[Senate Report 106-410]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 801
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-410
======================================================================
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001
_______
September 13, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bond, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 4635]
The Committee on Appropriations to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for
sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations,
and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and
for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
Amount of new budget (obligational) authority
Amount of bill as recommended in House..................$101,269,836,000
Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... 107,507,953,000
Amount of appropriations to date, 2000.................. 99,190,610,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2001........................ 109,781,099,000
Under estimates for 2001............................ 2,273,146,000
Above appropriations for 2000....................... 8,317,343,000
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Division A--VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations, Fiscal
Year 2001
Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs.......................... 5
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development............ 31
Title III--Independent agencies:
American Battle Monuments Commission......................... 68
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board............... 68
Department of the Treasury: Community development financial
institutions............................................... 69
Consumer Product Safety Commission........................... 71
Corporation for National and Community Service............... 71
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.................... 75
Department of Defense--Civil: Cemeterial expenses, Army...... 76
Environmental Protection Agency.............................. 76
Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and
Technology
Policy..................................................... 102
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental
Quality.................................................... 104
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector
General.................................................... 104
Federal Emergency Management Agency.......................... 104
General Services Administration: Consumer Information Center. 112
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................ 113
National Credit Union Administration......................... 127
National Science Foundation.................................. 128
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................ 136
Selective Service System..................................... 137
Title IV--General provisions..................................... 139
Division B--The Housing Needs Act of 2000
Title I--Production of new housing for low and very low-income
families....................................................... 140
Title II--Section 8 success program.............................. 140
Title III--Preservation of low-income housing.................... 140
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 142
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 143
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 143
DIVISION A
INTRODUCTION
The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2001 provides a total of $107,507,953,000 in budget
authority, including approximately $24,581,866,000 in mandatory
spending. The Committee did its best to meet all important
priorities within the bill, with the highest priority given to
veterans programs and section 8 contract renewals. Other
priorities included maintaining environmental programs at or
above current year levels, ensuring adequate funds for our
Nation's space and scientific research programs, and providing
adequate funding for emergency management and disaster relief.
As recommended by the Committee, this bill attempts to
provide a fair and balanced approach to the many competing
programs and activities under the VA-HUD subcommittee's
jurisdiction.
The Committee recommendation provides $22,379,717,000 in
discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs,
an increase of $1,521,178,000 above the fiscal year 2000
enacted level and $17,178,000 above the budget request. The
Committee has made veterans programs the highest priority in
the bill. Increases in VA programs above the budget request are
recommended for medical research and the State home program.
For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
Committee recommendation totals $30,633,726,000, an increase of
$4,754,778,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The
Committee has provided significant funding for all HUD programs
while also providing the needed funding for all expiring
section 8 contracts. The Committee believes a balanced approach
to the funding of housing programs is key to meeting the
housing needs of low-income families.
For the Environmental Protection Agency, the Committee
recommendation totals $7,534,190,000, a decrease of $28,621,000
below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and an increase of
$257,591,000 above the budget request. Major changes from the
President's request include an increase of $550,000,000 for
clean water State revolving funds.
The Committee recommendation includes $3,515,977,000 for
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including
$2,609,220,000 in emergency contingency funds for disaster
relief.
The Committee recommendation for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration totals $13,844,000,000, an increase of
$243,181,000 above the fiscal year 2000 level.
For the National Science Foundation, the Committee
recommendation totals $4,297,184,000, an increase of
$400,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The
Committee views NSF as a key investment in the future and this
funding is intended to reaffirm the strong and longstanding
leadership of this Committee in support of scientific research
and education.
Reprogramming and Initiation of New Programs
The Committee continues to have a particular interest in
being informed of reprogrammings which, although they may not
change either the total amount available in an account or any
of the purposes for which the appropriation is legally
available, represent a significant departure from budget plans
presented to the Committee in an agency's budget
justifications.
Consequently, the Committee directs the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and the
agencies funded through this bill, to notify the chairman of
the Committee prior to each reprogramming of funds in excess of
$250,000 between programs, activities, or elements unless an
alternate amount for the agency or department in question is
specified elsewhere in this report. The Committee desires to be
notified of reprogramming actions which involve less than the
above-mentioned amounts if such actions would have the effect
of changing an agency's funding requirements in future years or
if programs or projects specifically cited in the Committee's
reports are affected. Finally, the Committee wishes to be
consulted regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, and
activities prior to the planned implementation of such
reorganizations.
