The Environmental Protection Agency's FY2002 Budget

Order Code IB10086

CRS Issue Brief for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

The Environmental Protection Agency’s

FY2002 Budget

Updated January 23, 2002

Martin R. Lee

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS

SUMMARY

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

EPA’s Budget by Appropriations Accounts

Science and Technology

Environmental Programs and Management

Office of Inspector General

Buildings and Facilities

Oil Spill Response

Superfund

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

State and Tribal Environmental Programs

LEGISLATION

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS

CHRONOLOGY

IB10086

01-23-02

The Environmental Protection Agency’s FY2002 Budget

SUMMARY

On April 9, 2001, the President requested

$7.3 billion in discretionary budget authority

for the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) for FY2002, $512.0 million (or 7%)

less than the FY2001 funding level of $7.8

billion. The request would not have continued

funding of about $500 million for activities

earmarked for FY2001, and contained provisions shifting more enforcement responsibilities to the states. Popular wastewater infrastructure funding, state roles, and the future of

Superfund were some of the predominant

topics. On July 17, the House Appropriations

Committee recommended $7.545 billion, $229

million more than requested (H.R. 2620, H.

Rept. 107-159). The House passed the bill on

July 31. The Senate Committee reported its

bill S. 1216 (S.Rept. 107-43) on July 19,

approving $7.752 billion, the amount approved

by the Senate August 2. The conference agreement (H.Rept. 107-272) signed into law as

P.L. 107-73 on November 26 provides $7.90

billion. P.L. 107-118 (H.R. 3338, Division B),

the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Act,

provides $176 million in FY2002 supplemental

funding for EPA activities relating to security

threats.

The request consisted of $2.69 billion for

EPA’s operating programs, $3.3 billion for

state and local assistance, and $1.27 billion for

Superfund.

EPA’s appropriation request and the

appropriation bill are traditionally organized

according to different accounts. The $640

million requested for the Science and Technology account reflected a $55 million decrease;

the House passed $680.4 million, the Senate

$665.7 million; and the conferees approved

$698 million. The House action added $42

million to the $2.0 billion requested for the

Congressional Research Service

Environmental Programs and Management; the

Senate added $89 million; the conferees added

$54 million. The $1.27 billion requested, and

approved by the House, Senate and conference

actions, to clean up toxic waste sites under

Superfund was about the same as the FY2001

level. The Superfund request included, and the

conferees approved $97 million for the Brownfields program, slightly greater than FY2001

funding.

How to fund state and local wastewater

and drinking water capital needs, estimated as

high as $300 billion, was a major issue. The

request sought $3.3 billion for the State and

Tribal Assistance Grants account, $332 million, or 9%, less than FY2001 funding. The

request included $850 million for Clean Water

State Revolving Funds (SRF), and $450 million in new sewer overflow grants. Funding for

drinking water state revolving funds would

have been $823 million. For state and tribal

administrative grants, the budget sought $1.1

billion, $50 million more than current funding.

The House added $145.2 million to the

State and Tribal Assistance Grants account;

the Senate added $314.3 million; and the

conferees added $444.6 million. The conferees

did not fund the new $450 million requested

for sewer overflow projects. The House added

$350 million to the Clean Water SRF funds,

and provided $200 million for targeted grants

with no earmarks specified. The Senate added

$500 million for Clean Water SRF funds.

Conferees added $500 million for the Clean

Water SRF and provided $344 million for

congressionally-directed water projects. They

approved $850 million for the drinking water

SRF, and $1.1 billion for state and tribal administrative grants.

˜ The Library of Congress

IB10086

01-23-02

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

On April 9, 2001, the President forwarded to Congress the details of his $7.3 billion

FY2002 request for the Environmental Protection Agency. P.L. 107-73, the FY2002 VAHUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation Act, signed November 26, appropriated $7.9

billion for the agency.

P.L. 107-117 (H.R. 3338, Division B), the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Act,

appropriated $176 million in additional funds to assist EPA in its terrorist-related

activities.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

The FY2002 EPA request of $7.3 billion was about one-half billion less than the

FY2001 funding level of $7.8 billion. It sought fairly level funding for many EPA programs

and no funding for $500 million in activities earmarked for funding in the FY2001 conference

report (H.Rept. 106-988). At the May 9 House Appropriations hearing, EPA Administrator

Christine Todd Whitman noted that the budget “provides the necessary funds for the Agency

to carry out our mission efficiently and effectively - to protect human health and the

environment.”

