Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): FY2015 Appropriations
Released: 2015-02-19T00:00:00

Overview

EPA was established in 1970 to consolidate federal pollution control responsibilities that had been divided among several federal agencies. EPA's responsibilities grew significantly as Congress enacted an increasing number of environmental laws as well as major amendments to these statutes. Among the agency's primary responsibilities are the regulation of air quality, water quality, pesticides, and toxic substances; regulation of the management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes; and the cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist states and local governments in ensuring compliance with federal requirements to control pollution. Since FY2006, Congress has funded EPA programs and activities within the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. From FY1996 to FY2013, EPA's funding had been requested by the Administration and appropriated by Congress under eight statutory accounts. A ninth account, Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund, was added during the FY2014 budget process.

P.L. 113-235 ( H.R. 83 ), the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, was signed into law on December 16, 2014. The act included 11 of the 12 regular appropriations bills. P.L. 113-235 ( H.R. 83 ) provided a total of $8.14 billion for EPA in Title II of Division F—Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015. The total EPA appropriation for FY2015 is $249.9 million above the President's FY2015 request of $7.89 billion but $60.1 million less than the FY2014 enacted level of $8.20 billion.

No regular Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bills for FY2015 were passed by the House or Senate appropriations committees prior to the end of the fiscal year. However, the House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 5171 , and the Senate subcommittee released a chairman's draft that formed the basis for negotiating the enacted levels in P.L. 113-235 .

This report briefly summarizes actions on the FY2015 appropriations for EPA and presents a breakout of the FY2015 enacted appropriations for the agency by each of the nine appropriations accounts and by selected programs and activities within those accounts that received more prominent attention in the congressional debate. The discussions and tables presented in this report compare the FY2015 enacted appropriations for EPA to FY2015 levels proposed in the President's FY2015 budget request, the House committee reported bill and Senate subcommittee draft, and the FY2014 enacted appropriations.

The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (issued in the December 11, 2014, Congressional Record ) is the primary source of information presented in this report for the FY2015 enacted appropriations, the President's FY2015 budget request, and the FY2014 enacted appropriations unless otherwise specified. Information regarding the House committee reported bill is from the accompanying report H.Rept. 113-551 ; information regarding the Senate Subcommittee chairman's draft is from the accompanying explanatory statement.

Congressional Action

House Committee Reported Bill and Senate Subcommittee Draft

The House Appropriations Committee completed its markup of the FY2015 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill ( H.R. 5171 , H.Rept. 113-551 ) on July 15, 2014. Title II of the House committee reported bill would have provided a total of $7.48 billion for EPA, $407.3 million (5%) less than the President's FY2015 request of $7.89 billion, and $717.3 million (9%) less than the FY2014 enacted appropriation of $8.20 billion. No Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill providing FY2015 appropriations was introduced in the Senate. However, on August 1, 2014, the chairman and the ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies released a chairman's draft for FY2015 with an accompanying explanatory statement. Title II of the chairman's draft would have provided a total of $8.18 billion for EPA, $699.3 million (9.3%) more than the $7.48 billion in the House committee reported bill for FY2015, $292.1 million (3.7%) more than the FY2015 request of $7.89 billion but $17.9 million (0.2%) less than the FY2014 enacted level of $8.20 billion.

H.R. 5171 as reported included a number of provisions (Title IV General Provisions) proposed by the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies and an additional amendment adopted during full-committee markup that would have restricted or prohibited the use of FY2015 funds by EPA for implementing or proceeding with a number of regulatory actions. Amendments considered during House committee markup of the FY2015 appropriations that would have removed several of the funding prohibitions, including most of those affecting EPA, were not adopted. A subset of the provisions in the House committee reported bill, several of which were similar to those included in recent fiscal years' appropriations, were retained in P.L. 113-235 as discussed below (" Funding Restrictions/Prohibitions ").

For a description of provisions included in the House committee reported bill but not retained in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, P.L. 113-235 , see Appendix A of this report.

