You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
The Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes the principal federal program to aid municipal wastewater treatment plant construction and related eligible activities. Congress established this program in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) (although prior versions of the act had authorized less ambitious grants assistance since 1956). Title II of P.L. 92-500 authorized grants to states for wastewater treatment plant construction under a program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal funds were provided through annual appropriations under a state-by-state allocation formula contained in the act itself. States used their allotments to make grants to cities to build or upgrade wastewater treatment plants, supporting the overall objectives of the act: restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. The federal share of project costs, originally 75% under P.L. 92-500, was reduced to 55% in 1981. By the mid-1980s, there was considerable policy debate between Congress and the Administration over the future of the act's construction grants program and, in particular, the appropriate federal role in funding municipal water infrastructure projects. Through FY1984, Congress had appropriated nearly $41 billion under this program, representing the largest nonmilitary public works programs since the Interstate Highway System. The grants program was a target of budget cuts in the Reagan Administration, which sought to redirect budgetary priorities in part to sort out the appropriate roles of federal, state, and local governments in a number of domestic policy areas, including water pollution control. The Administration's rationale included several points: The original intent of the program to address the backlog of sewage treatment needs had been virtually eliminated by the mid-1980s. Most remaining projects (such as small, rural systems) were believed to pose little environmental threat and were not appropriate federal responsibilities. State and local governments, in the Administration's view, were fully capable of running construction programs and have a clear responsibility to construct treatment capacity to meet environmental objectives that were primarily established by states. Thus, the Reagan Administration sought a phaseout of the act's construction grants program by 1990. Many states and localities supported the idea of phasing out the grants program, since many were critical of what they viewed as burdensome rules and regulations that accompanied the federal grant money. However, they sought a longer transition and ample flexibility to set up long-term financing to promote state and local self-sufficiency. Congress's response to this debate was contained in 1987 amendments to the act ( P.L. 100-4 , the Water Quality Act of 1987). It authorized $18 billion over nine years for sewage treatment plant construction, through a combination of the Title II grants program and a new State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds program—hereinafter the clean water state revolving fund (CWSRF) program. Under the new program, in CWA Title VI, federal grants would be provided as seed money for state-administered loans to build sewage treatment plants and, eventually, other water quality projects. Cities, in turn, would repay loans to the state, enabling a phaseout of federal involvement while the state built up a source of capital for future investments. Under the amendments, the CWSRF program was phased in beginning in FY1989 (in FY1989 and FY1990, appropriations were split equally between Title II and Title VI grants) and entirely replaced the previous Title II program in FY1991. The intention was that states would have flexibility to set priorities and administer funding, while federal aid would end after FY1994. The CWSRF authorizations for appropriations provided in the 1987 amendments expired in FY1994, but pressure to extend federal funding has continued, in part because, although Congress has appropriated $98 billion in CWA Title II and Title VI wastewater infrastructure assistance since 1972, funding needs remain high: According to the most recent formal estimate by EPA and states (prepared in 2016), an additional $271 billion nationwide is needed over the next 20 years for all types of projects eligible for funding under the act. Congress has continued to appropriate funds, and continued to assist states and localities in meeting wastewater infrastructure needs and complying with CWA requirements. In 1996, Congress established a parallel program under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to help communities finance projects needed to comply with federal drinking water regulations. Funding support for drinking water occurred for several reasons. First, until the 1980s, the number of drinking water regulations was fairly small, and public water systems often did not need to make large investments in treatment technologies to meet those regulations. Second, good quality drinking water traditionally has been available to many communities at relatively low cost. By comparison, essentially all communities have had to construct or upgrade sewage treatment facilities to meet the requirements of the CWA. Over time, drinking water circumstances changed, as communities grew, and commercial, industrial, agricultural, and residential land-uses became more concentrated, thus resulting in more contaminants reaching drinking water sources. Moreover, as the number of federal drinking water standards has increased, many communities have found that their water may not be as good as once thought and that additional treatment technologies are required to meet the new standards and protect public health. Between 1986 and 1996, for example, the number of regulated drinking water contaminants grew from 23 to 83, and EPA and the states expressed concern that many of the nation's 52,000 small community water systems were likely to lack the financial capacity to meet the rising costs of SDWA compliance. According to the most recent EPA-state survey (issued in 2018), future funding needs for projects to treat and deliver public drinking water supplies in the United States are $473 billion over the next 20 years. Congress responded to these concerns by enacting the 1996 SDWA Amendments ( P.L. 104-182 ), which authorized a drinking water state revolving loan fund (DWSRF) program to help systems finance projects needed to comply with SDWA regulations and to protect public health. This program, fashioned after the CWSRF program, authorizes EPA to make grants to states to capitalize DWSRFs which states then use to make loans to public water systems. Appropriations for the program were authorized at $599 million for FY1994 and $1 billion annually for FY1995 through FY2003. Capitalization grants for DWSRF programs were provided for the first time in FY1997. Although the authorizations for appropriations expired in FY2003, Congress continued to provide funding for the program in annual appropriations, totaling $23 billion through FY2019. America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA; P.L. 115-270 ), enacted on October 23, 2018, reauthorized appropriations for the DWSRF at $1.17 billion in FY2019, $1.30 billion in FY2020, and $1.95 billion in FY2021. The first section of this report includes a table that summarizes the history of appropriations for both wastewater and drinking water infrastructure programs. The next section discusses several historical developments in water infrastructure funding. The last section contains a detailed chronology of congressional activity regarding wastewater and drinking water infrastructure funding for each fiscal year since the 1987 CWA amendments. Table 1 summarizes funding for the wastewater and drinking infrastructure programs since enactment of the 1987 CWA amendments ( P.L. 100-4 ). Funding for these EPA programs is contained in the appropriations act providing funds for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Within the portion of the bill that funds EPA, wastewater treatment assistance was first specified in an account called Construction Grants, which was subsequently renamed State Revolving Funds/Construction Grants, and then renamed Water Infrastructure. Since FY1996, this account has been titled State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG). The STAG account now includes all water infrastructure funds and management grants provided to assist states in implementing air quality, water quality, and other media-specific environmental programs. The FY1996 appropriation was the first to include both water infrastructure and other state environmental grants; the latter previously were included in EPA's general program management account. Amounts shown in Table 1 include funds for CWA Title II grants, CWSRF grants, drinking water SRF grants, special project grants (discussed below), and the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. Congress first provided appropriations to cover the subsidy costs of this program in FY2017, as discussed in the detailed chronology section below. Table 1 does not include funds for consolidated state environmental management grants. These grants include funding for a wide range of environmental programs, which have changed over time. In recent years, the categorical grants have included funding for water, air, and waste programs. The categorical grant programs most closely related to water infrastructure issues include grants for states' nonpoint source management programs (CWA Section 319) and states' pollution control programs (CWA Section 106). Funding levels for the environmental management state grants are discussed below in the appropriations chronology section. As an additional comparison, Figure 1 illustrates the total EPA water infrastructure appropriations (for clean water and drinking water assistance combined) between FY1986 and FY2019 in both nominal dollars (i.e., not adjusted for inflation) and constant (2018) dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation). This section discusses several historical developments of note regarding appropriations for EPA's water infrastructure programs. The practice of earmarking a portion of the construction grants/SRF account for specific wastewater treatment and other water quality projects began with the FY1989 appropriations. The practice increased to the point of representing a significant portion of appropriated funds (31% of the total water infrastructure appropriation in FY1994, for example, but less in subsequent years: 2.5% in FY2009 and 5% in FY2010). The number of projects receiving these earmarked funds also increased: from 4 in FY1989 to 319 in FY2010. Beginning in FY2000, the larger total number of earmarked projects resulted in more communities receiving such grants, but at the same time receiving smaller amounts of funds. Thus, while a few communities received individual earmarked awards of $1 million or more, the average size of earmarked grants shrank: $18.1 million in FY1995, $4.9 million in FY1999, $1.08 million in FY2006, and $586,000 in FY2010. (Conference reports on the individual appropriations bills, noted in the later discussion in this report, provide some detail on projects funded in this manner.) The effective result of earmarking was to reduce the amount of funds provided to states to capitalize their SRF programs. Between FY1989 and FY2010, approximately 10% of the total water infrastructure appropriations ($7.4 billion) went to earmarked project grants. Interest groups representing state water quality program managers and administrators of infrastructure financing programs criticized the practice of earmarked appropriations. They contended that earmarking undermined the intended purpose of the state funds—promoting water quality improvements nationwide. Many state officials preferred funds to be allocated more equitably, not based on what they viewed largely as political considerations, and they preferred for state environmental and financing officials to retain responsibility to set actual spending priorities. Further, they argued that the special projects funding would diminish the level of seed funding to SRFs, delaying the time when SRFs would be financially self-sufficient. The practice of earmarking was criticized because designated projects were arguably receiving more favorable treatment than other communities' projects: They were generally eligible for 55% federal grants (and were not required to repay 100% of the funded project cost, as is the case with a loan through an SRF), and the practice circumvented the standard process of states determining the priority by which projects will receive funding. It also meant that the projects were generally not reviewed by the CWA authorizing committees. This was especially true after FY1992, when special purpose grant funding was designated for types of projects not authorized in the Clean Water Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act. Members of Congress intervened for a specific community for a number of reasons. In some cases, the communities may have been unsuccessful in seeking state approval to fund the project under an SRF loan or other program. For some, the cost of a project financed through a state loan was deemed unacceptably high, because repaying the loan would result in increased user fees that ratepayers felt would have been unduly burdensome. In the early years of this congressional practice, special purpose grant funding originated in the House version of the EPA appropriations bill, while the Senate, for the most part, resisted earmarking by rejecting or reducing amounts and projects included in House-passed legislation. Therefore, special purpose grant funding on several occasions was an issue during the House-Senate conference on the appropriations bill. Beginning in FY1999, however, both the House and Senate proposed earmarked projects in their respective versions of the EPA appropriations bill, with the final total number of projects and dollar amounts determined by conferees. The Clean Water Act Title II grants program effectively ended when authorizations for it expired after FY1990. One result of earmarking special purpose grants in appropriations bills was to continue grants as a method of funding wastewater treatment construction long after FY1990. This practice led Congress to provide EPA grants for drinking water system projects, which had not previously been available. However, as discussed in the next section, general opposition to congressional earmarking stopped the practice after FY2011. The federal percentage share and local match required on special purpose grants varied depending on the project and the year of funding. For example, in the early projects (FY1989), the 1987 CWA amendments specified the federal cost shares, which ranged from 75% to 85%. In FY1992 and FY1993, the appropriations acts specified that funds were provided "as grants under title II," resulting in a requirement for local communities to provide a 45% share of project costs. After FY1993, the appropriations acts themselves were the authority for the special purpose projects grants. In the FY1995 appropriation bill, which also directed allocation of funds appropriated in FY1994 to several needy cities, Congress addressed the issue of federal and local cost shares in report language accompanying the bill, but not in the appropriation act itself. The conferees are in agreement that the agency should work with the grant recipients on appropriate cost-share arrangements. It is the conferees' expectation that the agency will apply the 45% local cost share requirement under Title II of the Clean Water Act in most cases. In the FY1996 appropriations, both the act and accompanying reports were silent on federal/local cost share and applicability of Title II requirements. Because of that, EPA officials planned to require only a 5% local match for most of the special purpose grants in that bill, which is the standard matching requirement for other EPA noninfrastructure grants. Under the agency's rules, the local match could include in-kind services, as well as funding toward the project. In the FY1997 appropriations, Congress included report language as it had in FY1995 concerning federal and local cost share requirements. The conferees are in agreement that the Agency should work with the grant recipients on appropriate cost-share agreements and to that end the conferees direct the Agency to develop a standard cost-share consistent with fiscal year 1995. The FY1998 and FY1999 appropriations included neither bill nor report language on this point. However, language in the House and Senate Appropriations Committees' reports on the FY1998 and FY1999 bills directed EPA to work with grant recipients on appropriate cost-share arrangements. For FY2000, Congress included explicit report language concerning the local match. The conferees agree that the $331,650,000 provided to communities or other entities for construction of water and wastewater treatment facilities and for groundwater protection infrastructure shall be accompanied by a cost-share requirement whereby 45 percent of a project's cost is to be the responsibility of the community or entity consistent with long-standing guidelines for the Agency. These guidelines also offer flexibility in the application of the cost-share requirement for those few circumstances when meeting the 45 percent requirement is not possible. Similar report language concerning local cost-share requirements accompanied the conference reports on the appropriations bills from FY2001 through FY2005. Beginning with FY2004, Congress specified in the appropriations legislation that the local share of project costs shall be not less than 45%. Similarly, beginning with the FY2003 appropriations legislation, Congress also specified that, except for those limited instances in which an applicant meets the criteria for a waiver of the cost-share requirement, the earmarked grant shall provide no more than 55% of an individual project's cost, regardless of the amount appropriated. The practice of earmarking special project water infrastructure grants continued to change. First, in FY2007, Congress applied a one-year moratorium on earmarks in all appropriations bills. For the next three years, special project grants were allowed in appropriations bills—including EPA's—but again in FY2011, no special project funding was provided for congressional projects. Following the 2010 midterm election and during subsequent months while FY2011 appropriations were under consideration (discussed below), the general issue of congressional earmarks of specific projects had become highly controversial because of the overall growing number of them, concern over the influence of special interests on spending decisions, and lack of congressional oversight. In response, President Obama said he would veto any legislation containing earmarks, the House extended the ban on earmarks under the Republican Conferences rules, and the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee announced a moratorium on earmarks for FY2011 and FY2012. Thus, the FY2011 full-year appropriations measure contained no congressionally directed special project funds for water infrastructure projects in the EPA STAG account. However, it did include funds requested by the President: $10 million for Alaska Native Villages and $10 million for U.S.-Mexico border projects. The FY2012 full-year appropriations measure also contained no special project funding in the EPA STAG account. The FY2012 bill did include funds for Alaska Native and Rural Villages ($10 million) and for U.S.-Mexico border projects ($5 million). The moratorium on congressional earmarks has continued. The FY2013 full-year appropriations measure ( P.L. 113-6 ) contained no special project funding in the STAG account. As with other recent bills, however, it did include funds for Alaska Native and Rural Villages ($9.5 million) and for U.S.-Mexico border projects ($4.7 million). Similarly, the moratorium on earmarks continued in FY2014 and FY2015; P.L. 113-76 contained no special project funding in the STAG account for FY2014, but did include funds for Alaska Native and Rural Villages ($10 million) and for U.S.-Mexico border projects ($5 million). The FY2015 funding bill, P.L. 113-235 , was the same as FY2014. The FY2016, FY2017, and FY2018 appropriations acts ( P.L. 114-113 , P.L. 115-31 , and P.L. 115-141 , respectively) included $20 million for Alaska Native and Rural Villages and $10 million for U.S.-Mexico border projects. The FY2019 appropriations act provided $25 million for Alaska Native and Rural Villages and $15 million for U.S.-Mexico border projects. President Trump's FY2020 budget request proposes to eliminate funding for the U.S.