Figure 1 depicts EPA funding by major categories since FY1983. Chief among them

for FY2002 are: $2.0 billion for program management, $641 million for science and

technology, and $1.27 billion for Superfund. Also under the proposal, funding would have

decreased by about 9% in the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account, which incorporates

wastewater/drinking water state revolving funds (SRFs) monies and traditional state program

assistance and management grants. The request for this account included $850 million for

wastewater SRFs, $823 million for drinking water SRFs, $450 million for new sewer

overflow grants, $75 million for Mexican Border projects, $35 million for special project

grants, and $1.1 billion for traditional grants to states for administering their programs.

The first major issue associated with the request was the absence of continued funding

for a number of FY2001 activities representing about $500 million, most of which was for

wastewater projects. Given their enormous popularity, it was likely that reinstatements, or

new earmarks, of much of this funding would be pursued during the FY2002 appropriations

process.

A recent issue has been funding EPA’s efforts following September 11. The House and

Senate have passed different funding levels in H.R. 3338, Division B, the FY2002 Emergency

Supplement Act, now in conference. The House passed $161 million; the Senate $126

million. The main difference between these versions is that the House funded drinking water

vulnerability assessments at $110 million while the Senate funded these activities at $34

million, the amount requested by the Administration.

CRS-1

IB10086

01-23-02

The FY2002 budget presentation, currently called the “2002 Annual Plan,” was the

fourth presented under provisions of the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA), which directs that a performance plan accompany the budget. On September 30,

1997, EPA submitted a GPRA-mandated strategic plan spelling out its mission and 10 major

goals and associated objectives. Its FY2002 budget justification is aligned with these 10 goals

and objectives. In a January 2001 report (Major Management Challenges and Program Risk.

Environmental Protection Agency. GAO01-257), GAO found that major problems continue

to confront EPA, especially (1) information management weaknesses, (2) human capital

problems, and (3) EPA-state relationships. The budget sought new state grant funds for

information technology and proposed shifting more enforcement to the states.

Figure 1. EPA Enacted Appropriations FY1983 - FY2002

State Assistance

Operating Programs

Superfund & LUST

$ Billion

10.00

7.36

7.59 7.56

7.81 7.90

6.67 6.88 6.64 6.60 6.53 6.80

8.00

6.09

5.30

6.00

5.54 5.53

5.06

4.18 4.37

3.70

3.68

4.00

2.00

0.00

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

EPA’s Budget by Appropriations Accounts

Traditionally, EPA’s budget has been presented, considered, and enacted according to

several major appropriations accounts. These accounts, including environmental programs

and management, science and technology, Office of Inspector General, buildings and facilities,

and oil spills, usually about two-fifths of EPA’s appropriation, are sometimes referred to as

the “operating programs” and reflect the heart of the Agency’s research, regulatory, and

enforcement efforts. Two trust fund-based accounts — usually about one-fifth of the

Agency’s appropriation –- are Superfund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank

(LUST) Trust Fund. All state supporting activities are reflected in the State and Tribal

Assistance Grants (STAG) account. About two-fifths or more of the Agency’s appropriation

CRS-2

IB10086

01-23-02

is usually allotted to this account. Table 1 shows the breakdown of EPA’s funding by

appropriations accounts.

Table 1. EPA Major Appropriations Accounts:

FY1999, FY2000, FY2001 and FY2002 Actions

(in millions of dollars)

Major

Accounts

FY99

P.L.

105276

FY00

P.L.

106-74

FY01

P.L.

106377

FY2002

Request

FY2002

HousePassed

FY2002

SenatePassed

FY2002

P.L.

107-73

Operating Programs

Science and

Technology

640.0

645.0

695.5

640.5

680.4

665.7

698.1

Environmental

Programs and

Management

1,848.0

1,895.3

2,087.9

1,973.0

2,014.8

2,062.0

2,054.5

Office of

Inspector

General

31.2

32.4

34.0

34.0

34.0

34.0

34.0

Buildings and

Facilities

57.0

62.5

23.9

25.3

25.3

25.3

25.3

Oil Spill

Response

15.0

14.9

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

15.0

Superfund

1,500.0

1,400.0

1,268.1

1,270.0

1,270.0

1,274.6

1,270.0

Leaking

Underground

Storage Tank

Trust Fund

72.5

69.8

72.1

71.9

79.2

72.0

73.0

State and

Tribal

Assistance

Grants

3,406.8

3,466.7

3,640.3

3,288.7

3,433.9

3,603.0

3,733.3

EPA Total All Accounts

7,590.4

7,591.7

7,828.9

7,316.6

7,545.4

7,751.6

7,903..2

Note: In FY2000, the conferees elected to fund the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and

the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) – a total of $130 million – independent of the Superfund

appropriation. The FY2002 Superfund request does not include funding for these two agencies, now funded separately.