Continuing Resolutions

On September 19, 2014, President Obama signed into law the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015 ( P.L. 113-164 , H.J.Res. 124 ). Section 101 of the act continued appropriations for federal departments and agencies generally at FY2014 enacted levels minus a 0.0554% rescission. The continuing resolution (CR) was authorized until December 11, 2014, or until the enactment of FY2015 appropriations. Funding for EPA under the CR was subject to the authority and conditions provided in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014 (Division G, P.L. 113-76 ). Section 104 of the CR further stated that continuing funding for all federal departments and agencies cannot be used to initiate or resume any project or activity that did not receive appropriations for FY2014. H.J.Res. 130 ( P.L. 113-202 ), enacted December 12, 2014, extended the provisions of P.L. 113-164 through December 13, 2014, and H.J.Res. 131 ( P.L. 113-203 ), enacted December 13, 2014, further extended the provisions of P.L. 113-164 through December 17, 2014. P.L. 113-235 , the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, enacted December 16, 2014, established final funding levels for the full fiscal year through September 30, 2015.

Comparison of FY2015 Enacted, FY2015 Proposed, and FY2014 Enacted Appropriations

Table 1 presents the FY2015 amounts for EPA enacted under Title II of Division F of P.L. 113-235 compared to amounts approved by the House Appropriations Committee in H.R. 5171 , recommended in the Senate subcommittee chairman's draft, requested in the President's FY2015 budget request, and enacted for FY2014 for the nine statutory accounts that fund the agency. The FY2015 enacted appropriations included both decreases and increases compared to the amounts proposed for 2015 and the 2014 enacted levels for individual programs and activities funded within each of the EPA appropriations accounts not specified in the bill itself but identified in the explanatory statement as reported in the Congressional Record . The explanatory statement also provided direction to EPA in implementing various aspects of individual programs and activities in its report.

The administrative provisions in Title II of Division F of P.L. 113-325 included a rescission of $40.0 million from unobligated balances previously appropriated to carry out projects and activities funded through the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account. The provision further specified that no amounts are to be rescinded from amounts that Congress stipulated as emergency requirements pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Act of 1985. The President's FY2015 request had proposed a $5.0 million rescission of unobligated balances of prior EPA appropriations from the STAG account with the same restrictions. The FY2014 enacted appropriations did not include rescissions of unobligated balances of EPA prior fiscal years' appropriations, whereas EPA appropriations beginning in FY2006 through FY2013 did include them.

The following sections highlight funding issues associated with certain accounts and program activities that have been prominent in the debate on EPA's FY2015 appropriations.

Key Funding Issues

Concerns regarding EPA's FY2015 funding focused particularly on prioritization and adequacy of funding for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects; categorical grants to assist states in implementing federal pollution control laws; implementation of air quality and climate change regulations, research, and related activities; and federal financial assistance for environmental cleanup of Superfund and Brownfields sites. There was also interest in funding for geographic-specific water quality initiatives (e.g., the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay). In addition, several EPA regulatory actions received considerable attention during House and Senate oversight committee hearings, appropriations committee hearings, and House Appropriations Committee markup of the FY2015 appropriations.

Funding Restrictions/Prohibitions

EPA has proposed and promulgated a number of regulations intended to implement provisions of the various federal pollution control statutes enacted by Congress over time. Considerable debate over the past few years resulted in proposed legislation during the 112 th and 113 th Congresses. Some stakeholders and Members of Congress have expressed concerns that certain agency actions "overreached" the authority given it by Congress. Moreover, some reason that EPA's actions ignored or underestimated the costs and economic impacts of proposed and promulgated rules. Other Members, EPA, and some stakeholders have countered that EPA's actions are consistent with statutory mandates and in some circumstances are compelled by court ruling, that the pace of rulemaking in some ways is slower than a decade ago, and that costs and benefits are appropriately evaluated. Some states, industry groups, and environmental advocacy groups contend that in some cases EPA has not fully implemented its statutorily mandated authorities and that certain regulatory action has been delayed. Still others advocate that regulations should be stronger than those promulgated and proposed to more adequately protect public health and welfare and the environment.

