Overview

Terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. have significantly altered the priorities of the U.S. Congress and the Bush Administration regarding all legislative activity. As Congress attempts to get back to business after the September 11 attacks they face immense challenges. Several scenarios are being debated among party leaders regarding how to fund disaster relief and increased national defense efforts and still adequately fund all other discretionary federal government programs, including the environment.

Each year Congress must pass 13 appropriations measures to fund federal government programs including the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies bill which funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While some lawmakers are calling on Congress to pass one omnibus appropriations measure to fund all federal programs for fiscal year 2002 so Congress can adjourn for the year and focus on the nations war on terrorism, sources say this is unlikely since a few appropriations measures are essentially completed and can be signed into law quickly. Congress passed a continuing resolution September 26, 2001 which funds all government agencies at fiscal year 2001 levels until October 16, 2001. Congress will have to pass at least one more continuing resolution since the majority of appropriations bills have yet to be signed into law.

EPA Budget

The VA-HUD bill is one of the few bills that passed both the House and Senate prior to the terrorist attacks, although each chamber passed a different version of the bill. Sources on Capitol Hill say a conference committee with representatives of both chambers will meet soon to resolve the differences between the two versions and draft one bill to present to the President for signature. Both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development will play critical roles in the relief efforts and receive money from the VA-HUD Bill. However, sources say this will not have a significant impact on the amount of money allocated to EPA since Congress is providing for relief efforts in a separate appropriations measure which will not impact core EPA programs.

In fact, three Senators wrote a letter to the conferees on asking for more money for the Clean Water Act state revolving loan fund and "other water quality programs". Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Jack Reed (D-RI) and George Voinovich (R-OH) sent the letter September 19th in an effort to boost the SRF program for its $1.2 billion allocation in both the Senate and House version to the current fiscal year level of $1.35 billion. Overall the Senate bill allocates $7.8 billion for EPA while the House would allocate $7.5 billion.

Water Security

Other potential terrorist activities have prompted Congress to look closely at a 1997 report detailing several areas of the nation's infrastructure. The report, issued by then President Bill Clinton's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, states that U.S. water supplies and other infrastructure areas are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Water supplies are vulnerable to both structural damage and contamination, the report says.

As a result of the report Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD-63) in 1998, which called for a coordinated effort to prevent and respond to attacks on eight "critical infrastructure" areas: banking and finance, electric power, emergency services (such as fire and rescue, law enforcement, and public health), information technology, oil and gas, telecommunications, surface and aviation transportation, and water supply. Federal agency implementation of PDD-63 was inconsistent and few recommendations were implemented into the daily routine of protecting the nations infrastructure.

Since the Sept. 11 attack, the Bush administration and Congress has taken steps to coordinate and promote more security of the nation's infrastructure. During his address to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, President George W. Bush announced the creation of a new Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security to organize government efforts to protect against terrorism on U.S. soil. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge (R) will serve as the office's director and will coordinate information from 40 federal agencies and departments involved in guarding against, preparing for, and responding to potential attacks.

The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), held the first of several hearings on critical infrastructure areas on Sept. 12 and has scheduled several subsequent hearings to address various elements of U.S. infrastructure and how the government is prepared to protect its citizens. Committee staff confirm that water infrastructure will be a focus in one hearing or part of a hearing.

In the House of Representatives, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) announced Sept. 20 that a temporary congressional working group on terrorism has been promoted to full subcommittee status. The new Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Defense, under the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, is charged with working to identify and strengthen weaknesses in infrastructure and other institutions. It is expected to investigate specific infrastructure targets and the vulnerability of water facilities, nuclear power plants, and oil refineries, among other activities. Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) will chair the subcommittee and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) will be the ranking member.