-Mexico border program and decrease funding for the Alaska Native and Rural Villages to $3 million. Although the CWSRF and DWSRF have largely functioned as loan programs, both allow the implementing state agency to provide "additional subsidization" under certain conditions. Since its amendments in 1996, the SDWA has authorized states to use up to 30% of their DWSRF capitalization grants to provide additional assistance, such as forgiveness of loan principal or negative interest rate loans, to help disadvantaged communities (as determined by the state). In 2018, AWIA increased that percentage to 35% and conditionally required states to provide at least 6% of their annual grants as additional subsidization. Congress amended the CWA in 2014, adding similar provisions to the CWSRF program. In addition, appropriations acts in recent years have required states to use minimum percentages of their allotted funds to provide additional subsidization. This trend began with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-5 ), which required states to use at least 50% of their funds to "provide additional subsidization to eligible recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans or grants or any combination of these." Subsequent appropriation acts have included similar conditions, with varying percentages of subsidization. The FY2016, FY2017, FY2018, and FY2019 appropriations acts included an identical condition, requiring 10% of the CWSRF grants and 20% of the DWSRF grants to be used "to provide additional subsidy to eligible recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants (or any combination of these)." The 1987 CWA amendments authorized federal grants to assist states in implementing programs to manage water pollution from nonpoint sources such as farm and urban areas, construction, forestry, and mining sites. Because of competing demands for funding, it was difficult for Congress to fund this grant program and other water quality initiatives in the 1987 act. Appropriators did fund Section 319 grants in EPA's general program management account (abatement, control, and compliance) in FY1990, FY1991, and FY1992 but well below authorized levels. In the FY1993 act, appropriators moved funding into the SRF/construction grants account, thereby providing a degree of protection from competing priorities. In FY1996, Congress included all state grants for management of environmental programs in a single consolidated grants appropriation. In doing so, Congress endorsed a Clinton Administration proposal for a more flexible approach to state grants, a key element of EPA's efforts to improve the federal-state partnership in environmental programs. In more recent years, Congress has provided specific funding amounts for certain programs within the categorical grants appropriation. This section summarizes, in chronological order, congressional activity to fund items in the STAG account since the 1987 CWA amendments. The authorization period covered by P.L. 100-4 was FY1986-FY1994. By the time the amendments were enacted, FY1986 was over, as was a portion of FY1987. Thus, appropriations for those two years only indirectly reflected the policy and program changes for later years that were contained in P.L. 100-4 . For FY1986, Congress appropriated a total of $1.8 billion, consisting of $600 million approved in December 1985 (while Congress was beginning to debate reauthorization legislation that eventually was enacted as P.L. 100-4 in January 1987) and $1.2 billion more in July 1986. For FY1987, while debate on CWA reauthorization continued, President Reagan requested $2.0 billion, consistent with his legislative proposal to terminate the grants program by FY1990. In October 1986, Congress appropriated $2.4 billion ( P.L. 99-500 / P.L. 99-591 ). However, only $1.2 billion of that amount was released immediately, pending enactment of a reauthorization bill, which was then in conference. Following enactment of the Water Quality Act of 1987, remaining FY1987 funds were released as part of a supplemental appropriations bill ( P.L. 100-71 ). Conferees on that measure agreed, however, to shift $39 million of the remaining unreleased grant funds to other priority water quality activities authorized in P.L. 100-4 . The final total of construction grant monies was $2.361 billion. For FY1988 the President again requested $2.0 billion. In December 1987, Congress approved legislation providing FY1988 appropriations ( P.L. 100-202 , the omnibus continuing resolution to fund EPA and other federal agencies). In it, Congress appropriated $2.304 billion for construction grants. Final action on the EPA budget and other funding bills had been delayed by budget-cutting talks between Congress and the White House. Reduced construction grants funding was one of many spending cuts required to implement a congressional-White House "summit agreement" on the budget. The final construction grants appropriation was less than funding levels that had been included in separate versions of a bill passed by the House and Senate before the budget summit, $2.4 billion. For FY1989, President Reagan requested $1.5 billion, or 35% below FY1988 appropriations and 37.5% less than the authorized level of $2.4 billion for FY1989. In separate versions of an EPA appropriations bill, the House and Senate voted to provide $1.95 billion and $2.1 billion respectively. The final figure, in P.L. 100-404 , was $1.95 billion, which included $68 million for special projects in four states. Thus, the actual amount provided for grants was $1.882 billion. That total was divided equally between the previous Title II grants program and new Title VI SRF program, as provided in the authorizing language of P.L. 100-4 . The FY1989 legislation was the first to include earmarking of funds for specified projects or grants in EPA's construction grants account, an action that continued in subsequent years, as discussed above. All of the projects funded in the 1989 legislation were ones that had been authorized in provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA, P.L. 100-4 ). The designated projects were in Boston (authorized in Section 513 of the WQA, to fund the Boston Harbor wastewater treatment project), San Diego/Tijuana (Section 510, to fund an international sewage treatment project needed because of the flow of raw sewage from Tijuana, Mexico, across the border), Des Moines, IA (Section 515, for sewage treatment plant construction), and Oakwood Beach/Redhook, NY (Section 512 of the WQA, to relocate natural gas distribution facilities that were near wastewater treatment works in New York City). For FY1990, President Reagan's budget requested $1.2 billion in wastewater treatment assistance, or 50% less than the authorized level and 38.5% less than the FY1989 enacted amount of $1.95 billion. Further, the Reagan budget proposed that the $1.2 billion consist of $800 million in Title VI monies and $400 million in Title II grants, contrary to provisions of the CWA directing that appropriations be equally divided between the two grant programs, as in FY1989. President Bush's revised FY1990 budget, presented in March 1989, made no changes from the Reagan budget in this area. In acting on this request, Congress agreed to provide $2.05 billion, including $46 million for three special projects (Boston, San Diego/Tijuana, and Des Moines), leaving a total of $1.002 billion each for Titles II and VI ( P.L. 101-144 ). Title II funds were reduced by $6.8 million, however, due to funds earmarked for a specific project in South Carolina. Although these amounts were appropriated, all funds in the bill were reduced by 1.55% (or, a $31.8 million reduction from the construction grants account) to provide funds for the federal government's antidrug program. Final FY1990 appropriations were altered again by passage of the FY1990 Budget Reconciliation measure and implementation of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act), which established procedures to reduce budget deficits annually, resulting in a zero deficit by 1993. For each fiscal year that the deficit was estimated to exceed maximum targets established in law, an automatic spending reduction procedure was triggered to eliminate deficits in excess of the targets through "sequestration," or permanent cancellation of budgetary resources. Thus, to meet budget reduction mandates and, in particular, deficit reduction targets under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act), additional funding cuts were included in P.L. 101-239 , the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, affecting construction grants funding and all other accounts not exempted from Gramm-Rudman procedures. P.L. 101-239 provided that the "sequestration" procedures under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act would be allowed to apply for a portion of FY1990 (for 130 days, or 35.6% of the year), providing an additional automatic spending reduction in EPA and other agencies' programs subject to the act. As a result of these reductions, funding for wastewater treatment aid in FY1990 totaled $1.98 billion, or $30 million more than in FY1989. The total included $53 million for special projects in San Diego, Boston, Des Moines, and Honea Path/Ware Shoals, SC, $960 million for Title II grants, and $967 million for Title VI grants. The combined reductions amounted to 3.4% less than the amount agreed to by conferees on P.L. 101-144 (i.e., $2.05 billion), before subtracting funds for antidrug programs and accounting for effects of the Gramm-Rudman partial-year sequester. For FY1991, President Bush requested $1.6 billion in funding for wastewater treatment assistance. This total included $15.4 million for the San Diego project authorized in Section 510 of the Water Quality Act of 1987, to fund construction of an international sewage treatment project. The remainder, $1.584 billion, would be only for capitalization grants under Title VI of the act, as the 1987 legislation provides for no new Title II grants after FY1990. In acting on EPA's appropriations for FY1991 ( P.L. 101-507 ), Congress agreed to provide $2.1 billion in wastewater treatment assistance. Beginning in FY1991, all appropriated funds are utilized for capitalization grants under Title VI of the act (as provided in the Water Quality Act of 1987); funding for the traditional Title II grants program was no longer available. The enacted level included several earmarkings: $15.7 million for San Diego (Section 510 of the WQA), $20 million for Boston Harbor (Section 513 of the WQA), and $16.5 million for a new Water Quality Cooperative Agreement Program under Section 104(b)(3) of the act. The President's budget had requested $16.5 million to support state permitting, enforcement, and water quality management activities, especially to offset the reductions in aid to states due to elimination of state management setasides from the previous Title II construction grants program. Congress agreed to the level requested, but provided it as a portion of the wastewater treatment appropriation, rather than as part of EPA's general program management appropriation, as in the President's request. As a result of these earmarkings, $2.048 billion was provided for Title VI grants. For FY1992, President Bush requested $1.9 billion in wastewater treatment funds, or $100 million more than authorized under the Water Quality Act of 1987 for Title VI grants in FY1992. However, out of the $1.9 billion total, the President's request sought $1.5 billion for Title VI SRF grants and $400 million as grants under the expired Title II construction grants program for the following coastal cities: Boston, San Diego, New York, Los Angeles, and Seattle. Two of the five designated projects had been authorized in the 1987 CWA amendments; the other three did not have explicit statutory authorization. Also, $16.5 million was requested for Water Quality Cooperative Agreement grants to the states. In acting on the request in November 1991, Congress provided total wastewater funds of $2.4 billion ( P.L. 102-139 ). The total was allocated as follows: $1,948.5 million for SRF capitalization grants, $16.5 million for Section 104(b)(3) grants, $49 million for the special project in San Diego-Tijuana (Section 510 of the Water Quality Act), $46 million to the Rouge River (MI) National Wet Weather Demonstration Project, and $340 million as construction grants under title II of the Clean Water Act for several other special projects—the Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant (Baltimore), Maryland, the Boston Harbor project, New York City, Los Angeles, San Diego (a wastewater reclamation project), and Seattle. This appropriation bill was the first to include special purpose grant funding for several projects not specifically authorized in the Clean Water Act or amendments to that law. For FY1993, President Bush requested $2.484 billion for state revolving funds/construction grants (now called the water infrastructure account). The requested total included $340 million to be targeted for 55% construction grants to six communities: Boston, New York, Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, and Baltimore. In addition, the President requested that $130 million be directed toward a Mexican Border Initiative, consisting of $65 million for construction of the international treatment plant at San Diego (to address the Tijuana sewage problem), $15 million for projects at Nogales, AZ, and New River, CA, and $50 million as 50% grants for colonias in Texas. The President also requested $16.5 million for Section 104(b)(3) grants. Along with these special project and grant amounts, the request sought $2.014 billion for SRF assistance. Final action on FY1993 funding occurred on September 25, 1992 ( P.L. 102-389 ). It provided an appropriation of $2.55 billion, but $622.5 million of this amount was reserved for special projects and other grants. The bill provided $50 million in CWA Section 319 grants and $16.5 million in Section 104(b)(3) grants out of the SRF amount. It included $556 million for the following special purpose grants: the international treatment plant at San Diego (Tijuana—Section 510 of the WQA, with bill language capping funding for that project at $239.4 million), plus projects in Boston; New York; Los Angeles; San Diego; Seattle; Rouge River, MI; Baltimore; Ocean County, NJ; Atlanta; and for colonias in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. The final SRF grant amount under the bill was $1.928 billion. Early in 1993, President Clinton requested that Congress approve "economic stimulus and investment" spending, in the form of supplemental FY1993 appropriations. Both his original proposal and a subsequent modified proposal included additional SRF grant funds, but neither of the bills enacted by Congress in response to these requests ( P.L. 103-24 , P.L. 103-50 ) provided additional SRF funds. For FY1994, the Clinton Administration requested $2.047 billion for water infrastructure. The funds in this request were $1.198 billion to capitalize State Revolving Funds, $150 million for Mexican border project grants, and $100 million for a single hardship community (Boston). The request also included $599 million to capitalize new state drinking water revolving funds. The final version of the FY1994 legislation ( P.L. 103-124 ) provided $2.477 billion for water infrastructure/state revolving funds. Of this total amount, $599 million was to be reserved for drinking water SRFs, if authorization legislation were enacted; $80 million was for Section 319 grants; $22 million was for Section 104(b)(3) grants; and $58 million was for Tijuana/San Diego—Section 510 of the WQA. This resulted in an appropriation of $1.718 billion for clean water SRFs. In addition, the final bill provided that $500 million be used to support water infrastructure financing in economically distressed/hardship communities. Under the bill, these funds were not available for spending until May 31, 1994, and were set aside until projects were authorized in the CWA for this purpose. Thus, the bill as enacted provided $1.218 billion immediately for clean water SRFs, with the expectation that $500 million more would be available for financing hardship community projects after May 31, 1994. For FY1995, President Clinton requested $2.65 billion for water infrastructure consisting of $1.6 billion for CWA SRFs, $100 million for Section 319 nonpoint source management grants to states, $52.5 million for a grant to San Diego for a wastewater project pursuant to Section 510 of the WQA, $47.5 million for other Mexican border projects, $50 million to the state of Texas for colonias projects, and $100 million for grants under Title II for needy cities (intended for Boston). The request included $700 million for drinking water SRFs, pending enactment of authorizing legislation. The President's budget also requested $21.5 million for Section 104(b)(3) grants/cooperative agreements. Final agreement on FY1995 funding was contained in P.L. 103-327 , enacted in September 1994, which provided a total of $2.962 billion for water infrastructure financing. Of the total, $22.5 million was for grants under Section 104(b), $100 million for Section 319 grants, $70 million for Public Water System Supervision program grants (grants to states under the Safe Drinking Water Act to support state implementation of delegated drinking water programs), $52.5 million for the Section 510 project in San Diego, and $700 million for drinking water SRFs (contingent upon enactment of authorization legislation). The remaining $2.017 billion was for CWA projects. Of this amount, $1.235 billion was for clean water SRF grants to states under Title VI of the CWA. The remaining $781.8 million (39% of this amount, 26% of the total appropriation) was designated for 45 specific, named projects in 22 states. The earmarked amounts ranged in size from $200,000 for Southern Fulton County, PA, to $100 million for the city of Boston. Finally, the conferees included bill language concerning release of the $500 million in FY1994 needy cities money (because the authorizing committees of Congress had not acted on legislation to authorize specific projects, as had been intended in P.L. 103-124 ) as follows: $150 million to Boston, $50 million for colonias in Texas, $10 million for colonias in New Mexico, $70 million for a New York City wastewater reclamation facility, $85 million for the Rouge River project, $50 million for the city of Los Angeles, $50 million for the county of Los Angeles, and $35 million for Seattle, WA. In February 1995, President Clinton submitted the Administration's budget request for FY1996. It requested $2.365 billion for water infrastructure funding consisting of $1.6 billion for clean water state revolving funds, $500 million for drinking water state revolving funds, $150 million to support Mexico border projects under the U.S.-Mexican Border Environmental Initiative and NAFTA, and $100 million for special need/economically distressed communities (not specified in the request, but presumed to be intended for Boston), plus $15 million for water infrastructure needs in Alaska Native Villages. In February 1995, congressional appropriations committees began considering legislation to rescind previously appropriated FY1995 funds, as part of overall efforts by the 104 th Congress to shape the budget and federal spending. These efforts resulted in passage in July 1995 of P.L. 104-19 , which rescinded $16.5 billion in total funds from a number of departments, agencies, and programs. In the water infrastructure area, it rescinded $1,077,200,000 from prior year appropriations including the $3.2 million for a project in New Jersey (it had mistakenly been funded twice in P.L. 103-327 ) and $1,074,000,000 in other water infrastructure appropriations. Although not contained in bill language, it was understood that the larger rescinded amount consisted solely of drinking water SRF funds (leaving $1.235 billion for FY1995 clean water SRF funds, $778.6 million for earmarked wastewater projects—both amounts as originally appropriated—and $225 million in FY1994-FY1995 drinking water SRF funds that had not yet been authorized). It took until April 1996 for Congress and the Administration to reach agreement on FY1996 appropriations for EPA as part of omnibus legislation ( P.L. 104-134 ) that consolidated five appropriations bills not yet enacted due to disagreements over funding levels and policy. Agreement came as the fiscal year was more than one-half over. Before that, however, congressional conferees reached agreement in November 1995 on FY1996 legislation for EPA ( H.R. 2099 , H.Rept. 104-353 ). Conferees agreed to provide $2.323 billion for a new account titled State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG), consisting of infrastructure assistance and state environmental management grants for 16 categorical programs that had previously been funded in a separate appropriations account. The total included $1.125 billion for clean water SRF grants, $275 million in new appropriations for drinking water SRF grants, and $265 million for special purpose project grants. Report language provided that the drinking water SRF money also included $225 million from FY1995 appropriations rescinded in P.L. 104-19 . The drinking water SRF money would be available upon enactment of SDWA reauthorization legislation that would authorize a drinking water SRF program; otherwise, it would revert to clean water SRF grants if the SDWA were not reauthorized by June 30, 1996. This made the total potentially available for drinking water SRF grants $500 million. The November 1995 agreement on H.R. 2099 included $658 million for consolidated state environmental grants. In doing so, Congress endorsed an Administration proposal for a more flexible approach to state grants, a key element of EPA's efforts to improve the federal-state partnership in environmental programs. In lieu of traditional grants provided separately to support state air, water, hazardous waste, and other programs, consolidated grants are intended to reduce administrative burdens and improve environmental performance by allowing states and tribes to target funds to meet their specific needs and integrate their environmental programs, as appropriate. Congress's support was described in accompanying report language. The conferees agree that Performance Partnership Grants are an important step to reducing the burden and increasing the flexibility that state and tribal governments need to manage and implement their environmental protection programs. This is an opportunity to use limited resources in the most effective manner, yet at the same time, produce the results-oriented environmental performance necessary to address the most pressing concerns while still achieving a clean environment. Including state environmental grants in the same account with water infrastructure