Congress in 1983: Much Oversight, Little Legislation

Kenneth L. Rosenbaum

Editors' Summary: This Comment surveys the environmental activity of the first session of the 98th Congress. Congress' oversight of the executive branch contributed to headline-grabbing changes in the administration of federal programs. But while busy checking the initiatives of the Reagan Administration, Congress enacted no major new environmental laws, despite proposals before it in the areas of air quality, water quality, hazardous waste, toxics, nuclear energy, public lands, and natural resources. Several of the proposals, notably the bills to reauthorize the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, made real progress and await further action in the second session.

[14 ELR 10005]

Nineteen eighty-three should prove to have been a turning point for the current administration's environmental policy, and the Congress is in large part responsible. In a year that Congress lost the legislative veto,¹ it proved that it still has the tools to keep rein on administrative action. Congressional oversight hearings led to the 1983 change in leadership at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),² and Congress provided much of the pressure that drove Secretary of the Interior Watt to resign.³ Through the appropriations process, Congress reduced proposed cutbacks in environmental programs while putting strong restraints on public lands development.⁴

While busy checking the administration's initiatives, Congress offered few of its own. It had a chance to reauthorize almost every major environmental statute in 1983 but enacted few reforms.⁵ Clean air, clean water, toxic chemical, and public lands measures generated much debate but little legislation. This Comment chronicles the activities of the first session of the 98th Congress, activities that set the scene for the second session, discussed in this issue's Dialogue.⁶

Air

Clean Air Act activity exemplified Congress' ability to check the agencies, but inability to amend the law. December 31, 1982 was the deadline for states to attain national primary ambient air quality standards or face sanctions under the Act.⁷ Like many deadlines in federal environmental legislation, this one had proved unrealistic. The Burford EPA threatened to impose strict nonattainment sanctions. Many speculated that this threat was intended to encourage congressional relaxation of the deadlines. If so, it worked after a fashion. In the EPA budget, Congress forbade any use of appropriated funds to impose sanctions.⁸

Meanwhile, Congress made no progress on revising the Clean Air Act itself, a task it has worked on the last three years. Sen. Stafford (R-Vt.), chairman of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, introduced S. 768, a comprehensive overhaul of the Act virtually identical to the proposal that the committee reported last session.⁹ The bill remains in committee. Environmental groups, which supported the bill in the 97th Congress as a compromise, decided the 98th Congress is more sympathetic to environmental issues and sought a stonger bill. Also, much controversy surrounds S. 786's acid rain provisions. Though in 1982 the acid rain debate had centered on whether to enact controls, the 1983 debate was largely over how strict controls should be and who should bear the costs. S. 768 calls for an eight-million-ton reduction in sulfur emissions. Sen. Stafford introduced an alternative bill, S. 769, calling for a 12-million-ton reduction favored by environmental interests. The Sikorski-Waxman bill in the House calls for a 10-million-ton reduction.¹⁰ [14 ELR 10006] All interests seemed to have conceded that the reductions should be federally subsidized, but factions disagreed whether the subsidy should be financed by regional or national taxes. The western states, less affected by acid rain, would like to see the central and eastern states pay for cleanup; the eastern states, particularly the Northeast where the most serious documented damage from acid rain has occurred, would like to see the midwestern states with the largest polluters bear the costs; and the midwestern states, home to many of the major sources of sulfur emissions, wish to have a nationwide tax base.¹¹ High-sulfur coal producing states want provisions preventing sources from switching to low-sulfur western coal to cut emissions.¹²

Senator Stafford's committee held hearings on the Clean Air Act revisions in late 1983. There were no hearings held in the House, where Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Dingell (D-Mich.) resisted any acid rain legislation, much to the frustration of Health and the Environment Subcommittee Chairman Waxman (D-Cal.).