This table shows the major accounts, omits minor accounts, but shows the total for all accounts. P.L. 107-117 (H.R. 3338,

Div. B) appropriated $176 million in additional FY2002 funds.

Within the many EPA programs, there were numerous issues with respect to

implementing and administering the media (air, water, etc.) protection programs, wastewater

treatment funding, and Superfund.

CRS-3

IB10086

01-23-02

Science and Technology

The Science and Technology (S&T) account incorporates elements of the former

research and development account (also called extramural research) as well as EPA’s inhouse research, development, and technology efforts. The FY2002 request of $640.5

million for the S&T account represented an 8% decrease when compared to the FY2001

funding level of $695.5 million. The House approved $680.4 million including five add-ons,

among them $30 million for a targeted environmental research grant program. The Senate

approved $665.7 million, including funding for 23 congressional directed activities. The

conferees approved $698.1 million, including funding for 52 add-ons.

EPA’s role in climate research and in the Bush Administration’s Climate Protection

Program (CPP), formerly the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI), has been an

issue. There was a proposed decrease in funds for climate change-related research under the

S&T account. EPA requested $153.8 million for all of its climate change activities (research

and programmatic activities) in FY2002, a 0.9%, or $1.5 million, decrease when compared

to FY2001 funding of $155.3 million. In the last several budgets, near doubling of climate

change funds was requested and denied by appropriators. About 30%, or $48.9 million, is

research-related and falls under the S&T account. (The remaining amount of $104.9 million abatement in nature - falls under the Environmental Programs and Management account.)

The S&T portion of the climate change request includes two research activities: 1) CPP

research related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and 2) non-CCP

research on climate change. The CPP portion of the request for the S&T account was $32.4

million, which would have been an increase of $3.0 million, or 10%, above the FY2001

funding level. All of this is for CPP research related to transportation activities and

greenhouse gases. The non-CPP portion of the climate change research request was $22.0

million, which would have been a decrease of $0.6 million, or 3%. (For a discussion of

climate change issues, see the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Climate Change

[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebgcc1.shtml].)

Environmental Programs and Management

The Environmental Programs and Management account — usually representing about

a quarter of the Agency’s resources — reflects the heart of the Agency’s regulatory, standardsetting, and enforcement efforts for various media programs such as water quality, air quality,

and hazardous waste management. The President’s FY2002 budget sought $1.97 billion,

which was $114.9 million, or 6%, less than the FY2001 funding level of $2.09 billion. The

House Committee recommended $2.01 billion, adding on $42 million for six earmarks. This

included $16 million in additional earmarked grant funds related to drinking water and $25

million for a targeted environmental grant program. On July 31, the House passed $2.01

million for this account. The House adopted an amendment increasing funding by $3 million

for registering and accessing pesticides. The Senate approved $2,062.0 for the Environmental

Programs account, $89 million more than requested. This included 51 congressionally

directed activities. On the floor, the Senate adopted the following amendment: Nelson (FL.)

Amendment No. 1228 (to Amendment No. 1214), to direct the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency to report to Congress on the safety of children's playground

equipment. This bill was approved by the full Senate on August 2. The conferees approved

CRS-4

IB10086

01-23-02

$2.05 billion for this account, specifying funding for 94 projects. Many controversial

regulatory/standard setting issues can be associated with this account. (CRS Issue Brief

IB10067, Environmental Protection Issues in the 107th Congress, discusses some of them.)

Both the House and Senate adopted similar provisions prohibiting funding to delay

national primary drinking water regulations for arsenic. In its version, the House provided that

EPA may not use funds to delay a January rule or to issue a rule that sets the standard above

a certain level. The Senate version directs EPA to immediately promulgate an arsenic standard

that protects sensitive subpopulations and that rescinds the postponement of the rule’s

effective date for water systems with arsenic below a certain level. The conference version

stated that none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to delay the national

primary drinking water regulation for arsenic. (For a full discussion of the arsenic rule and this

issue, see CRS Report RS20672, Arsenic in Drinking Water: Recent Regulatory

Developments and Issues.)

