Environmental Protection Agency: Appropriations for FY2006

CRS Report for Congress
Environmental Protection Agency:
Appropriations for FY2006
Updated January 20, 2006
Robert Esworthy and David Bearden
Resources, Science, and Industry Division


Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Environmental Protection Agency:
Appropriations for FY2006
Summary
Early in the first session, the 109th Congress eliminated the Veterans Affairs,
Housing and Urban Development (VA-HUD), and Independent Agencies
appropriations subcommittee and moved funding jurisdiction for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to the Interior subcommittee. As enacted in August 2005,
Title II of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
FY2006 (P.L. 109-54, H.R. 2361) provided $7.73 billion for EPA, subject to an
across-the-board rescission of 0.476%. The appropriation included an additional $80
million in unobligated funds “rescinded” from past appropriations. Overall, P.L.
109-54 provided more funding for EPA than the Administration’s FY2006 request
of $7.52 billion, but less than the FY2005 appropriation of $8.03 billion. Among
individual programs, funding decreased for some activities and increased for others,
compared with the FY2006 request and the FY2005 appropriation.
At the end of the first session, the 109th Congress enacted a government-wide
rescission in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2006 (P.L. 109-
148, H.R. 2863). This rescission reduced FY2006 funding for EPA and all other
federal agencies by 1%, except for the Department of Veterans Affairs and excluding
“emergency” spending. P.L. 109-148 also reallocated $8 million in emergency funds
to EPA for responding to leaking underground tanks in areas affected by Hurricane
Katrina. The Administration had recommended $15 million for this purpose in
October 2005, as part of a $17.1 billion reallocation of emergency funds. The law
did not include the $166 million rescission for EPA’s clean water State Revolving
Fund (SRF) that the Administration also had proposed in October, as part of a $2.3
billion rescission affecting numerous federal agencies.
In the debate over the Interior bill, considerable attention focused on the
adequacy of federal assistance to states to support the clean water and drinking water
SRFs. States use these funds to issue loans to communities for constructing and
upgrading wastewater and drinking water infrastructure to meet federal requirements.
Prior to the two rescissions noted above, P.L. 109-54 provided $900 million for the
clean water SRF, an increase above the Administration’s request of $730 million, but
a decrease below the FY2005 appropriation of $1.09 billion. P.L. 109-54 also
provided $850 million for the drinking water SRF, which was the same as the
Administration had requested and similar to the FY2005 appropriation, prior to the
two above rescissions.
Other prominent issues in the debate over FY2006 appropriations for EPA
included the adequacy of funding for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the
Superfund program, the cleanup of commercial and industrial sites referred to as
brownfields, EPA’s homeland security activities, “congressional project priorities”
or earmarks, and EPA’s use and consideration of intentional human dosing studies
for determining potential human health risks from exposure to pesticides. There also
were varying levels of interest in numerous other activities funded within EPA’s
accounts. This report reflects final congressional action on FY2006 appropriations
for EPA and will not be updated.



Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Methodology .....................................................1
History and Mission of EPA.........................................2
President’s FY2006 Budget Request...................................3
Congressional Action on Appropriations................................4
EPA’s FY2006 Appropriation by Account..............................6
Science and Technology........................................8
Human Testing............................................9
Research/Congressional Priorities (Earmarks)..................10
EPA and Homeland Security................................10
Clean Air Act Research and Implementation (S&T)..............12
Environmental Programs and Management.........................13
Brownfields Program Administration.........................14
Environmental Education Program...........................14
Clean Air Act Research and Implementation (EPM)..............14
Pesticide Registration and Chemical Manufacturing Fees.........15
Environmental Protection/Congressional Priorities (Earmarks).....16
Geographic/Ecosystem Programs............................16
Office of Inspector General.....................................17
Buildings and Facilities........................................18
Hazardous Substance Superfund.................................18
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program.......................20
Oil Spill Response............................................21
State and Tribal Assistance Grants...............................22
State Revolving Funds.....................................23
Infrastructure Grants/Congressional Priorities (Earmarks).........24
Other Water Infrastructure Grants............................25
Categorical Grants........................................25
Brownfields Grants.......................................27
Clean School Bus Initiative.................................27
Conclusion ......................................................28
List of Figures
Figure 1. EPA Discretionary Budget Authority FY1970-FY2006:
Adjusted and Not Adjusted for Inflation (billions of dollars)............3
Figure 2. Environmental Protection AgencyFY2006 Appropriations
in Title II of P.L. 109-54, by Account..............................8



List of Tables
Table 1. Action on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for FY2006 (H.R. 2361).........................5
Table 2. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations
Accounts: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action
on FY2006 Appropriations......................................7
Table 3. Science and Technology Account: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006
Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations......................8
Table 4. EPA Homeland Security Activities: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006
Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations.....................11
Table 5. S&T Account Funding for Selected Air Quality Activities: FY2005
Enacted, FY2006 Request, andAction on FY2006 Appropriations.......12
Table 6. Environmental Programs and Management Account: FY2005
Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations......13
Table 7. EPM Funding for Selected Air Quality Activities: FY2005 Enacted,
FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations..............15
Table 8. EPM Funding for Selected Geographic/Ecosystem
Programs: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and
Action on FY2006 Appropriations...............................17
Table 9. Office of Inspector General Account: FY2005 Enacted,
FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations..............18
Table 10. Buildings and Facilities Account: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006
Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations.....................18
Table 11. Hazardous Substance Superfund Account: FY2005 Enacted,
FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations..............19
Table 12. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program Account: FY2005
Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations......21
Table 13. Oil Spill Response Account: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006
Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations.....................21
Table 14. State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account: FY2005 Enacted,
FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations..............22
Table 15. Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs: FY2005 Enacted,
FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations..............23
Table 16. Categorical Grants Funding: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request,
and Action on FY2006 Appropriations............................26
Table 17. Brownfields Funding: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and
Action on FY2006 Appropriations...............................27



Environmental Protection Agency:
Appropriations for FY2006
Introduction
On August 2, 2005, the President signed the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2006 (P.L. 109-54, H.R. 2361).1 Title II of P.L.

109-54 provided $7.73 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),


subject to an across-the-board rescission of 0.476%. The President signed the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2006 (P.L. 109-148, H.R. 2863)
on December 30, 2005, which included a 1% government-wide rescission, further
reducing EPA’s final appropriation. Even after both rescissions, the FY2006
appropriation for EPA is an increase above the Administration’s request of $7.52
billion, but a decrease below the FY2005 appropriation of $8.03 billion.
There were varying degrees of interest in specific programs and activities funded
within EPA’s appropriation. Among the prominent issues in the debate over the
Interior bill were the adequacy of funding for wastewater infrastructure, cleanup of
hazardous waste sites under the Superfund program, cleanup of commercial and
industrial sites referred to as brownfields, EPA’s homeland security activities, and
“congressional project priorities” or earmarks. In addition to funding, another issue
receiving significant attention was EPA’s use and consideration of intentional human
dosing studies for determining potential human health risks from exposure to
pesticides.
The following sections explain the methodology used in this report for funding
comparisons, provide background information on the history and mission of EPA,
include a brief overview of the President’s FY2006 budget request for EPA, discuss
congressional action on appropriations in the first session of the 109th Congress, and
examine funding levels and relevant issues for selected programs and activities by
EPA appropriations account. (For a discussion of broader issues relevant to the
statutes and programs that EPA administers, see CRS Issue Brief IB10146,
Environmental Protection Issues in the 109th Congress. For a discussion of FY2005
funding, see CRS Report RL32441, Environmental Protection Agency:
Appropriations for FY2005.)
Methodology
In general, the term appropriations used in this report refers to total funds
available, including regular annual and supplemental appropriations, as well as


1 For information on each of the agencies funded in this law, see CRS Report RL32893,
Interior and Related Agencies: FY2006 Appropriations.

rescissions, transfers, and deferrals, but excludes permanent budget authorities.
FY2006 appropriations presented in this report have not been adjusted to account for
the 0.476% rescission required in P.L. 109-54, nor for the 1% government-wide
rescission required in P.L. 109-148. The White House’s Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) is responsible for applying rescissions to the budgets of affected
agencies, including EPA, adjusting the amounts that Congress indicates in final
appropriations bills and accompanying reports.
Funding increases and decreases noted in this report are generally calculated
based on comparisons among final FY2006 funding levels prior to the two
rescissions above, House and Senate amounts prior to conference, the
Administration’s FY2006 request, and appropriations enacted for FY2005.2
Requested and appropriated funding amounts presented throughout this report have
not been adjusted for inflation. In some cases, small increases above the previous
year funding may actually reflect a decrease when adjusted for inflation.
FY2006 appropriations amounts indicated in this report are from the final bill
and conference report on H.R. 2361 and from the House- and Senate-passed versions
of this bill and their accompanying reports. The House Committee on Appropriations
is the primary source of the funding figures used throughout this report for FY2005
enacted amounts and the Administration’s FY2006 request. Other sources of
information include the Congressional Record, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency FY2006 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on
Appropriations (referred to throughout this report as the EPA FY2006 budget
justification), and OMB’s Budget of the U.S. Government: FY2006.
History and Mission of EPA
The Nixon Administration established EPA in 1970 in response to growing
public concern about environmental pollution, consolidating 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 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 governments in controlling pollution in order to comply with federal
laws. (For discussion of these laws, see CRS Report RL30798, Environmental Laws:
Summaries of Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency).
Figure 1, below, provides a history of discretionary budget authority for EPA
from FY1970 through FY2006, both adjusted and not adjusted for inflation. 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 range


