Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for FY2005

Congressional research reportDec 29, 2004

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL32441

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Environmental Protection Agency:

Appropriations for FY2005

Updated December 29, 2004

David Bearden and name redacted

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Environmental Protection Agency:

Appropriations for FY2005

Summary

The President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (P.L.

108-447, H.R. 4818) on December 8, 2004. The law provides funding for numerous

federal agencies, including $8.09 billion for EPA, subject to an across-the-board

rescission of 0.8%. The final appropriation is more than the Administration’s request

of $7.79 billion, but is less than the FY2004 appropriation of $8.37 billion. The

adequacy of funding for scientific research, the cleanup of hazardous waste sites

under the Superfund program, and water infrastructure were prominent issues in the

FY2005 appropriations debate. Funding for numerous other activities also received

attention, such as grants for environmental education, clean school buses, and

redevelopment of brownfields, as well as funding for EPA enforcement of

environmental laws. Amounts indicated below for specific activities are line-items

in the act and the accompanying conference report on H.R. 4818 (H.Rept. 108-792),

and do not reflect the across-the-board rescission.

The act provides $750 million (prior to transfers from the Superfund account)

for EPA’s scientific research activities, more than the Administration’s request of

$689 million but less than the FY2004 appropriation of $782 million. Some

scientists had opposed a decrease in funding for scientific research, arguing that

critical areas of knowledge needed for public policy decisions on controlling

pollution would be compromised. The Administration had countered that its

requested decrease was due to cost savings from consolidating and realigning certain

research areas, and that it would maintain research in key areas needed for the

development of pollution control regulations.

The act provides $1.26 billion for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the

Superfund program (prior to transfers to the Science and Technology and Office of

Inspector General accounts). The appropriation is the same as in FY2004, but is less

than the Administration’s request of $1.38 billion. The level of funding needed to

ensure an adequate pace of cleanup, and the source of such funding, were key issues.

The taxing authority for the Superfund Trust Fund expired at the end of 1995, and the

balance has essentially been expended since then. The act authorizes the use of

general Treasury revenues to entirely support the FY2005 funding level, if sufficient

funds are not available in the trust fund.

The act provides $1.10 billion for the clean water State Revolving Fund (SRF),

more than the Administration’s request of $850 million, but less than the FY2004

appropriation of $1.34 billion. The law also provides $850 million for the drinking

water SRF, the same as the Administration’s request and nearly the same as the

FY2004 appropriation of $845 million. These SRFs provide seed monies for state

loans to communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. The

amounts for the SRFs have been contentious, as there is disagreement over the

adequacy of funding to meet these needs. The law also provides $310 million in

earmarked funding for grants to specific communities for drinking water, wastewater,

and storm water infrastructure projects. As this report discusses final action on

FY2005 appropriations for EPA, it will not be updated.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

History and Mission of EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Federal Budget and Appropriations Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

EPA’s Budget Request for FY2005 by Performance Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

EPA’s Appropriation for FY2005 by Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Science and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Environmental Programs and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Office of Inspector General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Buildings and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Hazardous Substance Superfund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Oil Spill Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

State and Tribal Assistance Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

List of Figures

Figure 1. EPA Budget Authority: FY1995-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

List of Tables

Table 1. EPA Budget Goals for FY2004 Compared to FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 2. EPA Appropriations Accounts: FY2004 Enacted, FY2005 Request, and

Action on FY2005 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 3. Science and Technology Account: FY2004 Enacted, FY2005 Request and

Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 4. Funding for Selected EPA Air Quality Activities:FY2004 Enacted, FY2005

Request and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 5. Environmental Programs and Management Account: FY2004 Enacted,

FY2005 Request and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 6. Office of Inspector General Account: FY2004 Enacted, FY2005 Request

and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 7. Buildings and Facilities Account: FY2004 Enacted, FY2005 Request and

Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 8. Hazardous Substance Superfund Account: FY2004 Enacted, FY2005

Request and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 9. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program Account: FY2004 Enacted,

FY2005 Request and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 10. Oil Spill Response Account: FY2004 Enacted, FY2005 Request and

Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 11. State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account:FY2004 Enacted, FY2005

Request and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 12. Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs: FY2004 Enacted, FY2005 Request

and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 13. Funding for EPA State and Tribal Categorical Grants: FY2004 Enacted,

FY2005 Request and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 14. Brownfields Funding by Account and Activity: FY2004 Enacted, FY2005

Request and Action on Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Environmental Protection Agency:

Appropriations for FY2005

Introduction

On December 8, 2004, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations

Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4818), which includes 9 of the 13 annual

appropriations bills that fund the federal government.1 Division I of the law includes

funding for Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development (VA-HUD), and

Independent Agencies, the appropriations bill that funds the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA). Title III of Division I provides $8.09 billion for EPA in

FY2005, subject to an across-the-board rescission of 0.8% that applies to all agencies

funded by the law. Other divisions of the law impose additional rescissions on

certain agencies, but these rescissions do not apply to EPA. (For further discussion,

see CRS Report RS21983, FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act: Reference

Guide, by (name redacted)).

The FY2005 appropriation of $8.09 billion for EPA is more than the

Administration’s request of $7.79 billion, but is less than the FY2004 appropriation

of $8.37 billion. Both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committees reported

out bills that included FY2005 funding recommendations for EPA. Although there

was no further action on either bill, the two bills formed the basis for EPA’s funding

in the consolidated appropriations bill. As reported, H.R. 5041 (H.Rept. 108-674)

would have provided $7.75 billion for EPA, less than the requested. S. 2825 as

reported (S.Rept. 108-353) would have provided more than requested, $8.50 billion,

and included a provision that would have required EPA to submit a more detailed

budget justification for FY2006 which would identify funding for all agency

activities no matter how small.2 This provision was not included in the conference

agreement on H.R. 4818. Rather, the conferees urged EPA to continue its ongoing

efforts to reformat its annual budget justification, allowing the agency the discretion

to determine how and to what extent it would be modified.

The nine appropriations bills incorporated into P.L. 108-447 include Agriculture,

Commerce, Energy and Water, Foreign Operations, Interior, Labor-HHS-Education,

Legislative Branch, Transportation-Treasury, and VA-HUD. The four previously enacted

appropriations bills include Defense (P.L. 108-287), Military Construction (P.L. 108-324),

Homeland Security (P.L. 108-334), and District of Columbia (P.L. 108-335).

In recent years, EPA has identified its request and prior-year funding by several line-item

accounts and by key programs. However, some of the key programs reflect a combination

of multiple programs and activities, for which a breakout of the request and prior-year

funding for each separate program or activity is not provided. S. 2825 would have required

a breakout for all of the individual programs and activities of the agency for FY2006.

CRS-2

The debate leading up to the enactment of P.L. 108-447, reflected varying

levels of interest in funding for specific activities that EPA administers. Prominent

issues in the appropriations debate included the adequacy of funding for: 1) scientific

research upon which pollution control standards are based, 2) the cleanup of

hazardous waste sites under the Superfund program, and 3) federal assistance to

states for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. The FY2005

appropriation for EPA includes a reduction in funding relative to FY2004 for

scientific research and wastewater infrastructure projects, but provides steady funding

for the Superfund program. Although the FY2005 appropriation is less overall than

in FY2004, an increase in funding is provided for certain activities, such as the Clean

School Bus Program and others discussed later in this report.