Recently promulgated and pending actions under the Clean Air Act, in particular EPA controls on emissions of greenhouse gases and efforts to address conventional pollutants from a number of industries, have received much of the attention within Congress. Several actions under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Superfund financial responsibility, and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) have also received attention in the congressional debate.

The general provisions in Title IV of Division F of P.L. 113-235 included provisions restricting the use of funds for certain EPA actions similar to those contained in previous recent appropriations but incorporated only a subset of those included in H.R. 5171 as reported (see Appendix A ). A brief description of these EPA provisions in P.L. 113-235 follows:

Section 419 (Prohibitions on Use of Funds) continues a provision included in the FY2014 appropriations ( P.L. 113-76 , Title IV §420) and other previous fiscal years beginning with the FY2010 appropriations ( P.L. 111-88 , Title IV §424) that would prohibit the use of funds made available "in this or any other Act" to promulgate or implement any regulation requiring the issuance of permits under Title V of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Chapter 85, Subchapter V) to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor, or methane resulting from biological processes associated with livestock production. Section 420 (Greenhouse Gas Reporting Restrictions) continues a provision included in the FY2014 appropriations ( P.L. 113-76 , Title IV §421) and other previous fiscal years beginning with the FY2010 appropriations in P.L. 111-88 (Title IV §425), that prohibits the use of funds made available "in this or any other Act" to implement any provision in a rule if that provision requires mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from manure management systems. Section 424 (Use of American Iron and Steel) prohibits the use of funds made available by the drinking water state revolving loan fund (SRF) (provision does not explicitly specify that this applies only to those funds made available in this act) authorized under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300j–12) for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public water system or treatment works unless all iron and steel used in the project are produced in the United States unless otherwise exempted as specified in this section of the act. Section 425 (Funding Prohibition) prohibits the use of funds made available "by this or any other Act" to regulate the lead content of ammunition or fishing tackle under the TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) or any other law.

Wastewater and Drinking Water Infrastructure18

Historically, funding within the STAG account for grants to aid states and territories in capitalizing their Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) has represented a sizable portion of the total appropriations for EPA, ranging from one-fourth to one-third of the agency's funding in recent fiscal years. The combined total enacted amount for the Clean Water and the Drinking Water SRFs for FY2015 of $2.36 billion was the same as recommended in the Senate subcommittee chairman's draft and FY2014 enacted but $580.9 million (32.7%) more than the $1.77 billion proposed in the FY2015 budget request and recommended in H.R. 5171 as reported. P.L. 113-235 appropriated $1.45 billion for the Clean Water SRF capitalization grants and $906.9 million for the Drinking Water SRF capitalization grants for FY2015—$430.9 million and $149.9 million more than the $1.02 billion and $757.0 million requested by the President and proposed in the House-reported bill, respectively, as shown in Table 1 .

The SRFs help finance local wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, such as constructing and modifying municipal sewage treatment plants and drinking water treatment plants, to facilitate compliance with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, respectively. EPA awards SRF capitalization grants to states and territories based on formulas.

An ongoing issue for Congress has been the extent of federal financial assistance still needed to help states maintain sufficient capital in their SRFs to meet local water infrastructure needs. While expressing recognition of the importance of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water SRFs, some Members have contended that funding these accounts through regular appropriations is unsustainable, and during the 113 th Congress authorizing committees examined potential funding mechanisms for the SRFs that are sustainable in the long term. Some advocates of a prominent federal role have cited estimates of hundreds of billions of dollars in long-term needs among communities, and the expansion of federal water quality requirements over time, as reasons for maintaining or increasing the level of federal financial assistance. Others have called for more self-reliance among state and local governments in meeting water infrastructure needs within their respective jurisdictions.

