Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment*
|
Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment* |
|
|
96028: Environmental Protection Agency: FY1997 BudgetUpdated January 17, 1997Martin R. Lee CONTENTS
Figure 1. EPA Funding from FY1981 to FY1997 Final Figure 2. Environmental Protection Agency Major Appropriation Accounts for FY1997 Administration Request Figure 3. Environmental Protection Agency FY1997 Request for Operating Programs Table 1. EPA Appropriation Accounts, FY1996, FY1997 Request, House and Senate Actions, Final On September 26, 1996, the President signed P.L. 104-204 (H.R. 3666), the FY1997 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation Bill, which included $6.7 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency. The House approved the conference report (H.Rept. 104-812) on September 24, 1996; the Senate September 25, 1996. In earlier action, both chambers approved roughly $6.6 billion, about the same as current FY1996 funding and about 7% less than requested by the President. The conference-approved amount was slightly higher at $6.7 billion. The Omnibus FY1997 Appropriations Act, P.L. 104-208, included an additional $87.2 million, bringing the total appropriation to $6.8 billion. Not included were major legislative provisions or "riders" statutorily directing the EPA, although there are numerous directions to the agency in committee report language. Under the approved amount, most EPA programs could be funded at their current levels. Beginning in FY1996, the appropriations committee established a new account structure for EPA. For the Science and Technology account, the House approved $539 million, the Senate $545 million, and the conferees $542 million; P.L. 104-208 added $10 million more. While earmarking increases for 23 specific activities, it recommended reduced funding of $17.6 million for the Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI), $10 million from climate change action plans, and a general science and technology reduction of $20.4 million. For regulatory and standard-setting activities in the Environmental Programs and Management account, the conferees approved $1.7 billion, slightly higher than current year funding, and roughly the same as approved by the House and Senate. P.L. 104-208 added $42.2 million more. Of the 43 add-ons recommended by the Conference Committee, $4.5. million was for rural water activities and $3 million for sludge activities. In addition to reducing ETI funds by $43.5 million ($61 million total), the conferees approved reductions of $48 million for climate change action plans ($58 million total), $5 million from sustainable development grant program, and $7 million from the Montreal Protocol facilitation fund. The conferees approved $121 million as a general reduction. To clean up toxic waste sites under the Superfund program, the conferees approved $1.4 billion as passed by the Senate. The House Appropriations Committee had authorized an additional $861 million contingent on Superfund being reauthorized. For the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund, both bill versions included $67 million, as did the conferees. To assist states and tribal governments, the conferees recommended $2.8 billion, roughly the same as approved by the House and Senate; P.L. 104-208 added $35 million more earmarked for Boston Harbor. This includes about $625 million for Clean Water state revolving funds, $1.3 billion for the newly established (P.L. 104-182) drinking water state revolving funds, $674 million for state and tribal grants, $136 million for special needs grants, $150 million for Mexican border/colonias activities, and $15 million for rural Alaska water and wastewater needs. On June 3, 1996, the House Appropriations Committee on VA, HUD, Independent Agencies (H.Rept. 104-630) recommended $6.55 billion, roughly the same as current year funding and about $500 million less than requested by the President. The full House Committee approved $6.52 billion in H.R. 3666 (H.Rept. 104-640) on June 13, 1996. The full House passed the bill on June 27, 1996. On June 11, 1996, the Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 104-318) approved $6.6 billion; the full Senate approved the bill on September 5, 1996. The conference report, H.Rept. 104-812, was issued September 20, 1996, approved by the House September 24, 1996, and by the Senate September 25. The President signed the bill as P.L. 104-204 on September 26, 1996. P.L. 104-208 (H.R. 3610), the Omnibus FY1997 Appropriation Act, included $87.2 million in additional funds, bringing the agency's total FY1997 appropriation to $6.8 billion. The total FY1997 EPA request of $7.0 billion was roughly $500 million, or 7% more than the current FY1996 funding of $6.5 billion. Conferees approved $6.7 billion, slightly higher funding than in FY1996 and about $300 million less than requested. Figure 1 shows EPA funding by appropriation account major category since FY1981. The roughly one-half billion dollar increase requested by the President reflects additional funds of $100 million for buildings, $217 million for program management, $53 million for science and technology accounts, and $81 million for Superfund. Under the proposal, funding would be level for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account, which incorporates