2 The FY2005 amounts presented in this report reflect a 0.8% across-the-board rescission,
as required in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447, H.R. 4818).
(See CRS Report RS21983, FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act: Reference Guide.)

of environmental concerns. In terms of the overall federal budget, EPA’s annual
appropriation has represented a relatively small portion of total discretionary budget
authority (just under 1% in recent years). EPA’s funding has grown from $1.0 billion
when EPA was established in FY1970 to a high of $8.4 billion in FY2004.
Figure 1. EPA Discretionary Budget Authority FY1970-FY2006:
Adjusted and Not Adjusted for Inflation
(billions of dollars)


28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Not AdjustedAdjusted forInflation (2004
for Inflationdollars)
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on amounts in P.L. 109-54, and data
from the Office of Management and Budget, The Budget of the U.S. Government FY2006: Historical
Tables, Table 5.4,Discretionary Budget Authority by Agency 1976-2006,” pp. 95-96, and Table
10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables 1940-2009: GDP
(Chained) Price Index,” pp. 184-185. Amounts for FY1970-FY1975 are from The Budget of the U.S.
Government for fiscal years 1972-1977, “Budget Authority and Outlays by Agency” tables.
President’s FY2006 Budget Request
President Bush submitted his initial FY2006 budget request to Congress on
February 7, 2005.3 The request included $7.52 billion for EPA, $506 million less
than the $8.03 billion FY2005 appropriation. As in past years, the total request was
divided among eight different accounts to which Congress traditionally allocates
funding in the annual appropriations bills, listed in Table 2 below. EPA also
presented its budget request in the form of performance goals, as required by the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA, P.L. 103-62). EPA
reduced its number of goals from 10 to 5 in its FY2005 budget justification. The
agency presented its FY2006 justification according to these same five goals:
3 See [http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/budget/htm]. Also see OMB’s Budget of the U.S.
Government: FY2006, at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006].

!Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change;
!Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water;
!Goal 3: Land Preservation and Restoration;
!Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems; and
!Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship.
Related to these goals, the Administration also uses OMB’s Performance
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to measure the performance of federal programs.
OMB issued PART ratings for 32 EPA programs, which were used in the formulation
of the Administration’s FY2006 request. (For further discussion of the PART, see
CRS Report RS21416, The President’s Management Agenda: A Brief Introduction.)
The largest proposed decrease in the President’s initial request for EPA was for
grants to states for wastewater infrastructure projects. The President submitted a
subsequent request on October 28, 2005, to rescind $166 million from EPA’s
FY2006 appropriation for wastewater infrastructure projects funded through the clean
water State Revolving Fund (SRF). As discussed later, the rescission would have
taken away nearly all of the increase that Congress provided for this purpose,
reducing the appropriation close to what the Administration requested in February.
In addition to proposed reductions for some ongoing programs, the President’s
FY2006 budget did not include funding designated by Congress in FY2005 for
individual projects, locations, or institutions (often referred to as “earmarked
funding”) within EPA’s appropriations accounts. This is consistent with past
Administrations’ budget requests. According to OMB, the President’s FY2006
budget did not include $489 million appropriated in FY2005 for “unrequested
projects.”4 More than half of these appropriated funds were for water infrastructure
projects. In the FY2006 appropriation, Congress restored earmarked funding for
many of these projects and designated new earmarked funding for others as well.
Although the President’s budget proposed decreases for some programs relative
to FY2005, it included steady or increased funding for other activities, such as
cleanup of Superfund sites, cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields, homeland
security, and several grant programs for scientific research on human health effects.
The Administration submitted a subsequent request on October 28, 2005, that would
have increased overall funds available to EPA by $15 million through a reallocation
of emergency spending for disaster relief in Gulf Coast states affected by Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, of which Congress reallocated $8 million to EPA in the FY2006
Defense appropriations bill. This reallocated funding was targeted for EPA’s
response to leaking underground tanks in hurricane-affected areas.
Congressional Action on Appropriations
Early in the 109th Congress, the House Appropriations Committee reduced the
number of its subcommittees from 13 to 10. The Senate Appropriations Committee
also approved the elimination of one of its subcommittees, leaving 12. Both


4 Office of Management and Budget, Major Savings and Reforms in the President’s 2006
Budget, February 11, 2005. See [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006].

reorganizations eliminated the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development
(VA-HUD), and Independent Agencies subcommittee, which historically had funding
jurisdiction over EPA. As a result of this reorganization, the House and Senate
incorporated EPA’s funding within the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior
subcommittee, beginning with the FY2006 appropriation.
In the first session, the House and Senate passed the conference agreement on
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for FY2006
(H.R. 2361, hereafter referred to as the “Interior bill”). The President signed the final
bill into law (P.L. 109-54) on August 2, 2005. Funding for EPA was included in
Title II. Table 1 indicates floor action in both chambers followed by enactment.
Table 1. Action on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2006 (H.R. 2361)
ActionDateVoteReport Number
Original House PassageMay 19, 2005329-89H.Rept. 109-80
Original Senate PassageJune 29, 200594-0S.Rept. 109-80
House Conference PassageJuly 28, 2005410-10
H.Rept. 109-188
Senate Conference PassageJuly 29, 200599-1
EnactmentSigned by the President August 2, 2005 (P.L. 109-54)
Title II of P.L. 109-54 provided $7.73 billion for EPA, subject to an across-the-5
board rescission of 0.476%. The House had proposed $7.71 billion, and the Senate
had proposed $7.88 billion, neither of which included an across-the-board rescission.
P.L. 109-54 also “rescinded” $80.0 million from past fiscal year appropriations and
treated these funds as an offset to increase EPA’s total appropriation to $7.81 billion,
yielding the net amount of $7.73 billion in new appropriations. The House-passed bill
had included a $100-million rescission of prior year appropriations, and the
Senate-passed bill had included $58.0 million. Overall, EPA’s appropriation in P.L.
109-54 was an increase above the Administrations’ request of $7.52 billion, but a
decrease below the FY2005 appropriation of $8.03 billion.
At the end of the first session, the 109th Congress passed the conference
agreement on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2006 (H.R.
2863, H.Rept. 109-359), and the President signed the bill into law (P.L. 109-148) on
December 30, 2005. It included a government-wide rescission that reduced FY2006
funding for EPA and all other federal agencies by 1%, except for the Department of
Veterans Affairs and excluded spending designated as an “emergency” requirement.6


5 Section 439 of Title IV of P.L. 109-54 required that the rescission be applied
proportionately among each account, program, project, and activity specified in that law,
accompanying reports, and the President’s budget request.
6 Section 3801 of Title III of P.L. 109-148 required that the 1% rescission be applied to each
(continued...)

P.L. 109-148 also reallocated $8 million in emergency funds to EPA for
responding to leaking underground tanks in Gulf Coast states affected by Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. As noted above, the Administration had recommended a $15
million reallocation for this purpose on October 28, 2005. This recommendation was
part of a proposal to reallocate $17.1 billion among numerous federal agencies,7
which was provided in two supplemental appropriations acts (P.L. 109-61 and P.L.

109-62) for disaster relief in Gulf Coast states affected by the hurricanes.8


P.L. 109-148 did not include a $166 million rescission for EPA’s clean water
State Revolving Fund (SRF). This fund provides federal assistance to states for
issuing loans to communities for constructing and upgrading wastewater
infrastructure to meet federal requirements, discussed later in this report. As
indicated above, the Administration had requested this rescission on October 28,

2005, as part of a separate proposal to rescind $2.3 billion in funding from “lower-


priority federal programs and excess funds.” The Administration indicated that the
rescission was intended to help offset the “unprecedented cost” of disaster relief in
hurricane-affected areas and to “control growth in discretionary spending.”9
Earlier in the first session, on April 28, 2005, the House and Senate had passed
the conference agreement on the FY2006 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept.
109-62), including budget authority (BA) for the Natural Resource and Environment
Function (300). This function includes several federal land management agencies
and EPA. This resolution provided the framework for the consideration of
appropriations, and its amounts were nonbinding. The resolution included $30.02
billion (BA) for function 300, but as in past years, it did not specify funding among
individual agencies. Rather, funding levels for EPA and other federal agencies were
determined in the appropriations process. For additional information on the FY2006
federal budget process, see CRS Report RL32791, Congressional Budget Actions in

2005, and CRS Report RL32812, The Budget for Fiscal Year 2006.


EPA’s FY2006 Appropriation by Account
As in recent years, EPA’s FY2006 appropriation is allocated among eight line-
item accounts. Table 2 identifies each account, the amounts proposed and enacted
for FY2006, and the funding levels enacted for FY2005. Figure 2 illustrates the
portion of the enacted FY2006 appropriation allocated to each of the eight accounts.
A discussion of specific activities and programs funded within each account and
relevant issues follow.


6 (...continued)
account, program, project, and activity specified in that law, other FY2006 appropriations
acts, accompanying reports, and the President’s budget request.
7 See OMB’s website at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments].
8 See CRS Report RS22239, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane
Katrina Relief, by Keith Bea.
9 See OMB’s website at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments].