Water Infrastructure in Geographic-Specific Areas

As in past appropriations, P.L. 113-235 also included funding within the STAG account for FY2015 to support other water infrastructure projects in two geographic-specific areas: Alaska Native Villages and the U.S.-Mexico Border region. The FY2015 amount for the construction of wastewater and drinking water facilities in Alaska Native Villages was $10.0 million, the same as proposed for FY2015 in the President's FY2015 request, the House committee reported bill, and the Senate subcommittee chairman's draft and enacted for FY2014. The FY2015 enacted appropriations included $5.0 million within the STAG account for wastewater infrastructure projects along the U.S.-Mexico border, the same as proposed in FY2015 in the President's request and the House committee reported bill and enacted for FY2014 but less than the $7.5 million recommended for FY2015 in the Senate subcommittee chairman's draft. See Table 1 earlier in this report for a comparison of FY2015 enacted appropriations for these other water infrastructure grants to funding proposed in the House committee reported bill, the Senate subcommittee chairman's draft, and the FY2015 President's budget request and included in the FY2014 enacted appropriations.

Categorical Grants to States and Tribes

P.L. 113-235 included $1.05 billion for the STAG account for FY2015 to support state and tribal "categorical" grant programs, the same as the FY2014 enacted level but $76.0 million (6.7%) below the President's FY2015 request of $1.13 billion. These funds are allocated among multiple grants generally to states and tribes to support the day-to-day implementation of federal environmental laws and regulations and to support various activities that address particular environmental media (air, water, hazardous waste, etc.). Implementation by states involves a range of activities such as monitoring, permitting and standard setting, training, and other pollution control and prevention activities. These grants also assist multimedia projects such as pollution prevention, pesticides and toxic substances enforcement, the tribal general assistance program, and environmental information. Categorical grants to assist states and tribes with the implementation of federal air quality requirements are discussed in more detail in the following section on " Air Quality and Climate Change Activities ."

Table 2 below presents the FY2015 enacted funding levels for EPA categorical grant programs compared to the President's FY2015 request and FY2014 enacted appropriations. Amounts proposed in H.R. 5171 as reported and the Senate chairman's draft are also presented in the table.

Air Quality and Climate Change Activities

Several EPA air quality and climate change activities received attention during the consideration of FY2015 appropriations. Many of these activities are associated with regulations under the Clean Air Act (CAA), in particular those that address GHGs. The agency's response to a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision finding that the CAA definition of air pollutants was broad enough to include GHGs remains a prominent issue in association with EPA's climate change activities. EPA's January 8 and June 2, 2014, proposed rules regarding GHG emission standards for new and existing fossil fueled power plants in particular have garnered considerable attention. The impacts of these and other CAA actions on various sectors of the economy have been a topic of multiple hearings before the appropriations committees and various other committees. Other recently proposed or promulgated EPA actions under the CAA that received some attention in the FY2015 appropriations debate included certain air quality issues regarding certain aspects of livestock operations.

P.L. 113-235 included two general provisions in Title IV of Division F preventing EPA from using any funds provided in the act ("or any other Act") for two specific air quality regulatory activities related to GHG emissions. Section 420 addresses regulations for the issuance of permits under Title V of the Clean Air Act that would govern GHG emissions from biological processes associated with livestock production. Section 421 addresses reporting requirements for GHG emissions associated with manure management systems. (See " Funding Restrictions/Prohibitions .") An additional general provision included in Section 435 of H.R. 5171 as reported that would have restricted funding to implement certain aspects of GHG New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for, or modifications to, existing fossil-fuel-fired electricity utility generating units (see Appendix A ) was not included in P.L. 113-235 .

Similar to the general provision included in Title IV of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 ( P.L. 113-76 , §419), Section 418 in P.L. 113-235 (Title IV of Division F) requires the President to submit a comprehensive report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees detailing all federal (including EPA) obligations and expenditures, domestic and international, for climate change programs and activities by agency for FY2014 and FY2015. EPA is one of as many as 17 federal agencies that have received appropriations for climate change activities in recent fiscal years. EPA's share of this funding is relatively small, but EPA's policy and regulatory roles are proportionately larger than those of other federal agencies and departments.