The Committee also expects the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, as well as the
Corporation for National and Community Service, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, to submit operating plans,
signed by the respective secretary, administrator, or agency
head, for the Committee's approval within 30 days of the bill's
enactment. Other agencies within the bill should continue to
submit operating plans consistent with prior year policy.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Appropriations, 2000
$44,255,165,000
Budget estimate, 2001
46,918,665,000
House allowance
46,909,667,000
Committee recommendation
46,965,583,000
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Veterans Administration was established as an
independent agency by Executive Order 5398 of July 21, 1930, in
accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 1016). This
act authorized the President to consolidate and coordinate
Federal agencies especially created for or concerned with the
administration of laws providing benefits to veterans,
including the Veterans' Bureau, the Bureau of Pensions, and the
National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers. On March 15,
1989, VA was elevated to Cabinet-level status as the Department
of Veterans Affairs.
The VA's mission is to serve America's veterans and their
families as their principal advocate in ensuring that they
receive the care, support, and recognition they have earned in
service to the Nation. The VA's operating units include the
Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Benefits
Administration, National Cemetery Administration, and staff
offices.
The Veterans Health Administration develops, maintains, and
operates a national health care delivery system for eligible
veterans; carries out a program of education and training of
health care personnel; carries out a program of medical
research and development; and furnishes health services to
members of the Armed Forces during periods of war or national
emergency. A system of 172 medical centers, 829 outpatient
clinics, 134 nursing homes, and 40 domiciliaries is maintained
to meet the VA's medical mission.
The Veterans Benefits Administration provides an integrated
program of nonmedical veteran benefits. This Administration
administers a broad range of benefits to veterans and other
eligible beneficiaries through 58 regional offices and the
records processing center in St. Louis, MO. The benefits
provided include: compensation for service-connected
disabilities; pensions for wartime, needy, and totally disabled
veterans; vocational rehabilitation assistance; educational and
training assistance; home buying assistance; estate protection
services for veterans under legal disability; information and
assistance through personalized contacts; and six life
insurance programs.
The National Cemetery Administration provides for the
interment of the remains of eligible deceased servicepersons
and discharged veterans in any national cemetery with available
grave space; permanently maintains these graves; marks graves
of eligible persons in national and private cemeteries; and
administers the grant program for aid to States in
establishing, expanding, or improving State veterans'
cemeteries. The National Cemetery Administration includes 153
cemeterial installations and activities.
Other VA offices, including the general counsel, inspector
general, Boards of Contract Appeals and Veterans Appeals, and
the general administration, support the Secretary, Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretary for Health, Under Secretary for
Benefits, and the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $46,965,583,000 for the Department
of Veterans Affairs, including $24,586,126,000 in mandatory
spending and $22,379,717,000 in discretionary spending. The
amount provided for discretionary activities represents an
increase of $17,178,000 above the budget request and
$1,521,178,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The
Committee has given VA programs the highest priority in the
bill. Increases above the President's request are recommended
for medical research and State home construction grants. The
appropriation for VA will ensure the highest quality care and
services to our Nation's veterans, and honor and dignity to
those who are deceased.
Veterans Benefits Administration
compensation and pensions
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 2000
$21,568,364,000
Budget estimate, 2001
22,766,276,000
House allowance
22,766,276,000
Committee recommendation
22,766,276,000
program description
Compensation is payable to living veterans who have
suffered impairment of earning power from service-connected
disabilities. The amount of compensation is based upon the
impact of disabilities on earning capacity. Death compensation
or dependency and indemnity compensation is payable to the
surviving spouses and dependents of veterans whose deaths occur
while on active duty or result from service-connected
disabilities. A clothing allowance may also be provided for
service-connected veterans who use a prosthetic or orthopedic
device.
Pensions are an income security benefit payable to needy
wartime veterans who are precluded from gainful employment due
to non-service-connected disabilities which render them
permanently and totally disabled. Under the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990, veterans 65 years of age or older
are no longer considered permanently and totally disabled by
law and are thus subject to a medical evaluation. Death
pensions are payable to needy surviving spouses and children of
deceased wartime veterans. The rate payable for both disability
and death pensions is determined on the basis of the annual
income of the veteran or his survivors.