Water

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported out a pair of Federal Water Pollution Control Act bills, S. 431 and S. 2006, neither of which was considered by the full Senate.¹³ S. 431 would reauthorize the Act through 1987 with numerous changes, though none sweeping. The committee considered making pretreatment requirements more flexible to accommodate communities that had developed their own programs before EPA had promulgated its categorical standards, but the committee could not agree on a specific provision.¹⁴ The bill as reported leaves the pretreatment provisions currently in force intact, and so preserves deadlines for complying with the present pretreatment standards.¹⁵ S. 431 blocks EPA water quality policy proposals by codifying existing anti-degradation guidelines and making it difficult for states to downgrade existing water quality standards. In addition, it would strengthen requirements that states with water bodies heavily polluted with toxics impose controls more stringent than best available technology.¹⁶ The bill also would put tighter controls on ocean discharges,¹⁷ and force EPA to promulgate sewage sludge management regulations.¹⁸

S. 431 amends the judicial review provision of the Act to clarify the venue rules, to extend the time for filing petitions for review to 120 days, to establish a system for randomly selecting venue when a challenge is brought in two or more circuits, and to expressly allow attorneys fees.¹⁹ The bill also amends the citizen suit provision of the Act to make it clear that a party must "partially prevail" in order to recover attorneys fees.²⁰

The second Senate bill, S. 2006, addresses runoff (non-point source) pollution and will be offered on the floor as an amendment to S. 431. S. 2006 requires states to adopt non-point source pollution management plans identifying trouble spots and best management practices.The bill also would provide grants to finance state programs.²¹

The House has held hearings on two similar bills, but neither version has left committee. The House was more active on other water pollution measures. It held hearings on the Safe Drinking Water Act, considering amendments to control underground injection of wastes and to require EPA to set standards for common drinking water contaminants.²² And the House passed a reauthorization of Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (the Ocean Dumping Act) requiring EPA to designate permanent ocean dumping areas and to charge dumping fees.²³

Wetlands

In 1983 Congress considered wetlands regulation in several forms. In the Clean Water Act deliberations, there were proposals both to expand and to curtail § 404 dredge and fill regulation. The Senate committee left § 404 untouched.²⁴ The House has yet to decide. The most recent proposal before the House would affirm EPA's 1980 wetland protection guidelines, thus blocking some of the Corps' proposed administrative reforms.²⁵

Earlier in the year, Secretary Watt had announced his Protect Our Wetland and Duck Resources (POWDR) proposal to purchase key wetlands and deny federal subsidies to wetlands development projects.²⁶ The House [14 ELR 10007] Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries pursued stronger legislation and reported out an "Emergency Wetlands Resources" bill.²⁷ The bill would raise funds for wetlands conservation through admission fees for national wildlife refuges and higher duck stamp prices. The bill also would accelerate the National Wetlands Inventory and would call for a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan and a Wetlands Conservation Fund to be shared with states with wetlands programs. The bill awaits further scrutiny from the House Interior committee.

The House also passed a 10-year extension of the Wetlands Loan Act to allow the Secretary of the Interior to borrow against future duck stamp revenues to finance wetlands acquisition. The Senate preferred to postpone long-term extension of the Act until consideration of the Emergency Wetlands Resources bill. In the closing days of the session the two houses agreed to a one-year extension of the Act, postponing further consideration until 1984.²⁸

Hazardous Waste

Though Congress reauthorized no major environmental bills, it came close to reauthorizing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The House passed a RCRA bill, H.R. 2867, after four days of floor debate.²⁹ The Bill would lower the administratively created small generator exemption from 1,000 kilograms per month to 25, bringing perhaps 500,000 more generators under RCRA's control.³⁰ The bill also would clamp restrictions on land disposal of wastes;³¹ restrict use of waste as fuel;³² set time limits for EPA to process treatment, storage, and disposal permits;³³ and limit export of wastes.³⁴ Addressing issues raised in recent suits, the bill would amend RCRA § 7003 to declare that the response power of the government applies to hazards at inactive and abandoned disposal sites.³⁵ Like S. 431, the bill endorses the partially prevailing party standard for attorneys fees awards.³⁶ The bill would expand citizen standing to sue, allowing such suits directly against waste handlers to abate imminent hazards.³⁷ The bill would encourage EPA to expand its listing of hazardous wastes and to regulate used-oil handling.³⁸ And the bill would create a National Groundwater Commission to investigate the problems of groundwater pollution.³⁹ The Senate Environment Committee reported out a similar though less stringent bill, S. 757,⁴⁰ but it did not reach the floor by session's end.

