The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2002 Budget
On April 9, 2001, the President requested $7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%) less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. The request would not have continued funding of about $500 million for activities earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of Superfund were some of the predominant topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $7.545 billion,$229 million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H. Rept. 107-159).
Order Code IB10086
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Environmental Protection Agency’s
FY2002 Budget
Updated January 23, 2002
Martin R. Lee
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
EPA’s Budget by Appropriations Accounts
Science and Technology
Environmental Programs and Management
Office of Inspector General
Buildings and Facilities
Oil Spill Response
Superfund
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
State and Tribal Environmental Programs
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
CHRONOLOGY
IB10086
01-23-02
The Environmental Protection Agency’s FY2002 Budget
SUMMARY
On April 9, 2001, the President requested
Environmental Programs and Management; the
$7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority
Senate added $89 million; the conferees added
for the Environmental Protection Agency
$54 million. The $1.27 billion requested, and
(EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%)
approved by the House, Senate and conference
less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8
actions, to clean up toxic waste sites under
billion. The request would not have continued
Superfund was about the same as the FY2001
funding of about $500 million for activities
level. The Superfund request included, and the
earmarked for FY2001, and contained provi-
conferees approved $97 million for the Brown-
sions shifting more enforcement responsibili-
fields program, slightly greater than FY2001
ties to the states. Popular wastewater infra-
funding.
structure funding, state roles, and the future of
Superfund were some of the predominant
How to fund state and local wastewater
topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations
and drinking water capital needs, estimated as
Committee recommended $7.545 billion, $229
high as $300 billion, was a major issue. The
million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H.
request sought $3.3 billion for the State and
Rept. 107-159). The House passed the bill on
Tribal Assistance Grants account, $332 mil-
July 31. The Senate Committee reported its
lion, or 9%, less than FY2001 funding. The
bill S. 1216 (S.Rept. 107-43) on July 19,
request included $850 million for Clean Water
approving $7.752 billion, the amount approved
State Revolving Funds (SRF), and $450 mil-
by the Senate August 2. The conference agree-
lion in new sewer overflow grants. Funding for
ment (H.Rept. 107-272) signed into law as
drinking water state revolving funds would
P.L. 107-73 on November 26 provides $7.90
have been $823 million. For state and tribal
billion. P.L. 107-118 (H.R. 3338, Division B),
administrative grants, the budget sought $1.1
the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Act,
billion, $50 million more than current funding.
provides $176 million in FY2002 supplemental
funding for EPA activities relating to security
The House added $145.2 million to the
threats.
State and Tribal Assistance Grants account;
the Senate added $314.3 million; and the
The request consisted of $2.69 billion for
conferees added $444.6 million. The conferees
EPA’s operating programs, $3.3 billion for
did not fund the new $450 million requested
state and local assistance, and $1.27 billion for
for sewer overflow projects. The House added
Superfund.
$350 million to the Clean Water SRF funds,
and provided $200 million for targeted grants
EPA’s appropriation request and the
with no earmarks specified. The Senate added
appropriation bill are traditionally organized
$500 million for Clean Water SRF funds.
according to different accounts. The $640
Conferees added $500 million for the Clean
million requested for the Science and Technol-
Water SRF and provided $344 million for
ogy account reflected a $55 million decrease;
congressionally-directed water projects. They
the House passed $680.4 million, the Senate
approved $850 million for the drinking water
$665.7 million; and the conferees approved
SRF, and $1.1 billion for state and tribal ad-
$698 million. The House action added $42
ministrative grants.
million to the $2.0 billion requested for the
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
IB10086
01-23-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On April 9, 2001, the President forwarded to Congress the details of his $7.3 billion
FY2002 request for the Environmental Protection Agency. P.L. 107-73, the FY2002 VA-
HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation Act, signed November 26, appropriated $7.9
billion for the agency.
P.L. 107-117 (H.R. 3338, Division B), the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Act,
appropriated $176 million in additional funds to assist EPA in its terrorist-related
activities.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The FY2002 EPA request of $7.3 billion was about one-half billion less than the
FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. It sought fairly level funding for many EPA programs
and no funding for $500 million in activities earmarked for funding in the FY2001 conference
report (H.Rept. 106-988). At the May 9 House Appropriations hearing, EPA Administrator
Christine Todd Whitman noted that the budget “provides the necessary funds for the Agency
to carry out our mission efficiently and effectively - to protect human health and the
environment.”
Figure 1 depicts EPA funding by major categories since FY1983. Chief among them
for FY2002 are: $2.0 billion for program management, $641 million for science and
technology, and $1.27 billion for Superfund. Also under the proposal, funding would have
decreased by about 9% in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account, which incorporates
wastewater/drinking water state revolving funds (SRFs) monies and traditional state program
assistance and management grants. The request for this account included $850 million for
wastewater SRFs, $823 million for drinking water SRFs, $450 million for new sewer
overflow grants, $75 million for Mexican Border projects, $35 million for special project
grants, and $1.1 billion for traditional grants to states for administering their programs.
The first major issue associated with the request was the absence of continued funding
for a number of FY2001 activities representing about $500 million, most of which was for
wastewater projects. Given their enormous popularity, it was likely that reinstatements, or
new earmarks, of much of this funding would be pursued during the FY2002 appropriations
process.
A recent issue has been funding EPA’s efforts following September 11. The House and
Senate have passed different funding levels in H.R. 3338, Division B, the FY2002 Emergency
Supplement Act, now in conference. The House passed $161 million; the Senate $126
million. The main difference between these versions is that the House funded drinking water
vulnerability assessments at $110 million while the Senate funded these activities at $34
million, the amount requested by the Administration.
CRS-1
IB10086
01-23-02
The FY2002 budget presentation, currently called the “2002 Annual Plan,” was the
fourth presented under provisions of the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA), which directs that a performance plan accompany the budget. On September 30,
1997, EPA submitted a GPRA-mandated strategic plan spelling out its mission and 10 major
goals and associated objectives. Its FY2002 budget justification is aligned with these 10 goals
and objectives. In a January 2001 report (Major Management Challenges and Program Risk.
Environmental Protection Agency. GAO01-257), GAO found that major problems continue
to confront EPA, especially (1) information management weaknesses, (2) human capital
problems, and (3) EPA-state relationships. The budget sought new state grant funds for
information technology and proposed shifting more enforcement to the states.