For FY2002, EPA requested about $153.8 million for all of its climate change activities,

roughly 68% of which would have been allocated for activities under the Environmental

Programs and Management account.

Congress has previously included climate change language in funding measures for many

agencies including EPA. The FY1999 Senate-passed budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 86)

included a sense of the Senate that “funding should not be provided to fulfill commitments to

limit greenhouse gases under the Kyoto protocol prior to Senate ratification.” The

conference agreement on the FY2000 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 68, H.Rept. 106-91)

contains in Section 329 a sense of the Senate assuming that no funds would be provided to

put the Kyoto Protocol into effect prior to Senate ratification. FY2000 bill language prohibits

EPA from using FY2000 funds “to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for

the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol.”

The FY2001 Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 290, H.Rept. 106-277) did not contain language

on the Kyoto Protocol. While making its FY2001 recommendations, Congress extended the

Kyoto bill language that was included in the FY2000 appropriations and denied the requested

increase for CCTI funds under this account. In approving FY2002 funds, the House

Subcommittee extended the Kyoto language. During full committee markup, the Kyoto

language was dropped.

Office of Inspector General

The President’s FY2002 budget sought, and congressional actions approved, $34.0

million for the Office of Inspector General, the same as FY2001 funding.

Buildings and Facilities

The FY2002 request of $25.3 million, the amount approved by Congress, for the

Buildings and Facilities account is $1.4 million more than FY2001 funding.

Oil Spill Response

CRS-5

IB10086

01-23-02

For EPA’s oil spill response activities, the President’s FY2002 budget sought, and

congressional actions approved, $15.0 million, the same as FY2001 funding.

Superfund

The FY2002 request sought $1.270 billion for Superfund, about the same as funded in

FY2001. Both the House, Senate and the conferees approved $1.27 billion. While taxing

authority to support the Superfund Trust Fund expired on December 31, 1995, it is

anticipated that monies will continue to be available into 2002. Also part of the President’s

FY2002 budget was a $97 million request for cleaning up certain urban sites, called

Brownfields, that have development potential; the conferees approved this amount.

Looking beyond 2001, GAO has estimated that by 2008, 85% of all non-federal National

Priority List sites will be cleaned up (Superfund: Information on the Program’s Funding and

Status). This will entail annual appropriations of $875 million through FY2008. GAO

estimates that it will cost between $8.2 billion and $11.7 billion for studies, design and

remedial work to clean up all remaining sites. On July 10, 2001, Resources for the Future

released its report Superfund’s Future: What Will It Cost? The report estimates that for fiscal

years 2000 through 2009, EPA will have to spend $14 billion to $16.4 billion on the

Superfund program

The President’s FY2002 budget did not propose renewing the taxes that support the

Superfund Trust Fund. The available balance of the fund has been declining since the taxing

authority expired on December 31, 1995. The balance of the fund on October 1, 2001, the

beginning of FY2002, will be $955 million which is expected to accommodate the requested

appropriation of $1.2 billion, half of which would come from the fund and half from general

appropriations. By October 1, 2002, the beginning of FY2003, the fund level would fall to

$539 million. During discussion of this at the May House Subcommittee hearings, the

Administrator of EPA stated “that obviously we are going to have to depend more and more

on general revenues.”

Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

The President’s FY2002 budget sought $71.9 million for the Leaking Underground

Storage Tank (LUST) program, which assists states in addressing substandard underground

petroleum storage tanks. After adopting an amendment to increase this account by $7.2

million, the House approved $79.2 million. The Senate approved $72 million, the amount

funded in FY2001. The conferees approved $73 million.

The status of state LUST programs is a significant issue. Many states are finding it

difficult to finance their programs. At the same time, the roughly $1.0 billion balance in the

Treasury’s LUST Trust Fund, from which the appropriation is actually made, has led some

to call for allowing greater use of the fund balance by states. (For further discussion, refer

to CRS Report 97-471 ENR, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Issues.)