The following sections of this report provide background information on the

history and mission of EPA, including past funding levels, explain the process

through which appropriations were considered for FY2005, discuss EPA’s FY2005

budget request by performance goal, examine funding enacted for EPA by

appropriations account, and analyze key funding issues that received considerable

attention in the congressional debate on appropriations.

Amounts in this report for FY2005 are line-items in P.L. 108-447 and in the

accompanying conference report on H.R. 4818 (H.Rept. 108-792). They do not

reflect the across-the-board rescission of 0.8%. Pursuant to Section 122 of P.L. 108447, rescissions made under the 0.8% cut apply proportionately across each account,

program, project, and activity that is specified in the act and conference report, and

well as to items not specified in the act or report, but which are otherwise identified

in the President’s request. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will

distribute the cut across agencies funded in the law.

The conference report states that EPA should comply with the language and

allocations of funding in H.Rept. 108–674 and S.Rept. 108–353, “unless specifically

addressed to the contrary” in the conference report.3 It further states that House

report language unchanged by the Senate or conference report, and Senate report

language unchanged by the conference report, is approved. Accordingly, approved

House or Senate report language relevant to specific activities discussed in this CRS

report is noted in the following sections where appropriate.

History and Mission of EPA

The Nixon Administration established the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) in 1970 to consolidate federal pollution control responsibilities that had been

divided among several agencies. EPA’s responsibilities have grown as Congress has

enacted an increasing number of environmental laws, as well as major amendments

to these statutes, over three decades. Annual appropriations provide the funds

necessary for EPA to carry out its responsibilities under these laws, such as the

regulation of air quality and water quality, use of pesticides and toxic substances,

management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, and cleanup of

environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist state, tribal, and local

H.Rept. 108-792, p. 1465.

CRS-3

governments in implementing and complying with environmental laws. (For further

discussion, see CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes

Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency).

EPA’s funding trends over the history of the agency generally reflect the

evolution of statutory responsibilities and authorities enacted by Congress in

response to a wide range of environmental concerns. In terms of the overall federal

budget, EPA’s annual appropriation has represented a relatively small portion of total

federal funding (about 0.3% in recent years). Historically, without adjusting for

inflation, EPA’s funding has grown from $1 billion when EPA was established in

FY1970 to $8.09 billion in FY2005.

Figure 1 provides a 20-year funding history (not adjusted for inflation) for EPA

from FY1985 through FY2005. It also indicates the FY2005 request and the amounts

recommended by the House and Senate appropriation committees in H.R. 5041 and

S. 2825, as reported.

Figure 1. EPA Budget Authority: FY1995-FY2005

Note: The bars for FY2005 represent: the Administration’s request (R), funding proposed by the

House Appropriations Committee in H.R. 5041 (H), by the Senate Appropriations Committee in S.

2825 (S), and the final amount in P.L. 108-447 (P.L.) which does not reflect the 0.8% across-the-board

rescission.

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the Office of Management

and Budget, Budget of the U.S. Government FY2005:Historical Tables, Table 5.2, Budget Authority

by Agency 1976-2009, pp. 95-96, and reports on H.R. 5041 (H.Rept. 108-674), S. 2825 (S.Rept. 108353), and P.L. 108-447 (H.R. 4818, H.Rept. 108-792).

CRS-4

Federal Budget and Appropriations Process

As in past years, consideration of FY2005 appropriations for EPA and other

federal agencies involved numerous steps. The President submitted his budget

request to Congress in February 2004. The House and Senate then developed their

respective budgets in the form of a concurrent resolution. This budget resolution

outlines overall budget policies and assumptions for spending and revenue, and

specifies the level of budget authority and outlays for the 20 budget functions of the

federal government. EPA’s activities are placed under Function 300 for Natural

Resources and Environment for purposes of overall fiscal planning. Funding is

allocated to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees based on the

functional amounts in the budget resolution. These committees then allocate this

funding to the subcommittees that mark up the 13 appropriations bills that fund the

federal government.

The House passed the conference agreement on the FY2005 budget resolution

(S.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 108-498) on May 19, 2004. The Senate had agreed to its

version of the resolution on March 12, 2004, but did not vote on the conference

agreement. In the absence of final action on the budget resolution, the House and

Senate separately adopted a “deeming resolution” for budget enforcement purposes.

Consideration of appropriations for FY2005 proceeded under these measures,

guiding the allocation of funding to individual federal agencies. Congress

determined the level of funding for EPA out of the suballocation for VA-HUD and

Independent Agencies, for which the final amount was provided in Division I of P.L.

108-447, as discussed above. (For further discussion of how consideration of

appropriations for FY2005 proceeded, see CRS Report RL32246, Congressional

Budget Actions in 2004, by Bill Heniff.)

EPA’s Budget Request for FY2005 by Performance Goal

Annual appropriations for EPA are requested, considered, and enacted according

to several line-item accounts, as discussed in the following section. However, EPA

justifies its budget request for these accounts by performance goals, in accordance

with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA, P.L. 103-62).

The FY2005 budget request and supporting documents were the seventh presented

under GPRA, which directs that a performance plan accompany the budget.4 EPA

significantly revised the planning, budgeting, and performance structure of its

FY2005 budget request to match its new Strategic Plan,5 reducing the number of

performance goals from 10 to 5. EPA uses these goals to plan, budget, and execute

resources, and to review the relationship of resources to performance. Table 1

compares the new goals for FY2005 with the goals used in congressional budget

justifications for FY2004 and recent years.

Supporting documents for EPA’s FY2005 budget and previous fiscal years’ budgets,

including Budget Summaries of the EPA Budget, Annual Performance Plans, and

Congressional (Budget) Justifications, are available on the agency’s Office of Chief

Financial Officer website at [http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/budget/htm].

EPA, 2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan — Direction for the Future, September 30, 2003,

available at the agency’s website at [http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm].

CRS-5

Table 1. EPA Budget Goals for FY2004 Compared to FY2005

FY2004 Budget Goals

Goal 1:

Goal 2:

Clean Air

Clean and Safe Water

Goal 3:

Goal 4:

Safe Food

Preventing Pollution and Reducing Risk in Communities, Homes,

Workplaces and Ecosystems

Better Waste Management, Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and

Emergency Response

Goal 5:

Goal 6:

Goal 7:

Reduction of Global and Cross-border Environmental Risks

Quality Environmental Information

Goal 8:

Sound Science, Improved Understanding of Environmental Risk, and

Greater Innovation to Address Environmental Problems

Goal 9: A Credible Deterrent to Pollution and Greater Compliance with Law

(Enforcement)

Goal 10: Effective Management

FY2005 Budget Goals

Goal 1:

Goal 2:

Goal 3:

Goal 4:

Goal 5:

Clean Air and Global Climate Change

Clean and Safe Water

Land Preservation and Restoration

Healthy Communities and Ecosystems

Compliance and Environmental Stewardship

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on information from EPA’s FY2005

Congressional Budget Justification.

EPA’s Appropriation for FY2005 by Account

Currently, eight line-item appropriations accounts fund EPA’s efforts to achieve

its performance goals. Congress established these accounts in the FY1996

appropriations process to reflect recommendations made by the National Academy

of Public Administration (NAPA) to change EPA’s management and structure to

focus federal spending on activities “of greater environmental benefit.”6

Appropriations for the programs that EPA administers are distributed among eight

line-item accounts identified in Table 2. A discussion of the activities funded under

each account and key funding issues that received particular attention in the

appropriations debate follows.