Appropriated funds for EPA's climate change and air quality activities are distributed across several program activities under multiple appropriations accounts. Because of variability in these activities and modifications to account structures from year to year, it is difficult to compare the overall combined funding included in appropriations bills with the President's request and prior-year enacted appropriations. However, comparisons can be made among certain activities for which Congress does specify a line-item in the appropriations process.

As presented in Table 3 , EPA "clean air and climate" activities constitute the single largest air quality program area funded within the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) and Science and Technology (S&T) accounts. The combined total of the two accounts enacted for FY2015 for this program area was $389.6 million—$34.6 million (8.1%) less than the President's FY2015 request of $424.2 million and $8.3 million (2.1%) less than the FY2014 enacted level of $397.9 million.

State and Local Air Quality Management grants are the single largest air quality activity funded within the STAG account. The FY2015 enacted appropriation for these grants in P.L. 113-235 was $228.2 million, the same as FY2014 enacted but $15.0 million (6.2%) less than the President's FY2015 request of $243.2 million. States use these grants to help pay the costs of operating air pollution control programs. Much of the day-to-day operations of these programs (i.e., monitoring, permitting, enforcement, and developing site-specific regulations) are done largely by the state and local agencies with Clean Air Act authorities delegated by EPA.

In the STAG account, the FY2015 enacted appropriation included $30.0 million for FY2015 for the Diesel Emission Reduction Grants program, $10.0 million (50.0%) more than the FY2014 enacted level of $20.0 million. The FY2015 President's budget request had proposed no funding. Of note, the FY2013 post-sequestration funding level was $18.9 million, and the FY2012 enacted level was $30.0 million. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-5 ) had provided an additional $300.0 million in supplemental funds for these grants in FY2009 for a total of $360.0 million in that fiscal year, much of which was awarded in FY2010. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 had originally authorized $200.0 million annually for these grants from FY2007 through FY2011.

The FY2015 enacted appropriations included funding for "Targeted Airshed Grants" within the STAG account to reduce air pollution in areas designated as nonattainment, which was proposed by the House Appropriations Committee in H.R. 5171 as reported. As specified in the explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 83 , the FY2015 Consolidated and Continuing Further Appropriations Act, these grants are to be distributed "on a competitive basis to non-attainment areas that EPA determines are ranked as the top five most polluted areas relative to annual ozone or particulate matter 2.5 standards." No funding was requested for these grants or included in the FY2014 enacted appropriations.

P.L. 113-235 included $8.1 million for state indoor radon (categorical) grants within the STAG account, the same as the FY2014 enacted amount. The President had not requested any funding to continue this program in FY2015. As in the FY2014 request, the President's FY2015 request proposed eliminating the radon grant program, noting the Administration's position that states and local agencies had established the necessary technical expertise and program funding in place to continue radon protection efforts without federal funding. Additionally, the President's FY2015 proposal to eliminate the radon program within the S&T and the EPM account was rejected in the explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 83 , although no funding for the radon program was specified in either account within the total appropriated for the Indoor Air and Radiation program area.

Cleanup of Superfund Sites

The Hazardous Substance Superfund account (hereinafter referred to as the Superfund account) supports the assessment and cleanup of contaminated sites administered under EPA's Superfund program. CERCLA authorized this program and established the Superfund Trust Fund to finance discretionary appropriations to fund it. As indicated in Table 1 , P.L. 113-235 included a total of $1.09 billion for the Superfund account for FY2015 (prior to transfers to other EPA accounts), the same as the FY2014 enacted appropriations and slightly higher than the Senate subcommittee chairman's draft but $67.8 million (5.9%) below the $1.16 billion total proposed in the President's FY2015 request and in H.R. 5171 as reported. Funding levels for the Superfund account have been declining each fiscal year since FY2010. Prior to that time, Superfund appropriations had continued at a level of approximately $1.25 billion annually for over a decade, with the exception of $600.0 million in supplemental funds provided for FY2009 in P.L. 111-5 .