Table 2. Environmental Protection Agency Appropriations Accounts:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
H.R. 2361H.R. 2361
Appropriations AccountFY2005EnactedFY2006RequestHouse-Senate-P.L. 109-54
passedpassed
echnology $744.1 $760.6 $765.3 $730.8 $741.7
Superfund account+ $35.8+ $30.6+ $30.6+ $30.6+ $30.6
echnology Total$779.9$791.2$795.9$761.4$772.3
ironmental Programs and Management$2,294.9a $2,353.8a $2,389.5a $2,333.4a $2,381.8
nspector General$37.7$37.0$38.0$37.0$37.5
Superfund account+ $12.9+ $13.5+ $13.5+ $13.5+ $13.5
nspector General Total$50.6$50.5$51.5$50.5$51.0
uildings & Facilities $41.7$40.2$40.2$40.2$40.2
ardous Substance Superfund$1,247.5$1,279.3$1,258.3$1,256.2$1,260.6
nspector General — $12.9 — $13.5 — $13.5 — $13.5 — $13.5
echnology — $35.8 — $30.6 — $30.6 — $30.6 — $30.6
ardous Substance Superfund (Net)$1,198.8$1,235.2$1,214.2$1,212.1$1,216.5
ing Underground Storage Tank Program$69.4$73.0$73.0$73.0$73.0
il Spill Response$15.9$15.9$15.9$15.9$15.9
istration Fund$19.2$15.0$15.0$15.0$15.0
istration Fees — $19.2 — $15.0 — $15.0 — $15.0 — $15.0
ribal Assistance Grants: Total$3,575.3$2,960.8$3,127.8$3,395.6$3,181.7
ater State Revolving Funds$1,091.2$730.0$850.0$1,100.0$900.0
b — — ($100.0) — —
ater State Revolving Funds$843.2$850.0$850.0$850.0$850.0
$1,640.9 $1,380.8 $1,527.8 $1,503.6 $1,511.7
ously Appropriated to EPA b — — — ($58.0)($80.0)
A Accounts $8,026.5$7,520.6$7,708.0$7,882.1$7,732.4
Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on amounts indicated in P.L. 109-54, the conference report on H.R.
ept. 109-188), and the House and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2361 and their accompanying reports (H.Rept. 109-80 and
ept. 109-80, respectively). FY2005 enacted amounts reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission required by P.L. 108-447. FY2006
ounts are line-items indicated in Title II of P.L. 109-54, which do not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission required
. 109-54, nor the 1% government-wide rescission required by P.L. 109-148. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
er P.L. 109-54, nor H.R. 2361 as passed by the House or the Senate, included a $50-million offset in receipts from toxics and
pesticides fees that the Administration had proposed in its FY2006 budget request.
he total for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account includes an offset of $80 million, per P.L. 109-54 ($58 million in the Senate
bill and $100 million in the House bill), to be rescinded from prior year EPA appropriations not obligated for contracts, grants, and
interagency agreements for which the funding authorization has since expired. P.L. 109-54 did not specify how the $80 million in
rescinded funds would be allocated among EPA activities in FY2006, nor did the Senate specify the allocation of the $58 million
in rescinded funds in passing its version of H.R. 2361. As passed by the House, H.R. 2361 would have allocated $100 million in
rescinded funds for the clean water SRF for FY2006.



Figure 2. Environmental Protection Agency
FY2006 Appropriations in Title II of P.L. 109-54, by Account


* P.L. 109-54 provided $7.73 billion in new appropriations for EPA in FY2006 and rescinded $80
million in unobligated funds that Congress had appropriated to EPA in prior years, redirecting these
funds to FY2006 and thereby increasing total funding to $7.81 billion.
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on line-item amounts in P.L.
109-54, which do not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission required in that law nor the 1%
government-wide rescission required in P.L. 109-148.
Science and Technology
Prior to the 0.476% and 1% rescissions, P.L.109-54 provided $772.3 million for
the Science and Technology (S&T) account for FY2006. The final appropriation was
more than the Senate had proposed but less than the House amount, the
Administration’s request, and the FY2005 appropriation. Prior to the two
rescissions, the S&T appropriation included a transfer of $30.6 million from the
Hazardous Substances Superfund account to support research related to cleanup of
hazardous substances (discussed later in this report). The FY2005 appropriation
included a transfer of $35.8 million from the Superfund account. Similar transfers
have been made in prior year appropriations.
Table 3. Science and Technology Account: FY2005 Enacted,
FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005 FY2006 H.R. 2361 H.R. 2361P.L. 109-54
Enacted Request House-passed Senate-passed
$779.9 $791.2 $795.9 $761.4 $772.3
Note: Amounts indicate net S&T funding levels after the transfer of funds from the Hazardous
Substance Superfund account. The FY2006 enacted amount does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-

board rescission in P.L. 109-54 nor the 1% government-wide rescission in P.L. 109-148. The FY2005
enacted amount does reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission in P.L. 108-447.
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 laboratories and various
field stations and offices. Recent congressional debate regarding the funding for
scientific research administered by EPA and other federal agencies has often focused
on the question of whether these agencies’ actions are based on “sound science,” and
how scientific research is applied in developing federal policy.
Relative to the Administration’s FY2006 request and the FY2005 appropriation,
P.L. 109-54 contained significant increases for some activities and programs within
this account, while calling for sizeable decreases or steady funding in others. The
FY2006 request for funding in the S&T account generally reflected the
Administration’s priorities across the various media programs (air, water, etc.) based,
in part, on recent proposed and final rulemakings affecting air quality, and water
quality. The FY2006 request also reflected priorities for broader cross-media
analytical research areas, such as risks to children and other sub-populations.
The following sections discuss funding issues regarding scientific research, and
funding levels for specific research activities administered by EPA for which there
has been ongoing interest among Members of Congress, scientists, stakeholders, and
various interest groups
Human Testing. Section 201 of P.L. 109-54 included an administrative
provision prohibiting EPA’s use of FY2006 appropriations to conduct or to accept,
consider, or rely on third-party, intentional human dosing studies for pesticides until
the agency issues relevant final rulemaking on the subject. The provision further
stipulated that the final EPA rule will not permit pregnant women, infants, and
children to be used as subjects in such testing, and will be consistent with National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2004 recommendations10 and human experimentation
principles of the Nuremberg Code.11 The provision included in P.L. 109-54 reflects
a combination of a Senate-adopted amendment regarding the rulemaking, and
identical House and Senate-adopted amendments that would have prohibited EPA’s
use of FY2006 funds to conduct or consider intentional human dosing studies for
pesticides for the entire fiscal year. As reflected in the House and Senate floor debate


10 For more information on EPA’s efforts, as well as a direct link to the National Academy
of Sciences Report “Intentional Human Dosing Studies for EPA Regulatory Purposes:
Scientific and Ethical Issues,” National Academies Press, Washington DC, see
[ ht t p: / / www.epa.gov/ oppf ead1/ gui dance/ human-t est .ht m] .
11 For a brief description of the Nuremberg Code, see Appendix B of CRS Report RL32909,
Federal Protection for Human Research Subjects: An Analysis of the Common Rule and Its
Interactions with FDA Regulations and the HIPAA Privacy Rule, by Erin D. Williams.

(Congressional Record, H3671 and S7552-S7561) and amendments adopted during
the debates, there is significant interest in Congress regarding EPA’s policies for use
of intentional human dosing studies in regulatory decision making for pesticides.
Some manufacturers, scientists, and Members assert that human dosing studies
provide valuable scientific evidence regarding risks of certain chemicals that cannot
be obtained with non-human research. Others recognize the potential value and
validity of such studies but advocate the establishment of strict safeguards and
protocols to protect the health of those subjects participating in such studies. Some
scientists, public interest groups, and other Members counter that, given ethical
questions and potential economic motivation, caution and substantial further
evaluation is needed to ensure that alternative approaches have been exhausted.
Others suggest that purposefully exposing humans is not worth the potential risk
under any circumstances.
Research/Congressional Priorities (Earmarks). In past EPA
appropriations, Congress has designated funds for individual projects, locations, or
institutions (often referred to as earmarked funding12) within the various accounts.
P.L. 109-54 provided less earmarked funding within EPA’s FY2006 appropriation
than Congress provided in FY2005. The conference report on H.R. 2361 identified
earmarked funding for specific projects in FY2006 within three accounts: S&T,
Environmental Programs and Management, and State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(see discussions of these two latter accounts later in this report).
Prior to the two rescissions, EPA’s FY2006 appropriation included $33.3
million in earmarked funding within the S&T account for “Research/Congressional
Priorities” (H.Rept. 109-188, p. 100). The House had proposed $40 million, and the
Senate had proposed $50 million for these projects. The President’s FY2006 request
did not include any funding for such projects. Congress earmarked nearly $66
million for specific projects within the S&T account for FY2005.
Unlike most grant funding, congressional earmarking of funds for specific
projects traditionally has been awarded noncompetitively to designated recipients.
In its report on H.R. 2361 (H.Rept. 109-80, pp. 105-106), the House Appropriations
Committee had proposed a new practice for EPA in recommending a total amount
for priority projects within the S&T and Environmental Programs and Management
accounts, but allowing past recipients of earmarks to compete for these funds. The
Senate Appropriations Committee opposed this approach in its report and
recommended recipients of earmarked funding within these two accounts. The
conferrees disagreed with the House in the final bill, identifying individual projects,
locations, or institutions to receive designated funds.
EPA and Homeland Security. FY2006 funding for EPA’s homeland
security activities is allocated within five of the eight EPA appropriations accounts:
S&T, Environmental Programs and Management, Hazardous Substance Superfund,
Building and Facilities, and State and Tribal Assistance Grants. This funding would
support various activities including, critical water infrastructure protection,