Toxic and Hazardous Substances

On other toxics issues, Congress made far less progress. It did pass a one year extention of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),⁴¹ but the short extension was merely a device to postpone debate on substantive amendments until next session.

Many amendments to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) surfaced, but none received serious consideration.⁴² Most of the proposals would extend CERCLA five to 10 years; several would increase the size of the Superfund. The Schneider-Wyden bill proposed to change the funding of the Superfund from a tax on chemical feedstocks to a tax on waste disposal.⁴³

Several proposals for victim compensation programs went into the hopper, most based at least in part on the CERCLA § 301(e) study group's recommendations.⁴⁴ During the last month of the session, Rep. Florio (D-N.J.), chairman of the Commerce, Transportation and Tourism Subcommittee, introduced a major victim compensation package as an amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).⁴⁵ The bill would establish a federal cause of action with strict, market-share liability for toxic chemical injury. Rep. Florio also introduced a detailed TSCA reauthorization bill.⁴⁶

Public Lands

The most dramatic public lands action centered around Secretary Watt's leasing programs. The September 20, 1983 Senate defeat for Watt's coal leasing program⁴⁷ was a powerful spur towards his resignation. That vote represented only one of several restrictions on Watt's programs in the Interior Department appropriations bill.⁴⁸ The bill blocks outer continental shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing off parts of California, Massachusetts, and Florida.⁴⁹ The appropriations bill also bans mineral [14 ELR 10008] leasing in wilderness areas and bans all coal leasing until 90 days after a commission reports on the present program.⁵⁰ In the 1984 continuing resolution, Congress banned leases in wildlife refuges pending new leasing regulations and an environmental impact statement (EIS) by the Fish and Wildlife Service.⁵¹

Wilderness was an active concern in 1983. Federally owned roadless areas can be developed only if the managing agency has done an adequate EIS assessing the area's wilderness potential or if Congress has released the area from the EIS requirement.⁵² The executive branch's seeming inability to do legally adequate assessments has preserved most roadless areas as de facto wildernesses. The current administration seems bound to do adequate studies and open lands to development, so wilderness advocates have stepped up their pressure on Congress to preserve lands. In 1983 Congress considered many wilderness bills but passed only the small, noncontroversial ones.⁵³ The largest bills, making wilderness and nonwilderness designations for entire western states, still are pending.⁵⁴ The House, led by Rep. Seiberling (D-Ohio), chairman of the Public Lands and National Parks Subcommittee, generally favored bills with generous additions to the wilderness system and with provisions for restudying undeveloped lands again in the 1990s.⁵⁵ The Senate, led by Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman McClure (R-Idaho), has favored less-inclusive bills, in some cases with further wilderness consideration postponed until the next century.⁵⁶

Two other controversial public lands bills received consideration and still are alive. One is S. 49, the Alaska Hunting bill, which allows sport hunting in five million acres of national parkland in Alaska. The environmental community sees the bill as an attempt to renege on the land use compromises set out in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980.⁵⁷ The bill is out of committee awaiting floor action in the Senate.⁵⁸ The other controversial bill is H.R. 2379, the National Park System Protection bill, which would require federal lands adjacent to national parks to be managed with an eye toward preserving park values. The bill has passed the House and awaits action in the Senate.⁵⁹

Nuclear Energy

The 1983 legislative news on nuclear energy was Congress' inaction on several controversial measures. Notably, Congress failed to vote continued funding for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor despite the urgings of Senate Majority Leader Baker.⁶⁰

Less well-publicized was Congress' failure to pass a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reauthorization. Bills were introduced in both chambers, but neither reached the floor.⁶¹ As a result, the NRC's authority to grant temporary, low-power operating licenses to plants undergoing licensing proceedings expired at the end of 1983.⁶²

Also, Sen. McClure briefly encouraged the Senate to bail out the troubled Washington Public Power Supply System nuclear plants. The plant financing provisions were attached to the Interior appropriations bill but later withdrawn when senators concluded that such a major commitment required careful study prior to action.⁶³

Government Organization and Spending

Congressional oversight of Superfund implementation brought media attention and political heat to the leadership of EPA.⁶⁴ In March, Administrator Burford resigned amidst charges that her top aides were guilty of foot-dragging partisan politics, and perjury. At the height of the uproad, Congress considered proposals to reorganize EPA into an independent commission, but these bills made no progress.⁶⁵ One reason was that the Agency was under completely new management by the end of the session.