Most of the funding within the Superfund account is allocated to the cleanup of sites that EPA has placed on the National Priorities List. Debate regarding the sufficiency of funding for the Superfund program has centered primarily on the pace and adequacy of cleanup at these sites. The source of funding for the program has also been an issue. There has been some interest in reinstating Superfund taxes on industry to help support the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund. Congress appropriates monies out of this trust fund to support EPA's Superfund program. The President's FY2015 budget request included a proposal to reinstate Superfund taxes beginning in tax year 2015 and ending in tax year 2024, which would be subject to the enactment of reauthorizing legislation. Superfund tax reauthorization legislation has been introduced in each Congress since the taxing authority expired at the end of 1995, including the 113 th Congress. Reauthorization legislation has not been enacted to date in any Congress since 1995. P.L. 113-235 did not include language to reauthorize Superfund taxes.

Brownfields

EPA also administers a separate Brownfields program to provide financial assistance to clean up sites not addressed under the Superfund program but where the known or suspected presence of contamination may present an impediment to economic redevelopment. Funding for EPA's Brownfields program awards two different categories of grants, one competitive and one formula-based. Section 104(k) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to award competitive grants to state, local, and tribal governmental entities for the assessment and remediation (i.e., cleanup) of eligible brownfields sites, job training for cleanup workers, and technical assistance. Section 128 authorizes EPA to award formula-based grants to help states and tribes enhance their own similar cleanup programs. These grants are funded within the STAG account, whereas EPA's expenses to administer the Brownfields program are funded within the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account.

Within these two accounts combined, P.L. 113-235 included $153.3 million for EPA's Brownfields program in FY2015: $25.6 million within the EPM account; and within the STAG account, $80.0 million for Section 104(k) grants (see Table 1 ) and $47.7 million for Section 128 grants (see Table 2 ). The program total for FY2015 is a $7.7 million (4.8%) decrease from the President's FY2015 request of $161.0 million, $10.4 million (6.4%) less than the $163.7 million included in the Senate subcommittee chairman's draft for FY2015 and in the FY2014 enacted appropriation but a $6.6 million (4.5%) increase above the $146.4 million proposed in the House committee reported bill.

Geographic-Specific/Ecosystem Programs

EPA's Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account includes funding for several ecosystem restoration and wetlands protection programs to address water quality and sources of pollution associated with environmental and human health risks, including those in a number of geographic-specific areas of the United States. The funding adequacy for these geographic programs garnered considerable attention during the FY2015 appropriations debate, as in previous fiscal years. Included are funding for the National Estuary Program (NEP) and Coastal Waterways program area and for certain specific water bodies including the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. These programs often involve collaboration among EPA, other federal agencies, state and local governments, communities, and nonprofit organizations. Table 4 presents the FY2015 enacted appropriations for EPA's ecosystem restoration and geographic specific programs compared to the FY2015 proposed funding levels included in H.R. 5171 as reported and the Senate subcommittee chairman's draft, the President's FY2015 request, and the FY2014 enacted amounts.

National (Congressional) Priorities

P.L. 113-235 included a total of $16.8 million for "National Priorities" within the S&T and EPM accounts for FY2015, roughly the same amount appropriated for this purpose for FY2014. As in previous fiscal years, the President's FY2015 request did not include funding for these priorities, which the Administration has characterized as "Congressional Priorities" because it has not sought funds for these purposes.

Of the $16.9 million total, $4.1 million was included within the S&T account for FY2015 for "Research: National Priorities." These funds are to be used for competitive extramural research grants to support high-priority water quality and availability research of national scope by "not-for-profit organizations who often partner with the Agency." The grants are to be independent of the Science to Achieve Results grant program. The grants are subject to a 25% matching funds requirement.

