29 ELR 10085 | Environmental Law Reporter | copyright © 1999 | All rights reserved

Going Nowhere Fast: The Environmental Record of the 105th Congress

Editors' Summary: The recently completed 105th Congress provided the nation with a legacy of unparalleled legislative inactivity. Few, if any, of the legislative initiatives earmarked as priorities passed as bitter partisan debate ruled on Capitol Hill. This Comment analyzes how such partisanship and subsequent congressional lethargy created the environmental successes, controversies, and failures of the 105th Congress. Included in this analysis is the examination of the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act and the passage of the Taxpayer Relief Act. The Comment also details the congressional debates inspired by the global climate change treaty and proposed particulate matter and ozone regulations. In addition, the Comment recounts Congress' inability to enact legislation addressing, among others, CERCLA, the ESA, regulatory reform, or electric utility deregulation. Last, the Comment considers the results of the 1998 elections and highlights the developments that bear watching in the 106th Congress.

Michael J. O'Grady is an Associate Editor of ELR-The Environmental Law Reporter. He received a J.D. from Vermont Law School in 1996 and graduated from Boston College in 1992. The author is grateful for the helpful comments of Jim Satterfield. The views expressed in this Comment are not necessarily shared by the Environmental Law Institute.

[29 ELR 10086]

When the 105th Congress began, many predicted that the narrow margin between the number of seats held by the Democrats and Republicans would hinder the legislative machine. No one, however, predicted the degree of partisan emotion and resultant legislative inaction that would dominate the House and the Senate. Content to rest on the passage of a balanced budget resolution and a massive transportation funding bill, the 105th made lots of noise as the parties clashed but rarely generated sufficient momentum for passage of significant legislation. And as legislators turned their attention to the elections and the charges brought against the President by the Office of Independent Counsel, the 105th Congress sputtered to a close with the desperate last-minute passage of a controversial appropriations bill.

This Comment analyzes the consequences of the partisan nature of the 105th Congress and its effects on environmental legislation. The Comment begins with an overview of the general acrimony that persisted between the two parties during congressional action. It then examines the principal bills that the 105th Congress considered, why certain bills succeeded, and why others failed. Finally, it considers the results of the November 1998 elections and highlights the developments that bear watching in the 106th Congress.

Overview

The 105th Congress began in January 1997 with Republicans debating the ethics of the House Speaker while fighting to maximize their majority power. The presence of a Democrat as President, however, required an elusive bipartisan cooperation for the furtherance of both the Republicans' and the Administration's agendas. Such bipartisan cooperation surfaced in 1997 as Congress hammered out a balanced budget agreement. In the second session, partisan rhetoric ruled once again amidst debate on the President's ethical controversy. As the 105th Congress progressed, Congress appeared fearful of producing any legislation lest it create its own controversy before the mid-term elections. Delay in addressing 1999 appropriations forced the Republicans to accede to the President's budget demands. Dissatisfaction with such concessions and the 1998 elections resulted in a Republican revolt that unseated the House Speaker.

Not Quite Great Expectations

The 104th Congress began with House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) wielding his power by restructuring House committees in an attempt to ensure implementation of the Republican agenda outlined in the Contract With America.¹ Conversely, the 105th Congress began with Representative Gingrich resisting calls from both Democrats and Republicans that he step down as the House legislative leader.² Representative Gingrich's tight control of legislative matters in the 104th Congress and ethics charges lodged against him inspired some legislators to demand a new leader. This demand to step down revealed the complications of the increasingly narrow margin between the Republican majority and the Democratic minority. With only 11 votes separating the parties in the House, the Republicans were vulnerable to revolt and dissension from Democrats and from within their own party, both of which occurred in the challenge to Representative Gingrich. Similarly, as would soon be proven true, the narrow margin made gathering sufficient support for Republican legislative initiatives difficult if not impossible. Partisan mudslinging predominated as Congress debated the proper sanctions to impose for Representative Gingrich's confessed improper use of tax-exempt organizations to further his political agenda, but Representative Gingrich maintained a strong base of support throughout.³ Eventually he retained his position as House Speaker, but the partisan debate did not bode well for legislative success in the 105th Congress.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) introduced a moderate Republican legislative agenda that included proposals for a balanced budget; taxpayer relief; crime control; missile defense; and one very big environmental proposal, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)⁴ reform.⁵ However, passage of any legislation on the Senate agenda required bipartisan negotiation and compromise. With the upheaval in the House and Senator Lott never steering far from the Republican line, such compromise appeared doubtful. In fact, considering the prevailing atmosphere in Congress, reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)⁶ was the only legislation that many congressional observers expected to pass.⁷

The Reform Drag

Although legislators took up several major reform measures, the parties continually clashed in committee and on the floor. Reform efforts on CERCLA, the Endangered Species Act (ESA)⁸, ISTEA, tobacco, the International Monetary Fund, Medicare, campaign finance, and other measures dragged on as parties exchanged criticism. In addition, partisan debates erupted over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) implementation of new air emissions rules and the Administration's support of a global climate change treaty. The party battles and reform efforts paused, however, with the introduction of balanced budget and taxpayer relief legislation. Although members of both parties voiced misgivings concerning the bills, Congress and the Administration cooperated long enough to pass them by the first session's summer break. Both parties welcomed praise for this accomplishment,⁹ but, in the words of Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), "with the balanced budget agreement, [29 ELR 10087] a lot of what needed to be done was done."¹⁰ And the 105th Congress would not do much else.

In the bipartisan balanced budget afterglow, President Clinton attempted to slide fast track trade negotiating authority through Congress, but he only succeeded in reawakening partisan debate, albeit with a strange twist. Momentarily siding with the Republicans, the President argued that he needed this authority, but Democrats in both Houses derided the bill. After seeking, but failing to gain support from his own party, the President pulled the bill amidst criticism that his efforts had alienated Democrats and increased partisan tension.¹¹ Such tension doomed reform efforts in the last days of the first session, but legislators assured the public that they would achieve legislative progress in the second session.

The Presidential Controversy and the Legislative Vacuum

On January 21, 1998, the nation learned that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Clinton included an interview of Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern who allegedly had engaged in sexual relations with the President.¹² President Clinton denied any "improper relationship" with Ms. Lewinsky.¹³ After speculation concerning his initial lawyerly response, the President strongly denied having an affair with Ms. Lewinsky or forcing her to lie under oath in a sexual harassment case against the President.¹⁴ Arriving after the introduction of President Clinton's legislative agenda for the second session, but before his State of the Union Address, the allegations effectively froze Congress.¹⁵ While the media frantically scrambled to cover the controversy, the Republican majority stood strangely silent as they gauged the fallout. As the President's favorability skyrocketed, however, some Republican senators called for him to resign.¹⁶

After the White House attacked the Independent Counsel for subpoenaing the President and his staff, the fires of the controversy dimmed, and Congress turned to the reauthorization and amendment of the massive highway bill ISTEA. As expected, most legislators threw their support behind the bill and the fat state funding it provided. As a result, ISTEA reauthorization passed with little opposition.¹⁷ However, the 105th Congress appeared sated with ISTEA and the balanced budget as their legacy. With the election approaching, compromise or an effort to push reform created too large a risk of attracting unseemly attention. Thus, the big ticket reform initiatives fell apart. Possible compromise on such issues as CERCLA, tobacco, the ESA, or campaign finance reform could not be found in any corner of Capitol Hill. But the shooting of police officers at the Capitol Building and the presidential controversy drew attention away from congressional inaction.

After the President's grand jury testimony, in which he admitted having had relations with Ms. Lewinsky, and the release of the Independent Counsel's report, Congress became preoccupied with talk of impeaching the President.¹⁸ In addition, depending on party affiliation, those legislators up for reelection attempted to exploit or deflect the stigma wrought by the President's actions. All reform efforts ceased and the casualties of partisanship mounted. Congress' lack of action even stunned legislators. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) claimed he had "never seen anything like it."¹⁹ And Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) blamed the problem on the President and the media when he said, "The firestorm over the Presidency has sucked all the oxygen out of the room. Without attention from the media it was hard to focus and it was hard to get the parties to negotiate."²⁰

During Congress' legislative inaction, the appropriations process fell behind schedule as legislators bitterly debated riders to the funding bills.²¹ President Clinton threatened to veto some of the bills, and, subsequently, talk of a government shutdown began. Initially, the Republicans appeared ready to challenge the President to veto their appropriations bills, but the President characterized the shutdown controversy as Republicans resisting increased educational funding. To avoid the blame and the disastrous consequences suffered by their party after the government shutdowns of 1995, Representative Gingrich and Senator Lott met with Administration representatives behind closed doors. With his new-found leverage, the President forced the Republicans to abandon their demands. Thus, the 105th Congress ended with the President victorious in goading Congress to pass an omnibus appropriations bill.

Legislative Accomplishments

Legislators began the 105th Congress with a list of environmental legislation that required reform. Partisan politics and the general legislative malaise doomed most efforts to pass any of the 105th Congress' environmental priorities.²² Althoughthe lack of reform disappointed, many unfairly labeled the 105th Congress a do-nothing Congress.²³ In fact, Congress did do some legislating, but not much. It passed several minor pieces of environmental legislation, including laws that funded congestion mitigation and air quality [29 ELR 10088] programs, eliminated a barrier to sustainable growth, allowed the encirclement method of fishing in the eastern Pacific Ocean despite some dolphin mortality, amended the concessions programs in our national parks, and provided an ESA exemption for flood repair. Legislation also defined the central purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System, governed management of fish and wildlife on military lands, and amended the Clean Air Act (CAA)²⁴ twice. Moreover, the 105th Congress' appropriations provided for Everglades restoration, but delayed implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, EPA's environmental justice guidance policy, hard-rock mining regulations, and an offshore oil royalty formula.

The Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA)

The reauthorization and amendment of ISTEA, a massive highway and transportation law, was a major priority of the 105th Congress.²⁵ As the bill that provides states with transportation funding, ISTEA attracts attention from senators and representatives, who loathe returning to their states or districts without their fair share of public works funds. As authorized in 1991, ISTEA contained the congestion mitigation and air quality (CMAQ) improvement program, which makes federal transportation funds available for reducing air pollution caused by motor vehicles, and an environmental enhancements program used for projects that provide environmentally sound transportation or historic preservation.²⁶ When the session began, key legislators questioned the necessity of both the CMAQ and the enhancements programs, and several legislators proposed eliminating one or both of them.²⁷ In contrast, President Clinton introduced his own highway and mass transit bill, which increased funding for the CMAQ program by 30 percent.²⁸ Predictably environmentalists criticized proposals to remove the programs, and President Clinton planned to resist any change to the CMAQ program.²⁹ An intense battle could easily have erupted but for Rep. Bud Shuster (R-Pa.) and Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.), two players more powerful than the President and any other legislators when it came to this legislation.

Senator Chafee and Representative Shuster, as the respective chairmen of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, controlled the progress of ISTEA reauthorization. Although both legislators attempted to provoke early action on ISTEA reauthorization, the first session focused on the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act³⁰ and the Taxpayer Relief Act,³¹ and ISTEA seemed forgotten. However, as the first session waned but before the original ISTEA expired in September 1997,³² both Senator Chafee and Representative Shuster introduced reauthorization bills. Representative Shuster's bill, H.R. 2400,³³ received little attention, but the Senate saw heated debate on Senator Chafee's bill, S. 1173.³⁴

Many senators vehemently criticized S. 1173's allocation of money to their states.³⁵ For instance, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) stated that "if there aren't some major changes [in the bill] I intend to explore all options to get it back on track."³⁶ After the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee added an additional $ 120 million for New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg and other similarly affected senators on the committee voted to pass S. 1173, but their criticism continued.³⁷ Eventually, Senate Democrats blocked substantive debate on the bill because Senator Lott refused to allow a vote on campaign finance reform.³⁸ Senator Lott shelved S. 1173 and planned to keep it there through the second session until the Senate adopted a 1999 fiscal year budget resolution.³⁹ But as pressure mounted, he committed to accelerated debate on S. 1173 beginning in late February 1998.

[29 ELR 10089]

Like Senator Lott, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) feared that budget committee concessions for ISTEA funding would handicap the 1999 budget resolution. Despite his fears, Senator Domenici offered a compromise proposal that allowed ISTEA to exceed authorized spending levels.⁴⁰ With this proposal, Senate debate on ISTEA suddenly awoke, and in the face of environmentalists' opposition, the Senate passed an amendment offered by Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) designating wetlands mitigation banking as the preferred method of resolving wetland damage caused by highway projects. As environmentalists' concerns heightened, the Senate passed a substitute bill offered by Senator Chafee that incorporated all previously passed amendments and increased the bill's funding levels by $ 26 billion.⁴¹ The bill increased ISTEA spending by 38 percent and exceeded the budgeted funds by $ 31 billion.⁴² In addition, although the bill dropped several controversial amendments,⁴³ Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) successfully added an amendment that gave states extra time to implement EPA's ozone and particulate matter regulations.⁴⁴ In reviewing the bill, the Surface Transportation Policy Project, a coalition of environmental organizations, praised it "for its strengthening of programs that reduce air pollution, [and] provide more transportation choices like bicycling, walking, and mass transit."⁴⁵

In the House, Representative Shuster and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure mapped out a strategically hesitant route toward ISTEA reform. Like Senator Lott, Representative Shuster did not plan to begin debate until the fiscal 1999 budget had been completed.⁴⁶ However, facing a May 1, 1998, termination of the six-month temporary ISTEA extension, Representative Shuster set March 24, 1998, as the date to complete a markup of H.R. 2400.⁴⁷ After House Speaker Gingrich convened a task force to identify programs in the 1998 budget resolution that would be cut in order to fund H.R. 2400's expected excesses,⁴⁸ Representatives Shuster and Gingrich agreed to allow H.R. 2400 to exceed the resolution's spending limitations, which allowed the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to report the bill out of committee on March 26, 1998.⁴⁹ The House quickly passed the $ 217 billion bill on April 1, 1998, with little debate or proposed amendments.⁵⁰ Unlike, S. 1173, H.R. 2400 created little environmental controversy. It increased CMAQ funding to approximately $ 1.7 billion per year, and the enhancements program would grow to $ 660 million a year.⁵¹

House Budget Chairman John Kasisch (R-Ohio) opposed the bill because it exceeded the budget by $ 26 billion, but most criticism focused on the $ 18.5 billion in individual projects earmarked for specific congressional districts.⁵² Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) criticized Representative Shuster for making a "sham" out of the balanced budget agreement, and Rep. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) claimed the bill was a "corrupt process to extend the political careers … of members of this body."⁵³ Representative Shuster quickly dismissed his critics as arrogant and hypocritical for complaining about pork-barrel spending when they requested specific projects for their states.⁵⁴ Unfortunately for him, significant differences between S. 1173 and H.R. 2400 on the issue of earmarked money could not be so easily dismissed.