12 See CRS Report 98-518, Earmarks and Limitations in Appropriations Bills.

laboratory preparedness, decontamination, protection of EPA personnel and
operations, and communication. For the five accounts combined, P.L. 109-54
provided less funding for EPA’s homeland security activities than requested for
FY2006, but more than Congress appropriated for FY2005. Table 4 compares
enacted and proposed funding for EPA homeland security activities in FY2006 with
the FY2005 appropriation, within the five appropriations accounts.
Table 4. EPA Homeland Security Activities: FY2005 Enacted,
FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
EPA AppropriationsFY2005FY2006H.R. 2361 House-H.R. 2361 Senate-P.L. 109-54
Account Enacted Request passed passed
S&T $32.8 $93.8 $50.8 $39.6 $50.8
EPM $20.1 $23.4 $23.4 $21.4 $23.4
Building & Facilities$11.4$11.5$11.5$11.5$11.5
Superfund $36.9 $50.9 $39.4 $38.5 $39.4
ST AG $5.0 $5.0 $5.0 $5.0 $5.0
Total $106.2 $184.6 $130.1 $116.0 $130.1
Note: FY2006 enacted amounts do not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission in P.L. 109-54
nor the 1% government-wide rescission in P.L. 109-148. FY2005 enacted amounts do reflect the 0.8%
across-the-board rescission in P.L. 108-447.
The largest single reduction in P.L. 109-54 for EPA’s homeland security
activities relative to the President’s FY2006 request was for funding within the S&T
account to support a new water quality surveillance and monitoring project referred
to as the “Water Sentinel Initiative.” The Administration had requested $44.0
million within the S&T account for this new initiative for FY2006. Prior to the two
rescissions, P.L. 109-54 provided $9.0 million for this initiative in FY2006, as the
House had proposed. The Senate had proposed $5.6 million.
The scope of the initiative is unclear based on the substantial reduction in
FY2006 funding below the requested level. The requested funding level would have
supported a demonstration pilot program in five major U.S. cities. This proposed
pilot was intended as a precursor to a new national system for early detection of, and
warning for, “dangerous” chemical and biological contaminants as potential terrorist
threats to public drinking water systems.13
The conference report did not include directives or comment with regard to
EPA’s administering of its Water Sentinel Initiative at the funding level provided in
P.L. 109-54. In its report on H.R. 2361 (H.Rept. 109-80, p. 94), the House
Appropriations Committee recommended that EPA develop clear goals and
milestones for this initiative and justify the request for the program more clearly for
FY2007. The Senate Appropriations Committee report did not include similar
recommendations or comment in its report.


13 See, Budget of the United States FY2006: Analytical Perspectives, Table 3-1 p. 38, and
Environmental Protection Agency Budget for Fiscal Year 2006: Overview, p. 285.
[ h t t p : / / www.whi t e house.go v/ omb/ budget / f y2006/ budget .ht ml ] .

Clean Air Act Research and Implementation (S&T). EPA’s
implementation of and proposed changes to several Clean Air Act provisions, as well
as efforts to address climate change, have been the subject of considerable debate
among various stakeholders and Members of Congress. This has elevated interest
in the level of funding for scientific research needed to understand the adequacy of
air quality standards to protect human health, and the effectiveness of pollution
controls to meet them. Prominent air quality issues include the adequacy of new
ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter, how best to reduce
human exposure to mercury, and proposed regulations and legislation regarding the
control of emissions from power plants, vehicles, and other sources. These issues areth
again being debated in the 109 Congress. (See CRS Issue Brief IB10137, Clean Air
Act Issues in the 109th Congress, and CRS Report RL32755, Air Quality:th
Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109 Congress.)
As indicated in the conference report, the FY2006 EPA appropriation included
$212.4 million within the S&T account for various air quality activities for FY2006
prior to the two rescissions (H.Rept. 109-188, pp. 148-149). In comparison,
Congress appropriated $206.4 million for FY2005 within the S&T account for air
quality programs. This funding supports various programmatic implementation,
research, and monitoring activities focusing on air toxics and air quality, radiation,
climate protection, and indoor air quality (including radon). P.L. 109-54 also
provided funding for air quality activities in the accounts for Environmental
Programs and Management, Hazardous Substance Superfund, and State and Tribal
Assistance Grants. Table 5 presents enacted and proposed funding within the S&T
account for selected air quality activities.
Table 5. S&T Account Funding for Selected Air Quality
Activities: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and
Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
H.R. 2361H.R. 2361P.L. 109-
Program ActivityFY2005EnactedFY2006RequestHouse-Senate-54
pa sse d pa sse d
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards
and Certification$57.4$66.6$59.6$61.4$59.6
Research: Global Change$19.6$20.5$20.5$19.6$19.9
Research: Particulate Matter$60.5N/AN/AN/AN/A
Research: Tropospheric Ozone$4.0N/AN/AN/AN/A
Research: NAAQSN/A$71.5$71.5$65.4$69.5
Clean Air Allowance Trading
(see also EPM account)$8.7$9.4$9.4$8.7$8.7
Climate Protection Program
(see also EPM account)$19.0$17.7$20.0$17.7$19.0
Note: FY2006 enacted amounts do not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission in P.L. 109-54 nor the 1%
government-wide rescission in P.L. 109-148. FY2005 enacted amounts do reflect the 0.8% across-the-board
rescission in P.L. 108-447. For FY2006, EPA had proposed to consolidate research on pollutants regulated
under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), such as particulate matter (PM) and tropospheric
(ground- level) ozone, into one budget category, which is reflected in the conference, House, and Senate reports.
PM and ozone NAAQS research funds were requested and appropriated as individual line items for FY2005.
Under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(1)), the NAAQS are standards for ambient air that are intended to
protect human health and the environment with an adequate margin of safety. There are NAAQS for six
pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and lead.



In addition to funding, an administrative provision in Section 205 of Title II of
P.L. 109-54 affects a pending EPA regulation to reduce emissions of new small
engines (less than 50 horsepower).14 This provision is similar to language that the
Senate had proposed. It prohibits the use of FY2006 funds provided in P.L. 109-54,
or in any other act, to propose or finalize small engine emissions regulations until
EPA completes a study of safety issues associated with compliance. Among these
issues are potential risks of fire and burns to individuals. Existing state standards for
small engines would not be affected by this provision. This issue was not addressed
in the House-passed bill.
Environmental Programs and Management
Prior to the 0.476% and 1% rescissions, P.L. 109-54 provided $2.38 billion for
the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account for FY2006. The final
appropriation was less than the House amount, but more than the Senate and
Administration had proposed and Congress had appropriated for FY2005.
Table 6. Environmental Programs and Management Account:
FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and
Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005FY2006 H.R. 2361H.R. 2361 P.L. 109-54
Enacted Request H ouse- passed Senat e - passed
$2,294.9 $2,353.8 $2,389.5 $2,333.4 $2,381.8
Note: The FY2006 enacted amount does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission in P.L.
109-54 nor the 1% government-wide rescission in P.L. 109-148. The FY2005 enacted amount does
reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission in P.L. 108-447. The FY2006 request included $50
million in offsetting revenues from proposed changes to chemical and pesticide fee authorities, which
Congress did not approve.
The EPM account has historically represented roughly one-third of EPA’s
budget. This account 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. Appropriations within the EPM account fund the
development of environmental standards, monitoring and surveillance of pollution
conditions, federal pollution control planning, technical assistance to pollution
control agencies and organizations, and compliance assurance and assistance. Many
complex regulatory/standard setting issues are associated with this account. (Seeth
CRS Issue Brief IB10146, Environmental Protection Issues in the 109 Congress.)
Among individual programs and activities, P.L. 109-54 included a broad mix
of increases and decreases within the EPM account, when compared with the
President’s FY2006 request and the FY2005 appropriation. In some cases,
reductions below the President’s request reflect increases compared with the FY2005
appropriation. In other cases, Congress reduced funding below the FY2005


14 Pursuant to §428(b) of Division G of P. L. 108-199, codified in 40 CFR part 90, subparts
D and E. For more information on EPA’s small non-road engines regulations, see
[ h t t p : / / www.e p a . go v/ ot a q / t e s t i n gr e gs .ht m] .