On May 17, 1983 the Senate confirmed William Ruckelshaus as Administrator.⁶⁶ In August, Congress passed a Ruckelshaus bill restructuring Agency administration and creating three new assistant administrator positions.⁶⁷ By December, when Rita Lavelle, Burford's head of the Superfund program, was convicted of perjury and obstruction of congressional investigations, 12 Ruckelshaus appointees had taken over key administrative positions at EPA, the first time since 1981 that no major posts at the Agency were vacant.⁶⁸

[14 ELR 10009]

Besides bringing in new management, Ruckelshaus persuaded the administration to ask for more money for the Agency. The Carter Administration had left EPA a $1.35-billion operating budget for 1981.⁶⁹ The current administration had proposed a $948-million budget for 1984.⁷⁰ In June the House approved a $1.3-billion budget,⁷¹ but when the Senate approved Ruckelshaus' request of $1.1 billion, the House acceded to the lower figure.⁷²

The Department of the Interior (DOI) also got new leadership, and Congress played a part in the changeover. The General Accounting Office, a watchdog arm of Congress, accused DOI's coal leasing policies of disposing of federal mineral rights for less than their market value. In the Interior Department appropriations bill, Congress called for a commission to investigate Secretary Watt's coal leasing program.⁷³ In early fall the Senate voted to impose a moratorium on leasing.⁷⁴ Shortly thereafter, the Secretary made his infamous remarks about the makeup of the coal commission, and his political support evaporated. A resolution calling for Watt's resignation was attached to an unrelated bill in the Senate. The bill received strong Republican support,⁷⁵ but never came to a vote: Watt resigned on October 9.

Though Congress strongly repudiated Secretary Watt and stymied some of his policies in appropriations bills, it never denounced his policies directly. A resolution calling for a reversal of Watt policies, introduced by Sen. Johnston (D-La.) after Watt's resignation, failed to reach the floor in the hectic final weeks of the session.⁷⁶ Congress barely left itself time to confirm William Clark as Watt's successor.⁷⁷

The Interior Department appropriations bill,⁷⁸ discussed in part above,⁷⁹ passed while Watt was still in office. Besides confounding Watt's mineral leasing programs, the bill kept alive several programs the administration tried to shrink or kill with reduced funding. Congress added $ 90 million to the $ 65-million request for park and refuge acquisition funds and $75 million to the zero request for state land purchase programs. The bill provides an unrequested $10 million to continue the Youth Conservation Corps and an extra $100 million for a total $1.35 billion for the Forest Service. The bill provided only one-sixth the funding requested for land sales. All told, the bill appropriated $3.95 billion compared with a requested $3.62 billion and a fiscal 1983 appropriation of $4.2 billion.⁸⁰ In addition to the moneys appropriated in the Interior Department bill, DOI will have $942 million to spend on water projects funded in the Energy and Water appropriation.⁸¹

Natural Resource Bills

Congress acted on two significant bills concerning private use of natural resources. The first was Rep. Udall's (D-Ariz.) coal pipeline bill, which the House defeated.⁸² Coal can be pulverized and mixed with water to form a slurry and piped for long distances relatively inexpensively. Coal-slurry pipeline developers need the government's power of eminent domain in order to secure rights-of-way across the property of their competitors, the rail-roads; Udall's bill would have made that power available. Pipelines are controversial, first because they use a great deal of water. Although the water need not be pure and can be partially recovered at the other end of the line, water users at pipeline origins see pipelines as a threat to their supply. Second, pipelines would compete with rail-roads for coal-hauling business. Both sources of opposition contributed to the defeat of Udall's bill in the House.⁸³ Further attempts at pipeline legislation are unlikely in this Congress.

