Stat. 1351.

63. States with areas being considered for inclusion are, among others: California (H.R. 3884 and H.R. 3885); Colorado (S. 69 and H.R. 340); Idaho (S. 1068); Michigan (S. 1767 and H.R. 1480); Nebraska (S. 816, establishing the state's first two areas); Nevada (S. 722, H.R. 3302, and H.R. 3304); New Mexico (H.R. 3684); and Oregon (S. 1803).

64. Acadia National Park (S. 720); Nassau River Ecological Reserve (H.R. 2483); Petrified Forest National Park (H.R. 1185); and Great Basin National Park (H.R. 3302).

65. Florida Panther Wildlife Refuge (S. 893) and Eastern Shore of Virginia Wildlife Refuge (S. 585 and H.R. 1404).

66. Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (H.R. 3584) and Apostle Island National Lakeshore (H.R. 2182).

67. Cache la Poudre River (S. 1819 and H.R. 3547); Delaware River (H.R. 686); Farmington River (S. 1946 and H.R. 2191); Henrys Fork of the Snake River (S. 1803 and H.R. 2569); Niobrara River (S. 1713); and Red River Gorge (H.R. 666).

68. S. 27 and H.R. 99. See also Conner, Congress in 1984: A Mixed Bag, 14 ELR 10449 (1984).

69. S. 1888 and H.R. 701.

70. S. 811.

71. S. 373.

72. 43 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1908, ELR STAT. 41479.

73. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2021b-2021d.

74. The Senate passed the bill by a voice vote on December 19, 131 CONG. REC. S18102, S18252 (daily ed. Dec. 19, 1985) and the House passed the bill on a 378 yea vote on December 9, 131 CONG. REC. H11403, H11418 (daily ed. Dec. 9, 1985).

75. Pub. L. No. 99-58, 99 Stat. 102. The bill, H.R. 1699, passed the Senate on June 18 by a vote of 98-1, 131 CONG. REC. S8304 (daily ed. June 18, 1985), and the House on suspension of the rules, 131 CONG. REC. H5195 (daily ed. June 27, 1985).

76. Pub. L. No. 99-24, 99 Stat. 50. The bill, S. 781, passed the Senate by a voice vote on March 28, 131 CONG. REC. S3589 (daily ed. Mar. 28, 1985), and the House on a voice vote on April 2, 131 CONG. REC. H1816 (daily ed. Apr. 2, 1985).

77. 16 U.S.C. §§ 791a-825r.

78. S. 426 and H.R. 44.

79. Pub. L. No. 99-141, 99 Stat. 564. It appropriates funds for the Corps of Engineers ($2.7 billion), the Bureau of Reclamation ($777.5 million), and the Department of Energy ($11 billion).

80. While the law appropriates $41.3 million for the Diversion, the funds are frozen until Congress acts on legislation to redesign the project. Senator Andrews (R-N.D.) introduced S. 495 that would amend the Diversion project and increase protection for wetlands that might be destroyed by the project otherwise.

81. Pub. L. No. 99-160, 99 Stat. 909.

82. H.R. 3011.

83. Pub. L. No. 99-190, 99 Stat. 1185.

84. 131 CONG. REC. S1129 (daily ed. Feb. 6, 1985).

85. Id.

86. 131 CONG. REC. S1232 (daily ed. Feb. 7, 1985).

87. 131 CONG. REC. S12687 (daily ed. Oct. 4, 1985).

88. 131 CONG. REC. S12617 (daily ed. Oct. 4, 1985).

89. Pub. L. No. 99-80, 99 Stat. 183, 5 U.S.C. § 504, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, ELR STAT. 41006:1, 41007.

90. See Comment, Who Pays for Litigation: Recent Developments in Attorneys Fees Law, 15 ELR 10348 (1985).