appropriation, which the Administration had requested. In yet other cases, Congress
maintained funding in FY2006 at or near FY2005 levels for activities that would
have received a cut under the President’s budget. Because there have been varying
levels of interest in the many activities funded within the EPM account, the following
sections discuss funding for selected activities that are illustrative of those in which
there has been broader interest in Congress.
Brownfields Program Administration. Prior to the two rescissions, P.L.
109-54 included $25.0 million in the EPM account for administrative expenses of the
Brownfields Program, the same as the Senate had proposed. The House had
proposed $24.6 million; the FY2006 request included $29.6 million; and Congress
appropriated $24.3 million for FY2005. This program provides assistance to states
and tribes for assessment, cleanup, and planning for redevelopment of abandoned,
idled, or underutilized commercial and industrial sites where hazardous
contamination may be present. There has been strong interest among communities
in increasing federal funding for these efforts. The EPM account only funds the
administrative expenses of the Brownfields Program. Grants for cleanup are funded
out of the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account, discussed later in this report.
Environmental Education Program. Prior to the two rescissions, P.L.
109-54 included $9.0 million within the EPM account for the Environmental
Education Program, the same as the House had proposed and approximately the same
as Congress appropriated in FY2004 and FY2005. The Senate had proposed $7.0
million for FY2006. The President had proposed no funding for the Environmental
Education Program in FY2006, as was the case in FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005.
Congress has reinstated funding each fiscal year in response to widespread state and
local support for grants to elementary and secondary schools awarded under this
program.
The Administration used OMB’s measurement of the program’s effectiveness,
the Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART; see discussion earlier in this
report), to justify its proposal to eliminate funding, asserting that the program has not
demonstrated results. Advocates of the program counter that it has had a positive
impact on a national level, awarding grants to elementary and secondary schools in
all 50 states for training teachers, purchasing textbooks, developing curricula, and
supporting other educational activities. (See CRS Report 97-97, National
Environmental Education Act of 1990: Background, Implementation, and
Reauthorization Issues.)
Clean Air Act Research and Implementation (EPM). As discussed
earlier in this report under the Science and Technology account heading, EPA’s
implementation for several Clean Air Act provisions, as well as efforts to address
climate change, have been of considerable interest to Members of Congress. P.L.
109-54 provided funding for several air quality activities within multiple EPA
appropriations accounts, including the EPM account (H.Rept. 109-188, pp. 149-152).
The law included a total of $313.5 million within the EPM account for various air
quality activities for FY2006 (H.Rept. 109-188, pp. 149-152). In comparison,
Congress appropriated a total of $298.3 million for FY2005 within this account for
these activities. Table 7 indicates enacted and proposed funding within the EPM



account for several selected air quality activities in which there has been broader
congressional interest.
Table 7. EPM Funding for Selected Air Quality Activities: FY2005
Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
H.R. 2361H.R. 2361P.L.
Program ActivityFY2005EnactedFY2006RequestHouse-Senate-109-54
passedpassed
Methane to Markets Program$0.3$4.0$0.5$3.0$2.0
Federal Stationary Sources$21.8$23.5$23.5$23.5$23.5
Energy STAR$46.7$50.5$50.0$50.5$50.5
Clean Air Allowance Trading
(see also S&T account)$16.9$18.2$18.2$18.2$18.2
Climate Protection Program
(see also S&T account)$43.9$41.0$41.0$41.0$41.0
Clean Diesel Program$0.0$15.0$10.0$0.0$5.0
Federal Support for Air Quality
Management (not including the
Clean Diesel Program)
(see also S&T)$88.2$95.9$95.9$88.2$90.9
Note: FY2006 enacted amounts do not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission in P.L. 109-54
nor the 1% government-wide rescission in P.L. 109-148. FY2005 enacted amounts do reflect the 0.8%
across-the-board rescission in P.L. 108-447.
Pesticide Registration and Chemical Manufacturing Fees. The
President’s FY2006 budget included $50 million in the form of “anticipated”
revenues (offsetting receipts) to be derived from changes to fees for pesticide
registrations and for toxic chemical notices.15 P.L. 109-54, as well as the House and
Senate-passed bills, did not include these anticipated revenues. Of the $50 million
in revenues proposed in the President’s FY2006 budget, $46 million would have
been derived from pesticide registration fees, and $4 million from notices for new
chemicals (chemicals not currently manufactured or imported for commerce in the16
United States). The fee changes proposed in the request would have required
congressional approval through the enactment of legislation. In its report, the House
Appropriations Committee noted that no relevant legislation had been proposed and
commented that EPA should not continue to spend time and resources proposing
such actions in conflict with current authority (H.Rept. 109-80, p. 105-106).
The pesticide fees proposed by the Administration for FY2006 would have been
in addition to those currently authorized under the Consolidated Appropriations Act
for FY2004 (P.L. 108-199). The pesticide fees provisions in Section G, Title V of
P.L. 108-199 are referred to as the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA).


15 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Major Savings and
Reforms in the President’s 2006 Budget, pp. 222-224. Available online at
[ h t t p : / / www.whi t e house.go v/ omb/ budget / f y2006] .
16 Section 26(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act authorizes fees to cover part of the cost
to review pre-manufacturing notices.

Also in PRIA, Congress rescinded EPA’s authority to collect other pesticide
registration fees.17 Title II of P.L. 109-54 included an administrative provision
authorizing the Administrator of EPA to collect and obligate pesticide registration
service fees for FY2006 in accordance with Section 33 of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (as added by Subsection (f)(2) of PRIA), as
amended. For additional information regarding pesticide registration and tolerance
fees, see CRS Report RL32218, Pesticide Registration and Tolerance Fees:
Overview.
Earlier in the first session of the 109th Congress, language contained in an
FY2005 supplemental appropriations act (Sec. 6033 of P.L. 109-13) banned EPA
from going forward with rulemaking for collecting pesticide tolerance fees as
rescinded by PRIA. The 108th Congress had rejected the President’s FY2005 budget
proposal to reinstate pesticide fees as prohibited in PRIA in the conference report on
the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (H.Rept. 108-792, Administrative
Provisions, p. 1597).
Environmental Protection/Congressional Priorities (Earmarks). As
discussed earlier in this report, P.L. 109-54 provided less earmarked funding than in
FY2005 for individual projects, locations, or institutions. Earmarked funding is
identified in the conference report on H.R. 2361 within the EPM, Science and
Technology, and State and Tribal Assistance Grants accounts (see discussion
regarding earmarks in these two latter accounts elsewhere in this report).
Prior to the two rescissions, EPA’s FY2006 appropriation included $50.5
million within the EPM account for “Environmental Protection/Congressional
Priorities” (H.Rept. 109-188, pp. 102-103). The House had proposed $40 million,
and the Senate had proposed $50 million. The FY2005 appropriation included $92.3
million for these congressional priority projects. The President’s FY2006 request did
not include any funding for such projects.
As explained earlier, the conferees on H.R. 2361 did not agree to a House
Appropriations Committee recommendation to require competitive solicitations for
these projects within the EPM and Science and Technology accounts (H.Rept.
109-80, pp. 105-106). Rather, the conferees designated funding for specific projects
or locations in its report on the final bill.
Geographic/Ecosystem Programs. The EPM account includes funding
for several geographic/ecosystem programs to address certain environmental and
human health risks. Members of Congress have expressed ongoing interest in the
funding and oversight of these programs, as they potentially affect sizeable
populations across many states. These programs often involve collaboration among
EPA, state and local governments, communities, and nonprofit organizations.


17 In P.L. 108-199, Congress 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).



Enacted and proposed funding for selected geographic/ecosystem programs are
shown in Table 8.
Table 8. EPM Funding for Selected Geographic/Ecosystem
Programs: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request, and
Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
Geographic/EcosystemFY2005FY2006H.R. 2361House-H.R. 2361Senate-P.L.
P r ogram Enacted Re que s t passed passed 109-54
National Estuary Program$24.8$19.4$24.4$21.0$24.4
Great Lakes Legacy Act$22.3$50.0$28.0$30.0$30.0
Great Lakes Program$21.3$21.5$21.5$22.0$21.5
Lake Champlain Basin Program$ 2.5$ 1.0$ 2.0$ 1.9$ 1.9
Chesapeake Bay Program$22.6$20.7$20.7$23.0$21.5
Gulf of Mexico Program$ 4.4$ 4.5$ 4.5$ 5.0$ 5.0
Long Island Sound Program$ 2.3$ 0.5$ 2.0$ 0.5$ 0.5
Puget Sound$ 0.0$0.0$ 2.0$ 0.0$ 2.0
Other Geographic Programs$ 6.9$13.2$ 7.2$ 7.8$ 8.8
Note: FY2006 enacted amounts do not reflect the 0.476% rescission in P.L. 109-54 nor the 1%
government-wide rescission in P.L. 109-148. FY2005 enacted amounts do reflect the 0.8% across-the-
board rescission in P.L. 108-447.
Funding for the restoration of the Great Lakes has been of particular interest to
many Members. As Table 8 indicates, P.L. 109-54 provided significantly less
funding than the FY2006 request, but more than the FY2005 appropriation, to aid in
the cleanup of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes, as authorized by the Great
Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (Title I of P.L. 107-303).18 Although no specific
comments regarding the Legacy program were included in the conference report on
H.R. 2361, the House Appropriations Committee recommended in its report that
EPA develop a clear plan for implementing the Legacy Act specifying how funding
would support this plan in future budget requests (H.Rept. 109-80, p. 106). The
primary purpose of this funding is to address persistently high concentrations of
contaminants in the sediments of rivers and harbors, which have prompted concern
about potential risk to aquatic organisms, wildlife, and humans.
Office of Inspector General
Prior to the 0.476% and 1% rescissions, P.L. 109-54 provided $51.0 million for
EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) for FY2006, similar to what the House,
Senate, and Administration proposed and Congress appropriated for FY2005,


18 The act authorized a total of $270 million in funding from FY2004 through FY2008 ($54
million annually) to aid in the remediation of contaminated sediments in “areas of concern
(AOCs) located wholly or partially in the United States.” For information regarding EPA’s
Great Lakes Strategy, Great Lakes Task Force, and other efforts to address issues in the
Great Lakes Basin, see [http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/].