This account also funds burial benefits and miscellaneous
assistance.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $22,766,276,000 for compensation
and pensions. This is an increase of $1,197,912,000 above the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same as the budget
estimate.
The estimated caseload and cost by program follows:
COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:
Compensation:
Veterans........................................ 2,290,710 2,285,075 -5,635
Survivors....................................... 302,575 300,872 -1,703
Children........................................ 864 864 ................
(Clothing allowance)............................ (75,785) (75,598) -187
Pensions:
Veterans............................................ 372,635 363,060 -9,575
Survivors........................................... 266,101 252,898 -13,203
Minimum income for widows (non-add)................. (594) (562) -32
Vocational training (non-add)....................... (7) (5) -2
Burial allowances................................... 95,180 94,050 -1,130
=======================================================
Funds:
Compensation:
Veterans........................................ $15,421,550,000 $16,010,051,000 +$588,501,000
Survivors....................................... 3,522,325,000 3,600,000,000 +77,675,000
Children............................................ 9,499,000 9,734,000 +235,000
Clothing allowance.................................. 40,049,000 39,949,000 -100,000
Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508 and 102-568).... 1,388,000 1,266,000 -122,000
Medical exams pilot program (Public Law 104-275).... 26,324,000 28,390,000 +2,066,000
Pensions:
Veterans........................................ 2,342,253,000 2,366,889,000 +24,636,000
Survivors....................................... 707,003,000 683,070,000 -23,933,000
Minimum income for widows....................... 3,697,000 3,581,000 -116,000
Vocational training................................. 20,000 15,000 -5,000
Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508, 102-568, and 9,343,000 8,521,000 -822,000
103-446)...........................................
Payment to Medical Care (Public Laws 101-508 and 102- 5,018,000 7,632,000 +2,614,000
568)...............................................
Payment to Medical Facilities (non- add)............ (2,879,000) (3,027,000) +148,000
Burial benefits..................................... 126,293,000 129,681,000 +3,388,000
Other assistance.................................... 3,406,000 3,413,000 +7,000
Contingency......................................... ................. ................. ................
Unobligated balance and transfers................... -649,804,000 -125,916,000 +523,888,000
-------------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation............................... 21,568,364,000 22,766,276,000 +1,197,912,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appropriation includes $17,419,000 in payments to the
``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' accounts
for expenses related to implementing provisions of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, the Veterans' Benefits Act
of 1992, the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, and
the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1996. The amount
also includes funds for a projected fiscal year 2001 cost-of-
living increase of 2.5 percent for pension recipients.
The bill includes language permitting this appropriation to
reimburse such sums as may be earned, estimated at $3,027,000,
to the medical facilities revolving fund to help defray the
operating expenses of individual medical facilities for nursing
home care provided to pensioners, should authorizing
legislation be enacted.
The Committee has not included language proposed by the
administration that would provide indefinite fiscal year 2001
supplemental appropriations after June 30, 2001 for
compensation and pensions. The Committee has also rejected
proposed bill language to split this account into three
separate appropriation accounts.
The Committee is aware that the current Veterans Burial
Plot Interment Allowance is $150 per burial, and has not been
increased for decades. While the Veterans Burial Plot Interment
Allowance was not intended to cover the full cost of burial
expenses, it appears that the current allowance does not
reflect the increasing costs of burials for veterans.
Therefore, the Committee directs the VA to study the current
allowance to determine: (1) if it is adequate to meet burial
expenses for veterans; (2) whether an increase in the allowance
is warranted; and (3) what increase would be necessary to keep
pace with the rising cost of burials, and to report back to the
Congress by March 1, 2001.
readjustment benefits
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,469,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 1,634,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,664,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,634,000,000
program description
The readjustment benefits appropriation finances the
education and training of veterans and servicepersons whose
initial entry on active duty took place on or after July 1,
1985. These benefits are included in the All-Volunteer Force
Educational Assistance Program (Montgomery GI bill) authorized
under 38 U.S.C. 30. Eligibility to receive this assistance
began in 1987. Basic benefits are funded through appropriations
made to the readjustment benefits appropriation and transfers
from the Department of Defense. Supplemental benefits are also
provided to certain veterans and this funding is available from
transfers from the Department of Defense. This account also
finances vocational rehabilitation, specially adapted housing
grants, automobile grants with the associated approved adaptive
equipment for certain disabled veterans, and finances
educational assistance allowances for eligible dependents of
those veterans who died from service-connected causes or have a
total permanent service-connected disability as well as
dependents of servicepersons who were captured or missing in
action.