The remaining $12.7 million was included within the EPM account for FY2015 for "Environmental Protection: National Priorities." These funds are to be used for competitive grants to qualified not-for-profit organizations to provide rural and urban communities or individual private well owners with technical assistance to improve water quality or safe drinking water. The grants are subject to a 10% matching funds requirement (including in-kind contributions). Of the $12.7 million, $11.0 million was allocated for training and technical assistance on a national level or multi-state regional basis, and $1.7 million was allocated for technical assistance to individual private well owners.

Although Congress has dedicated funding for these "National" or "Congressional" priorities, they have not been categorized as earmarks by the House or Senate generally because the language would not direct the funding to one specific entity or specific location, and the funding would be awarded on a competitive basis. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees have adhered to an earmark moratorium during the 112 th and 113 th Congresses as put forth by the leadership in both chambers. This moratorium has generally precluded earmarks in annual appropriations bills for FY2011, FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014. The moratorium followed the adoption of definitions of earmarks in House and Senate rules.

While there is no consensus on a single earmark definition among all practitioners and observers of the appropriations process, the Senate and House both in 2007 adopted separate definitions for purposes of implementing new earmark transparency requirements in their respective chambers. In the House rule, such a funding item is referred to as a congressional earmark (or earmark ), while in the Senate rule, it is referred to as a congressionally directed spending item (or spending item ).

EPA Staff Level

Figure 1 below provides a trend in EPA's authorized "Full Time Equivalent" (FTE) employment ceiling from FY2001 through FY2014, and as requested for FY2015 as reported in the EPA FY2015 Congressional Justification. The FY2015 requested level of 15,325 is reportedly the lowest since FY1989. Information prior to FY2001 is available on EPA's Budget and Planning website at http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget . Also, in March 2000, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that EPA FTEs increased by about 18% from FY1990 through FY1999, with the largest increase (13%, from 15,277 to 17,280 FTEs) occurring from FY1990 though FY1993. From FY1993 through FY1999, GAO indicated that EPA's FTEs grew at a more moderate rate: less than 1% per year. As indicated in Figure 1 , with the exception of increases in four fiscal years, the general trend has been downward since FY2001.

Appendix A. Funding Prohibitions Proposed in H.R. 5171 as Reported but Not Retained in P.L. 113-235

A number of EPA regulatory actions and related issues were the focus of considerable debate regarding EPA's FY2015 appropriations. More than a dozen provisions directed at EPA were included in the general provisions in Title IV of H.R. 5171 as reported by the House Appropriations Committee, including several that would have prohibited or restricted the use of appropriated funds. As noted earlier in this report (see " Funding Restrictions/Prohibitions ") relatively few of the prohibitive provisions proposed in the House committee reported bill were retained in the Consolidated and Further Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 ). The proposed provisions, if enacted, generally would have restricted or prohibited the use of funds as appropriated in the bill (and in some cases "other Acts") to carry out certain EPA regulatory actions across the various environmental pollution control statutes.

The funding prohibitions proposed in H.R. 5171 but not retained in P.L. 113-235 would have impacted various ongoing and anticipated EPA activities, including EPA's proposed standards for reducing GHG emissions from existing and new (or substantially modified) stationary sources and a proposed rule intended to clarify jurisdictional issues and the definition of navigable waters under the Clean Water Act. Other provisions proposed in the House committee reported bill would have limited any EPA activities that would address lead-based paint removal, the definitions of the terms ''fill material'' or ''discharge of fill material" under the Clean Water Act, and financial responsibility with respect to Superfund cleanup. An amendment adopted during the markup would have prohibited EPA from using funds to finalize a rule entitled "Administrative Wage Garnishment" (79 Federal Register 37704 et seq., July 2, 2014).

Descriptions of selected provisions included in H.R. 5171 but not retained in the Consolidated and Further Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 ) are presented below. The following bulleted list is a summary of the language included in the House-reported bill, not an analysis of each, which is beyond the scope of this report.

