• Summary Table of Appropriations
• President's Request
• Appropriations Hearings
• Appropriations Homepage

Funding for the EPA is allocated to a number of environmental monitoring, compliance and research programs in the areas of clean water, clean air, land preservation, ecosystem restoration, and cleanup of hazardous substances. 

The House of Representatives considers funding for the EPA within the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. 

The Senate considers funding for the EPA in the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. 

• March 3, 2011: House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Hearing on Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request

House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request
March 3, 2011

Witnesses
The Honorable Lisa Jackson
Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Barbara Bennett
Chief Financial Officer, United States Environmental Protection Agency

Subcommittee Members Present
Michael Simpson, Chairman (R-ID)
Jim Moran, Ranking Member (D-VA)
Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Steven LaTourette (R-OH)
Tom Cole (R-OK)
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
José Serrano (D-NY)

Committee Members Present
Harold Rogers, Chairman (R-KY)
Norman Dicks, Ranking Member (D-WA)

Facing scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies during a hearing on the agency’s fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget request on March 3, 2011.

Chairman Michael Simpson (R-ID) began by saying that EPA has overstepped its boundaries in trying to achieve “too much too fast” in recent years and that the FY 2012 budget request does nothing to address this problem. He added that the budget request is not “a blueprint” for the reduction in federal spending the country must work to achieve.

Concerned with the 13 percent decrease in funding included in the FY 2012 request, Ranking Member Jim Moran (D-VA) called the proposed budget “too low,” though he admitted it shows fiscal restraint. He said that reducing funding to state and local authorities would delay improvements and maintenance on aging infrastructure, ignoring problems that will cost more money to address in the future.

Full committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-KY) criticized EPA for its recent actions and its FY 2012 budget request. “EPA is headed in the wrong direction,” he stated, saying its regulations under the Obama Administration have been a hindrance to economic growth. Rogers said Congress must work on “reigning in out of control spending” at agencies like EPA to get the economy back on track and people back to work.

Norman Dicks (D-WA), Ranking Member of the full committee, defended EPA’s FY 2012 budget proposal, calling it a “responsible budget request” that is in stark contrast to the Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 (H.R. 1) that the House passed in February. Dicks and Moran called the 22 EPA related amendments to H.R. 1 hostile to climate change research and mitigation, wetlands protection, mountain top mining regulation and toxic chemicals regulations.

Lisa Jackson emphasized the importance of EPA on America’s public health through enforcement of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Clean Water Act in her opening remarks. Reflecting the country’s financial situation, Jackson explained the FY 2012 budget request includes some “painful choices” that resulted in proposed cuts to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA).

Several members objected toEPA’s proposed cuts, saying the DWSRF and DERA are programs that have shown success and have bipartisan support. Jackson noted both programs still have grant money unspent from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

A portion of the questioning centered on EPA’s new greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations and efforts to mitigate climate change. Chairman Simpson said that EPA has spent too much money on climate change research and the “litany of overarching regulations” that kills jobs. Ranking Member Moran defended the regulations, saying representatives from private industry have told him they welcome the clarity the regulations would provide. Referring to members of Congress who do not accept the theory of man made global warming, Norman Dicks said “some people are turning their heads to the science.” He further told Jackson, “I think what you’re doing on climate change is absolutely essential.” “Don’t be intimidated,” Dicks concluded, “do your job.”

While several members said EPA’s regulations are costly and interfere with job creation and economic growth, others cited reports outlining the benefits of the Clean Air Act to human health and the economy. In 2010, the CAA prevented 160,000 premature deaths and 13 million lost work days, Jackson reported, and Ranking Member Moran added that the CAA is expected to save the country nearly $2 trillion by 2020 at an implementation cost of $65 billion. The CAA functions, therefore, as preventative medicine. It additionally fosters the air pollution control industry in America, which leads the world in production and results in a trade surplus for the nation, said Jackson.

Representative Betty McCollum (D-MN) offered an analogy to the current concerns that more regulations will be cumbersome. She said that EPA’s phase-out of chlorofluorohydrocarbons (CFCs) cost 30 percent less and was achieved in five years faster than expected. “People got it,” when it came to replacing their refrigerators and other products containing CFC’s, she said.

Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) expressed concern over possible environmental issues related to hydraulic fracturing, a common technique used during natural gas drilling. He mentioned a recent New York Times article that revealed that drilling wastewater with high levels of radioactivity is in many cases going through water treatment plants in Pennsylvania that do not test or treat for radioactivity. According to the article, the wastewater is then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water. Hinchey asked what EPA plans to do to address the issue and whether it plans to test the waters at risk. EPA will perform tests, Jackson said, but first wants to hear what actions the affected states plan to take.

EPA has announced it will conduct a study on hydraulic fracturing, or “hydrofracking,” and released a draft plan in February. Hinchey worried that the study’s scope is too narrow, and he said there have been “deliberate attempts to shield from the public concerns of scientists.” Jackson agreed the study needs to be done wisely, adding that EPA is working to make sure it is comprehensive by receiving comments from involved states. She elaborated that EPA knows natural gas is an important home-grown source of energy, but that it must be “sustainably and responsibly produced.”
   
Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) asked Jackson what EPA does that state agencies cannot achieve on their own. Scientific research is a priority at EPA, Jackson responded, and the agency has more money for research than states do. “You need very, very good science,” Jackson added.

-DLT

Sources: EPA website, hearing testimony, EPA budget briefings

Please send any comments or requests for information to the AGI Government Affairs Program at govt@agiweb.org.

Contributed by Linda Rowan, AGI Government Affairs Staff.

Last updated December 28, 2011