Figure 1. EPA Enacted Appropriations FY1983 - FY2002
State Assistance
Operating Programs
Superfund & LUST
$ Billion
10.00
7.81 7.90
7.59 7.56
7.36
6.88
8.00
6.67
6.64
6.80
6.60 6.53
6.09
5.54 5.53
5.30 5.06
6.00
4.18 4.37
3.70
3.68
4.00
2.00
0.00
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
EPA’s Budget by Appropriations Accounts
Traditionally, EPA’s budget has been presented, considered, and enacted according to
several major appropriations accounts. These accounts, including environmental programs
and management, science and technology, Office of Inspector General, buildings and facilities,
and oil spills, usually about two-fifths of EPA’s appropriation, are sometimes referred to as
the “operating programs” and reflect the heart of the Agency’s research, regulatory, and
enforcement efforts. Two trust fund-based accounts — usually about one-fifth of the
Agency’s appropriation –- are Superfund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Trust Fund. All state supporting activities are reflected in the State and Tribal
Assistance Grants (STAG) account. About two-fifths or more of the Agency’s appropriation
CRS-2
IB10086
01-23-02
is usually allotted to this account. Table 1 shows the breakdown of EPA’s funding by
appropriations accounts.
Table 1. EPA Major Appropriations Accounts:
FY1999, FY2000, FY2001 and FY2002 Actions
(in millions of dollars)
FY99
FY01
FY00
FY2002
FY2002
FY2002
Major
P.L.
P.L.
FY2002
P.L.
House-
Senate-
P.L.
Accounts
105-
106-
Request
106-74
Passed
Passed
107-73
276
377
Operating Programs
Science and
640.0
645.0
695.5
640.5
680.4
665.7
698.1
Technology
Environmental
Programs and
1,848.0
1,895.3
2,087.9
1,973.0
2,014.8
2,062.0
2,054.5
Management
Office of
Inspector
31.2
32.4
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
General
Buildings and
57.0
62.5
23.9
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
Facilities
Oil Spill
15.0
14.9
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
Response
Superfund
1,500.0
1,400.0
1,268.1
1,270.0
1,270.0
1,274.6
1,270.0
Leaking
Underground
72.5
69.8
72.1
71.9
79.2
72.0
73.0
Storage Tank
Trust Fund
State and
Tribal
3,406.8
3,466.7
3,640.3
3,288.7
3,433.9
3,603.0
3,733.3
Assistance
Grants
EPA Total -
7,590.4
7,591.7
7,828.9
7,316.6
7,545.4
7,751.6
7,903..2
All Accounts
Note: In FY2000, the conferees elected to fund the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) – a total of $130 million – independent of the Superfund
appropriation. The FY2002 Superfund request does not include funding for these two agencies, now funded separately.
This table shows the major accounts, omits minor accounts, but shows the total for all accounts. P.L. 107-117 (H.R. 3338,
Div. B) appropriated $176 million in additional FY2002 funds.
Within the many EPA programs, there were numerous issues with respect to
implementing and administering the media (air, water, etc.) protection programs, wastewater
treatment funding, and Superfund.
CRS-3
IB10086
01-23-02
Science and Technology
The Science and Technology (S&T) account incorporates elements of the former
research and development account (also called extramural research) as well as EPA’s in-
house research, development, and technology efforts. The FY2002 request of $640.5
million for the S&T account represented an 8% decrease when compared to the FY2001
funding level of $695.5 million. The House approved $680.4 million including five add-ons,
among them $30 million for a targeted environmental research grant program. The Senate
approved $665.7 million, including funding for 23 congressional directed activities. The
conferees approved $698.1 million, including funding for 52 add-ons.
EPA’s role in climate research and in the Bush Administration’s Climate Protection
Program (CPP), formerly the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI), has been an
issue. There was a proposed decrease in funds for climate change-related research under the
S&T account. EPA requested $153.8 million for all of its climate change activities (research
and programmatic activities) in FY2002, a 0.9%, or $1.5 million, decrease when compared
to FY2001 funding of $155.3 million. In the last several budgets, near doubling of climate
change funds was requested and denied by appropriators. About 30%, or $48.9 million, is
research-related and falls under the S&T account. (The remaining amount of $104.9 million -
abatement in nature - falls under the Environmental Programs and Management account.)
The S&T portion of the climate change request includes two research activities: 1) CPP
research related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and 2) non-CCP
research on climate change. The CPP portion of the request for the S&T account was $32.4
million, which would have been an increase of $3.0 million, or 10%, above the FY2001
funding level. All of this is for CPP research related to transportation activities and
greenhouse gases. The non-CPP portion of the climate change research request was $22.0
million, which would have been a decrease of $0.6 million, or 3%. (For a discussion of
climate change issues, see the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Climate Change
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebgcc1.shtml].)
Environmental Programs and Management
The Environmental Programs and Management account — usually representing about
a quarter of the Agency’s resources — 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. The President’s FY2002 budget sought $1.97 billion,
which was $114.9 million, or 6%, less than the FY2001 funding level of $2.09 billion. The
House Committee recommended $2.01 billion, adding on $42 million for six earmarks. This
included $16 million in additional earmarked grant funds related to drinking water and $25
million for a targeted environmental grant program. On July 31, the House passed $2.01
million for this account. The House adopted an amendment increasing funding by $3 million
for registering and accessing pesticides. The Senate approved $2,062.0 for the Environmental
Programs account, $89 million more than requested. This included 51 congressionally
directed activities. On the floor, the Senate adopted the following amendment: Nelson (FL.)
Amendment No. 1228 (to Amendment No. 1214), to direct the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to report to Congress on the safety of children's playground
equipment. This bill was approved by the full Senate on August 2. The conferees approved
CRS-4
IB10086
01-23-02
$2.05 billion for this account, specifying funding for 94 projects. Many controversial
regulatory/standard setting issues can be associated with this account. (CRS Issue Brief
IB10067, Environmental Protection Issues in the 107th Congress, discusses some of them.)
Both the House and Senate adopted similar provisions prohibiting funding to delay
national primary drinking water regulations for arsenic. In its version, the House provided that
EPA may not use funds to delay a January rule or to issue a rule that sets the standard above
a certain level. The Senate version directs EPA to immediately promulgate an arsenic standard
that protects sensitive subpopulations and that rescinds the postponement of the rule’s
effective date for water systems with arsenic below a certain level. The conference version
stated that none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to delay the national
primary drinking water regulation for arsenic. (For a full discussion of the arsenic rule and this
issue, see CRS Report RS20672, Arsenic in Drinking Water: Recent Regulatory
Developments and Issues.)