committee recommendation
The Committee has recommended the budget estimate of
$1,634,000,000 for readjustment benefits. The amount
recommended is an increase of $165,000,000 above the fiscal
year 2000 enacted level.
The estimated caseload and cost for this account follows:
READJUSTMENT BENEFITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of trainees:
Education and training: dependents.................... 46,420 48,530 +2,110
All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
Veterans and servicepersons....................... 279,100 309,300 +30,200
Reservists........................................ 71,300 70,900 -400
Vocational rehabilitation............................. 51,630 50,985 -645
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 448,450 479,715 +31,265
=====================================================
Funds:
Education and training: Dependents.................... $141,806,000 $148,148,000 +$6,342,000
All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
Veterans and servicepersons....................... 890,736,000 1,118,903,000 +228,167,000
Reservists........................................ 100,860,000 105,875,000 +5,015,000
Vocational rehabilitation............................. 416,718,000 391,887,000 -24,831,000
Housing grants........................................ 21,065,000 21,065,000 ................
Automobiles and other conveyances..................... 7,589,000 7,589,000 ................
Adaptive equipment.................................... 23,700,000 23,600,000 -100,000
Work-study............................................ 33,400,000 35,100,000 +1,700,000
Payment to States..................................... 13,000,000 13,000,000 ................
Reporting fees........................................ 3,530,000 3,771,000 +241,000
Unobligated balance and other adjust- ments.......... -183,404,000 -234,938,000 -51,534,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation............................... 1,469,000,000 1,634,000,000 +165,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has included bill language as proposed by the
administration, which ensures that all administrative services
are charged to the general operating expenses appropriation.
veterans insurance and indemnities
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $28,670,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 19,850,000
House allowance......................................... 19,850,000
Committee recommendation................................ 19,850,000
program description
The veterans insurance and indemnities appropriation is
made up of the former appropriations for military and naval
insurance, applicable to World War I veterans; National Service
Life Insurance, applicable to certain World War II veterans;
Servicemen's indemnities, applicable to Korean conflict
veterans; and veterans mortgage life insurance to individuals
who have received a grant for specially adapted housing.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $19,850,000 for veterans
insurance and indemnities, as requested by the administration.
This is a decrease of $8,820,000 below the fiscal year 2000
enacted level. The Department estimates there will be 4,353,921
policies in force in fiscal year 2001 with a value of nearly
$447,000,000,000.
VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Program account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000.................. $282,342,000 $156,958,000
Budget estimate, 2001................. 165,740,000 166,484,000
House allowance....................... 165,740,000 161,484,000
Committee recommendation.............. 165,740,000 162,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides for all costs, with the
exception of the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program,
of VA's direct and guaranteed loans, as well as the
administrative expenses to carry out these programs, which may
be transferred to and merged with the general operating
expenses appropriation.
VA loan guaranties are made to service members, veterans,
reservists and unremarried surviving spouses for the purchase
of homes, condominiums, manufactured homes and for refinancing
loans. VA guarantees part of the total loan, permitting the
purchaser to obtain a mortgage with a competitive interest
rate, even without a downpayment if the lender agrees. VA
requires that a downpayment be made for a manufactured home.
With a VA guaranty, the lender is protected against loss up to
the amount of the guaranty if the borrower fails to repay the
loan.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends such sums as may be necessary for
funding subsidy payments, estimated to total $165,740,000, and
$162,000,000 for administrative expenses. The administrative
expenses may be transferred to the ``General operating
expenses'' account. Bill language limits gross obligations for
direct loans for specially adapted housing to $300,000.