State and Tribal Environmental Programs

The FY2002 request for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account sparked

controversy in Congress since the President requested $3.289 billion, $332 million (or 9%)

CRS-6

IB10086

01-23-02

less than FY2001 funding level of $3.6 billion. The House approved $3.434 billion; the

Senate $3.603 billion; and the conferees $3.734 billion. This account capitalizes popular clean

water and drinking water state revolving funds and other state assistance. The elements of

the STAG request include:

$850 million, as compared to the current level of $1.35 billion for State

Revolving Funds (Clean Water); however, $450 million for new sewer

overflow grants was proposed; the House approved $1.2 billion, the Senate

and the conferees $1.35 billion, denying the proposed $450 million for sewer

overflow grants.

! $823.2 million for State Revolving Funds (Drinking Water), the same as

FY2001 funding; the House, Senate and conferees approved $850.

! $74.8 million, the same as FY2001 and as approved by the House, Senate

and conferees, for Mexican Border infrastructure projects;

! $34.9 million for Alaska Native Village water infrastructure projects, the

current year funding; the House passed $30 million and the Senate and the

conferees $40 million.

! $1.1 billion, $50 million more than the current appropriation, for traditional

grants to states for their administration of various environmental programs;

the House added $23 million for these grant activities. The conferees

approved $1.1 billion.

! In addition, the House added $200 million for targeted infrastructure grants.

No specific earmarks were provided. In the Senate, the Committee added

$500 million to the Clean Water SRF request and specified funding for 105

specific projects. The President’s budget had requested no funds for

earmarked infrastructure grants for which Congress appropriated $357

million in FY2001. The conferees included $344 million for such grants.

!

The major capital needs that communities face for funding drinking water and

wastewater facility construction remain the chief issue associated with the STAG account. By

statutory design, the federal contribution to most of these needs has been through capitalizing

state funds from which states loan monies to communities. Since most localities are now

borrowing their funding, any remaining direct grants listed above for special projects have

become controversial. The total national needs remain great as EPA’s 1996 needs survey for

clean water SRF monies estimated remaining needs at $139.5 billion to $200 billion while

sewerage agencies estimate funding needs may be as high as $330 billion. EPA acknowledges

that funding needs exceed levels in the 1996 needs survey and is working on more current

assessments. The needs of small communities remain a special component of this problem.

A more recent estimate has further spotlighted the FY2002 water SRF request even

more. A stakeholder group, the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), in Clean and Safe

Water for the 21st Century, estimates wastewater and drinking water capital needs at around

$1 trillion and even more if operation and maintenance needs are added (they currently are

not eligible for federal assistance). WIN estimates that 20-year capital funding needs for

wastewater are about $460 billion and for drinking water about $480 billion. WIN foresees

a $23 billion per year funding gap: $12 billion for wastewater and $11 billion for drinking

water capital needs

CRS-7

IB10086

01-23-02

What was unclear from the request is how new sewer overflow grants could have been

funded under the requested funds. The Wet Weather Water Quality Act, (PL. 106-554,

Division B, Section 1112) authorizes a $1.5 billion grants program to reduce wet weather

flows from municipal sewer systems ($750 million annually in FY2002 and FY2003). It

authorizes these grants if the Clean Water SRF grants are funded at a level of $1.35 billion.

In response to questions at the House Appropriations Subcommittee’s hearings, the

Administrator acknowledged that the agency was “not meeting the language” of PL. 106-554

notably its $1.35 million threshold, and was “asking for flexibility.” The request was for $850

million in SDF funding and $450 for new overflow grants for a total of $1.3 billion. But, if

additional funds of $500 million were added during the appropriations process, the $1.35

billion level could presumably be reached. The House did not recommend the $450 million

for wet weather projects and funded the Clean Water SRF at $1.2 billion. The Senate and the

conferees funded the SRF at the $1.35 billion level but did not recommend the wet weather

funding.

For state administrative grants, the President’s FY2002 budget sought $1.1 billion, $50

million more than the FY2001 level of $1.0 billion. These grants fund state programs which

administer various environmental protection programs. All state grant programs would be

funded at current year levels. Under the budget proposal, three new areas would be funded:

$2 million for beach water quality criteria activities, $25 million for information exchange, and

$25 million for state enforcement grants. On the floor, the House adopted an amendment

increasing funding for beach testing by $3 million. The House added $23 million for state

administrative grants. The Senate Committee did not specify in its report the funding levels

for state grants.

The beach grants are intended to help the states meet provisions of new Clean Water Act

requirements on evaluating the quality of the nation’s beaches authorized in P.L. 106-284.