National Academy of Public Administration report to the Senate VA-HUD and

Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, Setting Priorities, Getting Results:

A New Direction for EPA, released April 1995. See also testimony at a hearing before the

committee on May 17, 1995. S.Hrg. 104-258, Part 2.

CRS-6

Table 2. EPA Appropriations Accounts: FY2004 Enacted,

FY2005 Request, and Action on FY2005 Appropriations

(in millions of dollars)

Appropriations Account a

FY2004

Enacted

FY2005

Request

H.R. 5041,

as reported

S. 2825,

as reported

P.L. 108-447

(H.R. 4818)

Science and Technology

+ transfer from Superfund account

Science and Technology Total

$781.7

$44.4

$826.1

$689.2

$36.1

$725.3

$729.0

$36.1

$765.1

$758.2

$36.1

$794.3

$750.1

$36.1

$786.2

$2,280.1

$2,317.0

$2,241.5

$2,310.3

$2,313.4

Office of Inspector General

+ transfer from Superfund account

Office of Inspector General Total

$37.3

$13.2

$50.5

$38.0

$13.2

$51.2

$37.0

$13.0

$50.0

$38.0

$13.1

$51.1

$38.0

$13.0

$51.0

Buildings and Facilities

$39.8

$42.9

$39.0

$40.0

$39.0

$1,257.5

$13.2

$44.4

$1,199.9

$1,381.4

$13.2

$36.1

$1,332.1

$1,257.5

$13.0

$36.1

$1,208.4

$1,381.4

$13.1

$36.1

$1,332.2

$1,257.5

$13.0

$36.1

$1,208.4

Leaking Underground Storage

Tank Program

$75.6

$72.5

$74.0

$70.0

Oil Spill Response

$16.1

$16.4

$16.0

Pesticide Registration Fund b

n/a

$19.4

Pesticide Registration Fees (offset)

n/a

($19.4)

State and Tribal Assistance Grants

$3,877.8

$3,231.8

$3,359.0

$3,886.6

$3,604.2

Total EPA Accounts

$8,366.0

$7,753.1

$8,500.4

$8,088.2

Environmental Programs and

Management

Hazardous Substance Superfund

— transfer to Office of Inspector General

— transfer to Science and Technology

Hazardous Substance Superfund (Net)

$7,789.2

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

Enacted amounts for FY2004 and requested for FY2005 are from the House Appropriations Committee report on H.R. 5041 (H.Rept.

108-674). Amounts requested for FY2005 differ somewhat from those in EPA’s budget justification documents due to different accounting

adjustments made by the committee. Enacted amounts for FY2004 reflect an across-the-board rescission of 0.59% required by the

Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-199). Amounts indicated for P.L. 108-447 are line-items specified in the law,

which do not reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission. Totals in the table may not add due to rounding.

The FY2005 request reflects EPA’s estimate of anticipated collection of pesticide registration service fees under a Pesticide Registration

Fund, as authorized in FY2004 appropriations (P.L. 108-199, Title IV of Division G). This Fund functions as an offset, as it is a revenue

fund rather than an appropriations account. The committee budget tables did not make a reference to other EPA estimates for existing or

proposed FY2005 “user-fee” revenues, including expected $27 million in revenues from related “pesticide maintenance fees” also

authorized in FY2004 appropriations.

In EPA’s FY2005 budget justification, the Administration included a $30 million offset based on anticipated revenues from two “user-fee”

proposals, resulting in the total of $7.76 billion reflected in the FY2005 request. The two fee proposals include $4 million from an increase

to existing fee levels for Premanufacture Notices (PMNs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act, and $26 million from pesticide fee

requirements promulgated in 1988 but suspended by Congress since 1988. These fees would be deposited into a special fund in the U.S.

Treasury, available to EPA but subject to appropriation. The Administration’s total for EPA does not appear to reflect an offset for other

proposed, or existing, user-fee revenue estimates. (See EPA’s website: at [http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/budget]).

CRS-7

Science and Technology. Prior to the 0.8% across-the-board rescission,

P.L. 108-447 provides $750 million for the Science and Technology (S&T) account

in FY2005. Congress appropriated $782 million for FY2004, and the Administration

had requested $689 million for FY2005. As discussed later, P.L. 108-447 also

includes a transfer of $36 million from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account

to the S&T account for research and development related to environmental cleanup.

Similar transfers have been made in prior year appropriations. After this transfer of

funds, $786 million is available for the S&T account in FY2005. However, P.L. 108447 also transfers $1 million of this amount to the “Office of Environmental Quality

Management fund.” The conference report indicates that the transferred funds are

for an “environmental study” by the Council on Environmental Quality, but does not

specify what this study would entail.

Table 3. Science and Technology Account: FY2004 Enacted,

FY2005 Request and Action on Appropriations

(millions of dollars)

FY2004

Enacted

FY2005

Request

H.R. 5041,

as reported

S. 2825,

as reported

P.L. 108-447

(H.R. 4818)

$826.1

$725.3

$765.1

$794.3

$786.2

Note: Amounts for each fiscal year include transfers from the Hazardous Substance Superfund

account. The amount in P.L. 108-447 does not reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission.

Incorporating elements of the former research and development account in place

until FY1996, the S&T account provides funding for developing the scientific

knowledge and tools necessary to support decisions on preventing, regulating, and

abating environmental pollution. It also supports efforts to advance the base of

understanding for environmental sciences. These activities are conducted through

contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with universities, industries, other

private commercial firms, nonprofit organizations, state and local government, and

federal agencies, as well as through work performed at EPA’s laboratories and

various field stations and offices.

The congressional debate over the adequacy of funding for EPA’s scientific

research activities has centered around the question of whether these activities are

based on “sound science” and how scientific research is applied in developing federal

government policy. Much attention has surrounded a report raising concerns

regarding the lack of support for, and misuse of, scientific data in formulating

policies across the federal government. The report was originally released in March

2004 by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). At the time the report was

released, it was accompanied by a statement signed by prominent members of the

scientific community, including Nobel laureates. The report has been updated, and

according to the UCS, the list of signatories has grown to more than 6,000.7

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) describes itself as an “independent nonprofit

alliance of more than 100,000 concerned citizens and scientists.” The report, entitled

Scientific Integrity in Policymaking, the statement, and the list of signatories can be found

on the UCS website at [http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.cfm]; visited

(continued...)

CRS-8

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has

responded to the UCS report, refuting the UCS’s claims and confirming the

Administration’s commitment to scientific research.8 In addition, in July 2004, the

National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), a cabinet-level council that

coordinates science and technology policies across the federal government, released

the report Science for the 21st Century. A press release from the OSTP states that the

report, produced under the direction of the NSTC’s Committee on Science, provides

a “Federal agency perspective on the science policies and accomplishments of the

Administration and illustrates how today’s science sets the stage for benefits to the

economy and national quality of life.”9

The Administration’s requested decrease for EPA’s scientific research activities

sparked debate in light of the UCS’s claims about the quality and use of scientific

data. Although the Administration proposed an overall $101 million decrease in

funding (including transfers), it asserted that key research areas would continue to be

supported and that its proposed decrease, therefore, would not diminish the quality

of science upon which policy decisions are based. In some cases, reductions were

characterized as efficiencies gained as a result of combining individual research

projects into broader funding categories. EPA’s FY2005 budget justification asserted

that the requested funding for agency activities would continue to place a high

priority on researching the effects of pollution on human health.