Under S. 1173, any earmarked funds for a special state project would require the subtraction from that state's funding formula calculation.⁵⁵ In addition, key differences on CMAQ funding, enhancements funding, a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provision, drunk driving laws, an ethanol tax subsidy, and pipeline safety needed to be reconciled in conference committee. The conference also saw the proposal of several controversial environmental amendments, which EPA Administrator Carol Browner insinuated could evoke a presidential veto.⁵⁶ The conference committee could have erupted into bitter partisan confrontation, but the conferees worked together, shaved the controversial issues, and offered a bill that allowed the majority of legislators to return to their states with vast sums of highway transportation funds.⁵⁷

[29 ELR 10090]

After suffering the intense criticism of environmentalists, the Administration, and many members of Congress, ISTEA reauthorization emerged from conference to general praise and the smiles of many senators and representatives who heard money jingling in their states' pockets. On May 22, 1998, the House and the Senate passed the conference report on H.R. 2400. On June 9, 1998, President Clinton signed the bill, now known as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century,⁵⁸ into law.⁵⁹ The Act provided approximately $ 1.3 billion per year for the CMAQ program⁶⁰ and $ 630 million per year for the enhancements program.⁶¹ It allowed a portion of allocated CMAQ funding to be used for surface transportation projects such as highway widening.⁶² In addition, Senator Inhofe reinserted language that codified the schedule for the implementation of EPA's proposed rules for ozone and particulate matter.⁶³ The Act also required wetlands mitigation banking to be the preferred method of replacing lost wetlands,⁶⁴ provided a tax subsidy for gasoline manufacturers that blend their product with ethanol,⁶⁵ and instituted a one-call notification system⁶⁶ provision requiring federal and industry interests to devise a best practice standard for one-call centers.⁶⁷ The Act eliminated language amending NEPA to allow federal and state transportation agencies to define the scope of their highway projects.⁶⁸

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997

When the 105th Congress began, few predicted that the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997⁶⁹ would harbor significant environmental legislation. As some now strongly assert, the capital gains reforms in the Taxpayer Relief Act may be the most significant environmental reform of the past several sessions.⁷⁰ However, only time will prove the significance of the reform.

The 104th Congress attempted to craft a comprehensive budget reconciliation and tax reform package, but partisan politics and disagreement on key provisions led President Clinton to veto the bill on December 6, 1995.⁷¹ Therefore, when Rep. John Kasisch introduced a comprehensive budget reconciliation bill, H.R. 2015,⁷² and a necessary companion tax reform bill, H.R. 2014,⁷³ nothing guaranteed passage of either one.⁷⁴ As the debate on the bills progressed, the Administration and key Republicans in Congress shied away from partisan rhetoric lest they sabotage chances of passing the legislation and, thus, doom the key political treasures attached to it.⁷⁵ Republicans viewed the passage of the bills as a major victory that could benefit them enormously in the 1998 elections, and President Clinton viewed the bills as important to his legacy.⁷⁶

Eventually, despite the hints of delay dropped by Democrats and the Administration, the Senate and the House passed conference reports on both bills. Subsequently, on August 5, 1997, President Clinton signed both bills into law.⁷⁷ Of the issues addressing the environment, the Taxpayer Relief Act shifted additional federal motor fuels tax to the highway trust fund.⁷⁸ In addition, the Act included an Administration brownfields⁷⁹ tax incentive,⁸⁰ which at one time had been absent from both the House and Senate bills.⁸¹ Designed as an urban revitalization provision, the brown-fields incentive allows certain environmental expenditures that would otherwise be capital expenses to be deducted in the year paid or incurred.⁸² Unfortunately, deductible expenditures are limited to those incurred before January 1, 2001, at qualified contaminated sites.⁸³

The Taxpayer Relief Act's repealof the capital gains appreciation restrictions on homeowners did not receive much attention from environmentalists but may become known as the bill's most important environmental feature.⁸⁴ Former Internal Revenue Code § 1034 provided that taxes on capital [29 ELR 10091] gains resulting from the sale of a principal residence would be deferred if the seller purchased another home of equal or greater value within two years.⁸⁵ Consequently, home buyers had to look away from urban centers, and push further into the suburbs for more expensive housing that qualified for the tax deferral.⁸⁶ Taxpayer Relief Act § 312 now allows married homeowners to exclude up to $ 500,000 and a single homeowner to exclude up to $ 250,000 in gains on each sale of a principal residence.⁸⁷ As a result, home buyers can be expected to move inward.⁸⁸ Logically, such inward migration presents the opportunity for substantial sustainable urban development and housing revitalization, and, possibly, the end to urban and suburban sprawl.

The International Dolphin Conservation Program Act

In 1995, the United States entered into the Panama Declaration, an agreement among 12 nations⁸⁹ to establish a dolphin protection program in the eastern Pacific Ocean. On August 15, 1998, President Clinton signed into law⁹⁰ the International Dolphin Conservation Act,⁹¹ the implementing legislation of the Panama Declaration. The bill permits the use of the encirclement method of fishing⁹² and requires observers to determine if any dolphins are killed.⁹³ If tuna is caught without observed dolphin mortality, it can be labeled dolphin safe.⁹⁴ Many environmentalists and members of Congress criticized the original bill because it allowed an annual limit of 5,000 dolphin deaths.⁹⁵ Senate legislators, however, reached a compromise that requires a three-year study to document dolphin mortality caused by encirclement fishing.⁹⁶ In addition, the Secretary of Commerce will have until March 1999 to determine if encirclement fishing significantly affects dolphin stocks.⁹⁷

National Park System

The deteriorating condition of the National Park System (NPS) has concerned Congress for many years. On February 27, 1998, Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.), chairman of the National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation Subcommittee, introduced a bill, S. 1693,⁹⁸ intended to "renew, reform, reinvigorate, and protect" the National Park System.⁹⁹ The noncontroversial bill focused on adding competition to the parks' concessions programs. After minor committee debate, the Senate¹⁰⁰ and the House¹⁰¹ passed the bill, named the Vision 2020 National Parks Restoration Act, and it was signed by the President on November 13, 1998.¹⁰² The law eliminated most park concessionaires' preferential rights of renewal.¹⁰³ In addition, concessionaires' possessory rights in park property can be terminated by the National Park Service (NPS), but the NPS must buy the interest at a value determined by a method included within the bill.¹⁰⁴ The law also eliminated the entrance and user fees demonstration program that many expected to be renewed.¹⁰⁵

Wildlife Regulation

[] The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Heeding House Resources Committee Chairman Don Young's (R-Alaska) call for reform of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the 105th Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act.¹⁰⁶ Signed into law by the President on October 9, 1997,¹⁰⁷ the noncontroversial law stated that the central purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System is "to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and … restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States."¹⁰⁸ In addition, the bill requires that each system be managed in accordance with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the specific uses of that refuge, which may include hunting and fishing.¹⁰⁹

[] The Sikes Act. Although incomparable with ESA reauthorization, Congress did take steps to protect fish and wildlife when it reauthorized the Sikes Act in a U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) 1998 authorization bill. The Sikes Act¹¹⁰ governs management of fish and wildlife on military lands. [29 ELR 10092] The reauthorization requires all military installations except those without significant natural resources to implement integrated natural resources management plans.¹¹¹ In addition, the bill requires the DOD to manage fish and wildlife in such a way as to maintain their sustainability.¹¹²

ESA Flood Control Repair

Although the 105th Congress could not enact comprehensive ESA reform,¹¹³ Congress did amend the ESA to allow for a narrow flood repair exemption.¹¹⁴ Included within an emergency flood assistance appropriations bill, which President Clinton vetoed once in another form, the exemption allows flood control agencies to defer ESA consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for flood repairs when an imminent threat to human lives and property exists.¹¹⁵ If mitigation is necessary after the repairs are complete, it must be reasonable and related to the actual effects on the listed species.¹¹⁶ President Clinton vetoed the original version of the appropriations bill because of language that would prevent future government shutdowns.¹¹⁷ The narrow ESA exemption replaced a broad exemption of all flood repair activities found in the vetoed bill.¹¹⁸

Appropriations

Partisan debate and contentious argument marked the appropriations process for fiscal year 1999. Environmentalists claimed each major appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999 contained antienvironmental riders,¹¹⁹ and President Clinton threatened to veto several appropriations bills because of these riders.¹²⁰ Faced with the choice of an unwanted government shutdown or compromise, Congress compromised and quickly produced a massive omnibus appropriations bill that marked the end of the 105th Congress.

The appropriations process for the 1998 fiscal year lacked major policy disputes due mainly to the bipartisan good will resulting from the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act and the Taxpayer Relief Act.¹²¹ Such bipartisan emotion disappeared with the beginning of the 1998 election year. The second session's inactivity and lack of policy setting legislation forced legislators to seek different ways in which to highlight their election year agendas. The appropriations bills served as perfect vehicles for such agenda setting, and, as further incentive in the 1998 election year, the funding bills could provide legislation beneficial to legislators' home states. Thus, the deluge of legislative riders to each appropriations bills.

The riders caused some skirmishes in committee,¹²² but when the legislative calendar grew short, compromises were made. Eight of the traditional appropriations bills were gathered under the umbrella of H.R. 4328,¹²³ a $ 487 billion appropriations bill that passed Congress two weeks before the November elections and a month into the 1999 fiscal year.¹²⁴ Subsequently, President Clinton signed the bill into law on October 21, 1998.¹²⁵ Under the bill, the U.S. Department of the Interior's (DOI's) budget for 1999 is $ 7.8 billion, up $ 190 million from 1998, but $ 220,000 less than the President's request.¹²⁶ Of the money appropriated to the DOI, the law includes $ 1.2 billion for the Bureau of Land Management, $ 1.3 billion for the NPS, $ 1.3 billion for the National Forest System, $ 328 billion for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and $ 140 million for Everglades restoration.¹²⁷ The law also included riders delaying DOI implementation of new hard-rock mining regulations and a new offshore oil royalty formula.¹²⁸ In addition, the law prohibits reintroduction of the grizzly bear in Montana and Idaho, but allows the automatic extension without environmental review of certain grazing leases in New Mexico.¹²⁹ After heated debate and staunch opposition from the Administration, legislators dropped controversial language approving road construction through the Izembeck National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.¹³⁰ Similarly, EPA's budget was raised to $ 7.6 billion, approximately $ 200 million above 1998, but approximately $ 400 million under President Clinton's [29 ELR 10093] request.¹³¹ EPA's appropriations, however, included spending limitations on implementation of the Kyoto Protocol¹³² and EPA's interim guidance on environmental justice.¹³³

Chemical Weapons Treaty Implementation

Shortly before the Chemical Weapons Treaty came into force worldwide, the Senate was compelled to ratify it on April 24, 1997.¹³⁴ Without ratification, international trade sanctions would have been enforced against U.S. chemical manufacturers. Implementation of the treaty was delayed when the Senate replaced its implementing legislation, S. 610, with a House version, known as the Iran Missile Proliferation Act of 1997.¹³⁵ The President strongly opposed the bill because of its low threshold for imposing sanctions on Iran.¹³⁶ As an alternative to sanctions, the White House argued that ongoing diplomatic efforts should be allowed time for success. After the House passed the initial implementation bill, an amended version passed the Senate by a vote of 90 to 4.¹³⁷ President Clinton, however, consummated his threats and vetoed the bill. In the face of the overwhelming support the bill received in both the House and the Senate, veto override appeared inevitable. A House veto override vote was originally planned for the week of July 13, 1998, but the Capitol shootings delayed the vote. As the 105th Congress neared completion, it appeared that a veto override vote had been forgotten amidst the confusion of the presidential controversy and the appropriations debate. Fortunately, not all was forgotten. The massive omnibus appropriations legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President¹³⁸ included language creating the regulatory structure implementing the treaty.¹³⁹ The legislation found its way into the appropriations law after Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House International Relations Committee, eventually committed to language that did not include sanctions on Iran.¹⁴⁰

Clean Air Act Border Smog and Methyl Bromide Amendments

Amidst heated partisan debate surrounding the Kyoto Protocol¹⁴¹ and EPA's proposed rules for the regulation of particulate matter and ozone,¹⁴² Congress amicably addressed ozone depletion by amending the CAA twice. The first amendment of the CAA came in the Border Smog Reduction Act,¹⁴³ which is intended to reduce ozone depleting automobile emissions in California. The Act amended the CAA to prohibit foreign registered cars that have not passed California's tailpipe emission test from entering California from Mexico more than twice in any 12-month period.¹⁴⁴

The second CAA amendment arrived in the 1999 omnibus appropriations bill. Under the bill, the phaseout of methyl bromide, a toxic pesticide that destroys upper level ozone and falls under the Montreal Protocol, is delayed.¹⁴⁵ EPA's phaseout of the pesticide is postponed from 2001 to 2005, but, in the interim, exportation of methyl bromide to developing countries that are not parties to the Montreal Protocol is prohibited.¹⁴⁶

Partisan Skies: The Clean Air Act Regulations and Kyoto Protocol Debates

From the beginning of the 105th Congress, two proposed air emission regulations and a proposed global climate change treaty spurred partisan debate. Supported by the Administration, the proposed regulations weathered intense criticism and several attempts to block their implementation. The entire Senate announced the acceptable limits of U.S. negotiations at a global climate change negotiating session in Kyoto, Japan. The negotiators, led by Vice President Gore ignored the limitations. As the Senate deplored the signing of the agreement, the Administration withheld it from the Senate as it sought international commitment.