A second natural resource bill faired better. The Senate passed a "sodbuster" bill, S. 663, which makes crops grown on newly plowed, easily eroded lands ineligible for federal subsidies.⁸⁴ This bill had broad support from both farming and environmental groups. Environmentalists found themselves allied with fiscal conservatives, just as they were on the Coastal Barrier Resources Act⁸⁵ last session and on several pork barrel water projects this session.⁸⁶

Conclusion

The first session of the 98th Congress wrote little new environmental law. It is tempting to seek partisan explanations for this — a pro-development, Republican Senate blocking the efforts of a pro-environment, Democratic House — but on examination, party affiliations were poor predictors of environmental leanings. To be sure, there were some issues, such as wilderness designation, where Senate Republican leaders and House Democratic leaders seemed to fit this stereotype. But on other issues, acid rain for example, Senate Republicans like Stafford offered the greatest hope for a liberal bill while House Democrats like Dingell seemed to dash all hopes.

Also, it would be hard to explain Congress' performance in terms of presidential leadership or the lack of it. True, presidential support of, say, an acid rain bill would have encouraged action in the area, but Congress proved in the RCRA legislation that it could proceed without executive guidance. Neither could one blame the threat of a veto for keeping environmental legislation back. Congress showed in the appropriations bills that it was not [14 ELR 10010] afraid to buck the administration's policies; no environmental bill wask kept from the floor for fear of a veto.

One explanation for the lack of new law is limited "energy" — effort and time that legislators and lobbyists can muster for an issue. Much of the environmental energy was directed toward oversight rather than new bills. Also, much of the energy directed at new bills was countered by pressure applied by other interests. Thus wilderness and timber interests frustrated each others' attempts at wilderness legislation, and coal and utility interests fought clean air interests to a stalemate in the acid rain debate.

As others argue in this issue of News & Analysis,⁸⁷ the second session of the Congress is unlikely to be much more active than the first. Still, Congress will continue to be a powerful influence on the actions of EPA and the Interior department. And if the environment becomes an issue in the presidential campaign, the second session will surely be a sounding board for the national debate.

1. See Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 13 ELR 20663 (U.S. June 23, 1983).

2. See infra text accompanying notes 64-68.

3. See infra text accompanying notes 74-75.

4. See infra text accompanying notes 47-51, 78-81.

5. Among the acts due for reauthorization were the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7642, ELR STAT. 42201; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1376, ELR STAT. 42101; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 135-136y, ELR STAT. 42301; the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (Ocean Dumping), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1401-1445, ELR STAT. 41861; and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6987, ELR STAT. 41901.

6. Cummings, Legislative Outlook in the Senate: Finishing Unfinished Business, 14 ELR 10002 (Jan. 1984) and Ward, Legislative Outlook in the House: Only RCRA Amendments Likely, 14 ELR 10003 (Jan. 1984).

7. § 172(a), 42 U.S.C. § 7502(a), ELR STAT. 42238.

8. Pub. L. No. 98-45, Title II, 97 Stat. 219, 226 (1983).

9. The 1982 bill was S. 3041, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. See Key Late Developments, 12 ELR 05102 (1982).

10. The Sikorsky-Waxman bill is H.R. 3400. Other entries in the acid rain derby include S. 145 (Mitchell (D-Me.), 10 million tons), S. 766 (Byrd (D-W. Va.), no reduction pending further study), S. 2001 (Durenberger (R-Minn.), 10 million tons), and H.R. 4404 (D'Amours (D-N.H.), 12 million tons). [Note: All bills and reports cited in this Comment are from the 98th Congress, 1st Session unless otherwise noted.]

11. The bills introduced present several approaches for allocating costs. S. 768 has no subsidies for reductions but orders a study of possible mechanisms. Reductions are limited to 31 eastern states. H.R. 3400 proposes reduction in the 48 contiguous states, financed up to 90 percent by a tax on non-nuclear-generated electricity used in those states. S. 2001 limits reductions to the eastern states, and authorizes a 70-percent subsidy funded by a nationwide tax on sulfur and nitrogen emissions. H.R. 4404, considered a "New England bill," offers 90-percent subsidies financed by a tax on fossil-fuel-generated electricity.