Numerous scientific organizations, such as the American Association for the

Advancement of Science, opposed the Administration’s request to reduce funding for

scientific research at EPA (and other federal agencies), arguing that critical areas of

knowledge needed for public policy decisions would be compromised. Such critics

argued that reducing funding for EPA’s scientific research activities could result in

a poorer understanding of the effects of potentially hazardous substances and other

sources of pollution on human health, and make it more difficult to assess the level

of protection provided by existing regulatory standards or intended for future ones.

In response to concerns about the adequacy of the Administration’s request, both

the House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended more funding for

the S&T account in reporting H.R. 5041 and S. 2825, respectively. The conferees on

H.R. 4818 provided a final funding level in between the amounts recommended in

the two reports. However, with certain exceptions, the increase above the FY2005

request for the S&T account is allocated in the form of earmarks for 78 special

projects, rather than for ongoing programs or activities that EPA administers. The

conference report earmarks more than $60 million of the appropriation for the S&T

account for grants to specific universities and organizations to perform scientific

research. These grants are awarded noncompetitively, and in some cases may require

(...continued)

December 21, 2004.

Statement of John H. Marburger III, Director of the White House Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP), issued April 2, 2004, in response to the Union of Concerned

Scientists (UCS) report, at [http://www.ostp.gov/html/ucs.html].

The report, Science for the 21st Century, July 20, 2004, can be found on the White House

Office of Science and Policy website at [http://www.ostp.gov/nstc/21stCentury].

CRS-9

matching funds. As in past years, the Administration did not request earmarked

funding for specific projects, but instead proposed funding for ongoing research

programs that award grants on a competitive basis.

Although more funding is provided than requested when earmarked projects are

taken into account, funding for many S&T program activities is reduced. The

conference report specifies reductions below the FY2005 requested levels for 10 of

18 programs. For these 10 programs combined, the conferees provided $271 million

in funding, while the Administration had requested $288 million.10

The following sections discuss funding levels for specific scientific research

activities administered by EPA that received considerable attention in the FY2005

appropriations debate. The amounts indicated for these activities for FY2005 are

line-items specified in P.L. 108-447 and in the conference report on H.R. 4818

(H.Rept. 108-792), which do not reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission.

Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program. EPA awards grants under

its STAR program for two purposes: scientific research and fellowships for university

students. The conference report did not specify a funding level for STAR research

grants. However, it did include language directing EPA to fund STAR fellowships

(and other fellowships awarded by the agency) at as close as possible to the FY2004

funding level, which was $9.7 million. The Administration had requested $6.2

million. Funding for STAR fellowships also had been a point of contention in the

FY2003 debate. The Administration did not request any funding that year, but

Congress restored it to $9.7 million, the same as appropriated again for FY2004.

Although the conference report did not specify funding for STAR research

projects, the House Appropriations Committee specified a $16.2 million increase

above the FY2005 request for the research and fellowships components of the STAR

program in its report on H.R. 5041. The report indicated that the increase would

fully restore these activities to FY2004 levels. In proposing an increase for the

STAR program, the House Appropriations Committee did not specify the breakdown

of funding for each activity. Therefore, it is unclear how the increase above the

request would be allocated among individual activities within the program. The

Senate Appropriations Committee did not specifically discuss the STAR program.

The FY2005 budget request had included $35 million in reductions and transfers

within the S&T account for STAR research projects. The proposed reductions

included the elimination of funding for grants in four research areas: ecosystems

research grants (approximately 50 grants); research on endocrine disrupting

chemicals (EDCs); grants for researching the health effects of exposure to mercury;

and pollution prevention research supported through the STAR program. Congress

did not specify funding amounts for these or other STAR research grants.

H.Rept. 108-792, p. 1551. The table at this page in the conference report provides a

comparison to amounts proposed in H.R. 5041 and S. 2825. The table also indicates the

funding levels for 8 other program activities that are the same as, or an increase above, the

request (including funding for arsenic removal research discussed below).

CRS-10

Air Quality Research. EPA’s implementation of and proposed changes to

several Clean Air Act provisions, as well as efforts to address climate change, have

elevated interest in the level of funding for research on air quality standards and the

effectiveness of pollution controls.11 Prominent air quality issues include the

adequacy of new ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter,

whether a mercury standard is needed, and proposed regulations and legislation

regarding the control of emissions from power plants, vehicles, and other sources.

The conference report modifies the Administration’s request for several of

EPA’s air quality and climate change research activities. The changes parallel those

proposed in the reports on H.R. 5041 and S. 2825. Table 4 indicates the funding

level for each of the air program activities specified in the conference report.

Table 4. Funding for Selected EPA Air Quality Activities:

FY2004 Enacted, FY2005 Request and Action on Appropriations

(millions of dollars)

Program Activity

FY2004

Enacted

FY2005

Request

H.R. 5041,

S. 2825,

as reported as reported

P.L. 108-447

(H.R. 4818)

Federal Vehicle and Fuels

Standards and Certification

$57.9

$64.5

$58.0

$63.0

$58.0

Research: Air Toxics

$16.9

$17.6

$17.0

Research: Global Change

N/A

$20.7

$20.0

Research: Particulate Matter

$58.6

$63.7

$59.0

$62.0

$61.0

Research: Troposphere Ozone

N/A

$4.9

$4.0

Clean Air Allowance Trading

$4.6

$9.4

$4.8

$9.0

$138.0

$180.8

$165.0

$175.0

$169.0

Total

Note: The amounts in P.L. 108-447 do not reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission.

Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from EPA’s FY2005 Annual Performance Plan and

Congressional Budget Justification, H.R. 5041 (H.Rept. 108-674), S. 2825 (S.Rept. 108-353), and P.L. 108-447 (H.R.

4818, H.Rept. 108-792).

Research on Removing Arsenic from Drinking Water. Congress

remains concerned that compliance with the new arsenic standard will impose a

substantial financial hardship on many rural communities. In an effort to reduce

compliance costs, the conferees included $8.3 million for “Arsenic Removal

Research.” The Senate Appropriations Committee had included $10 million above

the FY2005 request for this activity. The House Appropriations Committee report

did not specify funding. Although $46 million is specified within EPA’s FY2005

For a discussion of air quality issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10107, Clean Air Act Issues

in the 108th Congress, by James McCarthy; and CRS Report RL37719, Air Quality: MultiPollutant Legislation in the 108th Congress, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

CRS-11

budget justification for drinking water research, the agency did not identify how

much was requested for arsenic removal research.

Other Items of Congressional Interest. Similar to the reports on H.R.

5041 and S. 2825, the conference report noted several other research activities within

its allocation of funding to the S&T account. The conference report provides $10

million for endocrine disruptor research, as recommended by the Senate

Appropriations Committee. The House Appropriations Committee recommended

$10.9 million for this research activity, the same as the FY2004 appropriation. The

Administration had requested $8 million for FY2005.

The conference report did not provide funding for the continuation of

researching methods to decontaminate buildings exposed to biological and chemical

agents. The FY2005 request did not include any funding for this activity. This

research was originally scheduled to be complete in FY2004. The House

Appropriations Committee recommended $4 million for completing this research.