assistance reflected Congress's support for enhancing the ability of states and localities to implement environmental programs flexibly and support for EPA's ability to provide block grants to states and Indian tribes. The H.R. 2099 conference agreement also included legislative riders intended to limit or prohibit EPA from spending money to implement several environmental programs. The Administration opposed the riders. The House and Senate approved this bill in December, but President Clinton vetoed it, because of objections to spending and policy aspects of the legislation. With no full-year funding in place from October 1995 to April 1996, EPA and the programs it administers (along with agencies and departments covered by four other appropriations bills not yet enacted) were subject to a series of short-term continuing resolutions, some lasting only a day, some lasting several weeks. In March 1996, the House and Senate began consideration of an omnibus appropriations bill to fund EPA and other agencies for the remainder of FY1996, finally reaching agreement in April on a bill ( H.R. 3019 ) enacted as P.L. 104-134 . Congress agreed to provide $2.813 billion for a new account titled STAG, consisting of state grants and infrastructure assistance, as in H.R. 2099 , the vetoed measure. The total was divided as follows: $1.3485 billion for clean water SRF grants (including $50 million for impoverished communities), $500 million in new appropriations for drinking water SRF grants, $150 million for Mexico-border project grants and Texas colonias , as requested, $15 million for Alaska Native Villages, as requested, $141.5 million for 17 special purpose project grants, and $658 million for consolidated state environmental grants, which states could use to administer a range of delegated environmental programs. Report language provided that the drinking water SRF money also included $225 million from FY1995 appropriations that remained available after the rescissions in P.L. 104-19 , for a total of $725 million. The drinking water SRF money was contingent upon enactment of legislation authorizing an SRF program under the Safe Drinking Water Act by August 1, 1996; otherwise, it would revert to clean water SRF grants. The final agreement ( P.L. 104-134 ) included several of the legislative riders from previous versions of the legislation, including riders related to drinking water and clean air, but dropped others strongly opposed by the Administration. Funds within the STAG account were redistributed after Congress passed Safe Drinking Water Act amendments in August 1996. Enactment of the amendments ( P.L. 104-182 ) occurred on August 6—after the August 1 deadline in P.L. 104-134 that would have made $725 million available for drinking water SRF grants in FY1996. Thus, the previously appropriated $725 million reverted to clean water SRF grants, making the FY1996 total for those grants $2.0735 billion. While debate over the FY1996 appropriations was continuing, in March 1996, President Clinton submitted the details of a FY1997 budget. For water infrastructure and state and tribal assistance, the request totaled $2.852 billion consisting of $1.35 billion for clean water SRF grants (the request included language that would authorize states the discretion to use this SRF money either for clean water or drinking water projects), $165 million for U.S.-Mexico border projects, Texas colonias , and Alaska Native Village projects, $113 million for needy cities projects, $550 million for drinking water infrastructure SRF funding, contingent upon enactment of authorizing legislation, and $674 million for state performance partnership consolidated management grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. In response to the Administration's request, in June 1996 the House approved legislation ( H.R. 3666 ) providing FY1997 funding for EPA. In the STAG account, the House approved $2.768 billion, $84 million less than requested but on the whole endorsing the budget request. The total provided the following: $1.35 billion for clean water SRF grants, as requested; $165 million, as requested, for U.S.-Mexico Border projects, Texas colonias , and Alaska Native Village projects; $450 million for drinking water SRF funding, contingent upon authorization; $674 million for state performance partnership consolidated management grants; and $129 million for seven special purpose grants. In July, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of H.R. 3666 . The committee approved $2.815 billion for this account, consisting of $1.426 billion for clean water SRF grants; $550 million for drinking water SRF grants, contingent upon authorization; $165 million, as requested, for U.S.-Mexico border projects, Texas colonias , and Alaska Native Village projects; and $674 million for consolidated state grants. The committee rejected the provision of the House-passed bill providing $129 million for special purpose grants, including funds for Boston and New Orleans requested by the Administration, saying in report language that earmarking is provided at the expense of state revolving funds and does not represent an equitable distribution of grant funds ( S.Rept. 104-318 ). During debate on H.R. 3666 in September, the Senate adopted an amendment to reduce the FY1997 appropriation for clean water SRF grants by $725 million in order to fund the new drinking water SRF program. This action was intended to restore funds to the drinking water program which had been lost when Safe Drinking Water Act amendments were not enacted by August 1, 1996. Thus, the Senate-passed bill provided $701 million for clean water SRF grants and $1.275 billion for drinking water SRF grants for FY1997. Other amounts in the account were unchanged. The conference report on H.R. 3666 ( H.Rept. 104-812 ) was approved by the House and Senate on September 24, 1996. President Clinton signed the bill September 26 ( P.L. 104-204 ). It reflected compromise of the House- and Senate-passed bills, providing the following amounts within the STAG account ($2.875 billion total): $625 million for clean water SRF grants, $1.275 billion for drinking water SRF grants, $165 million, as requested, for U.S.-Mexico border projects, Texas colonias , and Alaska Native Village projects, $136 million for 18 specific wastewater, water, and groundwater project grants (the 7 specified in House-passed H.R. 3666 , plus 11 more; the bill provided funds for each of the needy cities projects requested by the Administration, but in lesser amounts), and $674 million for consolidated state grants, which could support implementation of a range of environmental programs. The allocation of clean water and drinking water SRF grants was consistent with the Senate's action to restore funds to the drinking water program after enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments in early August. Subsequently, Congress passed a FY1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill to cover agencies and departments for which full-year funding had not been enacted by October 1, 1996 ( P.L. 104-208 ). It included additional funding for several EPA programs, as well as $35 million (on top of $40 million provided in P.L. 104-204 ) for the Boston Harbor cleanup project. President Clinton presented the Administration's budget request for FY1998 in February 1997. For water infrastructure and state and tribal assistance, the request totaled $2.793 billion, consisting of $1.075 billion for clean water SRF grants, $725 million for drinking water SRF grants, $715 million for consolidated state environmental grants, and $278 million for special project grants. House and Senate committees began activities on FY1998 funding bills somewhat late in 1997, due to prolonged negotiations between Congress and the President over a five-year budget plan to achieve a balanced budget by 2002. After appropriators took up the FY1998 funding bills in June, the House passed EPA's appropriation in H.R. 2158 ( H.Rept. 105-175 ) on July 15. In the STAG account, the House approved $3.019 billion, consisting of $1.25 billion for clean water SRF grants ($600 million more than FY1997 levels and $175 million more than requested by the President), $750 million for drinking water SRF grants ($425 million less than FY1997 levels, but $25 million more than the request), $750 million for state environmental assistance grants, and $269 million for special projects. The latter included funds for the special projects requested by the Administration but at reduced levels ($149 million total for these projects), plus $120 million in special project grants for 21 other communities. The Senate passed a separate version of an FY1998 appropriations bill on July 22, 1997 ( S. 1034 , S.Rept. 105-53 ). It provided $3.047 billion for the STAG account, consisting of $1.35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $725 million for drinking water SRF grants, $725 million for state environmental assistance grants, and $247 million for special project grants. The Senate bill provided the amounts requested by the Administration for U.S.-Mexico border projects, Texas colonias , and Alaska Native Village projects (but no special funds for others requested by the President), plus $82 million for 18 special project grants for other communities identified in report language. Conferees reached agreement on FY1998 funding in early October 1997 ( H.R. 2158 , H.Rept. 105-297 ). The final version passed the House on October 8 and passed the Senate on October 9. President Clinton signed the bill October 27 ( P.L. 105-65 ). As enacted, it provided $3.213 billion for the STAG account, consisting of $1.35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $725 million for drinking water SRF grants, $745 million for consolidated state environmental assistance grants (which could address a range of environmental programs), and $393 million for 42 special purpose project and special community need grants for construction of wastewater, water treatment and drinking water facilities, and groundwater protection infrastructure. It included the following amounts for grants requested by the Administration: $75 million for U.S.-Mexico border projects, $50 million for Texas colonias , $50 million for Boston Harbor wastewater needs, $10 million for New Orleans, $3 million for Bristol County, MA, and $15 million for Alaska Native Village projects. The final bill also provided funds for all of the special purpose projects included in the separate House and Senate versions of the legislation, plus three projects not included in either earlier version. Bill language was included in P.L. 105-65 to allow states to cross-collateralize clean water and drinking water SRF funds, that is, to use the combined assets of amounts appropriated to State Revolving Funds as common security for both SRFs, which conferees said is intended to ensure maximum opportunity for states to leverage these funds. Senate committee report language also said that the conference report on the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments had stated that bond pooling and similar arrangements were not precluded under that legislation. The appropriations bill language was intended to ensure that EPA does not take an unduly narrow interpretation of this point which would restrict the states' use of SRF funds. On November 1, 1997, President Clinton used his authority under the Line Item Veto Act ( P.L. 104-130 ) to cancel six items of discretionary budget authority provided in P.L. 105-65 . The President's authority under this act took effect in the 105 th Congress; thus, this was the first EPA appropriations bill affected by it. The cancelled items included funding for one of the special purpose grants in the bill, $500,000 for new water and sewer lines in an industrial park in McConnellsburg, PA. Reasons for the cancellation, according to the President, were that the project had not been requested by the Administration; it would primarily benefit a private entity and is outside the scope of EPA's usual mission; it is a low priority use of environmental funds; and it would provide funding outside the normal process of allocating funds according to state environmental priorities. However, in June 1998, the Supreme Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act as unconstitutional, and in July the Office of Management and Budget announced that funding would be released for 40-plus cancellations made in 1997 under that act (including those cancelled in P.L. 105-65 ) that Congress had not previously overturned. (For additional information, see CRS Report RL33635, Item Veto and Expanded Impoundment Proposals: History and Current Status , by Virginia A. McMurtry.) President Clinton's budget request for FY1999, presented to Congress in February 1998, requested $2.9 billion for the STAG account, representing 37% of the $7.9 billion total requested for EPA programs. The total included $1.075 billion for clean water SRF grants, $775 million for drinking water SRF grants, $115 million for water infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border projects and in Alaska Native Villages, $78 million for needy cities projects, and $875 million for consolidated state environmental grants (which could address a range of environmental programs). Legislative action on the budget request occurred in mid-1998. Both houses of Congress increased amounts for water infrastructure financing, finding the Administration's request for clean water and drinking water SRF grants, as well as special project funding, not adequate. First, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of an EPA spending bill in June 1998 ( S. 2168 , S.Rept. 105-216 ). This bill, passed by the Senate July 17, provided $3.2 billion for the STAG account, consisting of $1.4 billion for clean water SRF grants, $800 million for drinking water SRF grants, $105 million for U.S.-Mexico and Alaska Native Village projects, $100 million for 39 other special needs infrastructure grants, and $850 million for state performance partnership/categorical grants. As in FY1998, the committee included bill language allowing states to cross-collateralize their clean water and drinking water state revolving funds, making the language explicit for FY1999 and thereafter. Second, the House passed its version of EPA's funding bill ( H.R. 4194 , H.Rept. 105-610 ) on July 29. This bill provided $3.2 billion for the STAG account, consisting of $1.25 billion for clean water SRF grants, $775 million for drinking water SRF grants, $70 million for U.S.-Mexico and Alaska Native Village projects, $253.5 million for 49 other special needs infrastructure grants (including nine projects also funded in the Senate bill), and $885 million for state environmental management grants (a 20% increase above FY1998 amounts for these state grants). Conferees resolved differences between the two versions in October 1998 ( H.R. 4194 , H.Rept. 105-769 ). The conference agreement provided $3.4 billion for the STAG account, consisting of $1.35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $775 million for drinking water SRF grants, $80 million for U.S.-Mexico and Alaska Native and Rural Village projects, $301.8 million for 80 other special needs project grants, and $880 million for state and tribal environmental program grants (which could address a range of environmental programs). The House and Senate approved the agreement on October 7 and 8, respectively, and President Clinton signed the bill into law on October 21 ( P.L. 105-276 ). Additional funding was provided in the Omnibus Consolidated and Supplemental Appropriations Act, FY1999 ( P.L. 105-277 ). This bill, which provided full-year funding for agencies and departments covered by seven separate appropriations measures, directed $20 million more in special needs grants for the Boston Harbor wastewater infrastructure project, on top of $30 million that was included in P.L. 105-276 . For FY2000, beginning on October 1, 1999, the Administration requested $2.638 billion for water infrastructure assistance and state environmental grants. The total, $370 million less than the FY1999 appropriation for this account, consisted of $800 million for clean water SRF grants, $825 million for drinking water SRF grants, $128 million for Mexican border and special project grants, and $885 million for consolidated state environmental grants (which could address a range of environmental programs). The request included one SRF policy issue. The Administration asked the appropriators to grant states the permission to set aside up to 20% of FY2000 clean water SRF monies in the form of grants for local communities to implement nonpoint source pollution and estuary management projects. Under the Clean Water Act, SRFs may only be used to provide loans. Some have argued that some types of water pollution projects which are eligible for SRF funding may not be suitable for loans, as they may not generate revenues which can be used to repay the loan to a state. This new authority, the Administration said, would allow states greater flexibility to address nonpoint pollution problems. Critics of the proposal said that making grants from an SRF would reduce the long-term integrity of a state's fund, since grants would not be repaid. Some Members of Congress and stakeholder groups were particularly critical of the budget request for clean water SRF grants, $550 million (40%) less than the FY1999 level. Critics said the request was insufficient to meet the needs of states and localities for clean water infrastructure. In response, EPA acknowledged that several years prior the Clinton Administration had made a commitment to states that the clean water SRF would revolve at $2 billion annually in the year 2005. Because of loan repayments and other factors, EPA said, the overall fund will be revolve at $2 billion per year in the year 2002, even with the 20% grant setaside included in the FY2000 request. According to EPA, the $550 million decrease from 1999 would have only a limited impact on SRFs and would still allow the agency to meet its long-term capitalization goal of providing an average amount of $2 billion in annual assistance. The House and Senate passed their respective versions of an EPA appropriations bill ( H.R. 2684 ) in September 1999. The conference committee report resolving differences between the two versions ( H.Rept. 106-379 ) was passed by the House on October 14 and the Senate on October 15 and was signed by the President on October 20 ( P.L. 106-74 ). The final bill provided $7.6 billion overall for EPA programs, including $3.47 billion for the STAG account. Within that account, the bill included $1.35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $820 million for drinking water SRF grants, $885 million for categorical state grants (which generally support state and tribal implementation and could address a range of environmental programs), $80 million for U.S.-Mexico border and Alaska Rural and Native Village projects, and $331.6 million for 141 other special needs water and wastewater grants specified in report language. The final bill did not approve the Administration's request to allow states to use up to 20% of clean water SRF monies as grants for nonpoint pollution and estuary management projects. Subsequent to enactment of the EPA funding bill, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 with funding for five other agencies ( P.L. 106-113 ), which included provisions requiring a government-wide cut of 0.38% in discretionary appropriations. The bill gave the President some flexibility in applying this across-the-board reduction. Details of the reduction were announced at the time of the release of the FY2001 budget. EPA's distribution of the rescission resulted in a total reduction of $16.3 million for 139 of the special needs water and wastewater projects identified in P.L. 106-74 . These projects were reduced 4.9% below enacted levels. The agency did not reduce funds for the two projects that had been included in the President's FY2000 budget request (Bristol County, MA, and New Orleans, LA) or for the United States-Mexico border and the Alaska Rural and Native Villages programs. EPA also reduced funds for the clean water SRF (enacted at $1.35 billion) by 0.3%, for a final funding level of $1.345 billion. The appropriation level was not reduced for the drinking water SRF or consolidated state grants. The President's budget for FY2001 requested a total of $2.9 billion for water infrastructure assistance and state environmental grants. For the second year in a row, President Clinton requested $800 million for the clean water SRF program, a $545 million reduction from the FY2000 level. The request included $825 million for the drinking water SRF program, $100 million for U.S.-Mexico border project grants, $15 million for Alaska Native Villages projects, two needy cities grants totaling $13 million (Bristol County, MA, and New Orleans, LA), plus $1.069 billion for consolidated state environmental grants (which could address a range of environmental programs). The budget included a policy request similar to one in the FY2000 budget, which Congress rejected. The FY2001 budget sought flexibility for states to set aside up to 19% of clean water SRF monies in the form of grants for local communities to implement nonpoint source pollution and estuary management projects. The House approved its version of EPA's funding bill ( H.R. 4635 , H.Rept. 106-674 ) on June 21, 2000. For the STAG account, H.R. 4635 provided $3.2 billion ($273 million more than requested, but $288 million below the FY2000 level). The total in the STAG account consisted of $1.2 billion for clean water SRF grants, $825 million for drinking water SRF grants, $1.068 billion (the budget request) for categorical state grants, and $85 million for U.S.