For FY2002, EPA requested about $153.8 million for all of its climate change activities,
roughly 68% of which would have been allocated for activities under the Environmental
Programs and Management account.
Congress has previously included climate change language in funding measures for many
agencies including EPA. The FY1999 Senate-passed budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 86)
included a sense of the Senate that “funding should not be provided to fulfill commitments to
limit greenhouse gases under the Kyoto protocol prior to Senate ratification.” The
conference agreement on the FY2000 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 68, H.Rept. 106-91)
contains in Section 329 a sense of the Senate assuming that no funds would be provided to
put the Kyoto Protocol into effect prior to Senate ratification. FY2000 bill language prohibits
EPA from using FY2000 funds “to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for
the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol.”
The FY2001 Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 290, H.Rept. 106-277) did not contain language
on the Kyoto Protocol. While making its FY2001 recommendations, Congress extended the
Kyoto bill language that was included in the FY2000 appropriations and denied the requested
increase for CCTI funds under this account. In approving FY2002 funds, the House
Subcommittee extended the Kyoto language. During full committee markup, the Kyoto
language was dropped.
Office of Inspector General
The President’s FY2002 budget sought, and congressional actions approved, $34.0
million for the Office of Inspector General, the same as FY2001 funding.
Buildings and Facilities
The FY2002 request of $25.3 million, the amount approved by Congress, for the
Buildings and Facilities account is $1.4 million more than FY2001 funding.
Oil Spill Response
CRS-5
IB10086
01-23-02
For EPA’s oil spill response activities, the President’s FY2002 budget sought, and
congressional actions approved, $15.0 million, the same as FY2001 funding.
Superfund
The FY2002 request sought $1.270 billion for Superfund, about the same as funded in
FY2001. Both the House, Senate and the conferees approved $1.27 billion. While taxing
authority to support the Superfund Trust Fund expired on December 31, 1995, it is
anticipated that monies will continue to be available into 2002. Also part of the President’s
FY2002 budget was a $97 million request for cleaning up certain urban sites, called
Brownfields, that have development potential; the conferees approved this amount.
Looking beyond 2001, GAO has estimated that by 2008, 85% of all non-federal National
Priority List sites will be cleaned up (Superfund: Information on the Program’s Funding and
Status). This will entail annual appropriations of $875 million through FY2008. GAO
estimates that it will cost between $8.2 billion and $11.7 billion for studies, design and
remedial work to clean up all remaining sites. On July 10, 2001, Resources for the Future
released its report Superfund’s Future: What Will It Cost? The report estimates that for fiscal
years 2000 through 2009, EPA will have to spend $14 billion to $16.4 billion on the
Superfund program
The President’s FY2002 budget did not propose renewing the taxes that support the
Superfund Trust Fund. The available balance of the fund has been declining since the taxing
authority expired on December 31, 1995. The balance of the fund on October 1, 2001, the
beginning of FY2002, will be $955 million which is expected to accommodate the requested
appropriation of $1.2 billion, half of which would come from the fund and half from general
appropriations. By October 1, 2002, the beginning of FY2003, the fund level would fall to
$539 million. During discussion of this at the May House Subcommittee hearings, the
Administrator of EPA stated “that obviously we are going to have to depend more and more
on general revenues.”
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
The President’s FY2002 budget sought $71.9 million for the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) program, which assists states in addressing substandard underground
petroleum storage tanks. After adopting an amendment to increase this account by $7.2
million, the House approved $79.2 million. The Senate approved $72 million, the amount
funded in FY2001. The conferees approved $73 million.
The status of state LUST programs is a significant issue. Many states are finding it
difficult to finance their programs. At the same time, the roughly $1.0 billion balance in the
Treasury’s LUST Trust Fund, from which the appropriation is actually made, has led some
to call for allowing greater use of the fund balance by states. (For further discussion, refer
to CRS Report 97-471 ENR, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Issues.)
State and Tribal Environmental Programs
The FY2002 request for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account sparked
controversy in Congress since the President requested $3.289 billion, $332 million (or 9%)
CRS-6
IB10086
01-23-02
less than FY2001 funding level of $3.6 billion. The House approved $3.434 billion; the
Senate $3.603 billion; and the conferees $3.734 billion. This account capitalizes popular clean
water and drinking water state revolving funds and other state assistance. The elements of
the STAG request include:
! $850 million, as compared to the current level of $1.35 billion for State
Revolving Funds (Clean Water); however, $450 million for new sewer
overflow grants was proposed; the House approved $1.2 billion, the Senate
and the conferees $1.35 billion, denying the proposed $450 million for sewer
overflow grants.
! $823.2 million for State Revolving Funds (Drinking Water), the same as
FY2001 funding; the House, Senate and conferees approved $850.
! $74.8 million, the same as FY2001 and as approved by the House, Senate
and conferees, for Mexican Border infrastructure projects;
! $34.9 million for Alaska Native Village water infrastructure projects, the
current year funding; the House passed $30 million and the Senate and the
conferees $40 million.
! $1.1 billion, $50 million more than the current appropriation, for traditional
grants to states for their administration of various environmental programs;
the House added $23 million for these grant activities. The conferees
approved $1.1 billion.
! In addition, the House added $200 million for targeted infrastructure grants.
No specific earmarks were provided. In the Senate, the Committee added
$500 million to the Clean Water SRF request and specified funding for 105
specific projects. The President’s budget had requested no funds for
earmarked infrastructure grants for which Congress appropriated $357
million in FY2001. The conferees included $344 million for such grants.
The major capital needs that communities face for funding drinking water and
wastewater facility construction remain the chief issue associated with the STAG account. By
statutory design, the federal contribution to most of these needs has been through capitalizing
state funds from which states loan monies to communities. Since most localities are now
borrowing their funding, any remaining direct grants listed above for special projects have
become controversial. The total national needs remain great as EPA’s 1996 needs survey for
clean water SRF monies estimated remaining needs at $139.5 billion to $200 billion while
sewerage agencies estimate funding needs may be as high as $330 billion. EPA acknowledges
that funding needs exceed levels in the 1996 needs survey and is working on more current
assessments. The needs of small communities remain a special component of this problem.