Congress appropriated $8 million for this activity for FY2004 within the Hazardous

Substance Superfund account, rather than in S&T. Congress made no reference to

this activity in the Superfund account for FY2005.

Environmental Programs and Management. Prior to the 0.8% acrossthe-board rescission, P.L. 108-447 provides $2.31 billion for the Environmental

Programs and Management (EPM) account. Congress appropriated $2.28 billion for

FY2004, and the Administration had requested $2.32 billion for FY2005.

Table 5. Environmental Programs and Management Account:

FY2004 Enacted, FY2005 Request and Action on Appropriations

(millions of dollars)

FY2004

Enacted

FY2005

Request

H.R. 5041,

as reported

S. 2825,

as reported

P.L. 108-447

(H.R. 4818)

$2,280.1

$2,317.0

$2,241.5

$2,310.3

$2,313.4

Note: The amount in P.L. 108-447 does not reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission.

The EPM account — representing roughly one-third of EPA’s budget in recent

years — reflects the heart of the agency’s regulatory, standard-setting, and

enforcement efforts for various media programs such as water quality, air quality, and

hazardous waste management. This account funds the development of environmental

standards, monitoring and surveillance of pollution conditions, federal pollution

control planning, technical assistance to pollution control agencies and organizations,

preparation of environmental impact statements, and compliance assurance and

assistance. Many complex or contentious regulatory/standard-setting issues can be

associated with this account. (CRS Issue Brief IB10115, Environmental Protection

Issues in the 108th Congress, coordinated by Susan Fletcher and Margaret Isler,

discusses many of them.)

The conference report includes a table specifying funding levels for specific

EPM program activities that were identified in the FY2005 request, and compares the

funding with amounts proposed for these activities in the reports on H.R. 5041 and

CRS-12

S. 2825.12 The conference report includes reductions below the FY2005 request for

45 of the 59 activities identified in the table. The total funding level for these 45

activities is $1.51 billion. The Administration had requested $1.74 billion for these

activities for FY2005.

For the remaining program activities identified in the table, the conference

report specifies funding levels that are the same as, or increases above, the FY2005

request. The discussion in the conference report following the table includes

additional increases for program activities above the FY2005 request, as well as

funding earmarked for geographic-specific projects that the Administration did not

request.

Funding for selected activities within the EPM account that received

considerable attention in the FY2005 appropriations debate are discussed below. The

amounts indicated for these activities for FY2005 are line-items specified in P.L.

108-447 and in the conference report on H.R. 4818 (H.Rept. 108-792), which do not

reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission.

Brownfields Administration. The conference report provides $25 million

for administrative expenses of the Brownfields program in FY2005, the same as the

FY2004 appropriation. The Administration had requested $28 million for FY2005.

This program provides assistance to states and tribes for the cleanup and

redevelopment of abandoned, idled, or underutilized commercial and industrial sites

where hazardous contamination may be present. There has been strong interest

among communities in the adequacy of federal funding for these efforts. The EPM

account only funds the administrative expenses of the Brownfields program. Grants

for cleanup and property redevelopment are funded out of the STAG account,

discussed later in this report.

Environmental Education. The conference report provides $9 million for

EPA’s Environmental Education Program in FY2005, nearly the same as the FY2004

appropriation. As for FY2003 and FY2004, the Administration did not request any

funding for this program for FY2005. The Administration used the Office of

Management and Budget’s measurement of the program’s effectiveness to justify its

proposal to eliminate funding, asserting that the program has not demonstrated

results. Advocates of the program countered that it has had a positive impact on a

national level, awarding grants to elementary and secondary schools in each of the

50 states for training teachers, purchasing textbooks, developing curricula, and

supporting other educational activities. In response to widespread state and local

support for these grants, Congress reinstated the funding for this program for FY2003

and FY2004, and has again provided funding for FY2005. (For further discussion,

see CRS Report 97-97, National Environmental Education Act of 1990: Background,

Implementation, and Reauthorization Issues, by David Bearden.)

Enforcement of Environmental Laws. There has been ongoing

congressional interest in the effectiveness of EPA’s efforts to enforce federal

pollution control laws to protect human health and the environment. EPA’s

H.Rept. 108-792, p. 1556.

CRS-13

enforcement activities are funded out of several accounts and multiple program areas.

The majority of the agency’s budget for civil and criminal enforcement, and

compliance assistance, is provided within the EPM account.

The conference report provides $39 million within the EPM account for

criminal enforcement. The Administration had requested $31 million for FY2005,

the same as the FY2004 appropriation. The Senate Appropriations Committee

recommended $54 million for criminal enforcement in its report on S. 2825. The

House Appropriations Committee did not specify a dollar amount in its report on

H.R. 5041. The conference report also includes language similar to the Senate

Appropriations Committee expressing concern that “EPA does not devote adequate

resources to the [criminal enforcement] program, which has led to staffing declines

and case backlogs.”13 Consequently, the conference report directs EPA to submit a

plan by March 15, 2005 to reduce case backlogs and ensure adequate resource and

staffing levels. Although a dollar amount for civil enforcement is not specified, the

conference report notes that sufficient funds are included to maintain the level of

staffing of other enforcement activities throughout the agency at not less than the

FY2004 funding level.

The conference report also provides $28 million within the EPM account for

Compliance Assistance and Centers, and $3 million for enforcement training, both

of which are the same as the FY2005 request. The Senate Appropriations Committee

recommended $37 million for Compliance Assistance and Centers and $6 million for

enforcement training. The House Appropriations Committee did not specify a dollar

amount for these activities.

The conference report did not specify funding for “enforcement targeting.” Such

targeting is aimed at expanding EPA’s ability to track environmental violations and

focus its enforcement efforts on the greatest problems with compliance. The Senate

Appropriations Committee had recommended $5 million for this activity.

Pesticide Registration Fees. Funding for registering new and existing

pesticides is provided within the EPM account. EPA’s authority to collect

registration fees has been a topic of debate in recent appropriations. The conference

report indicates that funding for activities and programs of the Office of Pesticide

Programs is provided at the same level as appropriated for FY2004. This funding

supports EPA’s collection of fees for registering and re-registering pesticides, as

authorized in the final consolidated appropriations bill for FY2004.

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-199), Congress

reauthorized the collection of “maintenance fees” (primarily for re-registration), and

authorized new annual “registration service” fees intended to cover a portion of the

cost of activities associated with the registration of new pesticides, and for expediting

the overall registration process under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA; P.L.

H.Rept. 108-792, p. 1563.

CRS-14

107-170).14 In P.L. 108-199, Congress also rescinded EPA’s authority to collect

additional registration fees.15

The conferees rejected the President’s proposal to reinstate pesticide fees

prohibited in the above provisions, and expressed its concern that “EPA is needlessly

spending time proposing fees and promulgating rules when other more productive

pesticide work could be completed.”16

EPA and the Department of Homeland Security. Although the

conference report did not specify funding for homeland security activities within the

EPM account, it did provide direction to EPA regarding the coordination of its

activities with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The conference report

stated that “the Conferees consider that a strong relationship between EPA and

[DHS] is critical if the Nation is going to have a comprehensive and effective plan

for protecting our homeland.”17 Concerned that EPA’s responsibilities with respect

to homeland security are not well articulated in current Memoranda of Understanding

(MOUs), the conferees directed EPA to enter into a comprehensive MOU with DHS

no later than August 1, 2005, which defines their relationship and responsibilities.