-Mexico border and Alaska Rural and Native Villages projects. Beyond these, however, the House-passed bill included no funds for other special needs grants. The Senate approved its version of the funding bill ( S.Rept. 106-410 ) on October 12, 2000. For the STAG account, the Senate-passed bill provided $3.3 billion, consisting of $1.35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $820 million for drinking water SRF grants, $955 million for categorical state grants, $85 million for U.S.-Mexico border and Alaska Rural and Native Village projects, and $110 million for special needs water and wastewater grants. In October, the House and Senate approved EPA's funding bill for FY2001 ( H.Rept. 106-988 ), providing $1.35 billion for clean water SRF grants (the same level enacted for FY2000) and $825 million for drinking water SRF grants. The enacted bill included $110 million in grants for water infrastructure projects in Alaska Rural and Native Villages and U.S.-Mexico border projects and an additional $336 million for 237 other specified project grants throughout the country. The bill also provided $1,008 million for state categorical program grants ($60 million less in total than requested), which states could use to address a range of environmental programs. Total funding for the STAG account was $3.6 billion. Congress disapproved the Administration's policy request concerning use of clean water SRF monies for nonpoint source project grants. President Clinton signed the bill October 27, 2000 ( P.L. 106-377 ). Subsequently, in December, Congress provided $21 million more for five more special project water infrastructure grants (in addition to the $336 million in P.L. 106-377 ) as a provision of H.R. 4577 , the FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 106-554 ). Also in that legislation, Congress enacted the Wet Weather Water Quality Act, authorizing a two-year, $1.5 billion grants program to reduce wet weather flows from municipal sewer systems. The provision was included in Section 112, Division B, of P.L. 106-554 . In April 2001, the Bush Administration presented its budget request for FY2002. The Administration requested a total of $2.1 billion for clean water infrastructure funds, consisting of $823 million for drinking water SRF grants, $850 million for clean water SRF grants (compared with $1.35 billion appropriated for FY2001), and $450 million for the new program of municipal sewer overflow grants under legislation enacted in December, the Wet Weather Water Quality Act. However, that act provided that sewer overflow grants are only available in years when at least $1.35 billion in clean water SRF grants is appropriated. Subsequently, Administration officials said they would request that Congress modify the provision linking new grant funds to at least $1.35 billion in clean water SRF grants. The Bush budget requested no funds for special earmarked grants, except for $75 million to fund projects along the U.S.-Mexico border and $35 million for projects in Alaska Native Villages (both are the same amounts provided in FY2001). In response, some Members of Congress and outside groups criticized the budget request, saying that it did not provide enough support for water infrastructure programs. The President's budget also requested $1.06 billion for state categorical program grants, which generally support state and tribal administration of a range of environmental programs. The House passed its version of FY2002 funding for EPA on July 30 ( H.R. 2620 , H.Rept. 107-159 ). The House-passed bill provided a total of $2.4 billion for water infrastructure funds, consisting of $1.2 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, $200 million for special project grants (individual projects were unspecified in the report accompanying H.R. 2620 ), $75 million for U.S.-Mexico border projects, and $30 million for Alaska Rural and Native Villages. The House bill provided no separate funds for the new wet weather overflow grant program, which the Administration had requested. Including $1.08 billion for state categorical program grants, total STAG account funding in the bill was $3.44 billion, about $150 million higher than the President's request. The Senate passed its version of this appropriations bill on August 2 ( S. 1216 , S.Rept. 107-43 ). Like the House, the Senate rejected separate funding for wet weather overflow grants, and the Senate increased clean water SRF grant funding to the FY2001 level. The Senate-passed total for the STAG account was $3.49 billion, including $1.35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, $140 million for special needs infrastructure grants specified in accompanying report language, $75 million for U.S.-Mexico border projects, $30 million for Alaska Rural and Native Villages, and $1.03 billion for state categorical program grants. Resolution of this and other appropriations bills in fall 2001 was complicated by congressional attention to general economic conditions and responses to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Nevertheless, the House and Senate gave final approval to legislation providing EPA's FY2002 funding ( H.R. 2620 , H.Rept. 107-272 ) on November 8, and President Bush signed the bill on November 26 ( P.L. 107-73 ). The final bill did not include separate funds for the new sewer overflow grant program requested by the Administration, which both the House and Senate had rejected, but it did include $1.35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, $344 million for 337 earmarked water infrastructure project grants specified in report language, and the requested $75 million for U.S.-Mexico border projects and $30 million for Alaska Rural and Native Villages. The bill included total STAG funding of $3.7 billion. President Bush presented the Administration's FY2003 budget request in February 2002, asking Congress to appropriate $2.185 billion for EPA's water infrastructure programs (compared with $2.659 billion appropriated for FY2002). The FY2003 request sought $1.212 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $123 million for a limited number of special projects (especially in Alaska Native Villages and in communities on the U.S.-Mexico border). The Administration proposed to eliminate funds for unrequested infrastructure project spending that Congress had earmarked in the FY2002 law, which totaled $344 million. Also, the Administration requested no funds for the municipal sewer overflow grants program enacted in 2000. Some Members of Congress criticized the request level for clean water SRF capitalization grants, which was $138 million below the FY2002 enacted amount. In August 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an FY2003 funding bill for EPA that would provide $1.45 billion for clean water SRF grants, $100 million more than the FY2002 level ( S. 2797 , S.Rept. 107-222 ). In addition, the Senate committee bill included $875 million for drinking water SRF grants, $140 million for special needs infrastructure grants specified in report language, $45 million for Alaska Rural and Native Village project grants, $75 million for U.S.-Mexico border projects, and $1.134 billion for state categorical program grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. The House Appropriations Committee approved its version of an FY2003 funding bill with $1.3 billion for the clean water SRF program ( H.R. 5605 , H.Rept. 107-740 ) in October. This bill also included $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, $227.6 million for special needs infrastructure grants enumerated in report language, $35 million for Alaska Rural and Native Village project grants, $75 million for U.S.-Mexico border projects, and $1.173 billion for state categorical program grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. Neither appropriations committee included funds for the sewer overflow grant program authorized in 2000 (the Administration did not request FY2003 funds for these grants). Due to complex budgetary disputes during the year, final action did not occur before the 107 th Congress adjourned in November 2002, and it extended into 2003, more than five months after the start of the fiscal year. Congress and the President reached agreement on funding levels for EPA and other nondefense agencies in an omnibus appropriations act ( P.L. 108-7 ; H.J.Res. 2 , H.Rept. 108-10 ), which the President signed on February 20. The EPA portion of the enacted bill included $1.34 billion for clean water SRF grants, $844 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $413 million more for 489 special water infrastructure project grants to individual cities specified in conference report language, plus projects in Alaska Native Villages and communities on the U.S.-Mexico border. It also provided a total of $1.14 billion for categorical state grants, which generally support states and tribal implementation of a range of environmental programs. On February 3, 2003, before completion of the FY2003 appropriations, President Bush submitted his budget request for FY2004. It requested a total of $1.798 billion for water infrastructure funds, consisting of $850 million for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $98 million for priority projects (especially in Alaska Native Villages and in communities on the U.S.-Mexico border). As in previous years, the Administration requested no funds for congressionally earmarked project grants for individual communities. Some Members of Congress and interest groups criticized the request for clean water SRF grants ($490 million below the FY2003 enacted level), but Administration officials responded by saying that the request reflected a commitment to fund this program at the $850 million level through FY2011. Funding at that level and over that long-term period, plus repayments of previous SRF loans made by states, would be expected to increase the revolving levels of the overall program from $2.0 billion to $2.8 billion per year, the Administration said. The President's budget also requested $1.2 billion for categorical state grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. On July 25, the House approved H.R. 2861 ( H.Rept. 108-235 ), providing FY2004 appropriations for EPA. As passed, the bill included $1.2 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, $203 million for earmarked water infrastructure project grants, and $75 million in grants for high-priority projects in Alaska Native Villages and along the U.S.-Mexico border. Senate action on its version of a funding bill for EPA ( S.Rept. 108-143 ) occurred on November 18. The Senate-passed bill provided $1.35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, $130 million for targeted infrastructure project grants, plus $95 million in grants for projects in Alaska Native Villages and along the U.S.-Mexico border. As with the previous year's appropriations, Congress did not enact legislation providing FY2004 funds for EPA before the beginning of the new fiscal year; thus EPA programs were covered by a series of continuing resolutions (CRs). The last of these CRs ( P.L. 108-135 ) extended FY2003 funding levels through January 31, 2004. On December 8, 2003, the House passed legislation providing full-year funding for EPA and other agencies that lacked enacted appropriations ( H.R. 2673 ). The conference report on this bill ( H.Rept. 108-401 ) provided $1.34 billion for clean water SRF grants, $845 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $425 million in grants for 520 earmarked grants in listed communities, Alaska Native Villages, and U.S.-Mexico border projects. The Senate approved the conference report on January 22, 2004, and President Bush signed the legislation January 23 ( P.L. 108-199 ). The FY2005 EPA appropriation for water infrastructure funds was the lowest total for these programs since FY1997 (the first year in which Congress provided both clean water and drinking water SRF capitalization grants, as well as earmarked project grants). The decline was due primarily to a reduction in funding for the clean water SRF program from an average of $1.35 billion since FY1998 to $1.09 billion. President Bush's FY2005 budget, presented February 2, 2004, requested a total of $3.0 billion for water infrastructure assistance and state environmental program grants. It included $850 million for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, $94 million for priority projects (primarily in Alaska Native Villages and along the U.S.-Mexico border), and $1.25 billion for categorical grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. As in recent budgets, the Administration requested no funds for congressionally earmarked project grants. Anticipating that critics likely would focus on the clean water SRF request ($492 million below the FY2004 level), in its budget documents the Administration said that the request included funding for the clean water SRF at $850 million annually through 2011, which, together with loan repayments, state matches, and other funding sources, would result in a long-term average revolving level of $3.4 billion. Likewise, the budget anticipated funding the drinking water SRF program at the same $850 million annually through 2011, resulting in a long-term average revolving level of $1.2 billion. House and Senate Appropriations committees began review of the EPA budget request in March. On September 9, 2004, the House Appropriations Committee reported FY2005 funding for EPA in a bill that included the Administration's requested level of $850 million for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, and earmarked grants for priority water infrastructure projects totaling $393.4 million ( H.R. 5041 , H.Rept. 108-674 ). On September 21, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of this bill ( S. 2825 , S.Rept. 108-353 ), which included $1.35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $217 million for earmarked project grants. Final action on the FY2005 appropriation did not occur before the start of the fiscal year. On November 20, the House and Senate passed H.R. 4818 ( H.Rept. 108-792 ), the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, an omnibus appropriations bill comprising nine appropriations measures, including funding for EPA. The bill provided total funding for EPA of $8.1 billion, a decrease from the $8.4 billion approved in FY2004, but $340 million more than was requested by the President in February. One of the most controversial items in the final bill was a $251 million decrease for clean water SRF grants from the FY2004 level, although the $1.09 billion total was $241 million more than in the President's budget. The final measure also included $843 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants; $401.7 million for 669 earmarked grants in listed communities, Alaska Native Villages, and U.S.-Mexico border projects; and $1.14 billion for categorical state grants, which generally support state and tribal administration of a range of environmental programs. The $2.34 billion total for water infrastructure programs and projects was $542 million more than was requested by the President, but $276 million less than Congress appropriated for FY2004. President Bush signed the legislation December 8, 2004 ( P.L. 108-447 ). The FY2006 appropriation for water infrastructure funds marked the second consecutive year in which Congress appropriated less funding for these programs, providing lower levels both for clean water SRF capitalization grants and for earmarked project grants than in FY2005. President Bush presented the FY2006 budget request in February 2005. Overall for EPA, it sought 5.6% less than Congress had appropriated for FY2005. The Administration's deepest cuts affecting EPA were proposed for the STAG account. The budget requested $730 million for clean water SRF grants (33% below FY2005 appropriated funding and 45.6% below the FY2004 level), $850 million for drinking water SRF grants (a slight increase from the FY2005 level), $69 million for priority projects (primarily in Alaska Native Villages and along the U.S.-Mexico border), and $1.2 billion for state categorical grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. As in previous years, the Administration requested no funds for congressionally earmarked water infrastructure projects. Advocates for the SRF programs (especially state and local government officials) contended that cuts to the clean water program would impair their ability to carry out needed municipal wastewater treatment plant improvement projects. Administration officials responded that the proposed SRF reductions for FY2006 were because Congress had boosted funds above the FY2005 request level. These officials said that the Administration planned to invest $6.8 billion in the clean water SRF program between FY2004 and FY2011, after which federal funding was expected to end, and the state SRFs were expected to have an annual revolving level of $3.4 billion. If Congress appropriated more than requested in any given year (as occurred in FY2005), they said, that target would be met sooner, leading to reduced requests for the SRF in subsequent years until a planned phaseout in FY2011. On May 19, 2005, the House passed H.R. 2361 , providing FY2006 funding for EPA. As passed, it provided $850 million for clean water SRF grants ($120 million more than the President's request), $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $269 million for earmarked water infrastructure grants. During debate, the House rejected two amendments to increase clean water SRF funding. On June 29, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 2361 , providing $1.1 billion for clean water SRF grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $290 million for earmarked project grants. The House bill required that $100 million of the SRF funding come from balances from expired contracts, grants, and interagency agreements from various EPA appropriation accounts. The Senate bill, in contrast, called for a $58 million rescission of unobligated amounts associated with grants, contracts, and interagency agreements in various accounts, but did not specify that such monies go to SRF funding. Conferees resolved differences between the bills ( H.Rept. 109-188 ), and the House and Senate approved the measure in July; the President signed it into law on August 2 ( P.L. 109-54 ). As enacted, the bill provided $900 million for clean water SRF grants; $850 million for drinking water SRF grants; $285 million for 259 earmarked grants in listed communities, Alaska Native Villages, and along the U.S.-Mexico border; and $1.13 billion for categorical state grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. The final bill required an $80 million rescission from expired grants, contracts, and interagency agreements in various EPA accounts (not just the STAG account) not obligated by September 1, 2006. It did not direct the rescinded funds to be applied to the clean water SRF, as proposed by the House. The $2.03 billion total in the bill for EPA water infrastructure programs and projects was $386 million more than was requested by the President, but $301 million less than Congress appropriated for FY2005. Further, the funding amounts specified in P.L. 109-54 were reduced slightly. First, a provision of P.L. 109-54 , Section 439, mandated an across-the-board rescission of 0.476% for any discretionary appropriation in that bill. Second, in December 2005 Congress enacted P.L. 109-148 , the FY2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, and Section 3801 of that bill mandated a 1% across-the-board rescission for discretionary accounts in any FY2006 appropriation act (except for discretionary authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs). As a result of these two rescissions, the final levels for the STAG account were $887 million for clean water SRF grants; $838 million for drinking water SRF grants; $281 million for 259 earmarked grants in listed communities, Alaska Native Villages, and along the U.S.-Mexico border; and $1.11 billion for categorical state grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. FY2006 EPA water infrastructure programs and projects thus total $2.0 billion. On October 28, President Bush requested that Congress rescind $2.3 billion from 55 "lower-priority federal programs and excess funds," including $166 million from clean water SRF monies. In the end, Congress did not endorse the specific request to reduce clean water SRF appropriations. The two rescissions resulting from P.L. 109-54 and P.L. 109-148 totaled a $13.2 million reduction from the $900 million specified in the EPA appropriations act. President Bush presented the Administration's FY2007 budget request in February 2006, asking Congress to appropriate $1.570 billion for EPA's water infrastructure programs. The FY2007 request sought $687.6 million for clean water SRF grants, $841.5 million for drinking water SRF grants, and $40.6 million for special projects in Alaska Native Villages, Puerto Rico, and along the U.S.