DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND CERTAIN OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1977 MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1976 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTee of the Committee on APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room 1318, Everett McKinley Dirksen Office Building, Hon. William Proxmire (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Proxmire and Brooke. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR JOHN R. QUARLES, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR DR. WILSON K. TALLEY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ROGER STRELOW, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR AND ANDREW BREIDENBACH, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR STANLEY W. LEGRO, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT ALVIN L. ALM, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ROBERT V. ZENER, GENERAL COUNSEL ROBERT G. RYAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF LEGISLATION EDWARD F. TUERK, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT JOHN T. RHETT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EDWIN L. JOHNSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PESTICIDE PROGRAMS, OFFICE OF WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS GERALD A. BRYAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT ACCOMPANIED BY-Continued RICHARD REDENIUS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT M. C. PILZYS, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT G. THOMAS FRIEDKIN, DIRECTOR, BUDGET OPERATIONS DIVISION, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT STEPHEN J. GAGE, DIRECTOR, ENERGY, MINERALS, AND INDUSTRY, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PHYLLIS DALY, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND REVIEW, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET REQUEST Senator PROXMIRE. The subcommittee will come to order. Mr. Train, we are pleased to have you with us again today to discuss your budget request for fiscal 1977. This year you are asking for $718 million-$53,328,000 less in appropriated funds than you received from the Congress for your fiscal 1976 activities. Your major cuts would be in Section 208 areawide waste treatment planning grants, which would be slashed from $53 million to $15 million for a reduction of $38 million, and the clean lakes program, with EPA asking for no funding this year to continue a program Congress budgeted at $15 million last year. There are other offsetting increases and decreases. For example, you want $2,632,900 more to audit the construction grants program and $10.6 million more for water supply activities while you plan to eliminate your academic training grants program at a savings of $4,970,000, and cut back research and development by $7 million. Let me say at the outset that your budget justification is, to put it plainly, confusing and uninformative. Of course we have the problem I alluded to last year of going through a document that presents programs by media-air, water, solid waste, and so forth-while the Congress appropriates funds by function-research and development, abatement and control, enforcement, and so forth. But what I particularly object to is that your budget justification gives only incremental information. It does not tell us how much you are requesting for the elements of a given program. Let me cite an example. You want $96,427,000-this figure has been changed from $96,973,000 in the President's budget-for energy research and development. You tell us this will be $3,573,000 less than you received last year. But nowhere in the budget document does a further dollar breakdown occur. There is much descriptive material, but you don't attach any price tags. Frankly, Mr. Train, my inclination when presented with this kind of a justification is to assume the worst and act accordingly. Further problems are created by your reprogrammings from one account to another. For example the Congress provided $65,374,000 for agency and regional management. The summary table on Page III of your justifications shows a figure of $70,872,000 for this ac count, but a note at the end of the table indicates that this excludes a transfer of Environmental Impact Statement activities to Abatement and Control. If we include this transfer we end up with $62,083,000. In other words your numbers just don't have any relationship to what the Congress has appropriated. We will get into this aspect of your appropriations in the questioning. PREPARED STATEMENT Mr. Train, you may proceed to read your statement or summarize it, as you see fit. In any event it will be printed in the record in full. [The statement follows:] Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I welcome the opportunity to be here today to discuss our budget request for 1977. The President has requested $718.2 million and 9,550 positions for the fiscal year 1977 Environmental Protection Agency operating budget. This is a decrease of $53 million from our 1976 appropriations. This year's budget will, however, enable the Agency to continue most of its programs at current levels and increase some high priority pro grams. EPA has been given a comprehensive mandate to carry out under the environmental legislation. Even if we had all the resources we could wish, that mandate probably could not be fully achieved in all respects within the statutory timetables. We, of course, have not had and don't expect to have this optimal level of resources. We have had to perform the difficult task of meshing Agency budget needs with the realities of the National economic and fiscal situation. We realize that postponement of environmental programs could adversely affect the quality of life for future generations. As was the case last year, there have been two underlying principles followed in the development of our budget. First, we have redirected resources to meet pressing immediate requirements. We have also attempted to allocate resources among our programs to achieve the greatest amount of environmental protection possible from the dollars we spend. Second, we are continuing efforts to strengthen the role of State and local environmental agencies, as well as our own Regional Offices. In fact, one of the Agency's highest priorities has been to establish a full partnership with State and local governments in environmental programs. Increasingly, the Federal role must focus upon encouraging and assisting the development of joint Federal, State, and local decision-making processes that can enable the citizens of this country to come to grips with environmental issues. I am convinced that real and lasting environmental progress must substantially depend on State and local initiative and action. To the degree that the fiscal constraints permit, we have tried to adhere to our commitment of supporting State and local efforts through Federal technical and financial assistance. While the budget precludes substantial increases in financial assistance, we are expecting State and local governments to increase their environmental program responsibilities. Our budget does reflect a shift of EPA personnel from Headquarters to the Regions to increase direct support of State and local efforts. I would now like to highlight some of the more significant program proposals and budget changes which are reflected in our budget request. Air Our budget request for air programs is $142.8 million, a decrease of $2.9 million from 1976. This amount includes $83.1 million for abatement and control activities, $13.7 million for enforcement activities, and $45.9 million for research and development activities. The emphasis for 1977 in the air program will continue to be on the attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Significant progress has been made in reducing pollutant 66-566 (Pt. 3) O 76 46 |