H.R. 2226: Federal and State Partnership for Environmental Protection Act of 2013

113th Congress · introduced 2013-06-03 · Environmental Protection · Latest: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 182.

federal

Follow this bill, step by step

Where it came from: introduced 2013-06-03 · official record
Who proposed it: Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH-6] · what a sponsor is
What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
Where it stands now: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 182. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.

What does this mean?

Official title

Federal and State Partnership for Environmental Protection Act of 2013

Plain summary

Federal and State Partnership for Environmental Protection Act of 2013 - (Sec. 2) Amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to require the President to consult with affected states: (1) in undertaking a removal action concerning hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants (substances); and (2) during (currently, before) the process of selecting any appropriate remedial action. Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and each federal entity responsible for federal facility compliance to consult with state and local officials and provide them the opportunity to participate in the planning and selection of a remedial action with respect to such a facility. Requires a determination made by state or local officials to not participate in such action to be documented in the administrative record regarding the action. (Sec. 3) Requires the President to grant states credit for the share of costs with respect to a facility listed on the National Priorities List under the National Contingency Plan for amounts expended for removal at such facility of such substances in addition to the credits currently given for remedial actions. Authorizes credit to be given for oversight costs and in-kind expenditures. (Sec. 4) Requires the President, upon the request of a state, to provide to such state the basis for not including a priority among releases of such substances on the revised national list. Prohibits the President from adding a facility to the national list over the written objection of the state, unless: the state, as an owner or operator or a significant contributor of hazardous substances to the facility, is a potentially responsible party; the President determines that the contamination has migrated across a state boundary, resulting in the need for response actions in multiple states; or the criteria under the national contingency plan for issuance of a health advisory have been met. Removes provisions concerning the 100 highest priority facilities. Authorizes states to designate a facility to the national list no more than once every five years. Includes, as a minimum requirement in regulations that provide for involvement by each state in remedial actions, state concurrence in adding sites to the National Priorities List. (Sec. 5) Requires remedial actions to meet any state environmental covenant law or state law or regulation requiring the use of engineering control or land use control if they are more stringent than federal requirements.

Congressional Research Service summary (Reported to House amended, Part I), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.

What a vote does

A “Yea” vote

If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.

A “Nay” vote

If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.

PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).

What does this mean? (plain words)

Official text

Federal and State Partnership for Environmental Protection Act of 2013

Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Reported to House amended, Part I)

AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text

No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.

Limited to a few requests an hour per person.

The strongest published arguments

Arguments for (supporters)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Arguments against (opponents)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Alternatives

Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes

Officials and money

Sponsor: Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH-6] · 1 cosponsors

Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.

Cosponsors on this site

Kevin Cramer (R-ND)

No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.

Words on this page, explained (2)

Appropriation: Money a legislature sets aside by law for a specific purpose. Government agencies may spend public money only as it has been appropriated.
Rulemaking: The process agencies use to write regulations that carry out laws passed by Congress or a legislature. Usually an agency publishes a proposed rule, takes public comments, then publishes a final rule.

Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.

Sources

Congressional Research Service summary (Reported to House amended, Part I)
Congress.gov
Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-113hr2226.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/113/hr>

Record fed-us-cong113-hr2226 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong113 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong113