The Superfund program is the principal federal effort for cleaning up hazardous waste sites and protecting public health and the environment from releases of hazardous substances. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) established the program, and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorisation Act of 1986 (SARA) amended it. This book includes data and other pertinent information about CERCLA and the Superfund program, followed by a glossary. EPA defines brownfields as abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. FY1997 was the first year brownfields became a separate budgetary line item, at $37.7 million. For FY2000 the appropriation was $91.7 million. In the FY2001 budget, the Administration requested and was appropriated $91.6 million. The 106th Congress extended the brownfields cleanup tax incentive to December 31, 2003, and expanded it to make all brownfields certified by a state environmental agency eligible for tax break. Other brownfields bills introduced in the Congress appeared to confirm the general direction EPA has taken. Two Superfund reauthorisation bills were reported in the House, each of which contained a title on brownfields. The history, background and operations of the brownfields are described.

The U.S. Armed Forces disposed of chemical weapons in the ocean from World War I through 1970. At that time, it was thought that the vastness of ocean waters would absorb chemical agents that may leak from these weapons. However, public concerns about human health and environmental risks, and the economic effects of potential damage to marine resources, led to a statutory prohibition on the disposal of chemical weapons in the ocean in 1972. For many years, there was little attention to weapons that had been dumped offshore prior to this prohibition. However, the U.S. Army completed a report in 2001 indicating that the past disposal of chemical weapons in the ocean had been more common and widespread geographically than previously acknowledged. The Army cataloged 74 instances of disposal through 1970, including 32 instances off U.S. shores and 42 instances off foreign shores. The disclosure of these records has renewed public concern about lingering risks from chemical weapons still in the ocean today.

As reported July 10, 2012, by the House Committee on Appropriations, Title II of H.R. 6091, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Act, 2013, included a total of $7.06 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2013, $1.28 billion (15.5%) below the President's FY2013 request of $8.34 billion, and $1.39 billion (16.5%) below the FY2012 enacted appropriation of $8.45 billion. Although the House committee-reported bill proposed an overall decrease for EPA, it included both decreases and increases in funding for many individual programs and activities in the eight appropriations accounts that fund the agency compared with the FY2013 requested and FY2012 enacted levels. Since FY2006, Congress has funded EPA accounts within the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations. The House committee-reported bill would decrease funding for seven of the eight EPA appropriations accounts compared to the President's FY2013 request, and for six of the accounts relative to FY2012 enacted levels. The largest decrease in H.R. 2061 as reported was for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account: $2.60 billion for FY2013, compared to $3.36 billion requested (23% decrease) and $3.61 billion for FY2012 (28% decrease). This account consistently contains the largest portion of the agency's funding among the eight accounts. The majority of the proposed decrease is attributed to a combined $507.0 million reduction in funding for grants that provide financial assistance to states to help capitalize Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). Respectively, these funds finance local wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. H.R. 6091 as reported included $689.0 million for Clean Water SRF capitalization grants and $829.0 million for Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants, compared to $1.18 billion and $850.0 million requested for FY2013, and $1.47 billion and $917.9 million appropriated for FY2012, respectively. The STAG account also includes funds to support "categorical" grant programs. States and tribes use these grants to support the day-to-day implementation of environmental laws, such as monitoring, permitting and standard setting, training, and other pollution control and prevention activities, and these grants also assist multimedia projects. The $994.0 million total included for FY2013 for categorical grants in H.R. 6091 as reported is $208.4 million less than the $1.20 billion requested for FY2013, and $94.8 million below the $1.09 billion FY2012 enacted amount. Other prominent issues that have received attention within the context of EPA appropriations include the level of funding for implementing certain air pollution control requirements including greenhouse gas emission regulations, climate change research and related activities, cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Superfund program, cleanup of sites that tend to be less hazardous (referred to as brownfields), and cleanup of petroleum from leaking underground tanks. Funding needs for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for the protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and other geographic-specific water programs, also have received attention. In addition to funding priorities among the many pollution control programs and activities, several recent and pending EPA regulatory actions continue to be controversial in the FY2013 appropriations. H.R. 6091 as reported included a number of provisions similar to those considered in the FY2012 appropriations debate (some of which were adopted for FY2012) that would restrict the use of funding for the development, implementation, and enforcement of certain regulatory actions that cut across the various pollution control statutes' programs and initiatives.

"Toxic" drywall, formaldehyde emissions, mold, asbestos, lead-based paint, radon, PCBs in caulk, and many other indoor pollution problems have concerned federal policy makers and regulators during the last 30 years. Some problems have been resolved, others remain of concern, and new indoor pollution problems continually emerge. This report describes common indoor pollutants and health effects that have been linked to indoor pollution, federal statutes that have been used to address indoor pollution, key issues, and some general policy options for Congress. Indoor pollutants are chemicals that are potentially harmful to people and found in the habitable portions of buildings, including homes, schools, offices, factories, and other public gathering places. Some indoor pollutants, like lead or ozone, are also outdoor pollutants. Others, like formaldehyde or asbestos, are primarily indoor pollutants. Indoor pollutants may be natural (for example, carbon monoxide or radon) or synthetic (polychlorinated biphenyls PCBs]), and may originate indoors or outdoors. They may be deliberately produced, naturally occurring, or inadvertent byproducts of human activities. For example, they may arise indoors as uncontrolled emissions from building materials, paints, or furnishings, from evaporation following the use of cleaning supplies or pesticides, or as a combustion byproduct as a result of heating or cooking. Some pollution that originates outdoors infiltrates through porous basements (e.g., radon) or is inadvertently brought into indoor spaces, perhaps through heating or air conditioning systems or in contaminated drinking water. Often pollutants accumulate indoors as a result of deliberate improvements to increase energy efficiency, for example by reducing building permeability to air. The health risks posed by indoor pollutants have concerned scientists for many years. Because people spend a high percentage of their time indoors, and concentrations of pollutants often are higher in indoor air than outdoor air, the risks due to exposure can be higher than many other environmental risks. Moreover, a 2011 report by the Institute of Medicine warns that many indoor environmental quality problems might get worse if adaptations to climate change are made without better information and programs aimed at pollution prevention. No federal agency has broad authority concerning pollution indoors. Nonetheless, numerous federal agencies have some authority to control particular indoor pollutants or sources of pollution or the quality of indoor environments in a particular class of structures. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to study and issue safety guidelines for radon and lead-based paint hazards. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) authorizes EPA also to respond to releases of hazardous substances into the outdoor environment which may migrate indoors. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has authority to set emission limits for, and to restrict uses of, certain chemicals in consumer products. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the General Services Administration (GSA) regulate some indoor pollutants in federal buildings. These and other agencies have conducted research to examine the risks of various indoor pollutants. Concerns about coordination of federal efforts to address indoor pollution have been expressed by the general public, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the U.S. Congress. But any federal response to indoor pollution is complicated by the need to coordinate with local and state governments as well to address potentially overlapping jurisdictions and resources. Options for Congress range from maintenance or improvement of the status quo to reduction or expansion of federal involvement in research, information dissemination, or regulation.

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorising statutes. Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission of the President's budget at the beginning of the session. Congressional practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.This book is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate Subcommittees on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. It summarises the status of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity, and is updated as events warrant.