A more recent estimate has further spotlighted the FY2002 water SRF request even
more. A stakeholder group, the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), in Clean and Safe
Water for the 21st Century, estimates wastewater and drinking water capital needs at around
$1 trillion and even more if operation and maintenance needs are added (they currently are
not eligible for federal assistance). WIN estimates that 20-year capital funding needs for
wastewater are about $460 billion and for drinking water about $480 billion. WIN foresees
a $23 billion per year funding gap: $12 billion for wastewater and $11 billion for drinking
water capital needs
CRS-7
IB10086
01-23-02
What was unclear from the request is how new sewer overflow grants could have been
funded under the requested funds. The Wet Weather Water Quality Act, (PL. 106-554,
Division B, Section 1112) authorizes a $1.5 billion grants program to reduce wet weather
flows from municipal sewer systems ($750 million annually in FY2002 and FY2003). It
authorizes these grants if the Clean Water SRF grants are funded at a level of $1.35 billion.
In response to questions at the House Appropriations Subcommittee’s hearings, the
Administrator acknowledged that the agency was “not meeting the language” of PL. 106-554
notably its $1.35 million threshold, and was “asking for flexibility.” The request was for $850
million in SDF funding and $450 for new overflow grants for a total of $1.3 billion. But, if
additional funds of $500 million were added during the appropriations process, the $1.35
billion level could presumably be reached. The House did not recommend the $450 million
for wet weather projects and funded the Clean Water SRF at $1.2 billion. The Senate and the
conferees funded the SRF at the $1.35 billion level but did not recommend the wet weather
funding.
For state administrative grants, the President’s FY2002 budget sought $1.1 billion, $50
million more than the FY2001 level of $1.0 billion. These grants fund state programs which
administer various environmental protection programs. All state grant programs would be
funded at current year levels. Under the budget proposal, three new areas would be funded:
$2 million for beach water quality criteria activities, $25 million for information exchange, and
$25 million for state enforcement grants. On the floor, the House adopted an amendment
increasing funding for beach testing by $3 million. The House added $23 million for state
administrative grants. The Senate Committee did not specify in its report the funding levels
for state grants.
The beach grants are intended to help the states meet provisions of new Clean Water Act
requirements on evaluating the quality of the nation’s beaches authorized in P.L. 106-284.
The proposed funding for state information exchange is part of a continuing effort to improve
the much criticized deficiencies in EPA’s information management capabilities. The grants
“will help the states and EPA create the necessary infrastructure to efficiently exchange
information electronically, which will reduce burden, improve accuracy and inform
decisonmaking,” noted the Administrator at the House Appropriations Subcommittee
hearings. The House funded the beach water quality grants at $10 million; the Senate at $2
million; and the conference agreement at $10 million.
Considerable interest has focused on the proposal to shift more enforcement
responsibility to the states. The budget anticipated $25 million in FY2002 for grants to state
enforcement programs. On this, Administrator Whitman stated: “This grant program will
benefit the national environmental enforcement program by providing states much-needed
funds to enhance their enforcement efforts in delegated environmental programs.” These fit
into the budget theme of assisting the states and shifting more authority to them. The budget,
according to the Administrator, “reflects a commitment to increase partnerships across
America to develop innovative environmental programs that ensure stewardship of our land,
air, and water for generations to come.” The other part of this, however, is that enforcement
resources at EPA headquarters will be reduced. At the House Subcommittee hearing, the
ranking minority member questioned the effect that headquarters reductions might have and
expressed concern that there were no assurances that the grant funding would continue
beyond FY2002.
CRS-8
IB10086
01-23-02
In approving FY2002 funds, the House Committee approved the Administration’s
funding plans, including the state enforcement grants program. The House rejected an
amendment to increase EPA enforcement funding by $25 million. The Senate action did not
approve the new grant program and specified that EPA enforcement levels were not to be
reduced under FY2001 levels. The conference version did not include the enforcement plan.
LEGISLATION
H.R. 2620 (Walsh)
Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations for FY2002. Subcommittee approval July 10, 2001. Full committee
approval July 17, 2001(H.Rept. 107-159). Passed by the House July 31, 2001. Passed by the
Senate August 2, after being amended with the provisions of S. 1216. Conference report filed
November 6, 2001 (H.Rept 107-272). Passed by the House and Senate November 8.
S. 1216 (Mikulski)
Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations for FY2002. Subcommittee and full committee approval, July 19.
(S.Rept. 107-43).
P.L. 107-117 (H.R. 3338, Division B)
Supplement Appropriations Act for FY2002. Reported November 19, 2001 by the
House Committee on Appropriations (H. Rept. 107-298). Passed House November 28, 2001.
Reported December 4, 2001 by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. (S. Report No.
107-109). Committee substitute ruled out of order by the Senate Chair, December 7, 2001.
Byrd/Stevens/Inouye Amendment Adopted December 7, 2001. Conference Report H.Rept.
107-350. Signed into law January 10, 2002.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
House. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on HUD-VA-Independent Agencies.
EPA’s FY2002 Budget Request. Hearings, 107th Congress. May 9 and 10, 2001.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. (To be printed)
House. Committee on Science. EPA’s Budget Request. Hearings, 107th Congress, 1st Session.
May 17, 2001. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. (To be printed)
House. Committee on Transportation. Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
EPA’s FY2002 Budget. Hearings, 107th Congress. 1st Session. May 2, 2001.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. (To be printed)
Senate. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on HUD-VA-Independent Agencies.
EPA’s FY2002 Budget Request. Hearings, 107th Congress, 1st Session. June 13, 2001.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. (To be printed)
CRS-9
IB10086
01-23-02
Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. FY2002 Budget Request for EPA.
Hearings, 107th Congress, 1st Session. May 15, 2001. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office. (To be printed)
CHRONOLOGY
07-19-01
Senate Subcommittee and full Committee recommend $7.8 billion.
07-17-01
House Appropriations Committee recommends $7.5 billion.
07-17-01
House Committee on Appropriations approves $7.5 billion for EPA.
07-10-01
House Appropriations, Subcommittee on HUD-VA-Independent Agencies
recommends $7.5 billion.
07-31-01
House passes H.R. 2620
08-02-01
Senate passes H.R. 2620
11-6-01
Conference report (H.Rept 107-272) filed in House
11-8-01
House and Senate approved conference agreement
11-26-01
President signs H.R. 2620 as P.L. 107-73, appropriating $7.9 billion.