wastewater state revolving funds (SRF) monies and traditional state program grants. This includes $1.350 billion for State Revolving Funds for wastewater treatment, $550 million for the recently authorized Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, $278 million for Mexican Border and Alaskan projects as well as $674 million for traditional grants to states for administering their programs. For the Superfund program, the FY1997 budget sought $1.4 billion, slightly more than current funding. During consideration of FY1996 funding, there was considerable debate over the funding levels passed by the House and Senate and the inclusion of certain major "riders," or appropriation language restricting EPA activities. The House recommendation did not include major riders of this sort. President Clinton vetoed the regular FY1996 VA-HUD appropriation bill, H.R. 2099, in part because of its funding level for EPA. For the first 7 months of FY1996, EPA was funded by a series of temporary measures at a level of about $5.7 billion while debate continued. The final enactment, P.L. 104-134, signed April 26, 1996, funded the agency at $6.6 billion, about level with FY1995; it did not contain the controversial riders. Congressional efforts to reduce the budget deficit were a major factor affecting EPA's final FY1997 funding, as the needs of environmental programs were balanced against many competing national needs for limited federal dollars. The forefront issue was how to implement efficiently many environmental protection requirements; the burden that states and communities were facing as more environmental regulations are implemented was a major concern. The FY1997 budget proposed consolidating many environmental grant programs into a single environmental block grant, giving states greater freedom in deciding where to spend federal environmental funds. FY1996 marked the beginning of a new appropriation account structure (see Table 1 and Figure 2). Within the many EPA programs, there were numerous issues with respect to implementing and administering the media protection programs, wastewater treatment funding, and Superfund. Operating EPA's ProgramsA little over one-third of EPA's appropriation is for conducting its operating programs, the real heart of its regulatory and standard-setting mission. Figure 3 shows the various components of this portion of EPA's budget. The budget sought about $2.7 billion, roughly the same as FY1995 funding. This includes increases for science and technology, program management, and buildings and facilities. The House and Senate recommendations as well as the final funding were about the same as current year funding. Science and TechnologyThe new appropriation account, Science and Technology, incorporates old elements of the former research and development account (extramural research) as well as EPA's inhouse research, development, and technology efforts. The FY1997 request of $579 million was about 10% more than current FY1996 levels and enacted FY1995 levels. Increasingly over the past few years, environmental research has been recognized as multimedia in scope rather than limited to a single medium. The change in the appropriation account and EPA's own management of research and development reflect this. EPA's FY1997 budget justification stresses that the program will target certain scientific uncertainties involving small particulates, the ability to predict exposure in particular areas, the drinking water disinfectant by-product rule, endocrine disruptors, and benefit/cost research. In approving funds on June 13, 1996, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $540 million for Science and Technology, $15 million more than current year funding and $39 million less than requested. The Committee increased the requested funding for 10 activities, including $7 million for drinking water research, and then approved other lesser increases. Five activities were recommended for decreases under the requested levels. The most prominent was a $27.6 million decrease from the Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI) research as part of a $71 million ETI elimination; others were $4 million from global climate and climate action plan programs, $1 million from enforcement, and $2.2 million from monitoring and assessment. The House Committee recommended a $17.6 million reduction for lower priority programs. On the floor, the House approved an amendment decreasing this account by $1.5 million. On July 11, 1996, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $545 million for the science and technology account. Senate Appropriations recommended reducing funding for the environmental technology initiative by $17.6 million and providing $10 million for verifying certain technologies, reducing academic fellowships by $7 million, decreasing funding by $8 million for additional employees, and reducing climate change action plan funding by $10 million. The Committee recommended increases for eight science and technology activities: $1.7 million for the American Water Works Association, $1.5 million for the Water Environment Research Foundation, $1 million for arsenic research, $1.5 million for experimental program to stimulate cooperation research, $1 million for the Center for Air Toxics Metals, $750,000 for agriculture- related research, $750,000 for Lower