The reduction of $4,484,000 below the budget request is to
be taken from lower priority electronic initiatives.
education loan fund program account
(including transfer of funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000.................... $1,000 $214,000
Budget estimate, 2001................... 1,000 220,000
House allowance......................... 1,000 220,000
Committee recommendation................ 1,000 220,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
This appropriation covers the cost of direct loans for
eligible dependents and, in addition, it includes
administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct loan
program. The administrative funds may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for the general operating
expenses to cover the common overhead expenses.
committee recommendation
The bill includes $1,000 for funding subsidy program costs
and $220,000 for administrative expenses. The administrative
expenses may be transferred to and merged with the ``General
operating expenses'' account. Bill language is included
limiting program direct loans to $3,400.
vocational rehabilitation loans program account
(including transfer of funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000.................... $57,000 415,000
Budget estimate, 2001................... 52,000 432,000
House allowance......................... 52,000 432,000
Committee recommendation................ 52,000 432,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
This appropriation covers the funding subsidy cost of
direct loans for vocational rehabilitation of eligible veterans
and, in addition, it includes administrative expenses necessary
to carry out the direct loan program. Loans of up to $841
(based on indexed chapter 31 subsistence allowance rate) are
available to service-connected disabled veterans enrolled in
vocational rehabilitation programs as provided under 38 U.S.C.
chapter 31 when the veteran is temporarily in need of
additional assistance. Repayment is made in 10 monthly
installments, without interest, through deductions from future
payments of compensation, pension, subsistence allowance,
educational assistance allowance, or retirement pay.
committee recommendation
The bill includes the requested $52,000 for program costs
and $432,000 for administrative expenses for the Vocational
Rehabilitation Loans Program account. The administrative
expenses may be transferred to and merged with the ``General
operating expenses'' account. Bill language is included
limiting program direct loans to $2,726,000. It is estimated
that VA will make 4,700 loans in fiscal year 2001, with an
average amount of $580.
native american veteran housing loan program account
(including transfer of funds)
Administrative
expenses
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $520,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 532,000
House allowance......................................... 532,000
Committee recommendation................................ 532,000
program description
This program will test the feasibility of enabling VA to
make direct home loans to native American veterans who live on
U.S. trust lands. It is a pilot program that began in 1993 and
expires on December 31, 2001. Subsidy amounts necessary to
support this program were appropriated in fiscal year 1993.
committee recommendation
The bill includes the budget estimate of $532,000 for
administrative expenses associated with this program in fiscal
year 2001. These funds may be transferred to the ``General
operating expenses'' account.
GUARANTEED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOANS FOR HOMELESS VETERANS PROGRAM
ACCOUNT
(including transfer of funds)
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This program was established by Public Law 105-368, the
Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998. The program is a
pilot project designed to expand the supply of transitional
housing for homeless veterans and to guarantee up to 15 loans
with a maximum aggregate value of $100,000,000. Not more than
five loans may be guaranteed in the first 3 years of the
program. The project must enforce sobriety standards and
provide a wide range of supportive services such as counseling
for substance abuse and job readiness skills. Residents will be
required to pay a reasonable fee.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
All funds authorized for this program have been
appropriated. Therefore, additional appropriations are not
required. Administrative expenses of the program, estimated at
$750,000 for fiscal year 2001, will be borne by the ``Medical
care'' and ``General operating expenses'' appropriations.
Veterans Health Administration
MEDICAL CARE
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $18,926,481,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 20,281,587,000
House allowance......................................... 20,281,587,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,281,587,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] operates the
largest Federal medical care delivery system in the country,
with 172 medical centers, 40 domiciliaries, 134 nursing homes,
and 829 outpatient clinics which includes independent,
satellite, community-based, and rural outreach clinics.
This appropriation provides for medical care and treatment
of eligible beneficiaries in VA hospitals, nursing homes,
domiciliaries, and outpatient clinic facilities; contract
hospitals; State home facilities on a grant basis; contract
community nursing homes; and through the hometown outpatient
program, on a fee basis. Hospital and outpatient care also are
provided for certain dependents and survivors of veterans under
the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the VA [CHAMPVA].
The medical care appropriation also provides for training of
medical residents and interns and other professional
paramedical and administrative personnel in health science
fields to support the Department's and the Nation's health
manpower demands.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $20,281,587,000 for VA medical
care, an increase of $1,355,106,000 over the fiscal year 2000
enacted level. In addition, VA has authority to retain co-
payments and third-party collections, estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office to total $639,000,000 in fiscal
year 2001. Therefore, the Committee's recommendation represents
total resources for medical care of $20,920,587,000.