-Mexico border. When the 109 th Congress adjourned in December 2006, it had not completed action on appropriations legislation to fund EPA (or on nine other appropriations bills covering the majority of domestic discretionary agencies and departments) for the fiscal year that began October 1, 2006, thus carrying over this legislative activity into the 110 th Congress. In December 2006, Congress enacted a continuing resolution, P.L. 109-383 (the third such continuing resolution since the start of the fiscal year on October 1), providing funds for EPA and the other affected agencies and departments until February 15, 2007. The President's FY2007 budget request for clean water SRF capitalization grants was 22% less than the FY2006 appropriation for these grants and 37% below the FY2005 funding level. The request for drinking water SRF grants was essentially the same as in recent years ($4 million more than FY2006, $1.7 million less than FY2005). As in recent budgets, the Administration proposed no funding for congressionally designated water infrastructure grants, but, as noted above, it did seek a total of $40.6 million for Administration priority projects. Advocates of the clean water SRF program (especially state and local government officials) again contended, as they have for several recent years, that the cuts would impair their ability to carry out needed municipal wastewater treatment plant improvement projects. Administration officials responded that cuts for the clean water SRF in FY2007 were necessary because Congress boosted funds above the requested level in FY2005 and FY2006. On May 18, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5386 ( H.Rept. 109-465 ), providing the requested level of $687.6 million for clean water SRF grants and $841.5 million for drinking water SRF grants. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the same funding levels for these grant programs when it reported H.R. 5386 on June 29 ( S.Rept. 109-275 ), but the Senate did not act on this measure before the 109 th Congress adjourned in December. Before adjournment, Congress enacted a continuing resolution (CR), P.L. 109-383 (the third such CR since the start of the fiscal year on October 1), providing funds for EPA and the other affected agencies and departments until February 15, 2007. Funding levels provided under this CR followed a "lowest level" concept for individual programs; that is, programs were funded at the lowest level under either House-passed FY2007 appropriations, Senate-passed appropriations, or the FY2006 funding. For clean water SRF grants, the resulting appropriation through mid-February was $687.6 million, as in House-passed H.R. 5386 . For drinking water SRF grants, the appropriation level through mid-February was $837.5 million, the FY2006-enacted level. The CR included funds for congressionally earmarked water infrastructure project grants totaling $200 million, as in House-passed H.R. 5386 . Returning to these issues in 2007, in mid-February, Congress passed H.J.Res. 20 , a continuing appropriations resolution that provides funding for EPA and the other affected agencies through the end of FY2007. As passed, this full-year resolution held most programs and activities at their FY2006 appropriated levels. However, clean water SRF capitalization grants were one of the few programs that received a funding increase under the resolution: these grants received $1.08 billion ($197 million more than in FY2006, and $396 million more than the President requested for FY2007). The resolution further prohibited project grants for congressional earmarks, but not for special project grants requested in the President's budget. The action to ban earmarks in FY2007 occurred when leaders in the 110 th Congress sought to finish up appropriations actions that were unresolved at the end of the 109 th Congress, and at the same time the newly elected Congress moved to adopt rules and procedures to reform the congressional earmarking process for the future. (Water infrastructure project earmarks totaled $281 million in EPA's FY2006 appropriation.) President Bush signed H.J.Res. 20 on February 15, 2007 ( P.L. 110-5 ). The final FY2007 amounts provided in P.L. 110-5 were $1.084 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants, $837.5 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants, $83.75 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border project grants requested by the Administration, and $1.11 billion for categorical state grants, which could be used to administer a range of environmental programs. President Obama presented his FY2008 budget request to Congress on February 5, 2007, before finalization of the FY2007 appropriations. The budget sought $687.6 million for clean water SRF grants, the same amount requested for FY2007; $842.2 million for drinking water SRF grants; $25.5 million for special project grants for Alaska Native Villages and the U.S.-Mexico border region; and $1.065 billion for categorical state grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. In June 2007, the House passed H.R. 2643 , providing FY2008 appropriations for EPA. This bill included $1.125 billion for clean water SRF grants, $842.2 million for drinking water SRF grants, plus $175.5 million for 143 congressionally designated water infrastructure project grants. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved companion legislation ( S. 1696 ) that similarly included higher funding levels for several water quality programs. The Senate committee's bill provided less funding for clean water SRF grants than the House bill ($887 million), the same amount for drinking water SRF grants, and slightly more for congressionally designated water infrastructure project grants ($180 million). The Senate did not take up S. 1696 . By October 1, the start of FY2008, Congress had not enacted any appropriations bills for FY2008, and Congress enacted several short-term continuing appropriations resolutions to temporarily fund EPA and other government agencies until final agreement, which occurred in December 2007. Full-year funding for EPA's water infrastructure programs was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (Division F, Title II), signed by the President December 26, 2007 ( P.L. 110-161 ). The final FY2008 amounts provided in this legislation were $689.1 million for clean water SRF capitalization grants ($1.5 million more than requested by the Administration), $829.0 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants ($13.2 million less than requested), $177.2 million for 282 earmarked grants in listed communities, Alaska Native Villages, and U.S.-Mexico border projects ($151.7 million more than requested), and $1.078 billion for categorical state grants ($13.3 million more than requested), which could address a range of environmental programs. President Obama presented his FY2009 budget request to Congress on February 6, 2008. The budget sought $555 million for clean water SRF grants, $134 million less than Congress appropriated for FY2008; $842.2 million for drinking water SRF grants, $13 million more than was appropriated for FY2008; $25.5 million for special project grants for Alaska Native Villages and the U.S.-Mexico border region, $18.8 million less than was appropriated for FY2008; and $1.057 billion for categorical state grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. As in past years, the budget requested no funds for other earmarked grants. In June 2008, a House Appropriations subcommittee approved a bill with FY2009 funding for EPA, but no further action occurred before the start of the fiscal year. At the end of September 2008, Congress and the President agreed to legislation providing partial-year funding for EPA and most other agencies and departments. This bill, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Resolution Act, 2009 ( P.L. 110-329 ), provided funding through March 6, 2009, at FY2008 funding levels. A second short-term continuing resolution was enacted on March 6 ( P.L. 111-6 ), while Congress was finishing consideration of a full-year omnibus FY2009 appropriations bill that the President signed on March 11 ( P.L. 111-8 ). The omnibus bill provided $689 million in regular appropriations for clean water SRF grants, $829 million for drinking water SRF grants—both at the same levels as were appropriated in FY2008—and $1.094 billion for categorical state grants, which support administration of a range of environmental programs. The omnibus appropriations act also includes $183.5 million for earmarked water infrastructure grants. In February 2009, Congress responded to the nation's economic crisis by enacting the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5 ), legislation providing FY2009 supplemental appropriations to a number of government programs. Part of the philosophy underlying the legislation was the concept of using federal investments to make accelerated investments in the nation's public infrastructure in order to create jobs while also meeting infrastructure needs. To that end, the legislation included $4.0 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants (for total FY2009 funds of $4.689 billion) and $2.0 billion for drinking water SRF capitalization grants (for total FY2009 funds of $2.829 billion). The supplemental SRF funds were available for obligation through FY2010, but under the legislation, states were to give preference when awarding funds to activities that can start and finish quickly, with a goal that at least 50% of the funds go to activities that can be initiated within 120 days of enactment. States were to give priority to wastewater projects that could proceed to construction within 12 months of enactment, and funds for projects that were not under contract or under construction by February 12, 2010, would be reallocated by EPA to other states. Further, the legislation required states to reserve at least 20% of the SRF capitalization grant funds for a Green Project Reserve, that is, projects intended to achieve improved energy or water efficiency. It also specified that all assistance agreements made in whole or in part with funds appropriated under the ARRA must comply with prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. President Obama presented his Administration's FY2010 budget request on May 7, 2009. For EPA as a whole, the budget sought $10.5 billion, a 38% increase above levels enacted in EPA's regular FY2009 appropriations ( P.L. 111-8 ). The bulk of the increase in the President's budget was for water infrastructure assistance, which would receive 157% above FY2009 levels (excluding ARRA supplemental funds). The request included $2.4 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants; $1.5 billion for drinking water SRF capitalization grants; $20 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border projects; and $1.111 billion for state categorical grants (1.5% above FY2009 levels), which generally support state administration of environmental programs. Congress provided FY2010 appropriations for EPA in P.L. 111-88 , passed by the House and Senate in October 2009 and signed into law on October 30. In this measure, Congress provided the following: $2.1 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants; $1.387 billion for drinking water SRF capitalization grants; $186.7 million for 319 congressionally earmarked special project grants, including assistance for Alaska Native Villages and U.S.-Mexico border projects; and $1.116 billion for state categorical environmental grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. The FY2010 appropriations act included some restrictions that Congress also had specified in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, discussed above, namely a requirement that 20% of SRF capitalization grant assistance be used for "green" infrastructure and also that Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage rules shall apply to construction of wastewater or drinking water projects carried out in whole or in part with assistance from the SRF. President Obama presented the FY2011 budget request in February 2010. For EPA as a whole, the budget sought $10.02 billion in discretionary budget authority, a 3% decrease from levels enacted for EPA in FY2010. The largest component of the reduced request, compared with FY2010, was $200 million less for grants to capitalize clean water and drinking water SRF programs. In explaining the request, EPA budget documents noted that even with a slight reduction, the budget "continues robust funding for the SRFs." As in past years, the President requested no funds for congressionally designated water infrastructure projects. The request included $2.0 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants; $1.287 billion for drinking water SRF capitalization grants; $20 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border projects; and $1.277 billion for state categorical grant programs (14% higher than the FY2010 enacted amount), which could address a range of environmental programs. Congress took only limited action on FY2011 funding for EPA before the start of the new fiscal year on October 1, 2010: a House Appropriations subcommittee approved a bill in July, but no further action followed. At the end of September, the House and Senate passed a continuing resolution to extend FY2010 funding levels for EPA and other federal agencies and departments until December 3, 2010, because no FY2011 appropriations bills had been enacted by October 1. President Obama signed the continuing resolution (CR) on September 30 ( P.L. 111-242 ). This bill was followed by six more short-term CRs before Congress came to final resolution of FY2011 spending on April 14, 2011, enacting a bill to provide funding for EPA and all other federal agencies and departments through September 30 ( P.L. 112-10 ). The final bill reduced overall funding for EPA 15% below the FY2010 level. The enacted bill included $1.522 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants; $963.1 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants; $19.96 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S. Mexico-border projects; and $1.254 billion for state categorical grant programs, which generally support implementation of a range of environmental programs. Policymakers began to consider the budget for FY2012 before finalizing the funding levels for FY2011. The President submitted the Administration's FY2012 budget request on February 14, 2011. It sought $9 billion total for EPA, a decrease of $1.3 billion from the FY2010 enacted level, but 3% higher than the FY2011 enacted level. The President's request included $1.55 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants, $990 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants, $20 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border assistance, and $1.2 billion for state categorical grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. For several days in July 2011, the House debated H.R. 2584 , providing FY2012 appropriations for EPA, but did not take final action on the bill before the August recess. As reported, the bill provided $7.3 billion for EPA, 17% less than FY2011 funds and 19% less than the President's FY2012 request. It reduced funds for the clean water SRF capitalization grants to $689 million and $829 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants (the same levels provided in FY2008), while including no funds for congressionally designated special projects (i.e., earmarks). The reported bill also provided $1.002 billion for state categorical grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. There was no action on this bill in the Senate. Final congressional action on FY2012 appropriations for EPA and most other federal agencies and departments did not occur until the end of December 2011, enacted in an omnibus appropriations act, P.L. 112-74 . The enacted bill included $1.466 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants (3.7% below FY2011); $917.9 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants (4.7% below FY2011); $14.976 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border projects; and $1.089 billion for state categorical grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. President Obama presented the Administration's FY2013 budget request in February 2012. It sought $8.34 billion overall for EPA, or 4.7% below the level enacted for FY2012. The request included $1.175 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants, $850 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants, $20 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border assistance, and $1.2 billion for state categorical grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. The total amount requested for SRF capitalization grants is 15% below the FY2012 enacted level, reflecting a 20% reduction for the clean water program and a 7.4% reduction for the drinking water program. The House Appropriations Committee approved legislation providing FY2013 funds for EPA in July 2012 ( H.R. 6091 ). As reported, the bill provided $689 million for clean water SRF capitalization grants (the same level provided in FY2008), $829 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants, $994 million for state categorical grants, and no funds for Alaska Native Village or U.S.-Mexico border projects. The House did not take up H.R. 6091 , nor did the Senate act on an EPA appropriations bill (although the Senate Appropriations Committee released a draft bill in September 2012). Prior to the start of FY2013 on October 1, 2012, Congress passed and the President signed a continuing resolution bill providing funding for government agencies and departments through March 27, 2013 ( P.L. 112-175 ). This measure funded the government generally at FY2012 levels plus a 0.6% increase. Final action on FY2013 appropriations occurred in the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 ( P.L. 113-6 ). Funding enacted in this bill included $1.452 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants; $908.7 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants; $15 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border assistance; and $1.1 billion for state categorical grants, which generally support state and tribal implementation of a range of environmental programs. However, these amounts were reduced under the March 1, 2013, sequester order of the President, which reduced affected accounts by 5.0%, and by an across-the-board rescission of 0.2% necessary to avoid exceeding the FY2013 discretionary spending limits in law. After these reductions, available FY2013 funding was approximately $1.38 billion for the clean water SRF capitalization grants, $860 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants, $14 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border assistance, and $1.0 billion for state categorical grants. President Obama presented the Administration's FY2014 budget in April 2013. It sought $8.15 billion overall for EPA, including $1.095 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants, $817 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants, $15 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border projects, and $1.136 billion for state categorical grants. The total amount requested for SRF capitalization grants was 19% below the FY2013 enacted level. In mid-2013, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies drafted a bill (unnumbered) that would have reduced overall funding for EPA by 34% from the FY2013 enacted level, including an 83% reduction for clean water SRF capitalization grants (the bill would have provided $250 million) and a 65% reduction for drinking water SRF capitalization grants ($350 million was included in the bill). According to subcommittee documents, the reduction was appropriate because, despite recent federal support, little progress has been made to reduce the known water infrastructure gap. The full committee did not complete markup of this bill. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies drafted an alternative bill that would have maintained funding for the clean water SRF program at $1.45 billion and funding for the drinking water SRF program at $907 million. There was no further action on this bill. Congress did not reach final agreement on FY2014 appropriations before the start of the fiscal year on October 1, but did agree to a short-term continuing appropriations measure ( P.L. 113-46 ), which provided funding through January 15, 2014. Final action on appropriations for EPA and all other federal agencies and departments occurred as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 ( H.R. 3547 , P.L. 113-76 ), signed by the President on January 17, 2014. This bill provides $1.45 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants (5% more than FY2013 funds and 32% higher than the President's FY2014 budget request) and $907 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants (5% more than FY2013 funds and 11% higher than the President's FY2014 budget request). The bill also provides $15 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border assistance, and $1.0 billion for state categorical grants, which generally support state and tribal implementation of a range of environmental programs. President Obama presented the Administration's FY2015 budget on March 4, 2014. It sought $7.89 billion overall for EPA, including $1.018 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants, $757 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants, $15 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border projects, and $1.13 billion for state categorical grants. The total amount requested for SRF capitalization grants was 25% below the FY2014 enacted level. Final full-year appropriations were enacted as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, enacted in December 2014 ( P.L. 113-235 ). The legislation provided the same water infrastructure funding levels as in FY2014: $1.45 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants and $907 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants. As with the FY2014 appropriations, the bill provided $15 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border assistance and $1.0 billion for state categorical grants, which could address a range of environmental programs. The Administration's FY2016 budget requested $8.6 billion overall for EPA. The request included $1.116 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants, $1.186 billion for drinking water SRF capitalization grants (31% higher than the FY2016 appropriation), $15 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border projects, and $1.162 billion for state categorical grants, which generally support state and tribal implementation of a range of environmental programs. Although the House and Senate Appropriations Committees reported bills to provide FY2016 appropriations for EPA, final appropriations action for EPA and other agencies occurred as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, signed by the President December 18, 2015 ( P.L. 114-113 ). The bill provided $1.394 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants ($55 million less than FY2015, but $278 million above the President's request), $863 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants ($44 million below the FY2015 level, and $323 million less than the President's request), and $30 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border water infrastructure projects. It also provided $1.06 billion for state categorical grants. President Obama presented the Administration's FY2017 budget in February 2016, requesting $8.3 billion in total for EPA ($127 million above the FY2016 enacted budget). The request for EPA included $979.5 million for clean water SRF capitalization grants ($424 million less than the FY2016 enacted level), $1.02 billion for drinking water SRF capitalization grants ($157 million above the FY2016 amount), $22 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border projects, and $1.158 billion for state categorical grants, which generally support state and tribal implementation of environmental programs. During congressional hearings on the EPA request, many Members criticized the requested 30% decrease in funds for clean water SRF capitalization grants. This criticism was reflected to some degree in appropriations bills the Appropriations Committees subsequently approved that include EPA funding. In July 2016, the House passed H.R. 5538 , FY2017 Interior and Environment Appropriations Act; it included $1.0 billion for clean water SRF grants, $1.07 billion for drinking water SRF grants, and $1.06 billion for state categorical grants. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported a companion bill, S. 3068 , in June. It included $1.35 billion for clean water SRF grants, $1.02 billion for drinking water SRF grants, and $1.09 billion for state categorical grants. The Senate did not take up this bill. Congress did not reach final agreement on an EPA funding bill before the start of FY2017. However, on September 28, the House and Senate passed a 10-week continuing resolution that extended FY2016 funding levels, minus a 0.496% across-the-board reduction, through December 9, 2016 ( P.L. 114-223 ). A second continuing resolution, passed in December 2014, extended FY2016 funding levels, minus a 0.1901% across-the-board reduction, from December 10, 2016, through April 28, 2017 ( P.L. 114-254 ). The Obama Administration's FY2017 budget submission also included a $15 million request to allow EPA to begin making water infrastructure project loans under a program that Congress enacted in 2014, the Water Infrastructure Financing and Investment Act, or WIFIA. P.L. 114-254 included the first appropriation, $20 million, for EPA to do so. The FY2017 final appropriations act (discussed below) provided an additional $8 million for EPA's WIFIA program (and $2 million for EPA to administer the program). Final full-year appropriations were enacted as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017, signed by President Trump on May 5, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ). The act provided the same level of funding for water infrastructure as FY2016: $1.394 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants ($414 million above President Obama's request), $863 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants ($158 million less than President Obama's request), and $30 million for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border water infrastructure projects. It also provided $1.07 billion for state categorical grants, which support a range of environmental programs. The Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 114-254 ), included an additional $100 million in DWSRF funding to assist Flint, MI, as authorized in the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act ( P.L. 114-322 ). The Trump Administration's FY2018 budget request proposed $8.6 billion overall for EPA. The request included $1.394 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants and $863 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants (the same amounts as the FY2017 appropriation). The request proposed $597 million for state categorical grants, a 44% reduction compared to FY2017 levels. Much of this reduction came from the elimination of funding for nonpoint source grants (CWA Section 319) and reduction of grant funding for water pollution control (CWA Section 106). In addition, the President's budget request proposed to eliminate funding for Alaska Native Village and U.S.-Mexico border projects. Similar to the previous fiscal year, Congress did not reach final agreement on an EPA funding bill before the start of FY2018. EPA and other federal departments and agencies operated under multiple continuing resolutions generally at FY2017 enacted levels (minus across-the-board rescissions). Final full-year appropriations were enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, signed by President Trump on March 23, 2018 ( P.L. 115-141 ). EPA's STAG account (Division G, Title II) included $1.394 billion for the clean water SRF and $863 million for the drinking water SRF program (the same amounts appropriated for FY2017, less $100 million for the DWSRF provided to assist Flint, MI). Division G, Title IV (General Provisions), Section 430, included an additional $600 million ($300.0 million each) within the STAG account for both SRF programs. P.L. 115-141 also provided $63 million for the WIFIA program, more than doubling the FY2017 appropriation. The act provided $20 million for Alaska Native Village projects and $10 million U.S.-Mexico border projects. It also provided $1.08 billion for state categorical grants, which support a range of environmental programs. In addition, the act provided the first appropriations for three programs authorized in the WIIN Act ( P.L. 114-322 , Title II, the Water and Waste Act of 2016): $10 million to help public water systems serving small or disadvantaged communities meet SDWA requirements; $20 million to support lead reduction projects, including lead service line replacement; and $20 million to establish a voluntary program for testing for lead in drinking water at schools and child care programs. The Trump Administration's FY2019 budget request proposed $6.15 billion overall for EPA. The request included $1.394 billion for clean water SRF capitalization grants and $863 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants (the same amounts requested in FY2018). The request included $20 million for the WIFIA program: $17 million to cover subsidy costs, which EPA estimated would allow the agency to lend approximately $2 billion (EPA Budget Justification), and $3 million for administrative costs. In addition, the request proposed $597 million for state categorical grants and $3 million for Alaska Native Village projects. The request proposed to eliminate funding for nonpoint source grants (CWA Section 319), reduce grant funding for water pollution control (CWA Section 106), and eliminate funding for U.S.-Mexico border water infrastructure projects. At the beginning of FY2019, EPA operated under the terms and conditions of multiple continuing resolutions (Division C of P.L. 115-245 ; P.L. 115-298 ; and P.L. 116-5 ). A "partial government shutdown" began on December 22, 2018, during which EPA operated under its shutdown contingency plans. Final full-year appropriations were enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ), signed by President Trump on February 15, 2019. FY2019 appropriations were provided in two titles of P.L. 116-6 . Title II included $1.394 billion for the CWSRF, $864.0 million for the DWSRF, and $10.0 million for WIFIA. Title IV included an additional $600.0 million ($300.0 million each) for both SRF programs and an additional $58.0 million for WIFIA. Title IV of P.L. 116-6 included $65.0 million within the EPA STAG account for grants authorized in the WIIN Act ( P.L. 114-322 ): $25 million to help public water systems serving small or disadvantaged communities meet SDWA requirements, $15 million to support lead reduction projects (including lead service line replacement), and $25 million to establish a voluntary program for testing for lead in drinking water at schools and child care programs. In addition, the act provided $25 million for Alaska Native Village projects and $15 million U.S.-Mexico border projects. It also provided $1.08 billion for state categorical grants, which support a range of environmental programs. The Trump Administration's FY2020 budget request proposed $6.07 billion overall for EPA. The request included $1.120 billion for CWSRF capitalization grants; $863 million for drinking water SRF capitalization grants; $25 million for the WIFIA program: $20 million to cover subsidy costs, which EPA estimated would allow the agency to lend over $2 billion (EPA Budget Justification), and $5 million for administrative costs; $3 million for Alaska Native Village projects; $10 million for testing for lead in drinking water at schools and child care programs; $61 million for sewer overflow control grants; $154 million for water pollution control grants (CWA Section 106); and $580 million for state categorical grants, which support a range of environmental programs. The Administration's request proposed to eliminate funding for the following: nonpoint source grants, U.S.-Mexico border water infrastructure projects, drinking water grants for small and disadvantage communities, and lead reduction project grants.

 

 Report 2:
Many consumer products—such as deodorants, shaving products, and hair care products—are differentiated to appeal specifically to men or women through differences in packaging, scent, or other product characteristics (see fig. 1). These differences related to gender can affect manufacturing and marketing costs that may contribute to price differences in products targeted to different genders. However, firms may also charge consumers different prices for the same (or very similar) goods and services even when there are no differences in costs to produce. To maximize profits, firms use a variety of techniques to charge prices close to the highest price different consumers are willing to pay. Firms may attempt to get segments of the consumer market to pay a higher price than another segment by slightly altering or differentiating the product. Based on the differentiated products, consumers self-select into different groups according to their preferences and what they are willing to pay. For example, some consumer goods have different versions of what is essentially the same product—except for differences in packaging or features, such as scent—with one version intended for women and another version intended for men. The two products may be priced differently because the firm expects that one gender will be willing to pay more for the product than the other based on preference for certain product attributes. Firms may also use some group characteristic, such as age or gender, to charge different prices because some groups may have differences in willingness or ability to pay. For example, a firm may offer discounted movie tickets to students or seniors, as they may have less disposable income. For the seller the cost of providing the movie is the same for any customer, but the seller is able to maximize its profits by offering tickets to different groups of customers at different prices. A firm’s ability to differentiate prices depends on multiple factors, such as the firm’s market power (so that competitors cannot put downward pressure on prices to eliminate the price differences), the presence of consumer segments with different demands and willingness to pay, and control over the sale of its product so it cannot be easily resold to exploit price differences. In addition, the extent to which consumers pay different prices for the same or similar goods can depend on other factors, such as consumers’: willingness to purchase an item they believe may be priced higher for ability to compare prices and product characteristics and choose a product based on its characteristics rather than its price, choices about whether to purchase a more expensive version of the product (e.g., a branded item versus a cheaper store brand), choices about where to purchase the item (i.e., when different retailers sell the same item at different prices), and use of coupons or promotions. No federal law expressly prohibits businesses from charging different prices for the same or similar consumer goods and services targeted to men and women. However, consumer protection laws do prohibit sex discrimination in credit and real estate transactions. Specifically, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants based on sex or certain other characteristics and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination in the housing market on the basis of sex or certain other characteristics. ECOA and FHA (collectively known as the fair lending laws) prohibit lenders from, among other things, refusing to extend credit or using different standards in determining to extend credit based on sex. Credit, such as a credit card account or mortgage loan, is generally made available and priced based on a number of risk factors, including credit score, income, and employment history. A borrower with a lower credit score is likely to pay a higher interest rate on a loan, reflecting the greater risk to the lender that the borrower could default on the loan. In addition to the interest rate, borrowing costs for consumers can also include fees and other costs charged by lenders or brokers. However, there may be differences in average outcomes for men and women—such as for availability of credit or interest rates—if there are differences related to gender in the factors that determine creditworthiness, such as income. BCFP, FTC, the federal prudential regulators, and DOJ have the authority to investigate alleged violations of ECOA and are primarily responsible for enforcing the act’s requirements, while HUD and DOJ share responsibility for enforcing the provisions of FHA. Further, BCFP and the prudential regulators oversee regulated entities for compliance with ECOA by, among other things, collecting complaints from the public and through routine inspections of the financial institutions they oversee. HUD and DOJ have the authority to bring enforcement actions for alleged violations of FHA. In 5 out of 10 product categories we analyzed, personal care products targeted to women sold at higher average prices than those targeted to men after controlling for certain observable factors. For 2 of the 10 product categories, men’s versions sold at higher average prices. While the factors we controlled for likely proxy for various costs and consumer preferences, we could not fully observe all underlying differences in costs and demand for products targeted to different genders. As a result, we could not determine the extent to which the gender-based price differences we observed may be attributed to gender bias as opposed to other factors. Women’s versions of personal care products sold at a statistically significant higher average price than men’s versions for 5 of the 10 personal care product categories we analyzed—using two different price measures and after controlling for observable factors that could affect price, such as brands, product size or quantity, promotional expenses (see table 1) and other product-specific attributes (e.g., scent, special claims, form). Because women’s and men’s versions of the same product were frequently sold in different sizes, we compared prices using two price measures: average item price and average price per ounce or count of product. For 2 of the 10 product categories—shaving gel and nondisposable razors—men’s versions sold at a statistically significant higher price using both price measures. For one category (razor blades), women’s versions sold at a statistically significant higher average price per count, but there was no gender price difference using average item prices. Additionally, for two product categories—disposable razors and mass-market perfumes—there were no statistically significant price differences between men’s and women’s products using either price measure. In addition to this analysis of retail price scanner data, we also manually collected advertised online prices for a limited selection of personal care products targeted to women and men from several online retailers. Some price comparisons of advertised online prices for men’s and women’s versions of a product were similar to comparisons of average prices paid based on the Nielsen retail price scanner data. For example, for three pairs of comparable underarm deodorants, the women’s deodorant was listed at a higher price per ounce on average than the men’s deodorant (see app. II). In addition, for one pair of shaving gel products we analyzed, the men’s shaving gel was listed at a higher price per ounce on average. However, for both pairs of nondisposable razors we analyzed, the women’s razors were listed at a higher average price per count than the men’s razors. This contrasted with the Nielsen data showing that men’s nondisposable razors sold at higher prices on average than women’s. An important limitation of our analysis of these advertised prices is that we were unable to determine the extent to which consumers actually paid these prices and in what volume the products were sold, and our results are not generalizable to the broader universe of prices for these products sold at other times or by other online retailers. Though we found that the target gender for a product is a significant factor contributing to price differences we identified, we do not have sufficient information to determine the extent to which these gender- related price differences were due to gender bias as opposed to other factors. Versions differentiated to appeal to men and women can result in different costs for the manufacturer. Our econometric analysis controlled for many observable factors related to costs, such as product size, promotional activity, and packaging type. We also controlled for many product attributes such as forms, scents, and special claims that products make to account for underlying manufacturing cost differences. In addition, we controlled for brands, which can reflect consumer preferences. However, we do not have firm-level data on all cost differences—for example, those related to advertising and packaging. As a result, we could not determine the extent to which the price differences we observed may be explained by remaining cost differences between men’s and women’s products. We also do not have the data to determine the extent to which men and women have different demands and willingness to pay for a product, which would be expected to affect the prices firms charge for differentiated products. For example, some academic experts we spoke with said that women may value some product attributes, such as design and scent, more than men do. If products differentiated to incorporate those attributes do not result in different costs, then differences in prices could be part of a firm’s pricing strategy based on the willingness of one gender to pay more than another. The conditions necessary for firms to be able to implement a strategy of price differentiation likely exist for the personal care products we analyzed. First, our analysis suggests that due to industry concentration, there is limited market competition for the 10 personal care products we analyzed. With more market power, firms can more easily set different prices for different consumer segments. Second, firms have the ability to segment the market for personal care products by tailoring product characteristics related to gender, such as by labeling the product as women’s deodorant or men’s deodorant, or by altering scent or colors. Third, while men and women are able to freely purchase a product targeted to the opposite gender, certain factors may limit the extent to which this occurs. For example, some product differences such as scents may discourage one gender from buying products targeted to another gender. In addition, consumers may find it difficult and time- consuming to compare prices for similar men’s and women’s products because of the ways they are differentiated (such as product size and scents) and because they may be sold in different parts of a store. We reviewed studies that compared prices for men and women in four markets where the product or service is not differentiated by gender: mortgages, small business credit, auto purchases, and auto repairs. First, we reviewed studies on mortgage and small business credit that analyzed interest rates and access to credit to identify any differences for men and women. Second, we reviewed studies that compared prices quoted to men and women in auto purchase and repair markets. However, several of these studies have important limitations, such as using nonrepresentative data samples, and the results are not generalizable. Studies we reviewed found that women as a group pay higher interest rates on average than men in part due to weaker credit characteristics. After controlling for borrower credit characteristics and other factors, three studies did not find statistically significant differences in interest rates between men and women for the same type of mortgage, while one study found that women paid higher mortgage rates for certain subprime loans. In addition, one study found that female