Other Items of Congressional Interest. Funding levels identified in the

conference report for numerous other activities within the EPM account differ

significantly from the Administration’s request. For example, funding was increased

relative to the request for the following water quality programs and activities:

$25 million for the National Estuary Program, the same as the House

Appropriations Committee recommended, and close to the FY2004

appropriation. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended

$20 million, and the Administration had requested $19 million.

$22.5 million for the cleanup of contaminated sediments in the Great

Lakes. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $25

million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $10

million, the same as the FY2004 appropriation. The Administration

had requested $45 million, close to the full authorization of $50

million included in the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002.18

P.L. 108-199, Title IV of Division G. Maintenance fees were initially authorized in the

1988 amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide and Fungicide Act (FIFRA; P.L.

100-532). For further discussion, see CRS Report RL32218, Pesticide Registration and

Tolerance Fees: Overview, by (name redacted).

In P.L. 108-199, Congress also suspended authority for the collection of fees for

establishing tolerances (maximum allowable limits of pesticides in food; “tolerance fees”),

and continued the prohibition of collecting registration fees using other pre-existing

authority (40 C.F.R. 152(u) and 172).

H.Rept. 108-792, Administrative Provisions, p. 1597.

H.Rept. 108-792, p. 1563.

P.L. 107-303, Title I.

CRS-15

$2.3 million for the Long Island Sound program, the same as the

House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended, and

nearly the same as the FY2004 appropriation. Similar to recent

years, the Administration had requested almost $500,000.

Office of Inspector General. Prior to the 0.8% across-the-board rescission,

P.L. 108-447 provides $38 million for EPA’s Office of Inspector General, the same

as the FY2005 request. Congress appropriated $37 million for FY2004. In addition

to the direct funding of this account, P.L. 108-447 includes a transfer of $13 million

from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account for audit of cleanup activities.

After this transfer of funds, the total appropriation for the Office of Inspector General

account for FY2005 is $51 million.

The Office of Inspector General performs EPA audit and investigative functions

to identify and recommend corrective actions of management, program, and

administrative deficiencies, which may create conditions for instances of fraud,

waste, and mismanagement of funds. As Congress specified for the FY2004

appropriation, $750,000 of the total funding for the office is to be used to carry out

the Inspector General’s duties for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation

Board. The Administration did not request funding for this purpose for FY2004 or

FY2005.

Table 6. Office of Inspector General Account: FY2004 Enacted,

FY2005 Request and Action on Appropriations

(millions of dollars)

FY2004

Enacted

FY2005

Request

H.R. 5041,

as reported

S. 2825,

as reported

P.L. 108-447

(H.R. 4818)

$50.5

$51.2

$50.0

$51.1

$51.0

Note: Amounts include transfers from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account. The amount in

P.L. 108-447 does not reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission.

Buildings and Facilities. Prior to the 0.8% across-the-board rescission,

P.L.108-447 provides $39 million for the Buildings and Facilities account. Congress

appropriated nearly $40 million for FY2004, and the Administration had requested

$43 million for FY2005. This account funds repairs, improvements, extensions, or

alterations of buildings, facilities, or fixed equipment. It also funds new construction

projects for EPA laboratories and other facilities.

Table 7. Buildings and Facilities Account: FY2004 Enacted,

FY2005 Request and Action on Appropriations

(millions of dollars)

FY2004

Enacted

FY2005

Request

H.R. 5041,

as reported

S. 2825,

as reported

P.L. 108-447

(H.R. 4818)

$39.8

$42.9

$39.0

$40.0

$39.0

Note: The amount in P.L. 108-447 does not reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission.

CRS-16

Hazardous Substance Superfund. Prior to the 0.8% across-the-board

rescission and transfers to other accounts, P.L. 108-447 provides $1.26 billion for the

Superfund account, the same as the FY2004 appropriation. The Administration had

requested $1.38 billion. Of the FY2005 appropriation, $36 million is transferred to

the Science and Technology account for research and development, and $13 million

is transferred to the Office of Inspector General for audit of program activities.

Similar transfers have been made in prior year appropriations. After these transfers

of funds, a net appropriation of $1.21 billion is available for the Superfund program

in FY2005. Of this amount, the conference report on H.R. 4818 allocates:

$879 million for hazardous waste response and cleanup activities;

$147 million for enforcement,

$145 million for management and support; and

$38 million for reimbursement for related activities performed by

other federal agencies.

Table 8. Hazardous Substance Superfund Account:

FY2004 Enacted, FY2005 Request and Action on Appropriations

(millions of dollars)

FY2004

Enacted

FY2005

Request

H.R. 5041,

as reported

S. 2825,

as reported

P.L. 108-447

(H.R. 4818)

$1,199.9

$1,332.1

$1,208.4

$1,332.2

$1,208.4

Note: Amounts indicate net Superfund funding levels, after the transfer of funds to the accounts for

Science and Technology and the Office of the Inspector General. The amount in P.L. 108-447 does

not reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

of 1980 (CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) created the Superfund program to clean

up the nation’s worst hazardous waste sites, and mandated the National Priorities List

(NPL) to identify sites that present the greatest risk to the public and the

environment. The Superfund account in EPA’s budget funds the agency’s efforts to

remove contamination that presents an immediate threat to human health and the

environment, and to remediate contamination for which there is a potential pathway

of exposure. This account also funds EPA’s efforts to enforce CERCLA and to

require potentially responsible parties (PRPs), including federal facilities, to

remediate contamination. The Superfund account pays for the cleanup when there

is no financially viable party at the private sector sites. The costs of remediation at

federal facilities are paid by the federal agency that caused the contamination, rather

than out of the Superfund account.

Among the major concerns associated with the Superfund account is whether

the funding level is adequate to clean up contamination at a pace that sufficiently

protects human health and the environment. The most recent estimate of funding

needs for the Superfund program was released in 2001 in a study by Resources for

the Future (RFF), a private organization. Congress had directed EPA to fund this

study, titled Superfund’s Future: What Will It Cost? RFF estimated that a total of

$14 billion to $16 billion in funding would be necessary from FY2000 through

FY2009 to meet cleanup needs. At a minimum, RFF projected that annual

CRS-17

expenditures of $1.5 billion would be necessary through FY2006 to maintain an

adequate pace of cleanup. Annual appropriations in recent years have been around

$1.25 billion (prior to transfers). (For further discussion of the Superfund program,

see CRS Issue Brief IB10114, Brownfields and Superfund Issues in the 108th

Congress, by (name redacted).)

Some Members of Congress have maintained that steady funding for the

Superfund program is sufficient to meet cleanup needs. Other Members, states,

environmental organizations, and communities have argued that steady funding is not

enough, and that the Administration’s requested increase for FY2005 was not

sufficient to adequately protect human health and the environment. They advocated

higher funding, noting that the total of 40 construction completions that the

Administration proposed for FY2005 was lower than the annual average of about 67

over the previous five years. As indicated above,P.L. 108-447 maintains funding in

FY2005 at the same level as enacted for FY2004, prior to the 0.8% across-the-board

rescission.

In addition to the adequacy of funding for cleanup, the source of such funds has

been an ongoing issue. Three dedicated taxes (on petroleum, chemical feedstocks,

and corporate income) historically provided the majority of funding for the

Superfund program. However, the taxes expired at the end of 1995, and the

remaining revenues were essentially obligated for cleanup by the end of FY2003.