Section 429 (Waters of the United States ) would have prohibited the use of funds made available in "this act" (referring to the bill as proposed) or any other act for any fiscal year to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or enforce a change or supplement to a rule or guidance documents pertaining to the definition of waters under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §1251, et seq.), including the provisions of the rules dated November 13, 1986, and August 25, 1993, relating to said jurisdiction and the guidance documents dated January 15, 2003, and December 2, 2008. Section 433 (Lead Test Kit) would have prohibited the use of funds made available by this act to implement, administer, or enforce the lead renovation rule under the "Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule" or any subsequent amendments to such regulations until the EPA administrator approved and publicized the agency's recognition of a commercially available lead test kit that meets both criteria under 40 C.F.R. 745.88(c). Section 434 (Financial Assurance) would have prohibited the use of funds made available by this act to develop, propose, finalize, implement, enforce, or administer any regulation that would establish new financial responsibility requirements pursuant to Section 108(b) of CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9608(b)). Section 435 (GHG NSPS) would have prohibited the use of funds made available by this act to propose, implement, or enforce (1) any standard of performance under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(b), CAA) for any new fossil-fuel-fired electricity utility generating unit if the EPA administrator's determination that a technology is adequately demonstrated includes consideration of facilities for which assistance is provided under Subtitle A under Title IV of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 or Section 48A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or (2) any regulation or guidance under Section 111(b) of the CAA establishing any standard of performance for emissions of any greenhouse gas (GHG) from any modified or reconstructed source that is a fossil-fuel-fired electricity utility generating unit or under Section 111(d) of the CAA that applied to the emission of any GHG from any existing source that is a fossil-fuel-fired electricity utility generating unit. Section 436 (Protection of Personal Information) would have prohibited the use of funds made available by this act by the EPA administrator to compile, publicly disclose, or compel the consent of public disclosure of any personally identifiable information of owners, operators, and employees of any livestock, poultry, or dairy operations unless such personally identifiable information was transformed into a statistical or aggregated form at the county level or higher unless the personally identifiable information or such information is voluntarily offered by consent of the owner, operator, or employee. Section 439 (Definition of Fill Material) would have prohibited the use of funds made available in this act or any other act to make any change to the regulations in effect on October 1, 2012, pertaining to the definitions of the terms ''fill material'' or ''discharge of fill material" for the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.). Section 441 (Funding Prohibition) would have prohibited the use of funds made available in this act or any other act to promulgate any rule that "identifies, lists, or treats" certain scrap metals or certain shredded circuit boards as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.). Section 443 (Wage Garnishment) would have prohibited the use of funds made available by this act to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the proposed rule entitled "Administrative Wage Garnishment" published by EPA in the Federal Register on July 2, 2014 (79 Federal Register 37704 et seq.), under which EPA would adopt procedures previously established by the Department of the Treasury for purposes of garnishment of wages to satisfy delinquent non-tax debt owed to the federal government.

Appendix B. Historical Funding Trends

Table B-1 presents the level of FY2008-FY2014 enacted appropriations for EPA by each of the agency's statutory accounts. EPA's funding over the long term has generally reflected an increase in overall appropriations to fulfill a rising number of statutory responsibilities. EPA's historical funding trends tend to parallel the evolution of the agency's responsibilities over time, as Congress has enacted legislation to authorize the agency to develop and administer programs and activities in response to a range of environmental issues and concerns. In terms of the overall federal budget, EPA's annual appropriations have represented a relatively small portion of the total discretionary federal budget (just under 1% in recent years).

Without adjusting for inflation, EPA's funding has grown from $1.0 billion when EPA was established in FY1970 to a peak funding level of $14.86 billion in FY2009. This peak includes regular fiscal year appropriations of $7.64 billion provided for FY2009 in P.L. 111-8 and the supplemental appropriations of $7.22 billion provided for FY2009 in P.L. 111-5 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. However, in real dollar values (adjusted for inflation), EPA's funding in FY1978 was slightly more than the level in FY2009.