The Clean Air Act Particulate Matter and Ozone Depletion Regulations

When EPA proposed new air quality standards for emissions of both ground-level ozone and particulate matter (PM) on November 27, 1996, congressional opponents and supporters of the proposed rules galvanized.¹⁴⁷ The proposed ozone rule changed the ozone standard for emissions from .12 parts per million (ppm) measured over an hour to .08 ppm measured over an hour.¹⁴⁸ The PM rule decreased regulated particle size from 10 microns or smaller in concentrations of 50 micrograms per cubic meter annually to 2.5 microns or smaller in concentrations of 115 micrograms per cubic meter annually.¹⁴⁹ When the 105th Congress began, legislators immediately commenced hearings on the science behind the rules and their legality under the Small [29 ELR 10094] Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, which requires the consideration of the economic impact of new regulations on small business, local governments, and other small entities.¹⁵⁰ However, with a July 17, 1997, deadline for comment on the rules, several legislators including Senators Chafee and Inhofe, proposed delaying implementation of one or both of the laws.¹⁵¹ However, Carol Browner responded to such proposals with confirmation of EPA's intent to continue with the existing implementation plan.¹⁵² Soon after, several representatives proposed a moratorium on the rules.¹⁵³

President Clinton approved the new rules in June 1997, but announced that EPA would not implement them until completion of five years of gathering and analyzing analytical data.¹⁵⁴ Despite the President's assertion that implementation would be "carried out to maximize common sense, flexibility, and cost effectiveness,"¹⁵⁵ his approval of the rules received pointed criticism. Nevertheless, on July 16, 1997, Carol Browner signed them into effect.¹⁵⁶ Immediately, congressional opponents denounced the rules, and industry representatives threatened to file suit to block implementation.¹⁵⁷ After the House Commerce Committee launched a probe of the rules,¹⁵⁸ and Senator Inhofe introduced a Senate version of the proposed House moratorium, the initial outrage ebbed. The House Commerce Committee failed to pass the bill, and Senator Inhofe could not rally sufficient support in the Senate. As the first session waned, House opponents of the rules unsuccessfully attempted to force the Commerce Committee to vote on the moratorium.¹⁵⁹ Similarly, Senator Inhofe frantically sought Senate support for the bill and, eventually, proposed attaching the moratorium to the ISTEA reauthorization bill.¹⁶⁰ When the second session began, opponents of the rules made occasional frantic efforts to include language blocking implementation of the rules in the ISTEA reauthorization bill.¹⁶¹ But when Congress passed the ISTEA reauthorization bill, it only included a provision introduced by Senator Inhofe codifying EPA's implementation schedule of the PM rules.¹⁶² Interestingly, EPA had already agreed to the schedule.

The Kyoto Protocol

The 105th Congress proved correct those prognosticators who believed that the December 1997 international negotiations on global climate change in Kyoto, Japan, would cause congressional turmoil.¹⁶³ Before the negotiations, the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held several hearings on the increased regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.¹⁶⁴ In addition, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.) introduced S. Res. 98,¹⁶⁵ a resolution co-sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) that stated that the United States should not sign an agreement to limit greenhouse gas releases unless developing nations commit to a similar compliance schedule.¹⁶⁶ Despite the Administration's strong support of increased regulation, the Senate approved S. Res. 98 by a vote of 95-0.¹⁶⁷

Although apparently limited in their negotiating options, the U.S. delegation, spearheaded by Vice President Gore, made several concessions instrumental to an international greenhouse gas reduction agreement reached on December 11, 1997.¹⁶⁸ The treaty, known as the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, mandates that the United States reduce their aggregate emissions of six greenhouse gases by 7 percent from 1990 emissions levels.¹⁶⁹ Despite S. Res. 98's clear demands, the treaty did not include commitments for developing countries, and senators from both parties openly and strongly criticized U.S. signing of the treaty.¹⁷⁰

Instead of immediately submitting the treaty to the Senate, the Administration wisely decided to seek developing countries' commitments to it.¹⁷¹ In order to prepare to meet [29 ELR 10095] the treaty's targets, however, President Clinton requested $ 6.3 billion in his budget for energy efficiency.¹⁷² Legislators declared the budget request an attempt to sidestep Senate ratification, and, soon after, the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies inserted a provision in EPA's appropriations bill prohibiting the use of funds to develop, propose, or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the implementation or contemplation of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.¹⁷³ The Administration fought the spending limitation, and in July, an amendment eased the restriction so that EPA could conduct educational activities on climate change.¹⁷⁴ Nevertheless, efforts to amend spending restriction continued. Eventually, legislators reached a compromise that prohibits EPA from spending for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol.¹⁷⁵ The amended language allowed the continuation of EPA energy research and climate change programs in existence before the treaty. Despite the apparent opposition to its implementation, the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol on November 13, 1998.¹⁷⁶ Senators from both parties criticized U.S. commitment to the treaty and swore to reject its implementation, thereby ensuring climate change will be a major issue in the 106th Congress.¹⁷⁷

Unfinished Business

The 105th Congress ended with almost all of its environmental priorities unfinished. Although CERCLA and ESA reform saw extensive effort, partisan debate stymied comprehensive reform. After learning of the complexity of electric utility deregulation, Congress abandoned reform and studied the industry in preparation for the next Congress. Despite promises, RCRA reform saw little action. And comprehensive regulatory reform failed to inspire the support it enjoyed in the 104th Congress. Ultimately, the environmental priorities of the 105th Congress became the environmental priorities of the 106th Congress.

CERCLA Reform

[] Background. The failure of the 104th Congress to pass CERCLA reform legislation immediately made passage of such legislation a priority of the 105th Congress.¹⁷⁸ Unfortunately, for the eighth straight year since passage of a perfunctory four-year extension of CERCLA in 1990,¹⁷⁹ Congress failed to reform the Act. Consequently, CERCLA reform is now a priority of the 106th Congress.

The Sisyphean effort to reform CERCLA began before the 105th Congress convened. In a December 18, 1996, press briefing, officials from the U.S. Department of Justice and EPA stated that CERCLA was working efficiently, and broad legislative reforms were unnecessary.¹⁸⁰ Members of Congress and industry representatives criticized such a suggestion, and Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, called it laughable.¹⁸¹ Representative Boehlert then expressed many legislators' strategy for CERCLA reform when he stated that "we ought to do the whole thing [CERCLA reform], zap it all together in one tidy package and send it down to the [P]resident to sign it."¹⁸²

[] Crafting the Reform Proposals. The first comprehensive Superfund reform proposal, S. 8,¹⁸³ arrived in Congress on January 21, 1997, in one tidy package. Introduced by Sen. Robert Smith (R-N.H.) the Senate Superfund Subcommittee Chairman, and cosponsored by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Chafee and Senate Majority Leader Lott,¹⁸⁴ S. 8 contained a new liability scheme that would have exempted from CERCLA liability generators, general arrangers, and transporters of waste at "codisposal" landfills¹⁸⁵ that received solid municipal waste.¹⁸⁶ In addition, the bill would have exempted small businesses that met certain requirements¹⁸⁷ and would have created a bifurcated liability scheme for large and small municipalities.¹⁸⁸ The bill also would have provided $ 60 million a year [29 ELR 10096] in new funding to state and local governments to help redevelop brownfields.¹⁸⁹

Although S.8 received strong praise from Republicans and industry,¹⁹⁰ Democrats were less kind, and Senator Lautenberg claimed that the bill was partisan and "not a positive first step."¹⁹¹ However, after sorting through the several CERCLA and brownfields reform bills offered in the first few days of the 105th Congress, Democrats reserved criticism for the Republican-led reform efforts and urged bipartisan cooperation in order to achieve successful reform.¹⁹² The apparently minor gap between the parties widened after EPA Administrator Carol Browner made EPA's first formal comments on S. 8 at a March 5, 1998, hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment.¹⁹³ Browner called for provisions on protection of groundwater, on-site waste treatment at severely contaminated hot spots, and less state control of remediation, but Republicans have traditionally resisted such requirements. Likewise, Browner reiterated the Administration's resistance to liability exemptions based on site categorization.¹⁹⁴ Despite these statements, Browner committed to negotiations on CERCLA reform in a subsequent letter to House Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley (R-Va.).

In the spirit of cooperation, the House and the Senate agreed to consensus-based negotiations.¹⁹⁵ Despite such sentiments, approximately 40 House Democrats, led by Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), introduced a controversial brownfields bill that created an EPA certification program for brownfields cleanups and authorized $ 30 million per year for a state revolving loan cleanup program.¹⁹⁶ Shortly thereafter, Representative Gephardt openly stated that he did not believe that it would be possible to pass Superfund reform.¹⁹⁷ To save face for the Administration, Carol Browner repeated the Administration's commitment to bipartisan reform. However, when Congress broke for the first session's spring recess, no agreement had been reached on a negotiating process for comprehensive CERCLA reform, and bills on individual issues emerged as alternatives to comprehensive reform.

After each house determined a negotiating process for a comprehensive reform bill,¹⁹⁸ the Administration released its legislative principles for CERCLA reform.¹⁹⁹ Despite the expectation that the Administration's commitment to bipartisanship would lead it to compromise on its traditional stances on CERCLA liability, remedies, states' roles, and natural resources damages (NRD),²⁰⁰ the principles outlined the usual Democratic stance.²⁰¹ In addition, the Administration listed 38 issues or reforms it opposed,²⁰² which Representative Bliley criticized as limiting the boundaries of negotiation. Nevertheless, Representative Bliley renewed his promise to reform CERCLA in 1997.²⁰³

Before negotiations could begin in earnest, legislators were blindsided by the introduction of a DOD reauthorization bill that proposed eliminating CERCLA's provisions encouraging permanent treatment.²⁰⁴ Not surprisingly, representatives from every party interested in comprehensive CERCLA reform criticized the DOD bill. As a result, the House Rules Committee prohibited the inclusion of any environmental provision in the bill.²⁰⁵ With the DOD bill out of the way, slightly flustered legislators returned to the negotiations in progress.

In the Senate, Democrats and Republicans exchanged language, in an effort to produce a bipartisan piece of legislation by the August 1997 recess.²⁰⁶ Eventually, Senator Smith scheduled a markup of S. 8 for the second week of September 1997. In the House, after the Republican panel of the Commerce Committee floated draft remedy and NRD language without consulting the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the two committees, which had been working together, split and worked separately on reform legislation.²⁰⁷ Some blamed the split on the lack of cooperation between Transportation and Infrastructure Committee [29 ELR 10097] Republicans and Democrats. Others blamed the inability of Republicans on the two committees to cooperate with each other.²⁰⁸ Regardless of the reasons for the split, the competition between the two committees created the possibility of increased decisiveness and delay.

In August 1997, decisiveness appeared in the supposedly bipartisan Senate when Democrats removed themselves from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee negotiations because of the Republican commitment to a scheduled September markup of S. 8 even though the committee had yet to produce a whole bipartisan bill.²⁰⁹ The Democrats prepared to introduce their own bill or to engage in contentious debates over codisposal landfills and the permanence of remedies.²¹⁰ When Senate Republicans introduced their draft version of S. 8 before its scheduled markup, the bill included five new factors for the selection of remedies, the delegation of CERCLA authority to states, an NRD provision that would eliminate all but one pending NRD case, and several new community participation provisions.²¹¹ After suffering pointed criticism from Democrats, Republican leaders of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee agreed to postpone the September markup in order to conduct talks with the Administration.²¹² The talks apparently resulted in a deal on how to address codisposal liability.²¹³ However, when the Administration issued an NRD plan that among other provisions, altered the statute of limitations for NRD actions so that stale actions could be revived,²¹⁴ Republicans scuttled talks and planned to proceed to a second session markup.²¹⁵

In the House, the contentious issue of codisposal prevented Representative Boelhert from introducing his bill.²¹⁶ In a meeting with Rep. Robert Borski (D-Pa.) and Carol Browner, Representative Boelhert reportedly was told that the codisposal provision of his bill would not receive presidential approval. Therefore, Representative Boelhert delayed introduction of the bill in order to redraft the provision. House Commerce Committee's Republicans also returned to the drafting table after state authorities complained about EPA's ability under the Commerce Committee' bill to waive state cleanup standards.²¹⁷ Neither Representative Boehlert nor the Commerce Committee wasted much time in rewriting their bills because on October 23, 1997, Representative Boelhert introduced his bill, H.R. 2727,²¹⁸ and on November 9, the Commerce Committee bill, H.R. 3000,²¹⁹ was introduced. Apparently, redrafting could not rescue either bill from criticism. Representative Borski called H.R. 2727 unsignable because it varied from the Administration's principles on de minimis exemptions and remedies.²²⁰ Similarly, Carol Browner called H.R. 2727 a good-faith effort, but not supportable.²²¹ With such criticism, the end of the first session, and the introduction of a minority reform bill, Representative Boelhert postponed markup of his bill to the second session.²²²

Likewise, although Rep. Michael Oxley's (R-Ohio) introduction of H.R. 3000 received the support of moderate Democrats,²²³ the bill suffered the criticism of ranking Commerce Committee Democrats and Carol Browner. They labeled it a non-starter because of a liability provision that exempted certain generators and transporters of hazardous waste²²⁴ and its failure to protect groundwater.²²⁵ With such a lukewarm reception, H.R. 3000 had little momentum to carry it into the second session.²²⁶

[] The Second Session-The Unraveling of Reform. Representative Oxley's bill lost further momentum with the announcement that Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Thomas Manton (D-N.Y.) planned to introduce a comprehensive reform bill that largely mirrored the Administration's reform principles.²²⁷ As ranking minority members of the House Commerce Committee and Finance and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee respectively, Representatives Dingell and Manton significantly influenced the bipartisan nature of negotiations. As such, it appeared that their bill served only as a political strategy to force the Republican majority to commit to negotiations lest the entire process bog down in partisan debate.²²⁸ Such maneuvering led Senator Lott to [29 ELR 10098] state that CERCLA reform would not get done because of a lack of support in the Senate and because the Administration avoided serious discussion.²²⁹

As he prepared H.R. 2727 for markup, Representative Boelhert echoed Senator Lott's sentiment when he warned that "if we [the House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee] can't create bipartisan momentum, then its almost certain other committees won't even try."²³⁰ Thus, to further bipartisan support, Representative Boelhert made several changes in H.R. 2727, including compromises on the liability and remedy portions of the bill.²³¹ These efforts produced some good will as Representive Boelhert and EPA continued negotiations, but EPA would not comment on the unfinished bill before markup.²³² When Representative Boelhert unveiled the bill, it eliminated some of the original bill's liability exemptions, capped municipal liability, and slightly revised remedy provisions on treatment and groundwater.²³³ After delaying a markup in order to continue negotiations,²³⁴ the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment passed a marked-up version of the bill on March 11, 1998, by a margin of 18-12.²³⁵ The full House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, however, never voted on the bill, and it languished as other matters, such as ISTEA reauthorization, took center stage.

H.R. 3000 and S. 8 suffered similar fates to H.R. 2727. Representative Oxley encountered significant opposition as he attempted to move H.R. 3000 through the House Commerce Committee. The bill was criticized at separate instances by Commerce Committee Democrats,²³⁶ Carol Browner,²³⁷ and local and state officials.²³⁸ As a result, it never gained sufficient support to undergo a markup or a committee vote, and it too languished until the end of the session.

S. 8 experienced more activity, but it also failed to gain sufficient bipartisan support for Senate action. Before a scheduled March 1998 markup, Senate Republicans released a revised version of the bill with new NRD and brownfields language and the elimination of codisposal exemptions.²³⁹ Generally accepted as a moderate proposal, the revised version nevertheless provoked disagreement on consent decrees, orphan share liability, and NRD.²⁴⁰ As ISTEA debate delayed the markup, EPA withheld comments and negotiations continued in a never ending search for bipartisan agreement.²⁴¹ When the markup arrived, however, Democrats, as expected, announced that they would contest the reopening of consent decrees, the lack of ground water remedies, and the factors considered for NRD valuation.²⁴² Senator Lautenberg also challenged the brownfields provisions in the bill.²⁴³ Subsequently, when the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved an amended version of the bill by a vote of 11-7, partisan emotion remained.²⁴⁴ Recognizing the decreasing viability of reform, Senator Lott stated that the bill would not reach the floor without increased bipartisan support.²⁴⁵

Unfortunately, despite some late efforts by Senator Smith, S. 8 remained mired in partisan debate. Moderate Republicans and Democrats attempted to jump start talks by beseeching Vice President Gore to work with them to achieve reform,²⁴⁶ but their cries went unanswered. Realizing the futility of comprehensive CERCLA reform, legislators introduced narrow bills.²⁴⁷ One such bill, S. 2180,²⁴⁸ introduced by Senator Lott, would have exempted from CERCLA liability parties who arrangedfor the recycling of paper, glass, metal, textiles, and rubber so long as they reasonably believed that the materials would be recycled at a facility that was in compliance with environmental laws.²⁴⁹ In September, Senator Lott attempted to move the bill despite allegations that it was intended solely to aid a Mississippi [29 ELR 10099] recycler.²⁵⁰ After Senator Chafee refused to consider the bill in the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Lott attached the language of S. 2180 to the omnibus appropriations bill.²⁵¹ However, several senators proposed controversial amendments to the language, including exemption of polychlorinated biphenyls contaminated paper, and eventually the language was dropped.²⁵² So, as the 105th Congress ended, comprehensive CERCLA reform had failed yet again, "[a]nd, thus, through years and years, and lives and lives, everything goes on, constantly beginning over and over again, and nothing ever ends."²⁵³

ESA Reform

When the 105th Congress began, many expected early action addressing ESA reform and reauthorization.²⁵⁴ Because of its controversial nature, few legislators would address ESA reform in the second session so close to the elections.²⁵⁵ With this is mind, on the first day of the 105th Congress, Rep. Don Young, Chairman of the House Resources Committee, implored the Administration to issue a proposal to reauthorize the ESA so that he could issue his own proposal.²⁵⁶ In the Senate, Sen. Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho) spearheaded the reauthorization effort and circulated draft language in February 1997.²⁵⁷ However, before issuing a comprehensive reform bill, Senator Kempthorne introduced S. 981,²⁵⁸ which offered three types of tax incentives for property owners who donate land for voluntary endangered or threatened species habitat preservation.²⁵⁹ Supporters of S. 981 unsuccessfully attempted to add the bill's language to the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act.²⁶⁰ After failing with S. 981, Senator Kempthorne hoped for better success with the introduction of the comprehensive ESA reform bill S. 1180²⁶¹ on September 16, 1997.

According to Senator Kempthorne, S. 1180 reorganized the ESA to place the focus of the Act "where it belongs — on actually recovering species instead of just adding them to the list."²⁶² Such increased recovery would have been implemented by granting states greater authority over protecting endangered species through control of recovery planning.²⁶³ The bill would have also required the FWS and the NMFS to produce recovery plans that reflected the broad constituencies with an interest in an endangered or threatened species. In addition, the bill would have imposed deadlines on the FWS and the NMFS for the drafting and issuance of a recovery plan for listed plants and animals.²⁶⁴ S. 1180 also allowed other agencies to determine if agency action would adversely affect a listed or endangered species. And the bill proposed codification of the use of habitat conservation plans.

Although praised by the Administration, S. 1180 drew criticism from environmental groups, who advocated a competing House bill introduced by Rep. George Miller (D-Cal.).²⁶⁵ In addition, landowner interest groups criticized the bill's lack of a takings provisions for property owners whose land is devalued by ESA restrictions.²⁶⁶ Senator Kempthorne anticipated such criticism, but he also knew that a takings provision would be extremely controversial. Therefore, he introduced S. 1181,²⁶⁷ which repeated S. 981's tax incentives for habitat conservation plans, but also allowed a landowner who experienced a 30 percent property devaluation due to the ESA to seek compensation from the federal government.²⁶⁸

Without the controversial takings language, S. 1180 was immediately scheduled for a markup and hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The committee passed the bill with little amendment and little controversy.²⁶⁹ However, Senator Lott objected to bill language regarding landowner participation in species conservation and recovery plans, and the bill failed to reach the floor of the Senate before the first session closed.

Senators Kempthorne and Lott spent much of the second session negotiating over S. 1180's language, and in July 1998, both senators proposed adding portions of S. 1180 to the Senate DOI appropriations bill.²⁷⁰ As the August recess began, and the time remaining in the second session dwindled, passage of a comprehensive reform bill appeared remote.²⁷¹ After a heated debate on the DOI appropriations bills, ESA reform appeared doomed. However, Senator [29 ELR 10100] Kempthorne and supporters of reform from both parties "hotlined"²⁷² S. 1180, and Senators Lott and Kempthorne agreed to language that provided private landowners increased protection and assistance under the Act.²⁷³ Many members of Congress also sought compromise on controversial issues in the amendment offered in response to the hotline.²⁷⁴ Even though Senator Kempthorne continued to press for passage of the bill, the prospects of prolonged debate on offered amendments, the short time remaining in the session, and preoccupation with the omnibus appropriations bill convinced many that debate on S. 1180 was futile.²⁷⁵ Hence, ESA reauthorization and reform failed for the fifth straight year.

Property Rights Reform

In addition to comprehensive ESA reform and the related bills it spawned, the 105th Congress addressed several bills that attempted to restructurehow to access judicial remedies in land use disputes. Of the property rights bills, a bill allowing property owners who were denied permits by local zoning boards immediate access to federal court review drew the most attention.²⁷⁶ Environmental groups and the Administration criticized the bill,²⁷⁷ but the House passed the bill on October 22, 1997, by a vote of 248 to 178.²⁷⁸ The Senate offered its version of the bill on July 7, 1998, but President Clinton had already warned that he would veto any similar bill presented to him. Thus, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the bill, which killed its chances for passage.²⁷⁹ Other property rights bills²⁸⁰ met fates similar to the court access bill, but their number and controversial nature inspired much anxiety among environmentalists.

Electric Utility Deregulation

When the 105th Congress began, Rep. Thomas Bliley and House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Dan Schaefer (R-Colo.) promised that 1997 would be remembered as the year Congress deregulated the electric power industry,²⁸¹ but they were wrong. Despite enthusiasm for reform and numerous restructuring and deregulation bills, legislators soon learned of the complexity and difficulty of deregulation. Subsequently, the deregulation process slowed as legislators debated the basic method of deregulation. Representative Schaefer, whose subcommittee held at least 21 hearings on deregulation during the first session, proposed a broad mandate requiring states to deregulate and privatize their utilities by a certain date.²⁸²

In contrast, Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-N.Y.) offered a bill, S. 621,²⁸³ that offered a piecemeal deregulation that retained federal regulatory power. Senator D'Amato had attempted such deregulation in the 104th Congress, but Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.), a proponent of comprehensive deregulation, blocked Senator D'Amato's bill and swore he would block S. 621 and other similar bills.²⁸⁴ In the last days of the 105th Congress' first session, advocates of Senator D'Amato's proposal, led by Senator Lott, attempted to gain support for S. 621's passage.²⁸⁵ Senator Bumpers continued to lead the opposition, but when Senator Lott brought the bill to the floor before the session's close, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle stepped in and blocked a vote.²⁸⁶

With hopes of providing framework legislation for debate in the second session, Sens. Dale Bumpers and Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) introduced a bipartisan compromise bill on November 7, 1997. When the second session began, however, Senator Lott continued to push Senator D'Amato's bill.²⁸⁷ Although Senators Bumpers and Lott conferred, they could not reach an agreement on when to vote on S. 621.²⁸⁸ Subsequently, despite several workshops on the subject and the circulation of draft language, deregulation in the Senate stalled.

In the House, several representatives circulated deregulation bills, but most activity occurred after draft legislation from the Administration appeared in June 1998. The Administration's language proposed a retail competition mandate with an escape clause if a monopoly better served a state.²⁸⁹ Environmentally, the Administration's bill included requirements for the use of renewable energy, incentives for the development of environmental technologies, and mandates that utilities manage their own nuclear [29 ELR 10101] waste.²⁹⁰ However, environmental groups criticized a CAA exemption for coal-fired utilities and called for the inclusion of industry standards for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide.²⁹¹ Several legislators optimistically believed that the Administration's bill could be successfully passed, and on July 23, 1998, Representatives Bliley and Schaefer introduced a new draft bill as a compromise between the Administration's bill and the bill they had previously introduced.²⁹² On July 22, 1998, however, Republicans on the House Commerce Committee, citing the short legislative calendar and lack of support from the minority, conceded that continued debate on utility deregulation would need to wait until the 106th Congress.²⁹³

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Reform

Despite claims that RCRA reform would be a top priority of the 105th Congress, little real movement occurred. The first session was devoid of RCRA reform action, but the second session began with Senator Lott circulating draft legislation that resurrected the language of his failed RCRA reform effort in the 104th Congress.²⁹⁴ Senator Lott's draft narrowed the scope of hazardous waste that would qualify for state oversight and exemption from federal standards and increased public participation requirements.²⁹⁵ In response to Senator Lott's draft, the Administration released its own draft bill, which proposed granting EPA greater authority to implement treatment and, thus, accelerate cleanup.²⁹⁶ However, when RCRA stakeholders met with House Commerce Committee staff and openly criticized the draft language, hopes for reform diminished, and intense negotiations could not save reform.²⁹⁷ As the second session approached conclusion amid talk of the President's impeachment, Senator Lott promised the introduction of a RCRA reform bill in September,²⁹⁸ but a serious reform effort never arrived. And like so many other "priority" environmental issues in the 105th Congress, RCRA reform will be a priority issue in the 106th Congress.²⁹⁹

Regulatory Reform

[] Comprehensive Reform. After comprehensive regulatory reform dominated much of the 104th Congress' agenda, few expected it to be a major issue in the 105th Congress.³⁰⁰ Sens. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), however, ignored the soothsayers when they introduced S. 981³⁰¹ on June 27, 1997. The bill as introduced wouldhave required a cost-benefit analysis for all major rules with an economic impact of $ 100 million or more.³⁰² The Administration and some environmental groups criticized the cost-benefit requirement as an impediment to current and future environmental, health, and safety laws because of the difficulty of proving the benefit of the rule as compared to its cost.³⁰³ Even after a hearing and a rewrite of the bill, however, S. 981 did not gain the support of Senator Lott.³⁰⁴ Without his support and with Senator Thompson's preoccupation with his duties chairing the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee's review of campaign finance reform, action on the bill was postponed to the second session.³⁰⁵

After clarification of language to address the Administration's concerns³⁰⁶ and the postponement of one markup,³⁰⁷ the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee passed the bill by a vote of eight to four on March 10, 1998.³⁰⁸ Despite some bipartisan support on the committee, the Administration refused to support the bill. Senator Lott confused matters further by introducing his own regulatory reform bill. The presence of S. 981's original risk assessment language in his bill clearly signaled that he would not allow S. 981 to reach the Senate floor.³⁰⁹ Senators Thompson and Levin, however, engaged in some late summer negotiating that resulted in some changes to S. 981 and gained the support of Sen. Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.) and the Administration.³¹⁰ Senator Lott still barred the bill's way to the floor. Therefore, Senator Thompson, through an amendment, included the bill's language in a Treasury appropriations bill.³¹¹ A [29 ELR 10102] House version of the Treasury bill replaced the text of the Senate appropriations bill, and a subsequent conference report did not include the regulatory reform language. Thus, the second session closed with Senator Lott victorious in preventing final action on regulatory reform.