Consequently, Congress funded the program entirely with general Treasury revenues

for the first time in FY2004.

Some Members advocate reinstating the Superfund taxes, and argue that the use

of general Treasury revenues undermines the “polluter pays” principle, spreading

cleanup costs across the economy. Other Members and the Administration counter

that financially viable parties still pay for the cleanup at sites where they can be

identified as responsible parties, and that polluters are therefore not escaping their

responsibility. In recent years, EPA has stated that approximately 70% of sites on the

National Priorities List are cleaned up by responsible parties. Although taxing

authority for the Superfund Trust Fund has expired, cost recoveries from responsible

parties continue to contribute some revenue to the fund. (For further discussion of the

trust fund, see CRS Report RL31410, Superfund Taxes or General Revenues: Future

Funding Options for the Superfund Program, by James McCarthy.)

Superfund taxes received some attention in the Senate debate of the FY2005

budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 95). A floor amendment proposed to reinstate the

Superfund taxes, but it was not agreed to. P.L. 108-447 authorizes the use of general

Treasury revenues to support the Superfund program entirely in FY2005, if sufficient

funds are not available in the Trust Fund.

In addition, the conferees noted their concern regarding “the effective

implementation of the Superfund program.”19 They noted that “there is little

coordination of best practices at Superfund sites” and urged EPA to “develop a best

practices approach which will ensure that there will be better coordination in

H.Rept. 108-792, p. 1565.

CRS-18

managing sites and that those Superfund procedures that work best for the least cost

will be implemented.”20 The Senate Appropriations Committee also expressed

concern regarding EPA’s implementation of the Superfund program in S.Rept. 108353. The committee asserted that EPA “has not done enough to ensure that funds are

used efficiently with regard to its Superfund response and cleanup activities,” and

urged EPA “to implement consistent standards and requirements at all Superfund

sites.”21

The conferees on H.R. 4818 also commented on the remediation of naturally

occurring asbestos by EPA. There has been some interest in using Superfund monies

to clean up naturally occurring asbestos released from disturbance of the soil as a

result of human activities, such as construction and mining. Questions have been

raised regarding the extent of the health risk posed by such releases, and the

expenditure of Superfund monies to address risks that appear uncertain. In their

report, the conferees directed EPA to develop a standardized and reliable method of

testing the level of naturally occurring asbestos and to develop a method of assessing

the human health risks using the agency’s existing “Airborne Asbestos Health

Assessment Update.” The House Appropriations Committee included similar

language in its report on H.R. 5041 and noted that EPA “may be premature in

seeking remediation” of naturally occurring asbestos, directing EPA to further

examine the risk of this substance.22

The House Appropriations Committee also included language in its report on

H.R. 5041 that directed EPA to continue funding a pilot program that recruits

individuals who live near hazardous waste sites for training to work in the

environmental field. The committee also encouraged EPA to review certain

innovative technologies for the cleanup of pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs) for application in the field.

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program. Prior to the 0.8%

across-the-board rescission, P.L. 108-447 provides $70 million for the Leaking

Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Program account. Congress appropriated nearly

$76 million for FY2004, and the Administration had requested almost $73 million

for FY2005. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA,

Title V of P.L. 99-499) established the LUST Trust Fund to help EPA and states

cover the costs of responding to releases from leaking underground storage tanks

containing petroleum. The Trust Fund is used to implement the LUST program

through state cooperative agreement grants, oversee and enforce corrective actions

by responsible parties, and recover expended funds used to clean up abandoned

tanks.

Ibid.

S.Rept. 108-353, p. 97-98.

H.Rept. 108-674, p. 103.

CRS-19

Table 9. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program Account:

FY2004 Enacted, FY2005 Request and Action on Appropriations

(millions of dollars)

FY2004

Enacted

FY2005

Request

H.R. 5041,

as reported

S. 2825,

as reported

P.L. 108-447

(H.R. 4818)

$75.6

$72.5

$74.0

$70.0

Note: The amount in P.L. 108-447 does not reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission.

The status of state LUST programs is a significant issue, as many states are

finding it difficult to finance their programs. At the same time, the fact that the

balance of the LUST Trust Fund has passed the $2 billion threshold, and the

likelihood it will grow even larger if not drawn upon significantly, has led some to

call for allowing greater use of the fund balance by states. (See CRS Report

RS21201, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Program Status and Issues, by

(name redacted).)

Oil Spill Response. Prior to the 0.8% across-the-board rescission, P.L. 108447 provides $16 million for EPA’s Oil Spill Response account, nearly the same as

the FY2004 appropriation and the FY2005 request. Although the U.S. Coast Guard

is responsible for responding to oil spills in coastal and inland navigable waterways,

EPA is responsible for responding to spills that occur on the land, as a result of

leaking pipelines, accidents in transport, or other events. Appropriations in this

account only fund EPA’s oil spill response activities. EPA reports that it responds to

approximately 300 oil spills each year. EPA is reimbursed for site-specific response

expenses from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is administered by the U.S.

Coast Guard. The Administration had indicated that its requested increase for

FY2005 would have been devoted to improving EPA’s capabilities to respond to

emergency threats posed by oil spills.

Table 10. Oil Spill Response Account: FY2004 Enacted,

FY2005 Request and Action on Appropriations

(millions of dollars)

FY2004

Enacted

FY2005

Request

H.R. 5041,

as reported

S. 2825,

as reported

P.L. 108-447

(H.R. 4818)

$16.1

$16.4

$16.0

Note: The amount in P.L. 108-447 does not reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission.

State and Tribal Assistance Grants. Prior to the 0.8% across-the-board

rescission, P.L. 108-447 provides $3.60 billion for the State and Tribal Assistance

Grants (STAG) account. Congress appropriated $3.88 billion for FY2004, and the

Administration had requested $3.23 billion for FY2005. Historically, this account

has represented the largest portion of EPA’s annual appropriation, comprising about

40% of the agency’s budget in recent years. The majority of the account provides

seed monies in the form of grants for State Revolving Funds (SRFs) for water

infrastructure projects. From these funds, states primarily issue loans to communities

for constructing and upgrading water infrastructure in order to meet federal water

CRS-20

quality requirements. There are separate SRFs for clean water and drinking water

projects. The clean water SRF provides funds for wastewater infrastructure, such as

municipal sewage treatment plants. The drinking water SRF provides funds for

drinking water treatment facilities and other projects needed to comply with federal

drinking water requirements.

In addition to the SRFs, the STAG account funds categorical grants to states and

tribes for numerous pollution control activities, grants for water infrastructure in

geographic-specific areas such as the U.S./Mexico Border and in Alaska Native

Villages, Brownfields grants, and grants for clean school buses. The FY2005

appropriation for the SRFs, and other grants funded within the STAG account, are

discussed below. The amounts indicated for these activities for FY2005 are lineitems specified in P.L. 108-447 and in the conference report on H.R. 4818 (H.Rept.

108-792), which do not reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission.

Table 11. State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account:

FY2004 Enacted, FY2005 Request and Action on Appropriations

(millions of dollars)

FY2004

Enacted

FY2005

Request

H.R. 5041,

as reported

S. 2825,

as reported

P.L. 108-447

(H.R. 4818)

$3,877.9

$3,231.8

$3,359.0

$3,886.6

$3,604.2

Note: The amount in P.L. 108-447 does not reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission.