borrowers defaulted less frequently on their loans than male borrowers with similar credit characteristics, suggesting that women as a group may pay higher mortgage rates than men relative to their default risk. While these studies attempted to control for factors other than gender or sex that could affect borrowing costs, several lacked important data on certain borrower risk characteristics. For example, several studies we reviewed rely on Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA) data, which did not include data on risk factors such as borrower credit scores that could affect analysis of disparities between men and women. Also, several studies analyzed nonrepresentative samples of loans, such as subprime loans or loans originated more than 10 years ago, which limits the generalizability of the results (see table 2). Three of the studies we reviewed found that while women on average were charged higher interest rates on mortgage loans than men, this difference was not statistically significant after controlling for other factors. For example, one study found that differences in mortgage interest rates between men and women became insignificant after controlling for differences in how men and women shop for mortgage rates. The authors used data from the 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) to analyze the effect on interest rates of mortgage features, borrower characteristics such as gender, and market conditions. However, their analysis did not include data on some borrower credit characteristics such as credit score and debt-to-income ratio that could affect borrowing costs. Another study found that women were charged higher interest rates for subprime loans made in 2005, but once the authors controlled for observed risk characteristics there was no evidence of disparity in interest rates by gender of the borrower in the subprime market. However, the authors’ data did not include any fees paid at loan origination, which could affect the overall cost of borrowing. A third study that examined disparities between men and women in subprime loans found no significant evidence that gender affected the cost of borrowing within the subprime market, though it did find that women—particularly African American women—were more likely to have subprime loans. The authors found that, even after controlling for some financial characteristics and loan terms, single African American women were more likely than non-Hispanic white couples to have subprime loans. One study analyzed subprime loans made by one large lender from 2003 through 2005 and found that women paid more for subprime mortgages than men after controlling for some risk factors. This study found that women had higher average borrowing costs—as measured by annual percentage rate—than men, and controlling for credit characteristics such as credit scores and debt-to-income ratios did not fully explain the differences. However, the authors did not control for other factors that could also affect borrowing costs, such as differences in education, shopping behaviors, and geographic location. Additionally, a research paper found that female-only borrowers—that is, where the only borrower is a woman—default less than male-only borrowers with similar loans and credit characteristics. The authors found that female-only borrowers on average pay more for their mortgage loans because they generally have weaker credit characteristics, such as lower income, and also because a higher percentage of these mortgage loans are subprime. However, after controlling for credit characteristics such as credit score, loan term, and loan-to-value ratio, among others, the analysis showed that these weaker credit characteristics do not accurately predict how well women pay their mortgage loans. Since pricing is tied to credit characteristics and not performance, women may pay more relative to their actual risk than do similar men. Studies we reviewed on small business loans generally did not find differences in interest rates, though some found differences in denial rates and other accessibility issues between female- and male-owned firms. Most of the studies we reviewed used data from the 1993, 1998, or 2003 Survey of Small Business Finances (SSBF), which could limit the applicability or relevance of their findings today. A study that analyzed data from the 1993 SSBF did not find evidence that businesses owned by women paid more for credit than firms owned by white men. However, when the authors took into account the market concentration and competition, they found that white female-owned firms experienced increased denial rates in less competitive markets. In addition, the study found that women may avoid applying for credit in those markets because of the fear of being denied. For example, almost half of all small business owners who needed credit reported that they did not apply for credit, and these rates were even higher for businesses owned by women and minorities. Other studies found that women may have less access to small business credit than men, in part because of higher denial rates and because they may not apply for credit out of fear of rejection. For example, one study found that women-owned firms have higher loan denial rates compared with men; however, this is mainly due to differences in business characteristics of female- and male-owned firms. The authors also found that even when denial rates are the same for small businesses with similar characteristics, women’s loan application rates are lower, suggesting that women may be discouraged from applying for credit by the higher overall denial rates for female-owned firms. Another study by one of the same authors examined the reasons why female borrowers may be discouraged from applying for a business loan compared to male business owners and found that it was mainly because they fear that their application will be rejected. A third study by the same author found that women in general did not have less access to credit than men, though newer female-owned firms received significantly lower loan amounts than requested compared to their male-owned counterparts. Similarly, the study also found that women with few years of experience managing or owning a business received significantly lower loan amounts compared with men with similar years of experience. A fourth study looked at six different types of loans, including lines of credit, and found that white women were significantly more likely than white men to avoid applying for a loan because they assume they would be denied. However, once the authors’ model controlled for education differences, all gender disparities in applying for credit disappeared, though white women were still less likely than white men to have loans. Studies we reviewed on auto purchases and repairs found that a seller’s expectation of what customers are willing to pay and how informed they seemed can differ by gender, which can affect the price customers are quoted. However, these studies were published in 1995 and 2001, which may limit the applicability or relevance of their findings today. The 2001 study we reviewed on auto purchases found that though women paid higher prices than men for car purchases on average, these differences declined when cars were purchased online. The authors suggest that this may be because Internet consumers can effectively convey their level of price knowledge and therefore may seem better informed to the sellers. They also suggest it could be because the dealerships have less information about online consumers and their willingness to pay, which may limit the extent of price differentiation. The 1995 study on auto purchases found that the dealers quoted significantly lower prices to white males than to female or African American test buyers using identical, scripted bargaining strategies in part because dealers may have made assumptions about women’s willingness to bargain for lower prices. We also reviewed one study on auto repairs that found that women were quoted higher prices than men if they seemed uninformed about the cost of car repair when requesting a quote, but the price differences disappeared if the study participant mentioned an expected price. The study suggests that a potential explanation for this result could be that auto repair shops expect women to accept a price that is higher than the market average and men to accept a price below it. BCFP and HUD have responsibilities to monitor consumer complaints in the consumer credit and housing markets, respectively. Additionally, FTC monitors complaints about the consumer credit and consumer goods markets. All three agencies play a role in potentially monitoring or addressing issues of gender-related price differences and have online complaint forms for submission of consumer complaints: BCFP collects and reviews consumer complaints about financial products and services and provides complaints and related data in its Consumer Complaint Database. In 2017 BCFP received approximately 320,200 consumer complaints. The products that generated the most complaints in 2017 were “Credit or consumer reporting,” “Debt collection,” and “Mortgage." According to BCFP officials, BCFP also analyzes loan and demographics data collected through HMDA and other data sources to monitor and identify market trends. In addition, BCFP and the federal financial regulators examine fair lending practices of the institutions they regulate, and these examinations have uncovered sex discrimination in credit products by FDIC and NCUA. FTC receives complaints and the complaints are stored in the Consumer Sentinel Network, a database of consumer complaints received by FTC, as well as those filed with other federal and state agencies and organizations, such as mass marketing fraud complaints from the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The complaints in the Consumer Sentinel Network focus on consumer fraud, identity theft, and other consumer protection matters, such as debt collection, and can include complaints related to consumer credit markets. HUD receives consumer complaints about potential FHA violations through its website, via its toll-free phone hotline, and in writing. HUD monitors those complaints through its online HUD Enforcement Management System. HUD investigates all complaints for which it has jurisdictional authority. HUD may monitor complaints to identify trends, but HUD officials stated that the agency does not generally monitor consumer credit and housing market data, absent a specific complaint. In cases where HUD has jurisdictional authority under FHA, HUD offers conciliation between the parties. If resolution is not reached, and HUD determines there is reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred, the parties may elect to have the matter heard in U.S. District Court or at HUD. In their oversight of federal antidiscrimination statutes, BCFP officials said they have not identified significant consumer concerns about price differences based on a consumer’s sex or gender. FTC and HUD officials identified some examples of concerns of this nature. For example, FTC has taken enforcement actions alleging unlawful race- and gender-related price differences. HUD has also identified several cases where pregnant women and their partners applied for a mortgage while the woman was on maternity leave, and the couple’s mortgage loan application was denied. BCFP, FTC, and HUD have received few consumer complaints about price differences related to sex or gender, according to our analysis of a sample of each agency’s 2012–2017 complaint data (see table 3). In separate samples of 100 gender-related complaints at BCFP, HUD, and FTC, we found that 0, 4, and 1 complaint, respectively, were related to price differences based on sex or gender. Three of the complaints from HUD also cited differences in price based on other protected classes (such as race or ethnicity). Half of the academic experts and consumer groups we interviewed told us that in some markets it is difficult for consumers to observe and compare prices paid by other consumers, such as when prices are not posted or can be negotiated (e.g., car sales). In such cases, consumers may not know if other consumers are paying a higher or lower price than the price quoted to them. Most academic experts also told us that when consumers are aware that price differences could exist, they may make different decisions when making purchases. Additionally, officials from BCFP noted that price differences related to gender may be difficult for consumers to identify, or that consumers may not know where to complain. The consumer education resources of BCFP, FTC, and HUD provide general consumer education resources on discrimination (i.e., consumer user guide or a website) and consumer awareness. Officials from BCFP and HUD said they have not identified a need to develop other consumer education resources specific to gender-related price differences. For example, BCFP’s print and online consumer education materials are intended to inform consumers of their rights and protections related to credit discrimination, which includes discrimination based on sex or gender. The three agencies’ consumer education materials also provide advice that could help consumers avoid paying higher prices regardless of their gender—such as home-buying resources and resources on comparison shopping. However, the agencies have not developed additional educational resources focused specifically on potential gender- related price differences in part because few complaints on this topic have been collected in their databases, agency officials told us. FTC officials noted that it tries to focus its education efforts on topics that will have the greatest benefit to consumers, often determined by information it gathers through complaints and investigations. Representatives of five consumer groups and industry associations told us that they have received few complaints about gender-related price differences. However, four consumer groups noted that low concern could be the result of consumers being unaware of price differences related to gender. For example, as indicated above, price differences related to gender may be difficult for consumers to identify when they cannot determine whether they are paying a higher price than others. Representatives of two retailing industry associations similarly stated that they have not heard concerns about price differences related to gender. In response to consumer complaints or concerns about gender disparities in pricing, at least one state (California) and two municipalities (Miami- Dade County and New York City) have passed laws or ordinances to prohibit businesses from charging different prices for the same or similar goods or services solely based on gender (see table 4). In addition, two of these laws included requirements related to promoting price transparency. California enacted the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995, which prohibits businesses from charging different prices for the same or similar services based on a consumer’s gender. The law also requires certain businesses to display price information and disclose prices upon request, according to state officials with whom we spoke. Similarly, in 1997, Miami-Dade County passed the Gender Pricing Ordinance, which prohibits businesses from charging different prices based solely on a consumer’s gender (though businesses are permitted to charge different prices if the goods or services involve more time, difficulty, or cost). In the same year, it also passed an ordinance that prohibits dry cleaning businesses from charging different prices for similar services based on gender. This ordinance also requires those businesses to post all prices on a clear and conspicuous sign, according to county officials with whom we spoke. State and local officials we interviewed identified benefits and challenges associated with these laws. For example, California, New York City, and Miami-Dade County officials noted that these laws give them the ability to intervene to address pricing practices that may lead to discrimination based on gender. In addition, California state officials said that the state’s efforts to implement the Gender Tax Repeal Act helped to improve consumer awareness about gender price differences. However, officials from California and Miami-Dade County cited challenges associated with tracking relevant complaints. For example, Miami-Dade County’s online complaint form includes a narrative section but does not ask for the complainant’s gender. Consumers do not always identify their gender in the narrative or state that that was the reason for their treatment. Additionally, officials from California and Miami-Dade County stated that seeking out violations would be very resource-intensive, and they rely on residents to submit complaints about violations. We provided a draft of this report to BCFP, DOJ, FTC, and HUD. BCFP, FTC, and HUD provided technical comments on the report draft, which we incorporated where appropriate. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, BCFP, DOJ, FTC, HUD, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. We used a multivariate regression model to estimate the effect of gender (to which a product is targeted to) on the price of that product while controlling for other factors that may also affect the product’s price. The factors that we controlled for were the product size, promotional and packaging costs, and other product characteristics discussed in detail later. We used scanner data from the Nielsen Company (Nielsen) for calendar year 2016 and analyzed the following 10 product categories: (1) underarm deodorants, (2) body deodorants, (3) shaving cream, (4) shaving gel, (5) disposable razors, (6) nondisposable razors, (7) razor blades, (8) designer perfumes, (9) mass-market perfumes, and (10) mass-market body sprays. We estimated the following regression model for each of our 10 product categories: P=α+β*Male + λ* Size + θ*Owner +η*Promotion+ μ*X + δ*Y + ε The dependent variable P in the above equation represents price. For our analysis, we constructed two measures of price. The first is the item price, estimated as the total dollar sales of an item (each item is depicted by a unique Universal Product Code (UPC) in the Nielsen data), divided by the total units sold of that item. The second measure of price that we use is price per ounce or price per count. This is estimated as the item price divided by the total quantity of product, where quantity or size depicts the number of ounces (as in the case of fragrances) or the count of blades in razor blade packs. The total quantity of the product is the ounces or counts of one item multiplied by the number of items included in a specific product configuration. For example, a 2-pack of deodorant sticks where each deodorant stick is 2.7 ounces would be a total quantity of 5.4 ounces. The variable Male in the above equation is an indicator variable depicting whether the product is designated as a “men’s” product in the Nielsen data. It is represented as a value of “1” for men’s products and a value of “0” for women’s products. The co-efficient for this variable, parameter β, would therefore show the price difference between a men’s and women’s product. A negative value would imply a lower price for products designated as men’s products. The variable Size represents the most appropriate specification of the size of the product. Owner is a set of indicator variables representing all the brand owners selling a particular product. The brand of a product can be expected to have a substantial effect on prices for the kind of products we analyze because brands can be a proxy for quality for some consumers. However, we also found that firms often create gender-specific brands, so holding brands constant rendered most gender-based price comparisons infeasible. To overcome this, we hold owners instead of brands constant for our price comparison analysis. The variable Promotion represents the percentage of dollar sales that were sold on any type of promotion. This variable proxies for promotional costs to some extent based on the assumption that the greater the proportion of sales due to promotional activity, the greater the promotional costs. The variables X represent a set of indicator variables for packaging characteristics such as package delivery method (for example, roll-on or aerosol spray deodorants) or package shape (for example, bottle, tube, or can). We expect these characteristics to proxy for different costs associated with different packaging methods. The variables Y represent a set of indicator variables representing different product characteristics (for example, forms such as gel stick or smooth solid and claims such as “active cooling” or “anti-wetness” for underarm deodorants, and blade types such as “triple edge” and “flexible six” for razors). These product characteristics may proxy for some underlying manufacturing costs or even consumer preferences. Since firms may create gender-specific product attributes—scents like “sweet petals” and “pure sport” or razor head types and colors to differentiate products between genders—we did not always keep every product attribute constant when comparing prices. The idiosyncratic error term is represented by ε. All of our regressions are weighted, with the proportion of units sold for a particular item in that year as the weight. This is because, for personal care products, there are large differences in units sold of various product types and brands, and therefore it not useful to compare simple un- weighted average prices. For example, for one company the highest selling men’s deodorant stick sold almost 12 million units in 2016, and the highest selling women’s deodorant stick sold over 8 million units. The average units sold for underarm deodorants as a whole