[] The Mandates Information Act. The 104th Congress' passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995³¹² inspired similar legislation in the 105th Congress. Bills in the House and the Senate, both known as the Mandates Information Act, proposed expansion of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to include initiatives affecting the private sector.³¹³ Under those bills, lawmakers could raise a point-of-order to bar consideration on the floor of bills placing an unfunded mandate of $ 100 million or more on a company, an entire industry, or consumers.³¹⁴ The House bill passed easily,³¹⁵ but the Senate bill met opposition from an amendment originally offered by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal.). The amendment would have permitted points-of-order against bills weakening or removing environmental or health mandates.³¹⁶ Despite the opposition, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee approved the legislation on July 15, 1998.³¹⁷ The legislation was placed on the Senate legislative calendar in October but never reached the floor.

Radioactive Waste Storage

According to congressional mandate, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) should have begun collecting high-level radioactive waste from commercial nuclear power plants by January 31, 1998.³¹⁸ DOE did not begin collection because no facility existed for waste storage. Several lawsuits have temporarily halted development of a permanent radioactive waste storage site.³¹⁹ While the lawsuits are pending, Congress has attempted to pass a bill authorizing interim storage at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, which is generally considered the leading candidate for permanent waste disposal. In the past, passage of an interim storage bill has been politically charged because the Nevada coalition vehemently opposes such a bill, and the Administration has vowed a veto.³²⁰

Despite political opposition from the Nevada coalition, the Administration, and several environmental groups, the Senate passed an interim storage bill on April 15, 1997, by a vote of 65-34,³²¹ just short of a veto-proof margin. The House followed with passage of its own bill with enough votes to override a veto.³²² Both bills contained provisions to delay the deadline for DOE waste disposal. However, instead of sending the two bills to a House-Senate conference for the creation of compromise legislation, the House sent H.R. 1270 to the Senate for consideration because of Rep. John Ensign's (R-Nev.) argument that user fees in the Senate bill made the bill unconstitutional.³²³ Proponents of the bill held informal meetings to attempt to formulate a vetoproof bill,³²⁴ but after failing to invoke cloture on H.R. 1420, debate on its passage died and with it the hope for interim collection of radioactive waste storage.

Fast Track Trade Negotiating Authority

President Clinton sought authority to conduct negotiations on trade agreements under procedures that provide for expedited congressional consideration.³²⁵ Such authority would have allowed the President to negotiate free trade agreements in Asia and Latin America. Democrats in Congress, however, claimed that the bill granting fast track authority did not provide sufficient environmental or labor safeguards.³²⁶ In the face of opposition from his own party, the President withdrew the bill from consideration in the first session. The bill was revived in the second session, but its resounding defeat in the House by a vote of 243-180³²⁷ indicated that it should have remained dormant.

National Wildlife Refuge Authorization

Senate inaction and a presidential threat of veto killed a bill requiring congressional approval of all new National Wildlife Refuge Systems. The bill, as passed by the House on May 19, 1998, required the FWS to send copies of environmental impact statements for new refuges to the House Resources, Senate Environment and Natural Resources, and House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Congress could then approve or deny the authorization of funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the purchase of the land necessary for the refuge.³²⁸ Many Democrats in both the House and the Senate opposed the bill, and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt promised a veto.³²⁹ After introduction in the Senate, the bill stalled amid the presidential controversy and more pressing issues.

[29 ELR 10103]

Looking Ahead to the 106th Congress

What can we expect from the 106th Congress? The 1998 elections and their aftermath may shed some light on this question. The 1998 elections resulted in the Democrats gaining in the House and maintaining the status quo in the Senate. The Republicans had hoped to significantly expand their 10-vote margin in the House, but after the votes had been counted, their margin decreased by 5 votes.³³⁰ In the aftermath of those losses, pundits criticized the Republicans' failure to present voters with a compelling agenda or an attractive track record.³³¹ In addition, forces within the Republican party lambasted the legislative, appropriations, and impeachment strategies of Republican leadership.³³² Subsequently, as several representatives lined up to challenge him, Representative Gingrich announced he would not seek reelection as Speaker of the House and that he would resign from his House seat on the emergence of a suitable Republican candidate for his seat.³³³ In Representative Gingrich's stead as leader of the House of Representatives will be Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.).³³⁴

The resignation of the House Speaker contrasts the disarray and lack of focus within the Republican party with the coalescing of the Democratic party. The gains by Democrats in the 1998 elections could be attributed in part to candidates emulating President Clinton's campaign strategy. By retaining core Democratic allegiances to organized labor and minorities while offering a moderate agenda attractive to middle-class swing voters, the Democratic candidates found a formula for success.³³⁵ In contrast, Republicans have yet to find a sufficient agenda that melds the ideological and regional divisiveness of the Republican party. By cutting short the impeachment hearings and adopting a moderate agenda that strays slightly from the Grand Old Party lines, Republicans could lure moderate Democrats and, thus, control legislative progress in the 106th Congress. Without such maneuvering, the Republicans will continue to create partisan confrontation while alienating women and minority voters. But President Clinton believes that the House gains are an invitation for Democratic control of the legislative process, and, therefore, he plans to revitalize his legislative agenda. Within days of the election, he announced intentions to revive his proposal to regulate managed health care.³³⁶ Undoubtedly, the President will promote other legislative initiatives, such as tobacco, social security, and campaign finance in the 106th Congress. On the environmental front, RCRA and ESA reauthorization will receive extra attention. Regulatory reform and property rights reform will likely fade. Efforts to implement the Kyoto Protocol may create congressional turmoil. And rest assured CERCLA reauthorization and reform will, yet again, be an issue.

Currently, the 106th Congress' prospects for legislative success are still uncertain. As in the 105th Congress, the narrow margin in the House in the 106th Congress will lend itself to partisan turmoil. Without compromise it will be difficult to muster sufficient support for legislation. In addition, any legislation must be advanced carefully so that the parties' tenuous relationship does not deteriorate into the partisan squabbling that plagued the 105th Congress. The journey will be difficult, and as Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.) stated, "[w]e're going to have a very tough two years."³³⁷

Conclusion

Most delicate modern technology is premised on the assumption that the cogs of a large gear will mesh smoothly with the cogs of a smaller gear in order to drive the machine. A malfunction or the wrong-sized gear can cause the parts to repeatedly clash, and, consequently, the machine lacks the power to move. The gears of the 105th Congress — the Republican majority and the Democratic minority — did not fit well. Any large prolonged legislative movement wrought by cooperation and compromise ultimately derailed as the gears clashed and the legislative machine faltered.

Even so, the 105th Congress moved competently in spurts of minor progress. It provided continued funding for congestion mitigation and air quality programs. It modified the legislation governing the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System to ensure their efficient operation. And it removed a major impediment to sustainable growth. Amid the cacophony of its clashing parts, however, Congress too easily discarded its major environmental priorities and effectively went nowhere fast.

1. James E. Satterfield, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Revolution: The Environmental Record of the 104th Congress, 27 ELR 10019, 10020 (Jan. 1997).

2. Richard E. Cohen, The Speaker's Struggles to Survive, 29 NAT'L J. 33 (1997).

3. Richard E. Cohen & Eliza Newlin Carney, Gingrich's Trials, 29 NAT'L J. 60 (1997).

4. 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, ELR STAT. CERCLA §§ 101-405.

5. Jennifer Silverman, GOP Senate Agenda Includes Bill to Reform Hazardous Waste Cleanups, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Jan. 22, 1997, at AA-1.

6. Pub. L. No. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914-2207 (codified in scattered sections of 23 U.S.C.).

7. Legislators to Focus on Several Major Initiatives, ENVTL. & ENERGY STUDY INST. MONTHLY PULSE, Jan. 22, 1997, at 1.

8. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544, ELR STAT. ESA §§ 2-18.

9. Congress, Clinton Cooperate on Budget Plan, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP.,Aug. 5, 1997, at 21.

10. Helen Dewar, As Congress Winds Up Work Legislative Casualties Mount, WASH. POST, Oct. 6, 1998, at A4.

11. Fast Track Bill Dies for This Year, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., Nov. 17, 1998, at 15.

12. Susan Schmidt et al., Clinton Accused of Urging Aide to Lie; Starr Probes Whether President Told Woman to Deny Alleged Affair to Jones' Lawyers, WASH. POST, Jan. 21, 1998, at A1.

13. John F. Harris, FBI Taped Aide's Allegations; Clinton Denies Affair, Says He Did Not Urge Anyone to Lie, WASH. POST, Jan. 22, 1998, at A1.

14. John F. Harris & Dan Balz, Clinton More Forcefully Denies Having Had Affair or Urging Lies, WASH. POST, Jan. 27, 1998, at A1.

15. Helen Dewar, Uncertain Congress Prepares to Reconvene, WASH. POST, Jan. 26, 1998, at A11.

16. Thomas B. Edsall & Terry M. Neal, GOP Speaks Out Against Clinton; Leaders' Criticism Breaks Silence on Allegations, WASH. POST, Jan. 31, 1998, at A1.

17. Anne Hazard, Environmentalists. With Reservations, Signal Support for Just-Passed Transportation Bill, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., May 28, 1998, at 1.

18. Peter Baker & Susan Schmidt, Counsel Cites "Substantial and Credible" Evidence of Impeachable Acts, WASH. POST, Sept. 10, 1998, at A1; see also Edward Walsh & Juliet Eilperin, Vote Begins Process in House, WASH. POST. Sept. 11, 1998, at A1; David S. Broder, Democrats Urging End to "Legal Quibbling," WASH. POST, Sept. 13, 1998, at A29.

19. Dewar, supra, note 10.

20. Id.

21. Amy Borrus, The 105th Congress: How the Republicans Blew It, BUS. WK., Oct. 26, 1998, at 47.

22. For the Most Part, Lawmakers' Priorities Were Frustrated in the 105th Congress, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., Oct. 30, 1998, at 1.

23. Borrus, supra note 21.

24. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q. ELR STAT. CAA §§ 101-618.

25. Margaret Kriz, Road Warriors, 29 NAT'L J. 1327 (1997); see also Eric Pianin, Hill Pours $ 217 Billion Into Public Works, WASH. POST, May 23, 1998, at A4.

26. Kriz, supra note 25, at 1329.

27. Lisa Caruso, Clean Air Provisions in Transportation Law Face Challenge in Reauthorization Debate, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., Feb. 20, 1997, at 1. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) questioned the fairness of the CMAQ program's requiring rural areas to meet the same qualifications as urban areas. Warner, Baucus Critique ISTEA's CMAQ Amid Reauthorization Debate, INSIDE EPA'S CLEAN AIR REP., Apr. 3, 1997, at 5. Senator Baucus then proposed significant cuts to CMAQ funding. Baucus Proposes to Lop Air Quality Funds, Says He Had Hoped Not to Cut So Deeply, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Apr. 10, 1997, at A-5.

28. Nancy Ognanovich, Clinton, Gore Unveil NEXTEA, Link Bill With Environmental Goals, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 14, 1997, at A-6, -7.

29. Baucus Urges Not to Threaten Air Quality Provision by Proposing "Stars" Legislation, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Apr. 3, 1997, at A-6; see also Nancy Ognanovich, Clinton Administration Readies for Fight Over Changes to ISTEA's CMAQ Program, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), May 5, 1997, at A-7.

30. Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251 (1997).

31. Pub. L. No. 105-34, 111 Stat. 788 (1997) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 26 U.S.C.).

32. A bill, S. 1519, providing for a six-month extension of the provision under the original ISTEA was passed by the Senate, 143 CONG. REC. S12540 (daily ed. Nov. 10, 1997), and the House, 143 CONG. REC. H10633 (daily ed. Nov. 12, 1997).

33. H.R. 2400, 105th Cong. (1997).

34. S. 1173, 105th Cong. (1997).

35. Jim Moeller, Transportation Law Reauthorization: Bill to Reauthorize Transportation Law Is Due for Extended Debate, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Oct. 20, 1997, at 11.

36. Id.; see also Nancy Ognanovich, Senate Panel Readies for Markup; More Than 60 Amendments Filed, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Sept. 17, 1997, at A-10 (reporting that lawmakers from Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York had strong reservations about the legislation).

37. Moeller, supra note 35.

38. Alec Zacaroli, Senator Looking to ISTEA Legislation in Search of Vehicle for Blocking Air Rules, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Oct. 23, 1997, at A-3 (reporting that Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) had targeted S. 1173 as a vehicle for proposed legislation to block EPA's air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter); see also Jim Moeller, Transportation Law Reauthorization: Lott Threatens to Pull Reauthorization if Debate Cannot Be Limited, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Oct. 27, 1997, at 10 (reporting that Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.) intended to offer an amendment related to environmental review of transportation projects and that Senator Inhofe, Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Tex.) each intended to offer separate amendments to S. 1173's CMAQ improvement program).

39. Anne Hazard, Negotiations to Bring Transportation Bill to Senate Floor Focus on Funding Levels, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY FLOOR BRIEF, Feb. 26, 1998, at 1; see also Anne Hazard, Transport Fund Hike Backers Seek Action, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Feb. 2, 1998, at 6.

40. Anne Hazard, Transportation Law Reauthorization, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Mar. 2, 1998, at 4 (describing Sen. Pete Domenici's (R-N.M.) proposal to allow ISTEA spending to exceed authorized funding levels by $ 18 million from 1999 to 2003).

41. Angela M. Baggetta, Transportation Bill Passes Senate, Includes HMTA, One-Call Provisions, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 13, 1998, at A-3.

42. Dao, supra note 41. Among the increased funding, the CMAQ program received $ 1.3 billion, and the enhancements program received $ 630 million, increases of approximately $ 370 million and $ 280 million a year, respectively. CMAQ, Transportation Enhancements Get Increase Under Senate ISTEA Bill, 28 Env't Rep. (BNA) 2422 (Mar. 20, 1998); Anne Hazard, Transportation Bill Focus Now on House, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Mar. 16, 1998, at 12.

43. The amendments included language allowing CMAQ funds to be used to widen highways and a separate provision granting states National Environmental Policy Act decisionmaking power on federal highway projects. Similarly, a rails-to-trails amendment was weakened so that local governments could not halt a project unless half of the local governments opposed conversion. Hazard, supra note 42, at 13.