12. See, e.g., 129 CONG. REC. S4667-69 (daily ed. Apr. 14, 1983) (remarks of Sen. Glenn).

13. The report on S. 431 is S. REP. NO. 233. The report on S. 2006 is S. REP. NO. 282.

14. See S. REP. NO. 233 at 4-6.

15. 40 C.F.R. pt. 403.

16. See S. REP. NO. 233 at 6-7, 17-19.

17. See id. at 7-10.

18. See id. at 10-11.

19. See id. 23-25.

20. The bill thus endorses the recent Supreme Court decision in Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 13 ELR 20664 (U.S. July 1, 1983). See Comment, The Supreme Court Limits Fee Awards in Unsuccessful Environmental Suits, 13 ELR 10244 (1983).

21. See 129 CONG. REC. S14671-72 (daily ed. Oct. 26, 1983) (remarks of Sen. Stafford).

22. H.R. 3200.

23. H.R. 1761 passed the House on Oct. 31. 129 CONG. REC. H8877-82 (daily ed. Oct. 31, 1983).

24. See S. REP. NO. 233 at 56 (indicating, by omission of any new provisions, no change to § 404).

25. H.R. 4393, introduced by Rep. Mrazek (D-N.Y.). For a discussion of the Corps' proposed reforms, see Comment, Corps Recasts § 404 Permit Program, Braces for Political, Legal Skirmishes, 13 ELR 10128 (1983).

26. POWDR was introduced as S. 978 (Chafee, R-R.I.) and H.R. 2268 (Forsythe, R-N.J.).

27. H.R. 3082; H.R. REP. NO. 440 pt. I.

28. Pub. L. No. 98-200, 97 Stat. 1378.

29. 129 CONG. REC. H6499-535 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1983); id. at H8133-68 (daily ed. Oct. 6, 1983); id. at H8889-97 (daily ed. Oct. 31, 1983); id. at H9133-84 (daily ed. Nov. 3, 1983).

30. Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Weekly Bulletin, Final Report at 15 (Nov. 18, 1983).

31. H.R. 2867 § 5.

32. Id. § 7.

33. Id. § 8.

34. Id. § 13.

35. Id. § 14. For a discussion of litigation on this issue, see Comment, RCRA's Imminent Hazard Provision and Inactive Hazardous Waste Dumps: A Reappraisal After U.S. v. Waste Industries, 13 ELR 10074 (1983).

36. H.R. 2867 § 14. See supra note 20 and accompanying text.

37. H.R. 2867 § 14.

38. Id. §§ 17, 19.

39. Id. § 31.

40. S. REP. NO. 284.

41. Pub. L. No. 98-201, 97 Stat. 1379. Bills with major FIFRA amendments, S. 1774 and H.R. 3818, are still under consideration.

42. A sampling of proposed amendments includes S. 816 (Bradley, D-N.J.) to extend the Act at current funding levels through 1990; S. 860 (Hart, D-Colo.) to expand the fund ten-fold and establish disincentives for land disposal of wastes; H.R. 1615 (La Falce, D-N.Y.) to extend the Act through 1990 with an annual five-percent increase in the fund; and H.R. 3129 (Schneider, R-R.I.) to fund revenue through a tax on land disposal of wastes.

43. H.R. 3129 (replacing an earlier version with similar provisions, H.R. 2503).

44. E.g., S. 917 (Stafford, R-Vt.); H.R. 2330 and H.R. 2482 (La Falce, D-N.Y.); H.R. 2582 (Markey, D-Mass.).

45. H.R. 4303.

46. H.R. 4304.

47. See 129 CONG. REC. S12486 (daily ed. Sept. 20, 1983).

48. H.R. 3363, Pub. L. No. 98-146, 97 Stat. 919 (1983).

49. Id. §§ 108, 109, 113, 97 Stat. at 934-38. Other bills with long-term OCS leasing bans are still pending. E.g., H.R. 2059 and S. 760, banning OCS leasing of parts of California and Massachusetts through the turn of the century.

50. Pub. L. No. 98-146 §§ 112 (coal leasing ban), 308 (leasing in wilderness ban), 97 Stat. at 937, 951-53. The commission report should be out in early 1984.