Mississippi cancer research, and $300,000 for the New England clean air status and trends network. The Committee also recommended a general reduction of $398,000 for the science and technology account. The conferees approved $542 million for the Science and Technology account compared to the requested $579 million, House-passed $540 million and Senate-passed $545 million. Approved were a total of 15 add-ons including 5 for air activities, 5 for water quality activities; $5 million in additional funds was directed to the Mine Waste Technology Program. Conferees reduced funding for the Environmental Technology Initiative research by $17.6 million, the Senate-approved amount, and reduced funding for climate change action plan research by $10 million, also the Senate amount. The conferees approved a general reduction of $20.4 million from the science and technology account and noted EPA should equitably take this reduction from all intramural and extramural activities. Conference report language encourages EPA to assist in establishing small public water system technology centers, continue the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation program, and contract with the National Academy of Sciences to study hormone-related effects on human health. The Omnibus FY1997 Appropriation Act, P.L. 104-208, included an additional $10 million for this account for conducting health effects research for the drinking water program. Environmental Program and ManagementThe Environmental Program and Management account, also newly adopted, reflects the heart of the Agency's regulatory, standard setting, and enforcement efforts for various media programs such as water quality and air quality and hazardous waste management. The FY1997 budget sought $1.9 billion; the conferees approved $1.7 billion; and, P.L. 104-208 included an additional $42.2 million. Certain key programs highlighted this account, including regulatory reinvention, industry-by-industry sector activities, and community-by-community initiatives. Especially touted by EPA was Project XL, allowing alternative compliance through negotiated agreements in which companies, states, and localities are freed from specific regulatory requirements in return for commitments to exceed environmental standards as well as the Common Sense Initiative, an effort to simply regulations for several industrial sectors. On June 13, 1996, in H.R. 3666, the House Committee recommended $1.7 billion for environmental program and management, $26 million more than current year funding and $191 million less than requested. For 12 specific activities, the Committee recommended increases above the budget request. Among them were $14.5 million for three technology demonstration projects, $5 million for a sludge demonstration project, $4.5 million for rural water technical assistance, and $3 million for environmental justice grants. Eleven activities would have received less funding than requested under the House Committee's recommendation. This would include $44 million less for the Environmental Technology Initiative, in addition to the $27.6 million reduction in research, $27 million from management and support, $16.0 million for global climate and climate action plans, $12 million from enforcement activities, and $5 million from international programs. The House Committee recommended a general reduction of $110 million in addition to the specific reductions. The House Committee approved $1.5 million less for Toxics Release Inventory activities; the full House adopted an amendment increasing this funding by $1.5 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $1.71 billion for programs management. The Committee approved 29 add-ons for programs management, among them $3 million more for rural water activities, and $2.5 million additional for the Southwest Center for Environmental Research. The Committee recommended decreased funds of $8.5 million for climate change action plan activities, $43.5 million from the environmental technology initiative, $7 million less from the Montreal Protocol facilitation fund, $5 million from the sustainable development challenge grant program, as well as a general reduction of $63 million. On the floor, the Senate approved an amendment transferring funds from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund account to the newly authorized drinking water State Revolving Fund account. Also approved was an amendment allowing EPA to use National Estuary Program funds for cleanup and a sense of the Senate regarding reformulated gasoline. The conferees approved $1.7 billion for Environmental Programs and Management, which was near the amounts approved by the House and Senate and about $200 million less than requested. The conferees approved 43 add-ons and 11 reductions under the budget request. Prominent increases included $4.5 million for rural water technical assistance, and numerous earmarked funds ranging from $100,000 to $5 million for a variety of demonstration activities. Together with the $17.6 million approved for a research program associated with the Environmental Technology Initiative, the conferees approved a $3.5 million reduction from ETI's program management activities for a total reduction of $61.1 million. Similarly, the conferees approved a $48 million reduction from program management for climate change action