CRS-10
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Environmental Protection Agency’s
FY2002 Budget
Updated January 23, 2002
Martin R. Lee
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
EPA’s Budget by Appropriations Accounts
Science and Technology
Environmental Programs and Management
Office of Inspector General
Buildings and Facilities
Oil Spill Response
Superfund
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
State and Tribal Environmental Programs
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
CHRONOLOGY
IB10086
01-23-02
The Environmental Protection Agency’s FY2002 Budget
SUMMARY
On April 9, 2001, the President requested
Environmental Programs and Management; the
$7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority
Senate added $89 million; the conferees added
for the Environmental Protection Agency
$54 million. The $1.27 billion requested, and
(EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%)
approved by the House, Senate and conference
less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8
actions, to clean up toxic waste sites under
billion. The request would not have continued
Superfund was about the same as the FY2001
funding of about $500 million for activities
level. The Superfund request included, and the
earmarked for FY2001, and contained provi-
conferees approved $97 million for the Brown-
sions shifting more enforcement responsibili-
fields program, slightly greater than FY2001
ties to the states. Popular wastewater infra-
funding.
structure funding, state roles, and the future of
Superfund were some of the predominant
How to fund state and local wastewater
topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations
and drinking water capital needs, estimated as
Committee recommended $7.545 billion, $229
high as $300 billion, was a major issue. The
million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H.
request sought $3.3 billion for the State and
Rept. 107-159). The House passed the bill on
Tribal Assistance Grants account, $332 mil-
July 31. The Senate Committee reported its
lion, or 9%, less than FY2001 funding. The
bill S. 1216 (S.Rept. 107-43) on July 19,
request included $850 million for Clean Water
approving $7.752 billion, the amount approved
State Revolving Funds (SRF), and $450 mil-
by the Senate August 2. The conference agree-
lion in new sewer overflow grants. Funding for
ment (H.Rept. 107-272) signed into law as
drinking water state revolving funds would
P.L. 107-73 on November 26 provides $7.90
have been $823 million. For state and tribal
billion. P.L. 107-118 (H.R. 3338, Division B),
administrative grants, the budget sought $1.1
the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Act,
billion, $50 million more than current funding.
provides $176 million in FY2002 supplemental
funding for EPA activities relating to security
The House added $145.2 million to the
threats.
State and Tribal Assistance Grants account;
the Senate added $314.3 million; and the
The request consisted of $2.69 billion for
conferees added $444.6 million. The conferees
EPA’s operating programs, $3.3 billion for
did not fund the new $450 million requested
state and local assistance, and $1.27 billion for
for sewer overflow projects. The House added
Superfund.
$350 million to the Clean Water SRF funds,
and provided $200 million for targeted grants
EPA’s appropriation request and the
with no earmarks specified. The Senate added
appropriation bill are traditionally organized
$500 million for Clean Water SRF funds.
according to different accounts. The $640
Conferees added $500 million for the Clean
million requested for the Science and Technol-
Water SRF and provided $344 million for
ogy account reflected a $55 million decrease;
congressionally-directed water projects. They
the House passed $680.4 million, the Senate
approved $850 million for the drinking water
$665.7 million; and the conferees approved
SRF, and $1.1 billion for state and tribal ad-
$698 million. The House action added $42
ministrative grants.
million to the $2.0 billion requested for the
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
IB10086
01-23-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On April 9, 2001, the President forwarded to Congress the details of his $7.3 billion
FY2002 request for the Environmental Protection Agency. P.L. 107-73, the FY2002 VA-
HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation Act, signed November 26, appropriated $7.9
billion for the agency.
P.L. 107-117 (H.R. 3338, Division B), the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Act,
appropriated $176 million in additional funds to assist EPA in its terrorist-related
activities.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The FY2002 EPA request of $7.3 billion was about one-half billion less than the
FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. It sought fairly level funding for many EPA programs
and no funding for $500 million in activities earmarked for funding in the FY2001 conference
report (H.Rept. 106-988). At the May 9 House Appropriations hearing, EPA Administrator
Christine Todd Whitman noted that the budget “provides the necessary funds for the Agency
to carry out our mission efficiently and effectively - to protect human health and the
environment.”
Figure 1 depicts EPA funding by major categories since FY1983. Chief among them
for FY2002 are: $2.0 billion for program management, $641 million for science and
technology, and $1.27 billion for Superfund. Also under the proposal, funding would have
decreased by about 9% in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account, which incorporates
wastewater/drinking water state revolving funds (SRFs) monies and traditional state program
assistance and management grants. The request for this account included $850 million for
wastewater SRFs, $823 million for drinking water SRFs, $450 million for new sewer
overflow grants, $75 million for Mexican Border projects, $35 million for special project
grants, and $1.1 billion for traditional grants to states for administering their programs.
The first major issue associated with the request was the absence of continued funding
for a number of FY2001 activities representing about $500 million, most of which was for
wastewater projects. Given their enormous popularity, it was likely that reinstatements, or
new earmarks, of much of this funding would be pursued during the FY2002 appropriations
process.
A recent issue has been funding EPA’s efforts following September 11. The House and
Senate have passed different funding levels in H.R. 3338, Division B, the FY2002 Emergency
Supplement Act, now in conference. The House passed $161 million; the Senate $126
million. The main difference between these versions is that the House funded drinking water
vulnerability assessments at $110 million while the Senate funded these activities at $34
million, the amount requested by the Administration.
CRS-1
IB10086
01-23-02
The FY2002 budget presentation, currently called the “2002 Annual Plan,” was the
fourth presented under provisions of the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA), which directs that a performance plan accompany the budget. On September 30,
1997, EPA submitted a GPRA-mandated strategic plan spelling out its mission and 10 major
goals and associated objectives. Its FY2002 budget justification is aligned with these 10 goals
and objectives. In a January 2001 report (Major Management Challenges and Program Risk.
Environmental Protection Agency. GAO01-257), GAO found that major problems continue
to confront EPA, especially (1) information management weaknesses, (2) human capital
problems, and (3) EPA-state relationships. The budget sought new state grant funds for
information technology and proposed shifting more enforcement to the states.