was just over 300,000 units, and 1,000 products out of a total of almost 3,000 products had less than 100 units sold in 2016. The linear model we used has the usual shortcomings of being subject to specification bias to the extent the relationship between price and each of the independent variables is not linear. The model also does not include complete data on costs, such as advertising and packaging, or consumers’ willingness to pay, both of which have an effect on the price differences. The model may thus also be subject to omitted variable bias. In addition, the model may have some endogeneity issues to the extent the product characteristics themselves are influenced by consumers’ willingness to pay for some of those product features. To reduce the impact of any model misspecifications or heteroscedasticity, we used the robust (or Huber-White sandwich) estimator. We estimated the regression model above for each of the 10 products separately and for each of the two measures of price. We used Nielsen’s in-store, retail price scanner data, which include information on total volume sold and dollar sales for items purchased at 228 retailers including grocery stores, drug stores, mass merchandisers (such as Target), dollar stores, club stores (such as Sam’s Club), and convenience stores. The data capture 82 percent of all U.S. sales. Nielsen also projects sales for the remaining noncooperating retailers, and that information is included in this dataset. We excluded some very small brands that did not have enough units sold from our regression analysis in order to avoid outliers. These brands usually had less than 50,000 units sold over the entire year, and for some products they represented less than 1 percent of all units sold. We found that average retail prices paid were significantly higher for women’s products than for men’s in 5 out of 10 personal care products. In 2 categories, men’s versions sold at a significantly higher price. One category had mixed results based on two price measures analyzed, and two others showed no significant gender price differences. A summary of our regression results is presented in table 5. We manually collected prices for 16 pairs of selected personal care products from the websites of four online retailers that also operated physical store locations. We selected comparable pairs of similar men’s and women’s products that were differentiated by product attributes, such as scent or color, and were sold at most or all of the four retailers. The products were selected based on several comparability factors such as brand, product claims, and number of blades in a razor. For two 1-week time periods in January and March 2018, we collected prices manually between 1:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. (ET) over two 7-day time periods. We collected listed prices and did not adjust the prices for any promotions that were available, such as online coupons or buy-one-get-one-free offers. Table 6 presents the results of our online price collection. These results have important limitations: The average prices shown are not generalizable to the broader universe of prices for these products sold at other times or by other online retailers. The data reflect prices advertised to consumers rather than the prices consumers actually paid. The data do not capture the volume of sales for each item for each retailer; in our analysis, we weighted all advertised prices equally across the retailers. As a result, differences we found within these advertised prices may not have translated into comparable differences in prices female and male consumers paid for these products online. The prices do not reflect any promotional discounts, volume discounts, or other discounts that may have been available to some or all consumers. This report examines (1) how prices compared for selected categories of consumer goods that are differentiated for men and women, and potential reasons for any significant price differences; (2) what is known about the extent to which men and women may pay different prices in, or experience different levels of access to, markets for credit and goods and services that are not differentiated based on gender; (3) the extent to which federal agencies have identified and taken steps to address any concerns about gender-related price differences; and (4) state and local government efforts to address concerns about gender-related price differences. To compare prices for selected goods that are differentiated for men and women, we purchased and analyzed Nielsen Company (Nielsen) data on retail prices paid for 10 personal care product categories for calendar year 2016. The product categories included underarm deodorants, body deodorants (typically sold as a spray), disposable razors, nondisposable razors, razor blades, shaving creams, shaving gels, and three categories of fragrances. We selected these categories of personal care products because they are commonly purchased consumer goods that were categorized by gender in the Nielsen data. The women’s and men’s versions of personal care products we selected are generally more similar in terms of the form, size, and packaging in comparison to certain other consumer product categories that are also differentiated by gender, such as clothing. We used regression models to analyze data on retail prices paid for the 10 categories of personal care products differentiated for women and men. To assess the reliability of the Nielsen data, we reviewed relevant documentation and conducted interviews with Nielsen representatives to review steps they took to collect and ensure the reliability of the data. In addition, we electronically tested data fields for missing values, outliers, and obvious errors. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. For more details on the methodology for, and limitations of, our analysis of these retail price data, see appendix I. We also manually collected listed prices for 16 pairs of selected personal care products from four different retailer websites over two 7-day periods in January and March 2018. For each pair, we selected comparable men’s and women’s products that were differentiated by product attributes, such as scent or color, and were commonly sold across retailers. For more details on our online price data collection and the limitations associated with interpreting the results, see appendix II. To examine what is known about the extent to which men and women may be offered different prices or access for the same goods or services, we reviewed academic literature identified through a literature search covering the last 25 years. To identify existing studies from peer-reviewed journals, we conducted searches using subject and keyword searches of various databases, such as EconLit, Scopus, ProQuest, and Social SciSearch. We also used a snowball search technique—meaning we reviewed relevant academic literature cited in our selected studies—to identify additional studies. We performed these searches and identified articles from December 2016 to April 2018. From these searches, we identified 21 studies that appeared in peer-reviewed journals or research institutions’ publications from 1995 through 2016 and were relevant to gender-related price differences for the same products. We reviewed and assessed each study’s evaluation methodology based on generally accepted social science standards. See the bibliography at the end of this report for a list of the 21 studies. We then summarized the research findings. A GAO economist read and assessed each study, using the same data collection instrument. The assessment focused on information such as the types of disparities examined, the research design and data sources used, and methods of data analysis. The assessment also focused on the quality of the data used in the studies as reported by the researchers and any limitations of data sources for the purposes for which they were used. A second GAO economist reviewed each completed data collection instrument to verify the accuracy of the information included. As a result, the 21 studies that we selected for our review met our criteria for methodological quality. We found the studies we reviewed to be reliable for purposes of determining what is known about price differences for the same products. However, these studies have important limitations, such as using nonrepresentative data samples, and the results are not generalizable. To examine the federal role in overseeing gender-related price differences, we reviewed relevant federal statutes and agency guidance, and interviewed officials from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). To help identify the extent of concerns about gender-related price differences, we interviewed representatives from eight consumer groups, three industry associations, and four academic experts. Additionally, we reviewed a sample of consumer complaints from databases managed by BCFP, FTC, and HUD (Consumer Complaint Database, Consumer Sentinel Network, and Enforcement Management System, respectively). Complaints were submitted by consumers across the United States about various financial products, housing grievances, and other consumer protection concerns. To identify our universe of gender-related consumer complaints in BCFP and FTC databases, we used the following search terms that targeted sex or gender discrimination: discriminat, unfair, treat, decept, abus, female, woman, women, man, men, male, gender, sex, female, woman, women, man, men, male, gender, and sex. HUD’s consumer complaint database is categorized by protected class (e.g., race, sex, national origin), so we did not need to use search terms to identify gender-related complaints. For the years 2012 through 2017, we identified 6,117 BCFP consumer complaint narratives; 10,472 FTC consumer complaints narratives; and 5,421 HUD consumer complaint narratives that were relevant to our scope. We then drew a stratified random probability sample of 100 gender-related consumer complaints from each database. To determine which complaints in our samples were about price differences related to gender or sex, two team members read through each complaint narrative and coded whether or not the complainant’s narrative indicated that they felt that they paid or were charged more because of their gender or sex. A third team member conducted a final review of the results, and made a final determination in cases where there were differences in the first two team member’s assessments. With this probability sample, each member of the study population had a nonzero probability of being included, and that probability could be computed for any member. We followed a probability procedure based on random selections and our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (with a margin of error of 5.9 percent). This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing documentation and interviewing agency officials about the databases used to collect these complaints. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes of identifying complaints of gender- related price differences. To explore state and local efforts to address concerns about gender- related price differences, we conducted a literature search and identified three state or local laws or ordinances that specifically address gender- related price differences: California, Miami-Dade County, Florida, and New York City, New York. We reviewed these laws and ordinances and interviewed officials from these jurisdictions to discuss motivations for, oversight of, and the impact of these laws. We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to August 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. For each of 10 personal care product categories we analyzed, we compared the overall average prices for women’s products and men’s products using two measures of average price: average item price and average price per ounce or count. While the second price measure adjusts the average price for quantity of product, these comparisons did not take into account the effect on price of differences in product brand, packaging, and other characteristics. As shown in table 7, adjusting the average item price to account for differences in product quantity (ounces or count) significantly affected the size and magnitude of gender price differences for several product categories. This is because men’s products in the dataset were frequently larger in size or count compared with women’s products in the same category. For example, women’s disposable razors sold for 11 percent less than those targeted to men when we compared average item prices. However, when we compared average price per count of razors, women’s disposable razors sold for 19 percent more on average than men’s. This is because women’s disposable razors had on average about one fewer razor per package. In 5 out of 10 product categories, women’s versions of the product on average sold for a higher price per ounce or count than men’s and these differences were statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level for 4 products and at the 90 percent level for one product. Information about sales and relative sizes of different products targeted to men and women are presented in table 8 below. This appendix provides additional details about the consumer complaint processes at the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Consumers with a complaint about unfair treatment related to gender could submit a complaint to one of these agencies. BCFP and FTC monitor consumer complaints related to violations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, while HUD and the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigate housing discrimination complaints under the Fair Housing Act. These complaints could be about price differences because of gender. Alicia Puente Cackley, (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. In addition to the contact named above, John Fisher (Assistant Director), Jeff Harner (Analyst in Charge), Vida Awumey, Bethany Benitez, Namita Bhatia-Sabharwal, Kelsey Kreider, and Kelsey Sagawa made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Abigail Brown, Michael Hoffman, Jill Lacey, Oliver Richard, Tovah Rom, and Paul Schmidt. We reviewed literature to identify what is known about the extent to which female and male consumers may face different prices or access in markets for credit and goods and services that are not differentiated based on gender. This bibliography contains citations for the 20 studies and articles that we reviewed that compared prices or access for female and male consumers in markets where the product is not differentiated by gender (mortgages, small business credit, auto purchases, and auto repairs). Asiedu, Elizabeth, James A. Freeman, and Akwasi Nti-Addae. “Access to Credit by Small Businesses: How Relevant Are Race, Ethnicity, and Gender?” The American Economic Review, vol. 102, no. 3 (2012): 532- 537. Ayers, Ian and Peter Siegelman. “Race and Gender Discrimination in Bargaining for a New Car.” The American Economic Review, vol. 85, no. 3. (1995): 304-321. Blanchard, Lloyd, Bo Zhaob, and John Yinger. “Do lenders discriminate against minority and woman entrepreneurs?” Journal of Urban Economics 63 (2008): 467–497. Blanchflower, David G., Phillip B. Levine, and David J. Zimmerman. “Discrimination in the Small-Business Credit Market.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 85, no. 4 (2003): 930-943. Busse, Meghan R., Ayelet Israeli, and Florian Zettelmeyer. “Repairing the Damage: The Effect of Price Expectations on Auto Repair Price Quotes.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 19154 (2013). Cavalluzzo, Ken S., Linda C. Cavalluzzo, and John D. Wolken. “Competition, Small Business Financing, and Discrimination: Evidence from a New Survey.” The Journal of Business, vol. 75, no. 4 (2002): 641- 679. Cheng, Ping, Zhenguo Lin, and Yingchun Liu. “Do Women Pay More for Mortgages?” The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, vol. 43 (2011): 423-440. Cheng, Ping, Zhenguo Lin, and Yingchun Liu. “Racial Discrepancy in Mortgage Interest Rates.” The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, vol. 51 (2015): 101-120. Cole, Rebel, and Tatyana Sokolyk. “Who Needs Credit and Who Gets Credit? Evidence from the Surveys of Small Business Finances”. Journal of Financial Stability, vol. 24 (2016), 40-60. Coleman, Susan. “Access to Debt Capital for Women- and Minority- Owned Small Firms: Does Educational Attainment Have an Impact?” Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, vol. 9, no. 2 (2004): 127-143. Duesterhas, Megan, Liz Grauerholz, Rebecca Weichsel, and Nicholas A. Guittar. “The Cost of Doing Femininity: Gendered Disparities in Pricing of Personal Care Products and Services,” Gender Issues, vol. 28, (2011): 175-191. Goodman, Laurie, Jun Zhu, and Bing Bai. “Women Are Better than Men at Paying Their Mortgages.” Urban Institute, Research Report (2016). Haughwout, Andrew, et al. “Subprime Mortgage Pricing: The Impact of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender on the Cost of Borrowing.” Brookings- Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs (2009): 33-63. Mijid, Naranchimeg. “Gender differences in Type 1 credit rationing of small businesses in the US.” Cogent Economics & Finance, vol. 3 (2015). Mijid, Naranchimeg. “Why are female small business owners in the United States less likely to apply for bank loans than their male counterparts?” Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, vol. 27, no. 2 (2015): 229- 249. Mijid, Naranchimeg and Alexandra Bernasek. “Gender and the credit rationing of small businesses.” The Social Science Journal, vol. 50 (2013): 55-65. Morton, Fiona Scott, Florian Zettelmeyer, and Jorge Silva-Risso. “Consumer Information and Price Discrimination: Does the Internet Affect the Pricing of New Cars to Women and Minorities?” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 8668 (2001). O’Connor, Sally. “The Impact of Gender in the Mortgage Credit Market.” University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Doctoral Dissertation (1996). Van Rensselaer, Kristy N., et al. “Mortgage Pricing and Gender: A Study of New Century Financial Corporation.” Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, vol. 18, no. 4 (2014): 95-110. Wyly, Elvin and C.S. Ponder. “Gender, age, and race in subprime America.” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 21, no. 4 (2011): 529-564. Zimmerman Treichel, Monica and Jonathan A. Scott. “Women-Owned Businesses and Access to Bank Credit: Evidence from Three Surveys Since 1987.” Venture Capital, vol. 8, no. 1 (2006): 51-67.

Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Answer: The principal federal program to aid municipal wastewater treatment plant construction is authorized in the Clean Water Act (CWA). Established as a grant program in 1972, it now capitalizes state loan programs through the clean water state revolving loan fund (CWSRF) program. Since FY1972, appropriations have totaled $98 billion. In 1996, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, P.L. 104-182) to authorize a similar state loan program for drinking water to help systems finance projects needed to comply with drinking water regulations and to protect public health. Since FY1997, appropriations for the drinking water state revolving loan fund (DWSRF) program have totaled $23 billion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers both SRF programs, which annually distribute funds to the states for implementation. Funding amounts are specified in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account of EPA annual appropriations acts. The combined appropriations for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure assistance have represented 25%-32% of total funds appropriated to EPA in recent years. Prior to CWA amendments in 1987 (P.L. 100-4), Congress provided wastewater grant funding directly to municipalities. The federal share of project costs was generally 55%; state and local governments were responsible for the remaining 45%. The 1987 amendments replaced this grant program with the SRF program. Local communities are now often responsible for 100% of project costs, rather than 45%, as they are required to repay loans to states. The greater financial burden of the act's loan program on some cities has caused some to seek continued grant funding. Although the CWSRF and DWSRF have largely functioned as loan programs, both allow the implementing state agency to provide "additional subsidization" under certain conditions. Since its amendments in 1996, the SDWA has authorized states to use up to 30% of their DWSRF capitalization grants to provide additional assistance, such as forgiveness of loan principal or negative interest rate loans, to help disadvantaged communities. America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA; P.L. 115-270) increased this proportion to 35% while conditionally requiring states to use at least 6% of their capitalization grants for these purposes. Congress amended the CWA in 2014, adding similar provisions to the CWSRF program. In addition, appropriations acts in recent years have required states to use minimum percentages of their allotted SRF grants to provide additional subsidization. Final full-year appropriations were enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2019 (P.L. 116-6), on February 15, 2019. The act provided $1.694 billion for the CWSRF and $1.163 billion for the DWSRF program, nearly identical to the FY2018 appropriations. The FY0219 act provided $68 million for the WIFIA program, a $5 million increase from the FY2018 appropriation. Compared to the FY2019 appropriation levels, the Trump Administration's FY2020 budget request proposes to decrease the appropriations for the CWSRF, DWSRF, and WIFIA programs by 34%, 26%, and 63%, respectively.