State Revolving Funds. P.L. 108-447 provides $1.10 billion for the clean

water State Revolving Fund (SRF). Congress appropriated $1.34 billion for FY2004,

and the Administration had requested $850 million for FY2005. The law also

provides $850 million for the safe drinking water SRF. The Administration had

requested this amount for FY2005, and Congress appropriated $845 million for

FY2004. Funding for both SRFs was contentious, especially the decrease for the

clean water SRF relative to FY2004, as there is disagreement about what level of

federal support is adequate to meet local needs. Debate also continues regarding the

appropriate federal role in assisting communities in financing infrastructure projects.

The adequacy of funding for the SRFs was addressed in floor debate on the

Senate FY2005 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 95). The Senate agreed to an

amendment to increase budget authority for the Natural Resource and Environment

Function by $3 billion, devoted to increasing support for both SRFs. However, this

funding assumption was not adopted in conference (H.Rept. 108-498). P.L. 108-447

provides a total of $1.95 billion for both SRFs, as noted in the table below.

CRS-21

Table 12. Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs: FY2004 Enacted,

FY2005 Request and Action on Appropriations

(millions of dollars)

SRF

Clean Water

Drinking Water

Total

FY2004

Enacted

$1,340

FY2005

Request

$850

H.R. 5041,

as reported

$850

S. 2825,

as reported

$1,350

P.L. 108-447

(H.R. 4818)

$1,100

$845

$850

$845

$850

$2,185

$1,700

$1,695

$2,200

$1,950

Note: The amounts in P.L. 108-447 do not reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission.

Numerous studies have estimated the future capital needs for water

infrastructure. EPA issued its most recent needs survey for the construction of

wastewater treatment facilities in August 2003, estimating remaining needs at $181

billion nationwide.23 EPA’s most recent drinking water needs survey projected that

public drinking water systems need to invest $151 billion over 20 years. These

surveys focus on needs for projects eligible for assistance under SRF programs.

Some stakeholder groups have projected higher funding needs than those

estimated by EPA. In 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN) issued the

following report, Clean and Safe Water for the 21st Century, estimating total

wastewater and drinking water capital needs to be $940 billion over the next 20

years, even more if operation and maintenance needs are included (which currently

are not eligible for federal assistance). Of the $940 billion amount, WIN estimates

that 20-year capital funding needs for wastewater are about $460 billion and for

drinking water are about $480 billion. WIN foresees a $23 billion per year funding

gap: $12 billion for wastewater and $11 billion for drinking water capital needs.

While much attention is devoted to the role of federal appropriations in water

infrastructure financing, some advocate that statutory changes are needed to meet

state and local needs more effectively. Legislation to reauthorize funding for the

clean water and drinking water SRFs was reported in the 108th Congress (see CRS

Report RL32503, Water Infrastructure Financing Legislation: Comparison of S.

2550 and H.R. 1560, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)).

Another related issue in the FY2005 appropriations debate was the extent to

which funding should be earmarked for water infrastructure projects in specific

communities, rather than provided competitively through the SRFs. Whereas

communities compete for loan funds provided through the SRFs which must be

repaid, earmarked funding is awarded noncompetitively as grants that require

matching funds, but not repayment. As the overall amount of funding earmarked for

water infrastructure projects has risen in recent years, whether these needs should be

The survey did not provide a uniform planning horizon because of variability in

community planning horizons across the country. The reported aggregate “needs” estimate

represents a summary of capital expenditures that might be made at different points in time

over a multi-year time frame. EPA, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000: Report to

Congress, August 2003, EPA-832-R-03-001; see [http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/

index.htm].

CRS-22

met with SRF loan monies or grant assistance has become controversial. (For further

discussion, see CRS Report RL32201, Water Infrastructure Project Earmarks in

EPA Appropriations: Trends and Policy Implications, by (name redacted).)

For FY2005, conferees provide a total of $310 million in earmarked funding

within the STAG account for 667 special project grants to specific communities for

drinking water, wastewater, and storm water infrastructure projects. As in recent

years, the amount of these grants is limited to 55% of a project’s total cost, requiring

the recipient to provide a 45% match. However, EPA is authorized to waive the

matching funds requirement in certain cases, if providing the match would place

financial burden on the recipient. The House Appropriations Committee

recommended $323 million in earmarked funding for similar projects, the same as

the FY2004 appropriation. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a

lower amount of $117 million for various water infrastructure projects. As in past

years, the Administration did not request any earmarked funding in FY2005 for water

infrastructure projects in geographic-specific areas, aside from those identified

below.

Other Water Infrastructure Grants. P.L. 108-447 also provides funding

within the STAG account for three water infrastructure grants for geographic-specific

areas identified in the Administration’s FY2005 budget request. This funding

includes:

$50 million for wastewater infrastructure projects along the

U.S./Mexico border, the same as the FY2004 appropriation and as

the Administration requested;

$45 million for the construction of wastewater and drinking water

facilities in Alaska Native Villages, an increase relative to the

FY2004 appropriation of $43 million and the Administration’s

request of $40 million; and

$4 million for drinking water infrastructure improvements to the

Metropolitano community water system in San Juan, Puerto Rico,

the same as the Administration requested. No funding was provided

for this project for FY2004.

Categorical Grants. P.L. 108-447 provides $1.15 billion for “categorical”

grants to states and tribes within the STAG account. Congress appropriated $1.17

billion for such grants for FY2004, and the Administration had requested $1.25

billion for FY2005.

In general, categorical grants have a narrow range of eligible activities relative

to other types of grants. EPA categorical funds are traditionally distributed through

multiple grants to support various activities within a particular media program (air,

water, hazardous waste, etc.). These grants are used by states to support the day-today implementation of environmental laws, including a range of activities such as

monitoring, permitting and standard setting, training, and other pollution control and

prevention activities. Grant funding is also used for multimedia projects such as

CRS-23

pollution prevention incentive grants, pesticides and toxic substances enforcement,

the tribal general assistance program, and environmental information.

The conferees on H.R. 4818 variably adopted recommendations from both the

House and Senate Appropriations Committees, generally funding EPA’s categorical

grants at levels similar to, and sometimes below, the FY2004 appropriation. Congress

provided the FY2005 requested amount for some of the grant categories, but

decreased categorical grants to control water pollution from nonpoint sources

received attention. The conference report includes $209 million for such grants.

The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $215 million, the same as the

Administration requested. The House Appropriations Committee recommend $235

million, closer to the FY2004 appropriation of $237 million.

EPA’s FY2005 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Budget

Justification presents 25 individual categorical program grants in six categories: air

and radiation, water quality, drinking water, hazardous waste, pesticide and toxic

substances, and multimedia. Examples of grants within these categories include air

quality grants for monitoring fine particulate matter (PM2.5), water quality grants for

non-point source management programs, grant assistance for development and

implementation of hazardous waste programs, pesticide program implementation and

pesticide enforcement, and pollution prevention incentive grants. Table 13 presents

a comparison of the amounts included in the conference report on H.R. 4818, the

reports on H.R. 5041 and S. 2825, the FY2005 budget request, and the FY2004

appropriation for each of these six categories. EPA’s FY2005 budget justification

also provides detailed descriptions for the individual grant programs.

Table 13. Funding for EPA State and Tribal Categorical Grants:

FY2004 Enacted, FY2005 Request and Action on Appropriations

(millions of dollars)

National Program