Figure 1. EPA Enacted Appropriations FY1983 - FY2002
State Assistance
Operating Programs
Superfund & LUST
$ Billion
10.00
7.81 7.90
7.59 7.56
7.36
6.88
8.00
6.67
6.64
6.80
6.60 6.53
6.09
5.54 5.53
5.30 5.06
6.00
4.18 4.37
3.70
3.68
4.00
2.00
0.00
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
EPA’s Budget by Appropriations Accounts
Traditionally, EPA’s budget has been presented, considered, and enacted according to
several major appropriations accounts. These accounts, including environmental programs
and management, science and technology, Office of Inspector General, buildings and facilities,
and oil spills, usually about two-fifths of EPA’s appropriation, are sometimes referred to as
the “operating programs” and reflect the heart of the Agency’s research, regulatory, and
enforcement efforts. Two trust fund-based accounts — usually about one-fifth of the
Agency’s appropriation –- are Superfund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Trust Fund. All state supporting activities are reflected in the State and Tribal
Assistance Grants (STAG) account. About two-fifths or more of the Agency’s appropriation
CRS-2
IB10086
01-23-02
is usually allotted to this account. Table 1 shows the breakdown of EPA’s funding by
appropriations accounts.
Table 1. EPA Major Appropriations Accounts:
FY1999, FY2000, FY2001 and FY2002 Actions
(in millions of dollars)
FY99
FY01
FY00
FY2002
FY2002
FY2002
Major
P.L.
P.L.
FY2002
P.L.
House-
Senate-
P.L.
Accounts
105-
106-
Request
106-74
Passed
Passed
107-73
276
377
Operating Programs
Science and
640.0
645.0
695.5
640.5
680.4
665.7
698.1
Technology
Environmental
Programs and
1,848.0
1,895.3
2,087.9
1,973.0
2,014.8
2,062.0
2,054.5
Management
Office of
Inspector
31.2
32.4
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
General
Buildings and
57.0
62.5
23.9
25.3
25.3
25.3
25.3
Facilities
Oil Spill
15.0
14.9
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
Response
Superfund
1,500.0
1,400.0
1,268.1
1,270.0
1,270.0
1,274.6
1,270.0
Leaking
Underground
72.5
69.8
72.1
71.9
79.2
72.0
73.0
Storage Tank
Trust Fund
State and
Tribal
3,406.8
3,466.7
3,640.3
3,288.7
3,433.9
3,603.0
3,733.3
Assistance
Grants
EPA Total -
7,590.4
7,591.7
7,828.9
7,316.6
7,545.4
7,751.6
7,903..2
All Accounts
Note: In FY2000, the conferees elected to fund the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) – a total of $130 million – independent of the Superfund
appropriation. The FY2002 Superfund request does not include funding for these two agencies, now funded separately.
This table shows the major accounts, omits minor accounts, but shows the total for all accounts. P.L. 107-117 (H.R. 3338,
Div. B) appropriated $176 million in additional FY2002 funds.
Within the many EPA programs, there were numerous issues with respect to
implementing and administering the media (air, water, etc.) protection programs, wastewater
treatment funding, and Superfund.
CRS-3
IB10086
01-23-02
Science and Technology
The Science and Technology (S&T) account incorporates elements of the former
research and development account (also called extramural research) as well as EPA’s in-
house research, development, and technology efforts. The FY2002 request of $640.5
million for the S&T account represented an 8% decrease when compared to the FY2001
funding level of $695.5 million. The House approved $680.4 million including five add-ons,
among them $30 million for a targeted environmental research grant program. The Senate
approved $665.7 million, including funding for 23 congressional directed activities. The
conferees approved $698.1 million, including funding for 52 add-ons.
EPA’s role in climate research and in the Bush Administration’s Climate Protection
Program (CPP), formerly the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI), has been an
issue. There was a proposed decrease in funds for climate change-related research under the
S&T account. EPA requested $153.8 million for all of its climate change activities (research
and programmatic activities) in FY2002, a 0.9%, or $1.5 million, decrease when compared
to FY2001 funding of $155.3 million. In the last several budgets, near doubling of climate
change funds was requested and denied by appropriators. About 30%, or $48.9 million, is
research-related and falls under the S&T account. (The remaining amount of $104.9 million -
abatement in nature - falls under the Environmental Programs and Management account.)
The S&T portion of the climate change request includes two research activities: 1) CPP
research related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and 2) non-CCP
research on climate change. The CPP portion of the request for the S&T account was $32.4
million, which would have been an increase of $3.0 million, or 10%, above the FY2001
funding level. All of this is for CPP research related to transportation activities and
greenhouse gases. The non-CPP portion of the climate change research request was $22.0
million, which would have been a decrease of $0.6 million, or 3%. (For a discussion of
climate change issues, see the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Climate Change
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebgcc1.shtml].)
Environmental Programs and Management
The Environmental Programs and Management account — usually representing about
a quarter of the Agency’s resources — 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. The President’s FY2002 budget sought $1.97 billion,
which was $114.9 million, or 6%, less than the FY2001 funding level of $2.09 billion. The
House Committee recommended $2.01 billion, adding on $42 million for six earmarks. This
included $16 million in additional earmarked grant funds related to drinking water and $25
million for a targeted environmental grant program. On July 31, the House passed $2.01
million for this account. The House adopted an amendment increasing funding by $3 million
for registering and accessing pesticides. The Senate approved $2,062.0 for the Environmental
Programs account, $89 million more than requested. This included 51 congressionally
directed activities. On the floor, the Senate adopted the following amendment: Nelson (FL.)
Amendment No. 1228 (to Amendment No. 1214), to direct the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to report to Congress on the safety of children's playground
equipment. This bill was approved by the full Senate on August 2. The conferees approved
CRS-4
IB10086
01-23-02
$2.05 billion for this account, specifying funding for 94 projects. Many controversial
regulatory/standard setting issues can be associated with this account. (CRS Issue Brief
IB10067, Environmental Protection Issues in the 107th Congress, discusses some of them.)
Both the House and Senate adopted similar provisions prohibiting funding to delay
national primary drinking water regulations for arsenic. In its version, the House provided that
EPA may not use funds to delay a January rule or to issue a rule that sets the standard above
a certain level. The Senate version directs EPA to immediately promulgate an arsenic standard
that protects sensitive subpopulations and that rescinds the postponement of the rule’s
effective date for water systems with arsenic below a certain level. The conference version
stated that none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to delay the national
primary drinking water regulation for arsenic. (For a full discussion of the arsenic rule and this
issue, see CRS Report RS20672, Arsenic in Drinking Water: Recent Regulatory
Developments and Issues.)