In addition, the House of Representatives Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee held an October 10 hearing to examine threats to water and wastewater infrastructure. Ronald L. Dick, FBI Director of the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center told the that while the nation's water and wastewater systems are "interdependent and vulnerable", currently "there are no credible threats to any water distribution network." A second witness, Jeffrey J. Danneels of Sandia National Laboratories which performs infrastructure security research, agreed. "Contamination of large-volume water supplies such as reservoirs is considered difficult because significant dilution is highly unlikely."

However both witnesses stated they are not dismissing the possibility of water contamination. Dick stated, "The FBI considers all threats to attack the water supply as serious", and Danneels added "the most vulnerable point in our water infrastructure may be at water distribution systems, after the water has been treated." Later in the hearing, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) representative John P. Sullivan called on Congress to provide $100 million to water supply systems to conduct vulnerability assessments and $55 million more to enhance the emergency response plans for water systems.

Outside Washington, D.C., sources report security has increased significantly at drinking water facilities around the country. The federal government is providing grant money to the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA; Washington, D.C.) to develop a central information center for utilities to maintain "the smooth operation" of water infrastructure. The Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) was underway before the recent terrorist attacks, but attention to the center has accelerated in recent weeks. In addition to providing a background on federal government efforts to combat terrorism, ISAC will collect information on reports of attempts to contaminate or disrupt the nation's water supply; provide threat alerts, warnings, and vulnerabilities; and offer response and recovery suggestions. For more information on ISAC, access www.amwa.net/isac/ on the World Wide Web.

Water Infrastructure Financing

WEF is actively working with The Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), a non-partisan coalition of municipal, environmental, and engineering groups, which released a report in February entitled Water Infrastructure Now. The report recommends a series of legislative actions Congress should take to address a $23 billion per year gap between infrastructure needs and current infrastructure spending. This immense infrastructure gap first was identified by WIN in an earlier report, Clean and Safe Water for the 21st Century, released last April.

The current report details how the gap should be addressed, calling for a 5-year, and $57 billion federal investment in drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure to meet current mandates from clean and safe drinking water regulations. In addition, the report calls on Congress to establish a "formal process" to evaluate a longer-term approach to meet America's water and wastewater infrastructure needs after the initial 5-year investment.

WIN recommends that federal funding for water and wastewater infrastructure gradually be increased to $6 billion in fiscal year 2003, $9 billion in 2004, $12 billion in 2005, and $15 billion in 2006 and 2007. Current federal spending on water and wastewater is about $3 billion a year, including the clean water and safe water state revolving funds (SRFs). Altogether, the 5-year, $57 billion federal investment would cover about half the estimated capital funding shortfall. The remaining funds would be generated through a state matching program and local capital and operations and maintenance investments.

The Congressional appropriation would be restricted to "core infrastructure needs," such as drinking water and domestic wastewater supply systems, and wet weather runoff control systems and management practices, WIN suggests. In addition WIN recommends funding projects that "repair, rehabilitate, or replace treatment, collection, or distribution systems" and those that address public health or environmental emergencies.

Finally WIN suggests that Congress appropriate $400 million annually over the next 5 years for states to use to address program administration and existing Clean and Safe Drinking Water Act implementation costs. In addition, WIN recommends that Congress appropriate $250 million annually over the next 5 years to establish an Institute of Technology and Management Excellence, which would promote technology-based infrastructure improvements.

While no specific legislation on water and wastewater infrastructure financing has received much attention, chairman Jim Jeffords (I-VT) and ranking member Bob Smith (R-NH) of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are calling for increased funding for water infrastructure as part of an economic stimulus package to be introduced this year. In an October 9, 2001 letter to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS), Jeffords and Smith recommended between "$1 and $5 billion in Federal matching grants to states and municipalities for the purpose of upgrading" the nation's "clean water and drinking water infrastructure." While cautioning against long-term budget deficits, Jeffords and Smith wrote, "appropriate infrastructure investment can translate into a direct investment in our people, our communities and our future as a nation." Senate and House leaders, at the request of President Bush, are currently drafting legislation to stimulate an economy that has gone from stagnant prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, to an economy that many believe is now in a recession.