although in differing amounts. As the House and Senate had proposed and the
Administration had requested, the final appropriation included a transfer of $13.5
million, prior to the rescissions, from the Superfund account for investigative
oversight of that program. Congress has made a similar transfer of funds for this
purpose in past years. For example, the FY2005 appropriation included a $12.9
million transfer. The primary function of this office is to audit and investigate EPA
functions to identify management, program, and administrative deficiencies, which
may create conditions for instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement of funds,
and to recommend actions to correct these deficiencies.
Table 9. Office of Inspector General Account: FY2005 Enacted,
FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005FY2006 H.R. 2361 H.R. 2361
EnactedRequestHouse-passedSenate-passedP.L. 109-54
$50.6 $50.5 $51.5 $50.5 $51.0
Note: All amounts are net Office of Inspector General funding, after transfer of funds from the
Hazardous Substance Superfund account. The FY2006 enacted amount does not reflect the 0.476%
across-the-board rescission in P.L. 109-54 nor the 1% government-wide rescission in P.L. 109-148.
The FY2005 enacted amount does reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission in P.L. 108-447.
Buildings and Facilities
Prior to the 0.476% and 1% rescissions, P.L. 109-54 provided $40.2 million for
the Buildings and Facilities account for FY2006, the same as the House, Senate, and
Administration had proposed. Congress appropriated $41.7 million for FY2005. This
account funds repairs, improvements, extensions, or alterations of buildings,
facilities, or fixed equipment. It also funds new construction projects.
Table 10. Buildings and Facilities Account: FY2005 Enacted,
FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005FY2006 H.R. 2361H.R. 2361P.L. 109-54
Enacted Request House-passed Senat e - passed
$41.7 $40.2 $40.2 $40.2 $40.2
Note: The FY2006 enacted amount does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission in P.L.
109-54 nor the 1% government-wide rescission in P.L. 109-148. The FY2005 enacted amount does
reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission required in P.L. 108-447, and it reflects the $3.0 million
supplemental appropriation provided in P.L. 108-324. (See CRS Report RL32581: Assistance After
Hurricanes and Other Disasters: FY2004 and FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations.)
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Prior to the 0.476% and 1% rescissions, P.L. 109-54 provided $1.26 billion for
the Superfund account for FY2006, similar to what the House and Senate had
proposed, but less than the Administration had requested. In comparison, Congress
appropriated nearly $1.25 billion for FY2005. Prior to the two rescissions, P.L. 109-
54 transferred $30.6 million from the Superfund account to the Science and
Technology account, and $13.5 million to the Office of Inspector General, as the



House, Senate, and Administration had proposed. After transfer of these funds, P.L.
109-54 provided a net amount of $1.22 billion for the Superfund account prior to the
rescissions. An amendment introduced during the House floor debate of H.R. 2361,
but not adopted, would have provided an additional $130 million for the Superfund
account through an offsetting reduction within the Science and Technology account.
Table 11 indicates net funding for the Superfund account after the transfer of funds,
but prior to the two rescissions.
Table 11. Hazardous Substance Superfund Account: FY2005
Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005FY2006 H.R. 2361H.R. 2361P.L. 109-54
Enacted Re que s t H ouse- passed Senat e - passed
$1,198.8 $1,235.2 $1,214.2 $1,212.1 $1,216.5
Note: The FY2006 enacted amount does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission in P.L.
109-54 nor the 1% government-wide rescission in P.L. 109-148. The FY2005 enacted amount does
reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission in P.L. 108-447. All amounts indicate net Superfund
funding levels, after the transfer of funds to the accounts for Science and Technology and the Office
of Inspector General.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA)19 created the Superfund program to clean up the nation’s worst
hazardous waste sites, and directed EPA to prepare a National Priorities List (NPL)
to identify sites that present the greatest risk to human health and the environment.
The Superfund account in EPA’s budget funds the agency’s efforts to remove
contamination that presents an immediate risk, 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 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 meet cleanup needs and protect human health and the
environment. The pace of cleanup has been an ongoing issue. Some Members of
Congress have asserted that steady funding for the Superfund program is sufficient
to meet cleanup needs. Other Members, states, environmental organizations, and
communities have countered that more funding is needed to maintain an adequate
pace of cleanup. Completing the construction of cleanup remedies at a site is often
used as a measure of the pace of cleanup, because in many cases, construction of
such remedies must be finished before operation can begin to treat or contain waste
as a means to prevent exposure. EPA reported that the FY2006 request would have
allowed the construction of 40 remedial actions to be completed at Superfund sites
in FY2006, lower than the annual average of about 67 over the past five years.


19 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.

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 between $14 billion and $16 billion in total funding
would be necessary from FY2000 through FY2009 to meet cleanup needs, based on
the number of NPL sites and severity of contamination at that time. At a minimum,
RFF projected that annual 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. As noted above, Congress
appropriated $1.26 billion for the Superfund account for FY2006, prior to transfers
to two other accounts and the two rescissions.
The source of funding for the Superfund program also has been an ongoing
issue. P.L. 109-54 funds the Superfund program with general Treasury revenues in
FY2006, as the House, Senate, and Administration had proposed. Three dedicated
taxes (on petroleum, chemical feedstocks, and corporate income) historically
provided the majority of funding for the Superfund program. However, these taxes
expired at the end of 1995, and the remaining revenues were essentially expended by
the end of FY2003. Since then, Congress has funded the program with general
Treasury revenues. Some Members advocate reinstating the Superfund taxes, and
argue that the use of general Treasury revenues to fund cleanup costs undermines the
“polluter pays” principle, spreading cleanup costs across all taxpayers. Other
Members and the Administration counter that financially viable parties still pay for
the cleanup, and that polluters are therefore not escaping their responsibility. In
recent years, EPA has stated that approximately 70% of sites on the NPL are cleaned
up by responsible parties. (See CRS Report RL31410, Superfund Taxes or General
Revenues: Future Funding Options for the Superfund Program.)
Cleanup of brownfields sites was funded within the Superfund account until
FY2003, but funding for this activity is now provided within the State and Tribal
Assistance Grants account and the Environmental Programs and Management
account. (See discussions of these two latter accounts elsewhere in this report).
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program
Prior to the 0.476% and 1% rescissions, P.L. 109-54 provided $73.0 million for
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Program account for FY2006, the
same as the House, Senate, and Administration had proposed, but less than the $69.4
million FY2005 appropriation. As discussed earlier, P.L. 109-148 also reallocated
$8 million in emergency funds to EPA for responding to leaking underground tanks
in Gulf Coast states affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Administration
had requested a reallocation of $15 million for this purpose in October 2005.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)20
established the LUST Trust Fund to help EPA and states cover the costs of
responding to releases from leaking underground storage tanks containing petroleum
when no responsible party performs the cleanup. The trust fund is used primarily to


20 P.L. 99-499, Title V.

implement the LUST program through state cooperative agreement grants, to oversee
and enforce corrective actions by responsible parties, and to recover expended funds
used to clean up abandoned tank sites. Roughly 80% of the appropriated amount
goes to the states. (For further discussion, see CRS Report RS21201, Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks: Program Status and Issues.)
Although the balance of the LUST Trust Fund exceeds $2 billion, appropriations
have been around $70 million in recent years. Many state LUST programs report that
they are understaffed and underfunded. States have asked Congress to provide more
funds from the LUST Trust Fund to help them address more than 412,000 cleanups
that are ongoing, and another 128,000 leaking tank sites that require remediation.
Additionally, the presence of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) at many LUST sites
is increasing the cost and complexity of cleaning up these sites. (See CRS Report
RL32787, MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water Issues.)
Table 12. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program
Account: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006 Request,
and Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005FY2006 H.R. 2361H.R. 2361P.L. 109-54
Enacted Request House-passed Senat e - passed
$69.4 $73.0 $73.0 $73.0 $73.0
Note: The FY2006 enacted amount does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission in P.L.
109-54 nor the 1% rescission in P.L. 109-148. The FY2005 enacted amount does reflect the 0.8%
across-the-board rescission in P.L. 108-447.
Oil Spill Response
Prior to the 0.476% and 1% rescissions, P.L. 109-54 provided $15.9 million for
EPA’s Oil Spill Response account for FY2006, the same as the House, Senate, and
Administration had proposed, and similar to the FY2005 appropriation (differences
are not reflected in the table below due to rounding). While the U.S. Coast Guard
responds to oil spills in coastal and inland navigable waterways, EPA responds 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. In recent years, EPA has reported that it responds to approximately 300
oil spills annually. EPA is reimbursed for site-specific response expenses from the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, administered by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Table 13. Oil Spill Response Account: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006
Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005FY2006H.R. 2361H.R. 2361P.L. 109-54
Enacted Request H ouse- passed Senate-passed
$15.9 $15.9 $15.9 $15.9 $15.9
Note: The FY2006 enacted amount does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission in P.L.
109-54 nor the 1% government-wide rescission in P.L. 109-148. The FY2005 enacted amount does
reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission in P.L. 108-447.