For FY2002, EPA requested about $153.8 million for all of its climate change activities,
roughly 68% of which would have been allocated for activities under the Environmental
Programs and Management account.
Congress has previously included climate change language in funding measures for many
agencies including EPA. The FY1999 Senate-passed budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 86)
included a sense of the Senate that “funding should not be provided to fulfill commitments to
limit greenhouse gases under the Kyoto protocol prior to Senate ratification.” The
conference agreement on the FY2000 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 68, H.Rept. 106-91)
contains in Section 329 a sense of the Senate assuming that no funds would be provided to
put the Kyoto Protocol into effect prior to Senate ratification. FY2000 bill language prohibits
EPA from using FY2000 funds “to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for
the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol.”
The FY2001 Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 290, H.Rept. 106-277) did not contain language
on the Kyoto Protocol. While making its FY2001 recommendations, Congress extended the
Kyoto bill language that was included in the FY2000 appropriations and denied the requested
increase for CCTI funds under this account. In approving FY2002 funds, the House
Subcommittee extended the Kyoto language. During full committee markup, the Kyoto
language was dropped.
Office of Inspector General
The President’s FY2002 budget sought, and congressional actions approved, $34.0
million for the Office of Inspector General, the same as FY2001 funding.
Buildings and Facilities
The FY2002 request of $25.3 million, the amount approved by Congress, for the
Buildings and Facilities account is $1.4 million more than FY2001 funding.
Oil Spill Response
CRS-5
IB10086
01-23-02
For EPA’s oil spill response activities, the President’s FY2002 budget sought, and
congressional actions approved, $15.0 million, the same as FY2001 funding.
Superfund
The FY2002 request sought $1.270 billion for Superfund, about the same as funded in
FY2001. Both the House, Senate and the conferees approved $1.27 billion. While taxing
authority to support the Superfund Trust Fund expired on December 31, 1995, it is
anticipated that monies will continue to be available into 2002. Also part of the President’s
FY2002 budget was a $97 million request for cleaning up certain urban sites, called
Brownfields, that have development potential; the conferees approved this amount.
Looking beyond 2001, GAO has estimated that by 2008, 85% of all non-federal National
Priority List sites will be cleaned up (Superfund: Information on the Program’s Funding and
Status). This will entail annual appropriations of $875 million through FY2008. GAO
estimates that it will cost between $8.2 billion and $11.7 billion for studies, design and
remedial work to clean up all remaining sites. On July 10, 2001, Resources for the Future
released its report Superfund’s Future: What Will It Cost? The report estimates that for fiscal
years 2000 through 2009, EPA will have to spend $14 billion to $16.4 billion on the
Superfund program
The President’s FY2002 budget did not propose renewing the taxes that support the
Superfund Trust Fund. The available balance of the fund has been declining since the taxing
authority expired on December 31, 1995. The balance of the fund on October 1, 2001, the
beginning of FY2002, will be $955 million which is expected to accommodate the requested
appropriation of $1.2 billion, half of which would come from the fund and half from general
appropriations. By October 1, 2002, the beginning of FY2003, the fund level would fall to
$539 million. During discussion of this at the May House Subcommittee hearings, the
Administrator of EPA stated “that obviously we are going to have to depend more and more
on general revenues.”
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
The President’s FY2002 budget sought $71.9 million for the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) program, which assists states in addressing substandard underground
petroleum storage tanks. After adopting an amendment to increase this account by $7.2
million, the House approved $79.2 million. The Senate approved $72 million, the amount
funded in FY2001. The conferees approved $73 million.
The status of state LUST programs is a significant issue. Many states are finding it
difficult to finance their programs. At the same time, the roughly $1.0 billion balance in the
Treasury’s LUST Trust Fund, from which the appropriation is actually made, has led some
to call for allowing greater use of the fund balance by states. (For further discussion, refer
to CRS Report 97-471 ENR, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Issues.)
State and Tribal Environmental Programs
The FY2002 request for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account sparked
controversy in Congress since the President requested $3.289 billion, $332 million (or 9%)
CRS-6
IB10086
01-23-02
less than FY2001 funding level of $3.6 billion. The House approved $3.434 billion; the
Senate $3.603 billion; and the conferees $3.734 billion. This account capitalizes popular clean
water and drinking water state revolving funds and other state assistance. The elements of
the STAG request include:
! $850 million, as compared to the current level of $1.35 billion for State
Revolving Funds (Clean Water); however, $450 million for new sewer
overflow grants was proposed; the House approved $1.2 billion, the Senate
and the conferees $1.35 billion, denying the proposed $450 million for sewer
overflow grants.
! $823.2 million for State Revolving Funds (Drinking Water), the same as
FY2001 funding; the House, Senate and conferees approved $850.
! $74.8 million, the same as FY2001 and as approved by the House, Senate
and conferees, for Mexican Border infrastructure projects;
! $34.9 million for Alaska Native Village water infrastructure projects, the
current year funding; the House passed $30 million and the Senate and the
conferees $40 million.
! $1.1 billion, $50 million more than the current appropriation, for traditional
grants to states for their administration of various environmental programs;
the House added $23 million for these grant activities. The conferees
approved $1.1 billion.
! In addition, the House added $200 million for targeted infrastructure grants.
No specific earmarks were provided. In the Senate, the Committee added
$500 million to the Clean Water SRF request and specified funding for 105
specific projects. The President’s budget had requested no funds for
earmarked infrastructure grants for which Congress appropriated $357
million in FY2001. The conferees included $344 million for such grants.
The major capital needs that communities face for funding drinking water and
wastewater facility construction remain the chief issue associated with the STAG account. By
statutory design, the federal contribution to most of these needs has been through capitalizing
state funds from which states loan monies to communities. Since most localities are now
borrowing their funding, any remaining direct grants listed above for special projects have
become controversial. The total national needs remain great as EPA’s 1996 needs survey for
clean water SRF monies estimated remaining needs at $139.5 billion to $200 billion while
sewerage agencies estimate funding needs may be as high as $330 billion. EPA acknowledges
that funding needs exceed levels in the 1996 needs survey and is working on more current
assessments. The needs of small communities remain a special component of this problem.