plans which when coupled with a $10 million research reduction totals a reduction of $58 million. Conferees also approved a reduction for sustainable development grants ($5 million), the Montreal Protocol fund ($7 million), as well as a general reduction of $121 million. The conferees earmarked certain funds for lead-based paint hazards and coordinating air use in the North East. Acknowledging newly enacted amendments to drinking water and pesticide statutes, the conferees directed EPA to address funding requirements in its FY1997 operating plan (usually submitted to the committee shortly after enactment of funding). Conferees also made special mention of aboveground storage tanks by encouraging EPA to address program gaps and consider ways to streamline program administration. On the subject of chemical waste landfills, the conferees directed a report on the number of such facilities that have received waivers of the siting requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The conferees encouraged EPA to consider a "No change" option in its decision on whether to change National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulates. Concerning the expansion of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), the conferees directed the General Accounting Office (GAO) to study TRI options and management practices. In adding $42.2 million more for this account, the Omnibus FY1997 Appropriation Act (P.L. 104-208) allotted $2 million more for climate programs, $30 million in additional funds to implement requirements of newly enacted amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Office of Inspector GeneralThe budget sought $42.0 million for the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The House approved and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $40.0 million, the same as current year funding and the amounts approved by the conferees. Buildings and FacilitiesThe $209 million requested was substantially higher than previous years and reflects two major facility-related efforts. One was directed to EPA's moving to a new headquarters in the Federal Triangle, Washington, D.C.; the other for the construction of a consolidated laboratory and office complex at Research Triangle Park, NC. The House Committee recommended $107 million, slightly less than current year funding and $102 million less than requested. The House Committee included bill language authorizing $232 million for construction at Research Triangle Park (RTP). The Senate Appropriations Committee did not include the RTP language in recommending $27.2 million for buildings and facilities. The conferees approved $87.2 million for buildings and facilities. They reinserted House language authorizing construction of a facility at Research Triangle Park, NC. Addressing Toxic Waste Sites Under SuperfundTo address the nation's many toxic waste sites, the budget sought $1.4 billion, roughly level with current FY1996 funding; the conferees approved $1.4 billion. The request and congressional appropriation actions are concurrent with efforts to reauthorize the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, and Compensation Act -- Superfund's authorizing statute. According to the budget justifications, the EPA will expand its Brownfields program, which redevelops urban hazardous waste sites. The justifications also noted that the Agency will continue "innovative management strategies" that include promoting more efficient cleanup choices, reducing remedy costs, avoiding conflict, and assuring that states, tribes and communities have an active role in cleanup decisions. Both the House and Senate versions of the FY1997 budget resolutions include provisions that anticipate Superfund reauthorization and FY1997 funding. In approving funds on June 13, 1996, the House Appropriations Committee recommended $1.339 billion for Superfund, $26 million more than current year funding and $55 million less than the budget request. However, the Committee authorized an additional $861 million for the Superfund Program, a total of $2.2 billion, contingent on its being reauthorized. The House Committee recommended level funding for Department of Justice Superfund activities and a $2.0 million reduction from other interagency activities, an $8.5 million reduction from the enforcement request, and $5 million less from the management and support allocation. In addition, the House Committee recommended a $2 million general reduction. Provisions in the two major Superfund reauthorization bills, House Commerce Subcommittee-approved H.R. 2500 and S. 1285, would change liability provisions and increase cleanup costs for the fund itself. The additional funds -- $861 million -- reflect that fact that if Superfund is reauthorized and such provisions adopted, a greater annual appropriation would be needed. Exactly how much more is not completely clear. CBO has estimated the costs under H.R. 2500 (as introduced) could be in the $2.1 billion to $2.5 billion range. Proponents of the increase, citing the use of inflation in the CBO's estimate, regard $2.2 billion as adequate for the increased fund liability under H.R. 2500's provisions. On the floor, the House approved the $1.339 billion for Superfund. The Committee- approved $861 million in additional funds were not approved by the rules committee and, therefore, not part