44. James Kennedy, Senate Approves Inhofe ISTEA Amendment; Would Give States Time to Implement Rules, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 5, 1998, at A-12.

45. Hazard, supra note 42, at 13.

46. Angela M. Baggetta, House, DOT Staff to Meet on HazMat Law, But Little Action Seen on Reauthorization, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Feb. 19, 1998, at A-13.

47. Angela M. Baggetta, House ISTEA Bill Headed for Markup; HMTA Reauthorization Language Absent, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 19, 1998, at A-2; see also Hazard, supra. note 42 (quoting an unnamed staffer on the Senate Budget Committee as saying, "No one wants to admit that we're going to miss the May 1 deadline, and we may not. But we have to crack the whip to make May 1.").

48. Hazard, supra. note 42.

49. 144 CONG. REC. H1699 (daily ed. Mar. 27, 1998); see also Anne Hazard, House Resumes Work on Transportation Bill, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Mar. 23, 1998, at 20.

50. 144 CONG. REC. H1855 (daily ed. Apr. 1, 1998); see also Eric Pianin, House Approves $ 217 Billion Highway Measure by 337-80 Vote, WASH. POST, Apr. 2, 1998, at A4.

51. Hazard, supra note 49, at 21.

52. Anne Hazard, Transportation Law Reauthorization, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Mar. 30, 1998, at 5-6.

53. Pianin, supra note 50.

54. Id.

55. Hazard, supra note 52.

56. In conference committee, amendments were offered delaying EPA rules on regional haze in national parks, ozone, and volatile organic compounds in paints. In addition, an amendment was offered prohibiting EPA from dredging contaminated sediment in rivers until a scientific study was completed. Alec Zacaroli, Environmental Amendments to Highway Bill Raise Concerns for Clinton Administration, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), May 22, 1998, at A-7.

57. Eric Pianin, Hill Negotiators Agree on Road Bill, Including Wilson Bridge, WASH. POST, May 19, 1998, at A1.

58. Pub. L. No. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (1998).

59. 144 CONG. REC. D615 (daily ed. June 10, 1998).

60. § 1101(a)(5), 112 Stat. at 112.

61. Hazard, supra note 17 at 1.

62. § 1110, 112 Stat. at 142 (to be codified at 23 U.S.C. § 149(b)-(c)); see also Alec Zacaroli & Susan Bruninga, Conferees Kill Most Amendments, Agree to Fund CMAQ Plan at $ 1.5 Billion, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), May 26, 1998, at AA-1.

63. §§ 6101-6104, 112 Stat. at 463-65; see also Anne Hazard, Conferees Work to Tie Up Loose Ends, Ready Compromise Transportation Bill for Floor Action, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., May 22, 1998, at 2.

64. § 1108(a)(6), 112 Stat. at 138-39 (to be codified at 23 U.S.C. § 133(b)(11)); see also Zacaroli & Bruninga, supra note 62, at AA-2.

65. § 9003(b), 112 Stat. at 502; see also Hazard, supra note 63, at 3.

66. A one-call notification system receives notification from excavators intending to dig in a specified area so that operators of underground systems can locate and mark their facilities in order to prevent damage during excavation. § 7302, 112 Stat. at 478.

67. Id.; see also Angela M. Baggeta, Best Practice Standards for One-Call Centers Included in ISTEA Bill Passed by Congress, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), May 27, 1998, at A-7.

68. Baggeta, supra note 67.

69. Pub. L. No. 105-34, 111 Stat. 788 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 26 U.S.C.).

70. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INST., LINKING TAX LAW AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT OF 1997 1 (1998).

71. 141 CONG. REC. D1426 (daily ed. Dec. 6, 1998); see also CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY BRIEFING BOOK OF THE 105TH CONGRESS 64 (1997).

72. H.R. 2105, 105th Cong. (1997).

73. H.R. 2014, 105th Cong. (1997).

74. Ben Wildavsky & Kirk Victor, Fighting Over Taxes, 29 NAT'L J. 1283 (1997).

75. James A. Barnes, Holding Their Fire, 29 NAT'L J. 1383 (1997) (quoting White House Press Secretary Michael D. McCurry responding to Sen. Trent Lott's (R-Miss.) comment that President Clinton was a spoiled brat: "I think he [Senator Lott] had a bad day. If you had to deal with his caucus in the Senate, you'd get frazzled every once in a while, too.").

76. Id.

77. 143 CONG. REC. D883 (daily ed. Sept. 2, 1997).

78. Pub. L. No. 105-34, § 901, 111 Stat. 871 (1997) (codified at 26 U.S.C. § 9503); see also Congress, Clinton Cooperate on Budget Plan, supra note 9.

79. Brownfields are urban and commercial sites that may require cleanup before redevelopment. See E. Lynn Grayson & Stephen A.K. Palmer, The Brownfields Phenomenon: An Analysis of Environmental, Economic, and Community Concerns, 25 ELR 10337 (July 1995).

80. § 941, 111 Stat. at 882-85 (codified at 26 U.S.C. § 198); see also Deductions on Environmental Remediation in Tax Bill Limited to Three-Year Time Span, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Aug. 8, 1997, at A-8.

81. Conference Reports on Fiscal 1998 Reconciliation, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., July 21, 1997, at 7.

82. § 941(a), 111 Stat. at 883 (codified at 26 U.S.C. § 198).

83. Id.; see also Conference Reports on Fiscal 1998 Reconciliation, supra note 81, at 7.

84. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INST., supra note 70, at 1.

85. 26 U.S.C. § 1034 (1996) (repealed 1998).

86. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INST., supra note 70, at 4.

87. § 312, 111 Stat. at 839-41 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 121).

88. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INST., supra note 70, at 17 (describing an Ohio study's conclusion that an increased percentage of homebuyers can be expected to move toward city centers).

89. The 12 nations that agreed to the Panama Declaration were Belize, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Spain, the United States of America, Vanuatu, and Venezuela.

90. 143 CONG. REC. D883 (daily ed. Sept. 2, 1997).

91. Pub. L. No. 105-42, 111 Stat. 1122 (1998) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361-1421h, ELR STAT. MMPA §§ 2-409).

92. Id. § 4, 111 Stat. at 1123 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(2), ELR STAT. MMPA § 101).

93. Id. § 5, 111 Stat. at 1125(a) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1385(d)(1)(D)).

94. Id.

95. Ron Grandon, Dolphin Bill May Need Administration Help, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., July 14, 1998, at 13.

96. § 304, 111 Stat. at 1133 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1414a, ELR STAT. MMPA § 304; see also Colleen Schu, Senate to Vote on Compromise Tuna-Dolphin Bill, ENVTL. & ENERGY STUDY INST. WKLY. BULL., July 28, 1997, at 6.

97. § 5, 111 Stat. at 1128 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1385(g)); see also Grandon, supra note 95.

98. S. 1693, 105th Cong. (1998).

99. Leslie Ann Duncan, Thomas' Parks Bill Debuts Wednesday, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Mar. 30, 1998, at 16.

100. 144 CONG. REC. S6261 (daily ed. June 11, 1998).

101. Id. H10678 (daily ed. Oct. 13, 1998).

102. Last Week's Action in House, Senate, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., Oct. 19, 1998, at 3; Leslie Ann Duncan & L. Carol Ritchie, House Panel to Move Senate Parks Bill, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., June 22, 1998, at 24.

103. Leslie Ann Duncan, Vision 2020 National Parks Restoration Act, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Oct. 5, 1998, at 7.

104. Last Week's Action in House, Senate, supra note 102.

105. Id.; see also Duncan, supra note 103.

106. Pub. L. No. 105-57, 111 Stat. 1252 (1997) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 668dd).

107. 143 CONG. REC. D1102 (daily ed. Oct. 20, 1997).

108. § 4, 111 Stat. at 1254 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)).

109. Id. § 5, 111 Stat. at 1254 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a)); see also Leslie Ann Duncan, Senate Amendments to Refuge Management Bill. CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Sept. 15, 1997, at 6.

110. 16 U.S.C. §§ 670a-670o.

111. Pub. L. No. 105-85, § 2904, 111 Stat. 2017 (1998) (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 670a(a)); see also Wildlife Management Provision in Defense Bill, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Nov. 17, 1998, at 5.

112. § 2904, 111 Stat. at 2018 (codified at 16 U.S.C. § 670a(b)).

113. See infra notes 243-65 and accompanying text.

114. Flood Repairs Exempt From Species Protection, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., Nov. 17, 1997, at 4.

115. Pub. L. No. 105-18, § 3003(a), 111 Stat. 158, 176 (1998).

116. Id. § 3003(b), 111 Stat. at 177; see also William Scally & Leslie Ann Duncan, GOP Talks Tough on Supplemental, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL. June 9, 1997, at 7.

117. Scally & Duncan, supra note 116.

118. See H.R. 478, 105th Cong. (1997).

119. Environmentalists Step Up Pressure on White House to Veto Spending Bills, INSIDE EPA'S WKLY. REP., Aug. 21, 1998, at 21.

120. Clinton Threatens to Veto EPA Budget Bill Over House's Kyoto Cuts, INSIDE EPA'S CLEAN AIR REP., July 9, 1998, at 3 (describing the President's threat to veto the EPA appropriations bill due to a spending limitation on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol); William Scally, Energy Aid, Environmental Health Funding for Fiscal 1999, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., July 27, 1998, at 4 (reporting that President Clinton threatened to veto the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill because it was fundamentally flawed); Leslie Ann Duncan, Interior and Related Agencies Funding for Fiscal 1999. CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., July 27, 1998, at 10 (describing Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's plan to recommend a veto of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) appropriations bill if it includes certain riders).

121. Helen Dewar, The Appropriations Picture: Lawmakers Hope to Fill in the Gaps by Oct. 1, WASH. POST, Sept. 2, 1997, at A15.

122. Anne Hazard, EPA Funding for Fiscal Year 1999, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., July 27, 1998, at 6 (describing Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-Cal.) attempt to eliminate language from the EPA appropriations bill that would have limited or delayed EPA work on mercury emissions, dredging contaminated sediments, and the regional haze problem); see also Interior Funding for Fiscal 1999, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., July 6, 1998, at 4.

123. H.R. 4328, 105th Cong. (1998).

124. Congress Passes and Clinton Signs Giant Funding Bill, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY DAILY REP., Oct. 22, 1998, at 1.

125. 144 CONG. REC. D1203 (daily ed. Nov. 12, 1998).

126. U.S. DOI, U.S. Department of the Interior Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations (last modified Oct. 22, 1998) http://www.doi.gov/budget/1999/99_bur_conf_table.html.

127. Congress Passes and Clinton Signs Giant Funding Bill, supra note 124.

128. Omnibus Bill: A Lot of Money, A Lot of Policy, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., Oct. 30, 1998, at 32.

129. Id.

130. Id.

131. EPA Funding Will Rise Slightly in Fiscal 1999, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., Oct. 30, 1998, at 35.

132. Pub. L. No. 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, 2496; see also infra notes 140-52 and accompanying text.

133. Pub. L. No. 105-276, 112 Stat. at 2496; see also Cindy Skryzycki, Up Against the Environmental Justice System, WASH. POST, Oct. 23, 1998 at F1.

134. House Passes CWC Implementing Legislation; Bill Stalls at Senate Due to Iran Controversy, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Nov. 17, 1997, at A-2.

135. Id.; Senate Approves Bill to Implement CWC, Removes FOIA Exemption Language, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), May 30, 1997, at A-5.

136. Convention Implementation Bill Vetoed; House Override Vote Planned in July, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), June 25, 1998, at A-8.

137. House Passes CWC Implementing Legislation; Bill Stalls at Senate Due to Iran Controversy, supra note 134; Convention Implementation Bill Vetoed; House Override Vote Planned in July, supra note 136.

138. See supra notes 119-32 and accompanying text.

139. Law Implementing Chemical Weapons Pact Included in FY 1999 Omnibus Budget Law, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Nov. 11, 1998, at A-2.

140. Id.

141. See supra notes 155-67 and accompanying text.

142. See supra notes 139-54 and accompanying text.

143. Pub. L. No. 105-286, 112 Stat. 2773 (1998).

144. Cheryl Hogue, House Accepts Senate Amendments; Border Smog Bill Sent to President Clinton, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Oct. 8, 1998, at A-7.

145. House, Senate Conferees Reach Deal on Methyl Bromide Phaseout, INSIDE EPA'S CLEAN AIR REP., Oct. 1, 1998, at 11.

146. Omnibus Bill: A Lot of Money, A Lot of Policy, supra note 128, at 32-34.

147. Neil Franz, Opponents of EPA Ozone, Particulate Rules to Move Quickly, ENVTL. & ENERGY STUDY INST. MONTHLY PULSE, Jan. 22, 1997, at 4.

148. Neil Franz, EPA SBRFA Explanation Does Not Sit Well With Bond and McIntosh, ENVTL. & ENERGY STUDY INST. MONTHLY PULSE, Feb. 3, 1997, at 4.

149. Id.

150. Lisa Caruso, Clinton Gets the Attention of Congress With Proposal to Toughen Clean Air Rules, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., Feb. 7, 1998, at 2; Senator Seeks Independent Assessments of Ozone, PM Proposals From Agencies, 27 Env't Rep. (BNA) 2301 (Mar. 28, 1997); Alec Zacaroli, Three of Four CASA Chairs Criticize EPA Rulemaking for Particulate Matter, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Apr. 11, 1997, at AA-1.

151. Chafee Seeks "Deal" to Retain Ozone Rule, Delay Fine Particulate Matter Regulation, 28 Env't Rep (BNA) 69 (May 16, 1997).

152. Agency Chief Answers Bipartisan Attacks on Air Proposal, Says No Decision Made, 28 Env't Rep. (BNA) 150 (May 23, 1997).

153. See H.R. 1984, 105th Cong. (1997).

154. Clinton Announces Strict New Clean Air Rules With "Flexible" Plan for Implementing Them, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., June 26, 1998, at 1.