51. H.J. Res. 413. Pub. L. No. 98-151 § 137, 97 Stat. 964, 981 (1983).

52. See California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753, 13 ELR 20092 (9th Cir. 1982); see generally McCloskey and Desautels, A Primer on Wilderness Law and Policy, 13 ELR 10278 (1983).

53. The only bill enacted was Pub. L. No. 98-140, 97 Stat. 901 (1983), creating the Metcalf wilderness in Montana (but not addressing statewide release). Bills under consideration include H.R. 2477 (Alabama, Sipsey wilderness); H.R. 3882 (Northern Arizona wilderness); H.R. 2452 and H.R. 2917 (Arkansas statewide); H.R. 1437, S. 5, and S. 1515 (California statewide); H.R. 9 (Florida statewide); S. 64 (Missouri, Irish wilderness); H.R. 3921 (New Hampshire statewide); H.R. 3960 (North Carolina statewide); H.R. 1149 (Oregon statewide); H.R. 2669 and H.R. 3788 (Texas statewide); S. 2155 and H.R. 4516 (Utah statewide); H.R. 4198 (Vermont statewide); S. 837 (Washington statewide); H.R. 3578 and S. 1610 (Wisconsin statewide); and S. 543 (Syoming statewide).

54. Large bills pending include the California, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming bills mentioned in the preceding note.

55. See, e.g., H.R. 1437; H.R. 1149.

56. See, e.g., S. 543.

57. Pub. L. No. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371 (1980) (codified in scattered sections of 16 U.S.C. and 43 U.S.C.).

58. S. REP. NO. 281.

59. 129 CONG. REC. H7910-35 (daily ed. Oct. 4, 1983).

60. See 129 CONG. REC. S14613-44 (daily ed. Oct. 26, 1983).

61. S. 1291 was placed on the Senate Calendar on May 16, but has seen no action. H.R. 2510 was reported out (H.R. REP. NO. 103 pts. 1 & 2) but not acted upon.

62. AEA § 192(e), 42 U.S.C. § 2242(e), ELR STAT. 41239.

63. See Environment and Energy Study Institute, Weekly Bulletin, Final Report at 21-22 (Nov. 18, 1983).

64. See generally Davis, Few Legislative Changes Made As Result of EPA Investigations, 41 CONG. Q. 2619 (1983).

65. H.R. 1582 and S. 547. See Reed, The Environmental Protection Act of 1983 — Is An Environmental Protection Commission Necessary?, 13 ELR 10064 (1983).

66. 129 CONG. REC. S6891 (daily ed. May 17, 1983).

67. Pub. L. No. 98-80, 97 Stat. 485 (1983).

68. See Davis, supra note 64 at 2620.

69. Pub. L. No. 96-526, 94 Stat. 3044, 3051-52 (1980).

70. See Davis, supra note 64 at 2621.

71. 129 CONG. REC. H3500 (daily ed. June 2, 1983).

72. Pub. L. No. 98-45, 97 Stat. 216 (1983).

73. See supra text accompanying notes 47-50.

74. 129 CONG. REC. S12486 (daily ed. Sept. 20, 1983).

75. Amendment No. 2226 to the State Department authorization bill, S. 1342. 129 CONG. REC. S12867 (daily ed. Sept. 23, 1983).

76. S. Res. 2777.

77. 129 CONG. REC. S16769-79, S16783-808 (daily ed. Nov. 18, 1983) (last day of the session).

78. Pub. L. No. 98-146, 97 Stat. 919 (1983).

79. See supra text accompanying notes 47-50.

80. The 1983 appropriation was Pub. L. No. 97-394, 96 Stat. 1966 (1982).

81. Pub. L. No. 98-50, 97 Stat. 247 (1983).

82. H.R. 1010.

83. 129 CONG. REC. H7486-522 (daily ed. Sept. 27, 1983).

84. 129 CONG. REC. S16924-33 (daily ed. Nov. 18, 1983).

85. 16 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3510.

86. See generally Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Weekly Bulletin, Final Report at 11-14 (Nov. 18, 1983).

87. See supra note 5.