Farm Bill Conservation Measures

An amendment to the 2001 Farm Bill which would shift $1.9 billion a year from farm subsidies to conservation measures was narrowly defeated in the US House of Representatives October 4. The amendment, offered by Reps. Boehlert (R-NY), Glichrest (R-MD), Kind (D-WI), and Dingell (D-MI), was defeated 201 to 225. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Larry Combest (R-TX) and ranking member Charles Stenholm (D-TX) opposed the amendment primarily because it was not offered during the committee process and would be a major shift in agricultural policy.

Rep. Kind was the chief proponent of the amendment and contended the funds would help farmers with the cost of improving farm practices and installing buffers and other mechanisms to protect water and air quality. WEF, along with a coalition of municipal and environmental groups, supported the amendment as a way to provide incentives for farmers to address nonpoint source pollution. The House passed the 2001 Farm Bill October 5 without the amendment. However the Senate has said this is not the year to reauthorize the massive piece of legislation because of falling budget projections and the recent focus to address terrorist activities.

Superfund; EPA Cabinet Level Legislation; EPA Science Bill

As described above, Congress will not likely pass much, if any, discretionary legislation this session in order to focus on and fund national security efforts. However three pieces of legislation relating to the environment may have enough support to pass despite the current political climate.

Legislation to provide funding for cleanup and redevelopment of urban brownfields has received rare bipartisan support and awaits final passage by the House and Senate. H.R. 2869, the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, is a negotiated combination of a senate brownfields bill (S. 350) which passed 99-0 and a House brownfields bill (H.R. 1831) which passed 419-0. H.R. 2869 would provide $200 million annually to fund assessment and cleanup activities at brownfields and would help protect prospective purchasers of contaminated sites from liability.

In addition to broad congressional support, EPA has given its approval of the bill and both House and Senate leaders had hoped to pass the bill and present it to President Bush for his signature on September 25, 2001. However a last minute debate of whether Davis-Bacon Act (PL 88-349) would apply to the grant money has temporarily derailed the bill. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO) wanted assurances from EPA that the new legislation would be interpreted like the old superfund legislation that cleanup workers would be entitled to prevailing wages as described under the Davis-Bacon Act. According to sources, EPA has agreed to write a letter to this effect, however the letter was not submitted in time, so Gephardt moved to block final passage. It is still likely, according to sources, a deal can be reached, and superfund legislation will be signed into law this year.

A bill to elevate the EPA to cabinet-level status is gaining momentum and may receive enough support to pass this Congressional session as well. H.R. 2438, sponsored by Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) is the latest effort to create a department of environmental protection which would allow the EPA Administrator to be recognized domestically and internationally as a member of the President's cabinet.

While Rep. Boehlert feels the legislation has enough support to become law, he is concerned with attempts by congressional collogues to combine the bill with other legislation to create a chief scientist at EPA (H.R. 64) (see description below) and legislation to centralize data collection at EPA (H.R. 2694). Boehlert is supportive of these measures, but according to a recent press release, feels they are more controversial than a simple "elevation bill" and would only act to complicate action to pass the bill. The Senate is considering a S. 159 by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) which is similar bill to the Boehlert bill and has received bi-partisan support.

Finally, The House Science Committee unanimously approved legislation October 3 which would create a new high level office within EPA dedicated to ensuring environmental regulations are based on sound science. H.R. 64, the "Strengthening Science at the Environmental Protection Agency Act" was sponsored by Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) and creates a Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology at EPA. In addition the bill would require EPA to designate the current Assistant Administrator for Research and Development as "Chief Scientist". Both positions would require appointment by the President and consent of the Senate. Rep. Boehlert, chair of the House Science Committee, actively promoted the bill as a way for EPA to coordinate the various science offices within the Agency and to hold EPA more accountable for rules that are viewed to be based on politics as opposed to science. Similar legislation (S. 1176) was introduced in the Senate by Senators Voinovich (R-OH) and Carper (D-DE).