State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Prior to the 0.476% and 1% rescissions, P.L. 109-54 provided $3.18 billion for
the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account for FY2006, less than the
Senate amount, but more than the House and the Administration had proposed. In
comparison, Congress appropriated $3.58 billion for FY2005. P.L. 109-54 also
“rescinded” $80 million from past fiscal year appropriations. The rescission was to
be taken from past appropriations unobligated for grants, contracts, and interagency
agreements, for which the funding authorization had expired. Although the language
rescinding these past funds was included within the STAG account, the conference
report on H.R. 2361 (H.Rept. 109-188, p.112) clarified that the $80 million was
rescinded from such grants, contracts, and interagency agreements that would have
been funded within any EPA account. The House and Senate had proposed varying
provisions for rescinding past year appropriations, which differed from the
conference agreement, discussed below.
Table 14. State and Tribal Assistance Grants Account: FY2005
Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
FY2005FY2006H.R. 2361H.R. 2361P.L. 109-54
Enacted Request H ouse- passed Senate-passed
$3,575.3 $2,960.8 $3,127.8 $3,395.6 $3,181.7
Note: The FY2006 enacted amount does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission in P.L.
109-54 nor the 1% government-wide rescission in P.L. 109-148. The FY2005 enacted amount does
reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission in P.L. 108-447.
Unlike the House-passed bill, neither P.L. 109-54 nor the conference report on
H.R. 2361 specified the activities to which the $80 million in rescinded past year
appropriations would be redirected in FY2006. The House-passed bill had specified
that a rescission of $100.0 million in unobligated funds from past appropriations
would have been used for increasing support for the clean water State Revolving
Fund (SRF) under the STAG account (see the discussion under “State Revolving
Funds” in this section of the report). The Senate-passed bill included $58.0 million
in “rescinded” past year funds within the STAG account but, like the final bill, did
not specify the allocation of these funds within EPA’s FY2006 appropriation.
Historically, the STAG account has represented the largest portion of EPA’s
annual appropriation, and has comprised about 40% of the agency’s total budget in
recent years. The majority of the funding within the account is for SRFs for water
infrastructure projects. 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. The remainder of the STAG account funds other water
infrastructure grants, categorical grants to states and tribes for numerous pollution
control activities, grants for the cleanup of brownfields, and grants for clean school
buses. Selected funding issues regarding activities within the STAG account are
discussed below.



State Revolving Funds. Prior to the two rescissions, P.L. 109-54 provided
$900 million for the clean water SRF for FY2006, less than the Senate amount, but
more than the House and the Administration had proposed. In comparison, Congress
appropriated $1.09 billion for FY2005. Prior to the two rescissions, P.L. 109-54
provided $850 million for the drinking water SRF, the same as the House, Senate,
and Administration had proposed. Congress appropriated $843 million for the
drinking water SRF in FY2005. Together, both SRFs provide seed monies for state
loans to communities for constructing and upgrading wastewater and drinking water
infrastructure in order to meet federal requirements.
As noted in the table below, the House amount of $850 million for the clean
water SRF included $100 million in the form of redirected unobligated balances from
past EPA appropriations, which was not adopted in the final bill. As discussed
earlier in this report, Congress also did not approve the Administration’s subsequent
request in October 2005 to rescind $166 million from the FY2006 appropriation of
$900 million for the clean water SRF. The rescission would have taken away nearly
all of the increase above the request that Congress provided and would have reduced
the amount close to the Administration’s original recommendation of $730 million.
Table 15. Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs: FY2005
Enacted, FY2006 Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
H.R. 2361H.R. 2361P.L.
SRF F Y 2005Enacted F Y 2006Request Hous e- Senat e - 109-54
passedpassed
Clean Water$1,091.2$730.0$850.0$1,100.0$900.0
Drinking Water$843.2$850.0$850.0$850.0$850.0
Use of Rescinded Funds — — ($100.0) — —
Total New Appropriations$1,934.4$1,580.0$1,600.0$1,950.0$1,750.0
Note: The FY2006 enacted amount does not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission in P.L.
109-54 nor the 1% government-wide rescission in P.L. 109-148. The FY2005 enacted amount does
reflect the 0.8% across-the-board rescission in P.L. 108-447. As passed by the House, H.R. 2361
included a total of $1.7 billion for both SRFs combined, including $1.6 billion in new appropriations
and $100 million in past funds unobligated for contracts, grants, and interagency agreements for which
the funding authorization had expired.
The adequacy of the funding level for both SRFs has been contentious. In
recent years, Congress has appropriated significantly more funding than the
Administration has requested for the clean water SRF. There has been less
disagreement between Congress and the Administration about the appropriate
funding level for the drinking water SRF. Some Members have advocated
substantial increases for both SRFs in response to local water infrastructure needs
generally, and more specifically, to help communities comply with new standards for
drinking water contaminants (e.g., arsenic and radium).
Two amendments to increase funding for the clean water SRF were introduced
during the House floor debate on H.R. 2361. One amendment, which would have
increased the clean water SRF by $500 million, was rejected on a point of order. A
second amendment would have increased funding by $100 million, but was not
adopted. At the close of the House floor debate, the House did not agree to a motion



to recommit the bill to the House Appropriations Committee to provide an additional
$242 million for the clean water SRF (Cong. Rec. H3674). An amendment
introduced during the Senate debate that would have modified the formula for
distributing SRF funds to the states was withdrawn. Earlier this year, in agreeing to
the FY2006 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 18), the Senate agreed to a floor
amendment recommending $1.35 billion for the clean water SRF in FY2006. The
amendment was not included in the final FY2006 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95).
As noted above, H.R. 2361, as passed by the Senate, would have provided $1.1
billion in FY2006 for the clean water SRF.
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 a total
of $181 billion nationwide over the long-term.21 EPA’s latest drinking water needs
survey, released in June 2005, projected that public drinking water systems need to
invest $277 billion over 20 years. Some stakeholder groups have projected higher
funding needs than those estimated by EPA. In 2000, the Water Infrastructure
Network (WIN), a coalition of state, municipal, environmental and labor groups,
issued a report entitled, Clean and Safe Water for the 21st Century. This report
estimated 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 between needs and current spending: $12 billion for wastewater and $11
billion for drinking water.
Infrastructure Grants/Congressional Priorities (Earmarks). As in
recent years, another issue in the 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 in recent appropriations, P.L. 109-54
included provisions within the STAG account limiting the amount of grants
earmarked for water infrastructure to 55% of a project’s total cost, requiring the
recipient to provide a 45% match. EPA was authorized to waive the matching funds
requirement in certain circumstances, if providing the non-federal match would place
an onerous burden on the recipient. Whether the needs of these communities should
be met with SRF loan monies or grant assistance has become controversial. (See CRS
Report RL32201, Water Infrastructure Project Earmarks in EPA Appropriations:
Trends and Policy Implications.)


21 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 multiple years. EPA, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000:Report to Congress,
August 2003, EPA-832-R-03-001, at [http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/index.htm.]

Prior to the two rescissions, P.L. 109-54 provided $200 million in earmarked
funding for FY2006 within the STAG account for water infrastructure grants, the
same as the House and Senate had proposed. The conference report refers to these
projects as “Infrastructure Grants/Congressional Priorities” (H.Rept. 109-188, pp.
106-112). They include wastewater, drinking water, and storm water infrastructure
projects in geographic-specific locations. Congress earmarked $309.5 million within
the STAG account for these types of projects in FY2005. As in past years, the
President’s FY2006 budget did not include funding for such projects.
In reporting its version of the FY2006 Interior bill, the House Appropriations
Committee did not allocate the $200 million among specific community projects, as
has been the practice in past years by both the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees. The House committee commented in its report that the allocation of
these funds would be determined later in conference. The Senate Appropriations
Committee had designated funding for specific water infrastructure projects in its
report, which the Senate resolved with the House in the final bill. The conference
negotiation resulted in the allocation of $200 million in earmarked funding among

257 recipients identified in the conference report.


Other Water Infrastructure Grants. As in recent years, the Administration
had requested additional funding for water infrastructure grants in three geographic-
specific areas. Prior to the two rescissions, P.L. 109-54 provided the following
amounts for these grants:
!$50 million for wastewater infrastructure projects along the
U.S./Mexico border, the same as the House, Senate, and
Administration had proposed, and close to the FY2005
appropriation;
!$35 million for the construction of wastewater and drinking water
facilities in Alaska Native Villages, compared to $15 million
proposed by the House and the Administration, and $40 million
proposed by the Senate, all of which were less than the FY2005
appropriation of nearly $45 million; and
!no funding for drinking water infrastructure improvements to the
Metropolitano community water system in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as
the Senate had proposed, whereas the House and the Administration
had proposed to maintain funding at the same level as the FY2005
appropriation of $4 million.
Categorical Grants. Prior to the two rescissions, P.L. 109-54 provided $1.13
billion for FY2006 to support state and tribal “categorical” grant programs within the
STAG account, similar to what the House, Senate, and Administration had proposed
and Congress appropriated for FY2005, although in differing amounts. EPA
categorical funds are generally 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-to-day 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 pollution prevention incentive grants,
pesticides and toxic substances enforcement, tribal assistance, and environmental
information.
EPA’s FY2006 budget justification had presented 23 individual categorical
grant programs in six sub-categories: air and radiation, water quality, drinking water,
hazardous waste, pesticide and toxic substances, and multimedia.22 Examples of
grants within these subcategories include air quality grants to support fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) monitoring and data collection, water quality grants to support
implementation of 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 16 indicates enacted and proposed funding for each of the six subcategories
of grant programs.
Table 16. Categorical Grants Funding: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006
Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
National ProgramFY2005FY2006H.R. 2361House-H.R. 2361Senate-P.L. 109-54
Subcat egory Enacted Request passed passed
Air & Radiation$240.9$242.8$242.8$241.5$242.2
Water Quality$476.7$486.0$490.0$465.3$470.8
Drinking Water$115.4$116.6$116.6$115.4$115.7
Hazardous Waste$165.0$176.4$166.4$165.4$165.4
Pesticides & Toxics$ 50.6$ 50.9$ 50.9$ 50.9$ 50.9
Multimedia$ 88.1$108.8$ 84.8$ 84.0$ 84.8
Total$1,136.7$1,181.5$1,151.5 $1,122.5$1,129.8
Note: FY2006 enacted amounts do not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission in P.L. 109-54
nor the 1% government-wide rescission in P.L. 109-148. FY2005 enacted amounts do reflect the 0.8%
across-the-board rescission in P.L. 108-447. The Hazardous Waste category includes funding for
Brownfields categorical grants. Totals may not add due to rounding.
Within the multimedia categorical grants in the STAG account, neither P.L.
109-54, nor the House and Senate-passed bills, provided the $23 million included in
the Administration’s FY2006 request for a new competitive grant program to support
“results-oriented” environmental protection work. According to the EPA FY2006
budget justification, these grants, referred to as the “State and Tribal Performance
Fund,” were intended to help states and tribes “measure, document and improve the
results of their environmental protection programs.” The Administration had
proposed the same amount of funding for this new grant program in its FY2005
budget request, but Congress did not appropriate any funding for it.