of H.R. 3666, as passed by the House. The House included language that it intended to consider a separate measure to fund this amount if Superfund is reauthorized. On July 11, 1996, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $1.394 billion, the Administration's request, for the Superfund program. The Committee supported full funding and would also consider another measure to appropriate additional funds if Superfund is reauthorized. The conferees approved $1.4 billion with the stipulation that $100 million would not be available until September 1, 1997. This included $906 million for response/cleanup action, which included $36.8 million for Brownfields activities; $171.2 million for enforcement; $124.9 million for management and support; $64.0 million for the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry; $53.5 million for the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences; $30 million for Department of Justice activities; and $9.4 million for other federal agencies including the Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Department of Interior. Also included was $35 million for transfer to the science and technology account. Leaking Underground Storage TanksThe FY1997 budget also sought $67.1 million for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund (LUST), a program which assists states in administrating their individual programs to address substandard underground storage tanks; the House Committee recommended $46.5 million slightly less than current year funding and $21 million less than requested. On the floor, the House approved an amendment increasing funding for this account by $20 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $60.0 million. Conferees approved $60 million for the program. Oil Spill ResponseFor EPA's oil spill response activities, the budget sought $15 million and the House and Senate passed, and the conferees approved. Assisting State and Tribal Environmental ProgramsFor the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account (STAG), the budget sought $2.8 billion; conferees approved $2.8 billion. This represented about 40% of all Agency resources. The appropriations committees established this new account in FY1996 to reflect more fully all resources allocated to assisting states, tribes, and local governments. The components in the President's request were:
The budget proposes that states have the flexibility to merge their two SRF grants into one capitalization grant. Key to administering SRF and other state funds was the National Environmental Performance Partnership System. These agreements will allow states and tribes to consolidate them into one grant. On June 13, 1996 the House Committee recommended $2.8 billion for this account, $44.8 million less than current year funding and $84 million less than requested. The House Committee approved the same amount as requested for Clean Water State Revolving Funds ($1.35 billion), for categorical grants ($674 million), and for special needs projects ($294 million.) It approved $450 million for drinking water state revolving funds contingent on congressional passage of authorizing legislation; this amount is $100 million less than requested. In its July 11, 1996 recommendation, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $2.8 billion for State and Tribal Assistance Grants, $47 million more than the House-passed level and $37 million less than the President's request. This includes $1.426 billion for clean water state revolving funds, $550 million for the drinking water state revolving funds, $100 million for United State-Mexico border projects, $50 million for Colonias, $15 million for Alaska projects, and $674.2 million for state administrative grants. On the floor, the Senate approved an amendment funding the drinking state revolving funds at $1.275 billion and the clean water state revolving funds at $725 million. The conferees approved $625 million for clean water state revolving funds recognizing that on August 1, 1996 $725 million was automatically appropriated to this activity because a drinking water SRF had yet to be established under provisions of P.L. 104-134. For the newly authorized drinking water SRFs, the conferees recommended $1.3 billion. The conferees approved for Mexican border ($100 million) water and wastewater facilities, and Texas colonias ($50 million) wastewater facilities. Also recommended were $15 million for Alaska rural wastewater needs and $136 million for special needs wastewater treatment and groundwater protection infrastructure grants. For state and tribal categorical administrative grants, the conferees approved $674 million. The Omnibus FY1997 Appropriation Act, P.L. 104-208 (H.R. 3610) included an additional $35 million for this account earmarked for a Boston harbor project. P.L.
104-204, H.R.
3666 P.L.
104-208, H.R.
3610 CRS Issue Briefs CRS Issue Brief 97001. Clean Water Act Reauthorization in the 105th Congress CRS Issue Brief 95004. Environmental Protection Legislation in the 104th Congress. CRS Issue Brief 95013. Superfund Reauthorization Issues in the 104th Congress. CRS Issue Brief 89102. Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act. |
CRS Reports Home
|
||
 |
National Council for Science and the Environment 1725 K Street, Suite 212 - Washington, DC 20006 202-530-5810 - info@NCSEonline.org |
 |