155. Alec Zacaroli, Browner Outlines Plan for New Air Rules, Seeks to Alleviate Concerns About Costs, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), July 18, 1998, at A-9.

156. Alec Zacaroli, Browner Signs Final Rules Tightening Standards for Ozone and Particulates, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), July 17, 1997, at AA-1.

157. Id.

158. Two Dems Are on Familiar Battlefield, 29 NAT'L J. 1742 (1997).

159. Alec Zacaroli, House Democrats Seek to Pull Legislation to Block Ozone-PM Rules From Committee, 28 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1201 (Oct. 17, 1998).

160. Inhofe Continues Search for Vehicle to Block New Air Rules, INSIDE EPA'S CLEAN AIR REP., Oct. 30, 1997, at 17.

161. Alec Zacaroli, House Members Still Pursuing Changes to ISTEA Amendment on Clean Air Rules, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), May 19, 1998, at A-7.

162. Zacaroli & Bruninga, supra note 62, at AA-1.

163. Global Negotiators May Force Climate Change Hearings, ENVTL. & ENERGY STUDY INST. MONTHLY PULSE, Jan. 22, 1997, at 8.

164. William Scally, Second Hearing Set on Global Warming, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., June 23, 1997, at 9; William Scally, Second Senate Panel Joins Warming Debate, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., July 7, 1998, at 19.

165. S. Res. 98, 105th Cong. (1997).

166. James Kennedy & Cheryl Hogue, Senate Approves Resolution 95-0 Calling for Binding Controls on Developing Nations, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), July 28, 1997, at AA-1.

167. 143 CONG. REC. S8113-39 (daily ed. July 25, 1997).

168. U.S. Concessions Seal Landmark Climate Change Treary in Kyoto, INSIDE EPA'S WKLY. REP., Dec. 12, 1997, at 12; Conferees Near Deal Requiring Sharp U.S. Greenhouse Gas Cuts, INSIDE EPA'S CLEAN AIR REP., Dec. 11, 1997, at 1.

169. Toshio Aritake, Kyoto Meeting Ends With Agreement, Leaving Details for 1998 in Buenos Aires, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Dec. 12, 1997, at AA-1; see also U.S. Concessions Seal Landmark Climate Change Treaty in Kyoto, supra note 168.

170. Global Warming Treaty Ratification Faces "Tough Haul" in Congress, INSIDE EPA'S CLEAN AIR REP., Dec. 25, 1997, at 9.

171. Kyoto Agreement Leaves Many Issues Still Awaiting Resolution. INSIDE EPA'S CLEAN AIR REP., Dec. 25, 1997, at 8; see also Cheryl Hogue, Administration Plans to Sign Kyoto Deal. Will Hold Off Seeking Senate Ratification, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Feb. 12, 1998, at AA-1.

172. Neil Franz, Eizenstadt Defends Kyoto, Calls Budget Plan a Preparation Effort, ENVTL. & ENERGY STUDY INST. ENV'T & ENERGY MID-WK., Feb. 12, 1998, at 1.

173. House Lawmakers Prepare to Fight Climate Change Spending Limitation, INSIDE EPA'S WKLY. REP., July 24, 1998, at 14; Cheryl Hogue, Gore Chastises Congress for Bill Provision to Block Action, Discussion on Issue, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), July 15, 1998, at AA-1; Kyoto Treaty Critics Consider Strict Limits on Climate Program Spending, INSIDE EPA'S WKLY. REP., Apr. 3, 1998, at 12-13; Bill Would Prevent Kyoto Implementation Before Senate Ratification, Backers Say, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), May 1, 1998, at A-1; Cheryl Hogue, Law Needed to Prevent Implementation of Kyoto Protocol, House Republicans Say, 29 Env't Rep. (BNA) 163 (May 15, 1998).

174. House Agrees to Obey Amendment Easing Restrictions on Kyoto Activity, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), July 24, 1998, at A-9.

175. Anne Hazard, EPA Funding Conference Report for Fiscal 1999, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Oct. 5, 1998, at 5; Anne Hazard, Talks to Continue on Funding Bill for EPA, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Sept. 21, 1998, at 26.

176. John Herzfeld, United States Signs Kyoto Protocol; White House Lauds Pledge by Argentina, 28 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1373 (Nov. 13, 1998).

177. Cheryl Hogue, Reaction Mixed on U.S. Signing of Treaty; Opponents Urge Quick Vote on Ratification, 28 Env't Rep. 1373 (Nov. 13, 1998).

178. Satterfield, supra note 1, at 10030.

179. Charles Openchowski, A Shorter, Simpler Approach to Superfund Reauthorization, 27 ELR 10357 (July 1997).

180. Susan Bruninga, Clinton Officials Say CERCLA Works, Question Need for Legislative Overhaul, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Dec. 18, 1996, at AA-1.

181. Passage of "Overdue" Reforms Would Allow Focus on CWA, Subcommittee Chairman Says, 27 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1913 (Jan. 17, 1997).

182. Id.

183. S. 8, 105th Cong. (1997).

184. 143 CONG. REC. S158 (daily ed. Jan. 21, 1997).

185. The bill defined codisposal landfills as those landfills on the national priorities list as of January 1, 1997; landfills that received municipal solid waste or sewage sludge for disposal; or landfills that may have received municipal solid waste or sewage sludge that was transported to the landfill from outside the facility before the effective date of subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. S. 8, § 501(a)(43).

186. Senate GOP Superfund Bill With New Liability Plan Draws Democratic Ire, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Jan. 22, 1997, at 1.

187. A small business was defined as a "business that, during the taxable year preceding the date of the transmittal of notification that the business is a potentially responsible party, had on average fewer than 30 employees or for that taxable year reported $ 3,000,000 or less in annual gross revenues." S. 8, § 501(s).

188. Id. § 501(t)(2).

189. Republicans Introduce Reform Legislation; Democrat Criticizes Lack of Bipartisan Effort, 27 Env't Rep. (BNA) 1938, 1939 (Jan. 24, 1997)

190. Jennifer Silverman, Shuster, Business Praise Senate Bill; House Waiting on Response From EPA, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Jan. 24, 1997, at A-9.

191. Senate GOP Superfund Bill With New Liability Plan Draws Democratic Ire, supra note 186.

192. Browner, Democrats Limit Attacks on GOP Bill, But Warn of "Way to Go," INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Feb. 5, 1997, at 5.

193. Browner Senate Appearance Suggests Little Progress on Superfund Deal, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Mar. 7, 1997, at 20; see also Browner, House GOP Inch Toward March 21 Accord for Superfund Talks, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Mar. 19, 1997, at 3.

194. Browner Senate Appearance Suggests Little Progress on Superfund Deal, supra note 193.

195. Id.; see also Senate to Kick Off Limited "Consensus-Based" Superfund Discussions, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Mar. 19, 1997, at 3.

196. Browner, Gephardt Clash Publicly Over Scope of Future Superfund Talks, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Apr. 2, 1998, at 9.

197. Id.

198. Senate, House Lawmakers Agree With EPA on Process for Superfund Talks, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP. Apr. 16, 1997, at 4.

199. Administration Releases Legislative Principles for Superfund Reform, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., May 8, 1997, at 1.

200. Natural resource damages are damages to the land, fish, wildlife, air, water, groundwater, drinking water, and other similar resources determined by assessing the short-and long-term injury to the resources by identifying the direct and indirect injury, destruction, loss, replacement value, use value, and the ability of the ecosystem to recover. 42 U.S.C. § 9651(c), ELR STAT. CERCLA § 301(c); see also Suellen Keiner, Implications of Proposed CERCLA Reforms for Recoveries of Natural Resource Damages, 28 ELR 10089 (Feb. 1998).

201. Administration Releases Legislative Principles for Superfund Reform, supra note 199.

202. Bliley Criticizes EPA Principles, Citing 38 Items Agency Opposes, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., May 14, 1997, at 4.

203. Id.

204. Federal Facility Cleanup Provisions in Defense Bill Draws Early Concerns, Daily Env't Rep (BNA), June 11, 1997, at A-13.

205. House Rules Panel Kills Superfund Reform Amendments in Defense Bill, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., June 25, 1997, at 4; see also Defense Bill Minus Environment Title to Be Offered as Amendment in House, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), June 20, 1998, at A-11.

206. Overturning Air Rules "Will Be Difficult," CERCLA Reform Bill Out by Fall, Bliley Says, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), July 7, 1997, at A-1; see also Senate Negotiations on Reform Progressing, Developments in House Unclear, Official Says, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), July 17, 1998, at A-5; Smith, Lautenberg Agree to September Superfund Markup, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., July 23, 1997, at 4; Administration Considers Package of Liability Reform Measures, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., July 9, 1997, at 3.

207. Commerce Panel Floats Draft Remedy, NRD Plans in Bipartisan Talks, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., July 21, 1997, at 1; Staff Republicans, Democrats Differ Over Reasons for Panels' Split on Reform, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), July 24, 1997, at A-4, -5.

208. Staff Republicans, Democrats Differ Over Reasons for Panels' Split on Reform, supra note 207, at A-5.

209. Jennifer Silverman, Senate Republicans Schedule Markup on CERCLA Bill; Democrats Depart Talks, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Aug. 6, 1997, at AA-2.

210. The permanent remedies debate surrounded the option of leaving waste at a site as opposed to removing it. S. 8 called for reviewing all possible alternatives of remedying a site. The codisposal issue revolves around S. 8's cap on liability for owners and operators of codisposal landfills. Senate Republicans wanted to carve out a codisposal exemption based on the site, whereas the Democrats wanted an exemption based on the party.

211. New Senate Superfund Bill Shows Key Changes to Remedy, NRD and State Role, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Sept. 3, 1997, at 3.

212. Jennifer Silverman, Senate Panel Postpones Markup, Polarization on Main Issues Continues, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Sept. 9, 1997, at AA-1.

213. Senate, EPA Forge Conceptual Deal on Co-Disposal Landfill Liability, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Sept. 17, 1997, at 3.

214. Senate Democrats, White House Float Contentious NRD Plan to GOP, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Sept. 25, 1997, at 1.

215. Lautenberg Weighs "Narrow" Bill, GOP Senators to Move Markup, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Nov. 12, 1997, at 3.

216. Boehlert to Revise Liability Scheme After Borski, EPA Oppose Codisposal Plan. INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Oct. 1, 1997, at 3.

217. House Republicans Rewrite Superfund Bill to Address State Concerns, INSIDE EPA'S WKLY. REP., Oct. 17, 1997, at 3.

218. H.R. 2727, 105th Cong. (1997).

219. H.R. 3000, 105th Cong. (1997).

220. Jennifer Silverman, Borski Calls Boelhert Bill "Unsignable," Cites Unresolved Issues on Liability, Remedy, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Oct. 27, 1998, at A-6.

221. Jennifer Silverman, Boehlert, Browner Face Off at Hearing Over Small Party Definitions, Ground Water, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Oct. 30, 1997, at A-5.

222. Boelhert Postpones Markup, Will Take Up Legislation in January, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Nov. 13, 1997, at A-2; see also H.R. 2750, 105th Cong. (1997); Barcia-Dooley Seek Democratic Support on Superfund Bill, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Nov. 12, 1997, at 5.

223. Commerce Committee Republicans Float Bipartisan Superfund Bill, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Nov. 12, 1998, at 3.

224. Specifically, H.R. 3000 would have exempted generators and transporters that were not significant contributors to the cleanup costs at a site listed on the national priorities list. H.R. 3000, § 201(a).

225. Jennifer Silverman, Oxley's Generators/Transporter Exemption Draws Early Criticism From Democrats, EPA, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Nov. 12, 1997, at AA-1.

226. Jennifer Silverman, Reform Bill Has "60/40" Chance of Passage in 1998, Oxley Predicts, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Dec. 3, 1997, at A-8.

227. Key House Democrats Plan to Introduce New Superfund Reauthorization Bill, INSIDE EPA'S WEEKLY REP., Jan. 30, 1998, at 11.

228. Id.

229. Jennifer Silverman & Cheryl Bolen, Majority Leader Lott Waxes Pessimistic on Likelihood of CERCLA Reauthorization, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Feb. 4, 1998, at A-10.

230. Boelhert to Float Compromise Package Prior to "Do-or-Die" Markup, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Feb. 4, 1998, at 4.

231. Id.

232. Jennifer Silverman, Browner Disputes Statement by Lott That Administration Opposes Reform, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Feb. 20, 1998, at A-1; EPA Awaiting Final Round of Revisions Before Taking Position on Reform Bills, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 3, 1998, at A-3.

233. Jennifer Silverman, Boelhert to Move Ahead With Markup, Says Time Running Out to Enact Reform, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 3, 1998, at A-3.

234. Jennifer Silverman, Boehlert Postpones Markup by One Week to Reach Consensus With EPA, Democrats, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 5, 1998, at A-8.

235. Jennifer Silverman, Panel Approves Boelhert CERCLA Bill; Measure Gets Support From Two Democrats, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 12, 1998, at A-3.

236. Jennifer Silverman, Lott's Pledge to Work on Reauthorization Indicates "Reform Is Not Dead," Aide Says, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Feb. 6, 1998, at A-7.

237. Jennifer Silverman, Groundwater, Consent Decree Reopeners in Oxley Bill Criticized by Browner at Hearing, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 6, 1998, at AA-1.

238. Angela M. Baggetta, Liability Reopener in House Reform Bill Draws Criticism From State, Local Officials, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 27, 1998, at AA-2.

239. Senate Panel Sets Superfund Markup, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Feb. 2, 1998, at A-9; see also New Senate GOP Plans on Brownfields, NRD Face Continued Opposition, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Feb. 18, 1998, at 4; Jennifer Silverman, Revised Senate Bill Replaces Exemption of Codisposal Sites With Fair Share Method, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Feb. 23, 1998, at A-2.

240. Jennifer Silverman, Consent Decrees, Orphan Share Funding Sources of Contention in New Liability Title, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Feb. 24, 1998, at AA-1.