22 For detailed descriptions of the individual grant programs, see U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency FY2006 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on
Appropriations (EPA-205/R-05-001), at [http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/budget/htm].

Brownfields Grants. Prior to the two rescissions, P.L. 109-54 provided a
total of $165.0 million for FY2006 for EPA’s Brownfields Program, the same as the
Senate amount, but less than the House and Administration had proposed. In
comparison, Congress appropriated $163.2 million for FY2005. This program
provides assistance to states and tribes for the cleanup of abandoned, idled, or
underutilized commercial and industrial sites. Funding for the Brownfields program
is provided within the STAG account for grants to states and tribes for environmental
cleanup. Funding for EPA’s expenses to administer the program is provided within
the Environmental Programs and Management account, discussed earlier in this
report. Table 17 indicates enacted and proposed funding within these two accounts
for the Brownfields program. EPA had funded the program out of the Superfund
account until FY2003. Once the land is cleaned up for reuse, grants for the economic
redevelopment of brownfields traditionally have been awarded through the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Table 17. Brownfields Funding: FY2005 Enacted, FY2006
Request, and Action on FY2006 Appropriations
(millions of dollars)
Account/FY2005FY2006H.R. 2361H.R. 2361 P.L. 109-54
Activity Enacted Request House-passed Senat e - passed
STAG:
Infrastructure $89.3 $120.5 $97.5 $90.0 $90.0
Categorical $49.6 $60.0 $50.0 $50.0 $50.0
EPM:
Admi nistrative $24.3 $29.6 $24.6 $25.0 $25.0
Total $163.2 $210.1 $172.1 $165.0 $165.0
Note: FY2006 enacted amounts do not reflect the 0.476% across-the-board rescission in P.L. 109-54
nor the 1% government-wide rescission in P.L. 109-148. FY2005 enacted amounts do reflect the 0.8%
across-the-board rescission in P.L. 108-447.
In addition to specifying funding, P.L. 109-54 included an administrative
provision that expanded eligibility for program grants or loans to include those who
purchased property prior to the enactment of the Small Business Liability Relief and
Brownfield Revitalization Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-118). This provision is similar to
language that the House and Senate had proposed and that Congress has included in
recent appropriations bills for the past several fiscal years. The provision in P.L.
109-54 applied only to FY2006 and, unlike the Senate bill, did not provide
permanent authority. P.L. 109-54 did not include language providing authority to use
a portion of brownfields site characterization and assessment grants for “reasonable”
administrative expenses. The Senate had proposed permanent authority for the use
of grant funding for this purpose.
Clean School Bus Initiative. Prior to the two rescissions, P.L. 109-54
provided $7.0 million for FY2006 within the STAG account to fund cost-share grants
awarded under EPA’s Clean School Bus Initiative.23 The House had proposed $10
million to continue this initiative, the same as the Administration had requested. The
Senate had proposed $1 million. In comparison, Congress appropriated just over $7


23 For information on grant awards, see [http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus].

million for FY2005. Although the funding level for this program is relatively small
compared to other grant programs supported within the STAG account, there has
been strong interest among states and local school districts seeking grants to retrofit
or replace older, polluting diesel buses.
From its initial grant solicitation, EPA received more than 120 proposals from
school districts, state and local agencies, and nonprofit organizations. These
proposals sought a total of $60 million in grants, which significantly exceeded
appropriations of $5 million each year in FY2003 and FY2004.24 In response to the
amount of funding sought by grant applicants, EPA requested $65 million for the
program in FY2005 to expand its support of diesel retrofit projects to reduce
particulate matter, and for outreach efforts to raise awareness of the health risks
posed to school children from diesel emissions. As noted above, Congress provided
significantly less than this amount for FY2005, and the Administration followed by
substantially reducing its request for FY2006.
Conclusion
Even after the 0.476% and 1% rescissions, P.L. 109-54 overall appropriated
more funding for EPA in FY2006 than the Administration had requested, but
provided less than Congress appropriated the previous fiscal year. As in past years,
the largest portion of EPA’s appropriation for FY2006 was allocated to the State and
Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account. The adequacy of funding for this account
was among the most prominent issues of congressional debate. The Administration’s
request to significantly reduce funding for the clean water state revolving fund (SRF)
within the STAG account from $1.09 billion in FY2005 to $730 million in FY2006
was particularly contentious.
Prior to the two above rescissions, P.L. 109-54 provided $900 million for the
clean water SRF, a $170 million increase above the $730 million request but nearly
a $200 million decrease below the FY2005 appropriation of $1.09 billion. Most of
the increase relative to the request was made available by reducing funding for other
activities within EPA’s appropriation. In passing its version of the FY2006 Interior
bill, the House had proposed $850 million for the clean water SRF, including $100
million rescinded from prior year appropriations. Amendments during the House
debate to increase FY2006 funding for the clean water SRF closer to the FY2005
level were not adopted. The Senate had proposed $1.1 billion in passing its version
of the Interior bill, which was slightly above the FY2005 appropriation.
The extent to which Congress should designate or “earmark” funds for
individual projects, locations, or institutions continued to be an issue. P.L. 109-54
provided less funding than Congress appropriated in FY2005 for projects identified
in the conference report as “congressional priorities” (earmarks) within the Science
and Technology, Environmental Programs and Management, and State and Tribal
Assistance Grants accounts. Congress has traditionally awarded funding for these


24 Congress provided the FY2003 and FY2004 appropriation in the Environmental Programs
and Management account, rather than the STAG account.

types of projects noncompetitively. The House Appropriations Committee had
proposed a different approach for the earmarking of funds in the Science and
Technology and Environmental Programs and Management accounts, recommending
EPA award them competitively among past recipients of earmarked funds. This
approach was not adopted in the final bill.
The adequacy of funding for the Superfund program to clean up hazardous
waste sites also continued to be a prominent issue in the debate over EPA’s
appropriation. P.L. 109-54 provided more funding for the Superfund program than
Congress appropriated for FY2005. During the debate, some Members questioned
whether the increase was sufficient. They, along with states, environmental
organizations, and others, argued that higher funding is necessary to adequately
address the risks to human health and the environment from hazardous waste sites.
Other Members and the Administration asserted that the proposed funding would be
sufficient to meet cleanup needs.
In addition to the adequacy of funding for Superfund cleanup activities, the
source of funds continued to be a point of contention in Congress. As the balance of
the Superfund Trust Fund has been expended, the program is now supported with
general Treasury revenues, leading some Members of Congress to advocate the
reinstatement of the taxes on industry that once supported the trust fund. The
Administration and other Members assert that individual polluters continue to pay
for site cleanups and that a tax on industry as a whole is therefore not needed.
Several bills were introduced in the first session of the 109th Congress to reinstate
Superfund taxes, but did not receive further action. P.L. 109-54 continued the use
of general Treasury revenues to support the Superfund program in FY2006.
EPA’s use and consideration of intentional human dosing studies, whether
conducted by EPA or others, for determining associated human health risks of
pesticides were of interest to Members during the appropriations debate. Of
particular interest were concerns about the adequacy of health safety standards for
human research subjects and general ethical questions with respect to EPA’s use of
data from such studies. P.L. 109-54 included provisions directing EPA to complete
relevant rulemaking according to specific congressional recommendations and
banned the use of FY2006 funds to consider or to conduct human dosing studies in
the agency’s review of pesticides until a final rule is issued.
Throughout the debate, there were varying levels of interest in specific funding
for other EPA activities as well. The ability to increase funding for projects or add
new projects in FY2006 ultimately was affected by competing priorities of Congress
to allocate limited funding to numerous federal agencies within the Interior
appropriations bill, where EPA’s funding now falls. EPA’s funding was moved from
the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development (VA-HUD), and Independent Agencies to
that of the Interior subcommittees beginning with the FY2006 appropriation. This
was the result of a reorganization during the first session of 109th Congress that
included the elimination of the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations
subcommittee