The proposed funding for state information exchange is part of a continuing effort to improve

the much criticized deficiencies in EPA’s information management capabilities. The grants

“will help the states and EPA create the necessary infrastructure to efficiently exchange

information electronically, which will reduce burden, improve accuracy and inform

decisonmaking,” noted the Administrator at the House Appropriations Subcommittee

hearings. The House funded the beach water quality grants at $10 million; the Senate at $2

million; and the conference agreement at $10 million.

Considerable interest has focused on the proposal to shift more enforcement

responsibility to the states. The budget anticipated $25 million in FY2002 for grants to state

enforcement programs. On this, Administrator Whitman stated: “This grant program will

benefit the national environmental enforcement program by providing states much-needed

funds to enhance their enforcement efforts in delegated environmental programs.” These fit

into the budget theme of assisting the states and shifting more authority to them. The budget,

according to the Administrator, “reflects a commitment to increase partnerships across

America to develop innovative environmental programs that ensure stewardship of our land,

air, and water for generations to come.” The other part of this, however, is that enforcement

resources at EPA headquarters will be reduced. At the House Subcommittee hearing, the

ranking minority member questioned the effect that headquarters reductions might have and

expressed concern that there were no assurances that the grant funding would continue

beyond FY2002.

CRS-8

IB10086

01-23-02

In approving FY2002 funds, the House Committee approved the Administration’s

funding plans, including the state enforcement grants program. The House rejected an

amendment to increase EPA enforcement funding by $25 million. The Senate action did not

approve the new grant program and specified that EPA enforcement levels were not to be

reduced under FY2001 levels. The conference version did not include the enforcement plan.

LEGISLATION

H.R. 2620 (Walsh)

Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent

Agencies Appropriations for FY2002. Subcommittee approval July 10, 2001. Full committee

approval July 17, 2001(H.Rept. 107-159). Passed by the House July 31, 2001. Passed by the

Senate August 2, after being amended with the provisions of S. 1216. Conference report filed

November 6, 2001 (H.Rept 107-272). Passed by the House and Senate November 8.

S. 1216 (Mikulski)

Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent

Agencies Appropriations for FY2002. Subcommittee and full committee approval, July 19.

(S.Rept. 107-43).

P.L. 107-117 (H.R. 3338, Division B)

Supplement Appropriations Act for FY2002. Reported November 19, 2001 by the

House Committee on Appropriations (H. Rept. 107-298). Passed House November 28, 2001.

Reported December 4, 2001 by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. (S. Report No.

107-109). Committee substitute ruled out of order by the Senate Chair, December 7, 2001.

Byrd/Stevens/Inouye Amendment Adopted December 7, 2001. Conference Report H.Rept.

107-350. Signed into law January 10, 2002.

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS

House. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on HUD-VA-Independent Agencies.

EPA’s FY2002 Budget Request. Hearings, 107th Congress. May 9 and 10, 2001.

Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. (To be printed)

House. Committee on Science. EPA’s Budget Request. Hearings, 107th Congress, 1st Session.

May 17, 2001. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. (To be printed)

House. Committee on Transportation. Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

EPA’s FY2002 Budget. Hearings, 107th Congress. 1st Session. May 2, 2001.

Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. (To be printed)

Senate. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on HUD-VA-Independent Agencies.

EPA’s FY2002 Budget Request. Hearings, 107th Congress, 1st Session. June 13, 2001.

Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office. (To be printed)

CRS-9

IB10086

01-23-02

Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. FY2002 Budget Request for EPA.

Hearings, 107th Congress, 1st Session. May 15, 2001. Washington, U.S. Government

Printing Office. (To be printed)

CHRONOLOGY

07-19-01

Senate Subcommittee and full Committee recommend $7.8 billion.

07-17-01

House Appropriations Committee recommends $7.5 billion.

07-17-01

House Committee on Appropriations approves $7.5 billion for EPA.

07-10-01

House Appropriations, Subcommittee on HUD-VA-Independent Agencies

recommends $7.5 billion.

07-31-01

House passes H.R. 2620

08-02-01

Senate passes H.R. 2620

11-6-01

Conference report (H.Rept 107-272) filed in House

11-8-01

House and Senate approved conference agreement

11-26-01

President signs H.R. 2620 as P.L. 107-73, appropriating $7.9 billion.

CRS-10