241. Senate Republicans Reschedule Markup of Comprehensive CERCLA Rewrite Bill, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 17, 1998, at A-1.

242. Jennifer Silverman, Senate Democrats Plan to Challenge Bill on Consent Decree Reopeners, Remedies, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 3, 1998, at AA-1.

243. Jennifer Silverman, Proposed Changes to Brownfields Title of Senate Reform Bill Set Tone of Markup, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 25, 1998, at AA-1.

244. Senate Panel Marks Up GOP Superfund Bill, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Mar. 30, 1998 at 3; see also Jennifer Silverman, Senate Environment Panel Approves S. 8; Partisan Differences on Key issues Remain, 28 Env't Rep. (BNA) 2467 (Mar. 27, 1998); Gore Senate Democrats Attack Superfund Reauthorization Bill, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Apr. 3, 1998, at 14.

245. Gore Senate Democrats Attack Superfund Reauthorization Bill, supra note 244.

246. GOP Attacks Gore Comments on $ 650 Million Superfund Boost, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., May 27, 1998, at 2.

247. House Democrats Weigh Narrow Superfund Bill Absent Tax Extension, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., May 27, 1998, at 3.

248. S. 2180, 105th Cong. (1998).

249. Id. § 3; see also Lott Daschle Introduce Recyclers' Liability Exemption Bill, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., June 24, 1998, at 3.

250. Lott to Seek Passage of Superfund Liability Relief From Recyclers This Session, INSIDE EPA'S WKLY. REP., Sept. 11, 1998, at 10.

251. Lott Vows to Attach Recycling Bill to Omnibus Funding Measure, INSIDE EPA'S SUPERFUND REP., Oct. 7, 1998, at 1.

252. Superfund Exemptions Dropped From Omnibus Spending Package, INSIDE EPA'S WKLY. REP., Oct. 20, 1998, at 1.

253. CHARLES DICKENS, BLEAK HOUSE 146 (Norman Page ed., Penguin Books 1971) (1853); see also In re Tutu Wells Contamination Litig., 994 F. Supp. 638, 651, 28 ELR 21296, 21301 (D. V.I. 1998) (citing both Senator Domenici, 132 CONG. REC. 24730 (1985), and ALFRED R. LIGHT, CERCLA LAW AND PROCEDURE 11 (BNA Books 1991), as using the passage to describe CERCLA practice)).

254. Endangered Species Legislation, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA) Special Rep., Jan. 21, 1998, at S-39.

255. Senate to Take Lead on ESA Reform, ENVTL. & ENERGY STUDY INST. MONTHLY PULSE, Jan. 22, 1997, at 7.

256. Rep. Young Calls on Administration to Offer ESA Reauthorization Language, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Jan. 8, 1997, at A-4.

257. Kevin Braun, Kempthorne, Chafee Float Draft ESA Bill, ENVTL. & ENERGY STUDY INST. WKLY. BULL., Feb. 3, 1997, at 8.

258. S. 981, 105th Cong. (1997)

259. Jennifer Silverman, Kempthorne Offers Tax Incentive With Eye to Reconciliation Legislation. Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), June 6, 1997, at A-6.

260. Kempthorne Tax Incentive Bill Supporters Consider Offering It as Floor Amendment. Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), June 25, 1997, at A-6.

261. S. 1180, 105th Cong. (1997).

262. Leslie Ann Duncan, Senate Species Bill Is Criticized by Groups on Both Sides, But Praised by Administration, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., Sept. 18, 1997, at 2.

263. Jennifer Silverman, Greater State Role, "Good Science" Focus of Bill, No Full Commitment From DOI, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Sept. 17, 1998, at A-8.

264. Under the bill, recovery plans for newly listed species had to be drafted within 18 months of the species' listing, and the plan had to be completed within 30 months of the listing. S. 1180, § 3(b).

265. Duncan, supra note 262, at 1.

266. Interest Groups Target Funding, Landowner Compensation at Hearing, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Sept. 25, 1997, at A-5.

267. S. 1181.

268. Silverman, supra note 255, at A-9.

269. Jennifer Silverman, Senate Panel Swiftly Approves Rewrite of ESA; Administration Voice Support, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Oct. 1, 1997, at A-8.

270. Leslie Ann Duncan, Interior and Related Agencies Funding for Fiscal 1999, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., July 13, 1998, at 15.

271. Leslie Ann Duncan, Endangered Species Act Amendments, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., July 27, 1998, at 10.

272. A bill is hotlined when Republican and/or Democratic leaders ask party members in the House or Senate to review a proposed bill and to offer amendments on that bill before it reaches the respective floor of Congress. Hotlining avoids prolonged debate over controversial amendments and, thus, speeds passage of a bill.

273. Leslie Ann Duncan, Endangered Species Act Amendments, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Sept. 21, 1998, at 10.

274. Leslie Ann Duncan, Endangered Species Act Amendments, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Sept. 28, 1998, at 14.

275. Leslie Ann Duncan, Endangered Species Act Amendments, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Oct. 5, 1998, at 14.

276. L. Carol Ritchie, Federal Court Access for Property Rights Appeals, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Oct. 20, 1997, at 4.

277. Katherine M. Stimmel, Local, Environmental Groups Oppose Bill Expediting Takings Claims in Federal Court, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Aug. 8, 1997, at A-8.

278. 143 CONG. REC. H8940 (daily ed. Oct. 22, 1997).

279. Senate Fails to Move Property Rights Bill, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), July 15, 1998, at A-7.

280. See H.R. 752, 105th Cong. (1997) (allowing anyone that is directly or indirectly harmed by the designation of critical habitat to bring a citizen suit under the ESA); H.R. 992, 105th Cong. (1997) (allowing property owners to sue in the Court of Federal Claims to challenge any federal action that reduces the value of the owner's land).

281. Congress Gets Ready, But Not Far, on Electricity, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., Aug. 5, 1997, at 15.

282. Manimoli Dinesh, Utility Deregulation Debate Enters Important Phase, ENVTL. & ENERGY STUDY INST. ENV'T & ENERGY MONTHLY REP., Oct. 30, 1997, at 3.

283. S. 621, 105th Cong. (1997).

284. Christopher Rosche, D'Amato Opens Debate on Repeal of Utility Law, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Apr. 28, 1997, at 15.

285. Christopher Rosche, Deregulation Heats Up as Session Nears End, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Oct. 20, 1997, at 23.

286. Deregulation Produces Initial Skirmishes, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., Nov. 17, 1997, at 18.

287. Christopher Rosche, Utility Holding Company Deregulation, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Feb. 2, 1998, at 4.

288. Christopher Rosche, Electricity Bill Talks Expected to Continue, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Feb. 9, 1998, at 11.

289. Belinda Buescher & Cathy Cooper, Administration Draft on Electricity Appears, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., June 1, 1998, at 14.

290. Environmental, Consumer Protections Sought in Electric Utility Deregulation Bill, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), June 24, 1998, at AA-1.

291. Alec Zacaroli, Electric Utility Measure Sent to Congress; Critics Dissatisfied With Health Provisions, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), June 29, 1998, at AA-1.

292. House Commerce Draft Deregulation Bill Asks for Renewable Energy Use, INSIDE EPA'S CLEAN AIR REP., July 23, 1998, at 15.

293. Belinda Buescher & Cathy Cooper, House Commerce Republicans End Effort to Move Electricity Restructuring Bill This Year, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., July 23, 1998, at 1.

294. Lott Drafts New Legislation to Reform RCRA Remediation Regulations, INSIDE EPA'S WKLY. REP., Jan. 23, 1998, at 4; see also Amy Porter, More Public Participation Requirements, Less Waste Included in Draft RCRA Bill, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Jan. 26, 1998, at A-8.

295. Porter, supra note 294.

296. Administration Drafts New Outline for Bill to Jumpstart RCRA Cleanups, INSIDE EPA'S WKLY. REP., Apr. 17, 1998, at 1.

297. "Good Faith" Efforts on RCRA Bill Victim of Tight Election-Year Schedule, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), July 27, 1998, at A-1; see also Senate RCRA Bill Could Be Scuttled by Amendments From Democrats, INSIDE EPA'S WKLY. REP., July 17, 1998, at 12; Senate Republicans Plan to Mark Up RCRA Reform Bill Before End of July, INSIDE EPA'S WKLY. REP., July 3, 1998, at 1.

298. Lott Promises Introduction of RCRA Reform Bill in September, INSIDE EPA'S WKLY. REP., Aug. 7, 1998, at 11.

299. Sen. Chafee Says RCRA Reform Will Be a Priority Item for Next Congress, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Sept. 9, 1998, at A-8.

300. Reg. Reform to Focus Mostly on Congressional Oversight, ENVTL. & ENERGY STUDY INST. MONTHLY PULSE, Jan. 22, 1998, at 15-16.

301. S. 981, 105th Cong. (1997).

302. Susan Bruninga, Sens. Thompson, Levin Offer Reform Bill With Cost-Benefit Analysis, Judicial Review, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), July 1, 1997, at A-3.

303. James Kennedy, Senate Bill Would Discourage Agencies From Important Priorities, NRDC Says, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), July 14, 1997, at AA-1; see also Sen. Levin Says He Would Clarify S. 981 in Response to Administration Concerns, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Sept. 15, 1997, at A-8.

304. Senate Regulatory Reform Bill Lacks Support From Top GOP Leaders, INSIDE EPA'S WKLY. REP., Feb. 13, 1998, at 1.

305. Senate Regulatory Reform Bill Gets Hearing, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY SPECIAL REP., Nov. 17, 1998, at 13.

306. Susan Bruninga, Industry Groups Praise Bill Substitute Addressing Administration's Concerns, Daily Env't Rep., Feb. 5, 1997, at A-7.

307. Markup of Substitute Version of Bill Postponed to March 10, Senate Aide Says, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Mar. 3, 1998, at A-3.

308. Senate Committee Passes Regulatory Reform Bill in Partisan Vote, INSIDE EPA'S WKLY. REP., Mar. 13, 1998, at 4.

309. Lott Offers Narrow Risk Legislation, Clouding Future of Broader Bill, INSIDE EPA'S WKLY. REP., Mar. 13, 1998, at 1.

310. Susan Bruninga, Thompson-Levin Bill Receives Boost From Daschle, White House, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), July 7, 1998, at AA-1.

311. Susan Bruninga, Cost-Benefit Accounting Language for Rules Included in Treasury Funding Bill, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Aug. 4, 1998, at A-10.

312. Satterfield, supra note 1, at 10026.

313. Susan Bruninga, Measure on Private Sector Mandates Needs Balance, Senate Panel Hearing Told, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), June 4, 1998, at A-8.

314. Cheryl Bolen, Senate Committee Poised to Approve Private Sector Unfunded Mandates Bill, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), June 18, 1998, at A-8.

315. 144 CONG. REC. H3430 (daily ed. May 19, 1998).

316. L. Carol Ritchie, Senate Committee to Move Mandates Bill, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., June 15, 1998, at 10.

317. Cheryl Bolen, Senate Panel Approves Bill Extending Unfunded Mandate Rule to Private Sector, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), July 16, 1998, at A-10.

318. Margaret Kriz, Dumped On, 30 NAT'L J. 1048, 1051 (1998).

319. Jim Moeller, After Dispensing With Initial Procedural Hoops, Senate Ready to Debate Nuclear Waste Bill, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY FLOOR BRIEF, Apr. 9, 1997, at 2.

320. Kriz, supra note 318, at 1052.

321. 143 CONG. REC. S3140 (daily ed. Apr. 15, 1997); see also Jim Moeller, Senate Passes Bill on Nuclear Waste, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Apr. 21, 1997, at 11; Patricia A. Ware, Revision of Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Work on Disposal Sites Expected in 1998, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA Outlook '98 Supp.), Jan. 12, 1998, at S-19.

322. 143 CONG. REC. H9679 (daily ed. Oct. 30, 1997).

323. Patricia A. Ware, House to Send Waste Bill to Senate; Chances for Passage Uncertain, Aide Says, Daily Env't Rep. (BNA), Feb. 2, 1998, at A-8.

324. Stephen Siegel, Informal Talks Start on Nuclear Waste, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY. BULL., Mar. 9, 1998, at 9.

325. William Scally, Fast Track Trade Negotiating Authority, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY WKLY, BULL., Nov. 3, 1997, at 8.

326. Fast Track Bill Dies for This Year, supra note 11.

327. 144 CONG. REC. H8805 (daily ed. Sept. 25, 1998).

328. Leslie Ann Duncan, Compromise Reached on Wildlife Refuge Bill, CONG. GREEN SHEETS ENV'T & ENERGY FLOOR BRIEF, May 14, 1998, at 1.

329. Id.

330. Helen Dewar & Ruth Marcus, GOP's Hopes for Big Senate Gain Dashed, WASH. POST, Nov. 4, 1998, at A27.

331. Dan Balz & David S. Broder, Shaken Republicans Count Losses, Debate Blame, WASH. POST, Nov. 5, 1998, at A1.

332. Eric Pianin, Budget Negotiations Nurtured Revolt Against Gingrich, WASH. POST, Nov. 7, 1998, at A13.

333. Guy Gugliotta & Juliet Eilperin, Gingrich Steps Down as Speaker in Face of House GOP Rebellion, WASH. POST, Nov. 7, 1998, at A1.

334. Edward Walsh, For Livingston, the Time Is Now, WASH. POST, Nov. 7, 1998, at A1; see also Dan Balz, For GOP Fighter, A Confrontation He Didn't Want, WASH. POST, Nov. 7, 1998, at A1; Gugliotta & Eilperin, supra note 333.

335. Balz & Broder, supra note 331.

336. Helen Dewar, Democrats to Revive Health Measure, WASH. POST, Nov. 6, 1998, at A4.

337. Ceci Connolly & Juliet Eilperin, The House: Gingrich Moves to Protect His Leadership Post, WASH. POST, Nov. 5, 1998, at A33.

29 ELR 10085 | Environmental Law Reporter | copyright © 1999 | All rights reserved