A more recent estimate has further spotlighted the FY2002 water SRF request even
more. A stakeholder group, the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), in Clean and Safe
Water for the 21st Century, estimates wastewater and drinking water capital needs at around
$1 trillion and even more if operation and maintenance needs are added (they currently are
not eligible for federal assistance). WIN estimates that 20-year capital funding needs for
wastewater are about $460 billion and for drinking water about $480 billion. WIN foresees
a $23 billion per year funding gap: $12 billion for wastewater and $11 billion for drinking
water capital needs
CRS-7
IB10086
01-23-02
What was unclear from the request is how new sewer overflow grants could have been
funded under the requested funds. The Wet Weather Water Quality Act, (PL. 106-554,
Division B, Section 1112) authorizes a $1.5 billion grants program to reduce wet weather
flows from municipal sewer systems ($750 million annually in FY2002 and FY2003). It
authorizes these grants if the Clean Water SRF grants are funded at a level of $1.35 billion.
In response to questions at the House Appropriations Subcommittee’s hearings, the
Administrator acknowledged that the agency was “not meeting the language” of PL. 106-554
notably its $1.35 million threshold, and was “asking for flexibility.” The request was for $850
million in SDF funding and $450 for new overflow grants for a total of $1.3 billion. But, if
additional funds of $500 million were added during the appropriations process, the $1.35
billion level could presumably be reached. The House did not recommend the $450 million
for wet weather projects and funded the Clean Water SRF at $1.2 billion. The Senate and the
conferees funded the SRF at the $1.35 billion level but did not recommend the wet weather
funding.
For state administrative grants, the President’s FY2002 budget sought $1.1 billion, $50
million more than the FY2001 level of $1.0 billion. These grants fund state programs which
administer various environmental protection programs. All state grant programs would be
funded at current year levels. Under the budget proposal, three new areas would be funded:
$2 million for beach water quality criteria activities, $25 million for information exchange, and
$25 million for state enforcement grants. On the floor, the House adopted an amendment
increasing funding for beach testing by $3 million. The House added $23 million for state
administrative grants. The Senate Committee did not specify in its report the funding levels
for state grants.
The beach grants are intended to help the states meet provisions of new Clean Water Act
requirements on evaluating the quality of the nation’s beaches authorized in P.L. 106-284.
The proposed funding for state information exchange is part of a continuing effort to improve
the much criticized deficiencies in EPA’s information management capabilities. The grants
“will help the states and EPA create the necessary infrastructure to efficiently exchange
information electronically, which will reduce burden, improve accuracy and inform
decisonmaking,” noted the Administrator at the House Appropriations Subcommittee
hearings. The House funded the beach water quality grants at $10 million; the Senate at $2
million; and the conference agreement at $10 million.
Considerable interest has focused on the proposal to shift more enforcement
responsibility to the states. The budget anticipated $25 million in FY2002 for grants to state
enforcement programs. On this, Administrator Whitman stated: “This grant program will
benefit the national environmental enforcement program by providing states much-needed
funds to enhance their enforcement efforts in delegated environmental programs.” These fit
into the budget theme of assisting the states and shifting more authority to them. The budget,
according to the Administrator, “reflects a commitment to increase partnerships across
America to develop innovative environmental programs that ensure stewardship of our land,
air, and water for generations to come.” The other part of this, however, is that enforcement
resources at EPA headquarters will be reduced. At the House Subcommittee hearing, the
ranking minority member questioned the effect that headquarters reductions might have and
expressed concern that there were no assurances that the grant funding would continue
beyond FY2002.
CRS-8
IB10086
01-23-02
In approving FY2002 funds, the House Committee approved the Administration’s
funding plans, including the state enforcement grants program. The House rejected an
amendment to increase EPA enforcement funding by $25 million. The Senate action did not
approve the new grant program and specified that EPA enforcement levels were not to be
reduced under FY2001 levels. The conference version did not include the enforcement plan.
LEGISLATION
H.R. 2620 (Walsh)
Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations for FY2002. Subcommittee approval July 10, 2001. Full committee
approval July 17, 2001(H.Rept. 107-159). Passed by the House July 31, 2001. Passed by the
Senate August 2, after being amended with the provisions of S. 1216. Conference report filed
November 6, 2001 (H.Rept 107-272). Passed by the House and Senate November 8.
S. 1216 (Mikulski)
Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations for FY2002. Subcommittee and full committee approval, July 19.
(S.Rept. 107-43).
P.L. 107-117 (H.R. 3338, Division B)
Supplement Appropriations Act for FY2002. Reported November 19, 2001 by the
House Committee on Appropriations (H. Rept. 107-298). Passed House November 28, 2001.
Reported December 4, 2001 by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. (S. Report No.
107-109). Committee substitute ruled out of order by the Senate Chair, December 7, 2001.
Byrd/Stevens/Inouye Amendment Adopted December 7, 2001. Conference Report H.Rept.
107-350. Signed into law January 10, 2002.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
House. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on HUD-VA-Independent Agencies.
EPA’s FY2002 Budget Request. Hearings, 107th Congress. May 9 and 10, 2001.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. (To be printed)
House. Committee on Science. EPA’s Budget Request. Hearings, 107th Congress, 1st Session.
May 17, 2001. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. (To be printed)
House. Committee on Transportation. Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
EPA’s FY2002 Budget. Hearings, 107th Congress. 1st Session. May 2, 2001.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. (To be printed)
Senate. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on HUD-VA-Independent Agencies.
EPA’s FY2002 Budget Request. Hearings, 107th Congress, 1st Session. June 13, 2001.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. (To be printed)
CRS-9
IB10086
01-23-02
Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. FY2002 Budget Request for EPA.
Hearings, 107th Congress, 1st Session. May 15, 2001. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office. (To be printed)
CHRONOLOGY
07-19-01
Senate Subcommittee and full Committee recommend $7.8 billion.
07-17-01
House Appropriations Committee recommends $7.5 billion.
07-17-01
House Committee on Appropriations approves $7.5 billion for EPA.
07-10-01
House Appropriations, Subcommittee on HUD-VA-Independent Agencies
recommends $7.5 billion.
07-31-01
House passes H.R. 2620
08-02-01
Senate passes H.R. 2620
11-6-01
Conference report (H.Rept 107-272) filed in House
11-8-01
House and Senate approved conference agreement
11-26-01
President signs H.R. 2620 as P.L. 107-73, appropriating $7.9 billion.
CRS-10