The Committee continues to be highly supportive of efforts
within the Veterans Health Administration to improve the
access, quality and availability of medical services to
veterans, and increase the numbers of patients served. The
Committee is concerned, however, about the lack of
accountability within VA for its budget. While the Congress
increased VA medical care by $1,700,000,000 in fiscal year 2000
over the prior year and over the President's request, VA is
spending far less in a variety of areas than originally
projected. These include hepatitis C, substance abuse, and
post-traumatic stress disorder to name a few. Data system
deficiencies and the lack of standardization are major
contributing factors. As a result, the Committee has been left
with insufficient information to analyze whether VA is
utilizing its funds appropriately and consistent with
congressional intent. The Committee will be considering how to
address this concern in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation,
including whether a new and more prescriptive account structure
is appropriate. In the meantime, the Committee has requested VA
to report on a quarterly basis on spending in key program
areas, including explanations for variances from original
projections. In addition, VA is to report within 60 days of
enactment on its efforts to improve comprehensively its data
systems' reliability, accuracy, and consistency. The Committee
also expects the fiscal year 2002 budget justification to
include estimates for all national programs, projects and
initiatives totaling $5,000,000 or more.
The Committee has a number of specific concerns with VA's
budget and related issues detailed below.
Hepatitis C.--The Committee is concerned that the
Department may be giving insufficient attention to hepatitis C,
an epidemic deserving special consideration in the veteran
population, particularly among Vietnam-era veterans. For fiscal
year 2000, VA medical facilities are spending less than
original projections. It is unclear whether this is due to
fewer patients being suitable for new treatment therapies, or
whether hospitals are not aggressively screening for hepatitis
C and prescribing medications owing to cost concerns. The
Committee expects VA will do more to ensure that its medical
facilities consistently make testing for hepatitis C broadly
available to veterans, and use all available therapies in the
most clinically appropriate and cost-effective manner. In
addition, the Committee expects VA to report within 60 days of
enactment of this Act on final fiscal year 2000 expenditures
including a full accounting for the discrepancy between this
amount and original estimates of $250,000,000. VA estimates it
will spend $340,000,000 in fiscal year 2001; should VA's
expenditures deviate significantly from this estimate the
Committee expects a detailed explanation. Finally, the
Committee expects VA to establish expeditiously performance
goals for the hepatitis C initiative, to be included in the
fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Management efficiencies/best practices.--The Committee
notes there continue to be many opportunities for VHA to
redirect dollars from inefficient practices to medical services
for veterans, such as centralizing food production. The
Committee is concerned VA may not be doing enough to ensure
that ``best practices'' are institutionalized throughout the VA
system. VA is to report concurrent with the submission of the
operating plan for fiscal year 2001 on its efforts to implement
additional management efficiencies, including instituting on a
national basis best practices.
Improving access.--In some areas of the country veterans
have waited as long as 6 months to see a primary care doctor;
this is unacceptable. In addition, the Committee is concerned
about reports from women veterans that women are experiencing
longer waiting times than male veterans. VA has given special
attention to improving access in its fiscal year 2001 budget
proposal and the Committee supports VA's efforts, including
reducing waiting times for appointments and providing care to
veterans closer to their homes. The Committee is concerned,
however, that without accurate and reliable waiting time data,
VA does not have an adequate picture of the waiting time
problem, it will be unable to determine how best to allocate
funds to reduce waiting times, and it will be unable to assess
its success without baseline data. The Committee expects VA
will implement appropriate reporting systems so VA facility
performance can be baselined and progress measured. VA is to
report by April 1, 2001, on how it will collect accurate and
reliable data on waiting times, and its efforts to reduce
waiting times with special attention to areas which have had
particularly egregious problems with waiting times.
The Committee is aware that veterans living in rural
communities on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska must travel as
much as 8 hours round-trip along an avalanche-prone road to
receive VA medical care. The Committee directs VA to report by
March 30, 2001, on its progress in establishing a community-
based outpatient clinic (CBOC) on the Kenai Peninsula, and
expects the CBOC to be operational in fiscal year 2001. In the
meantime, VA should enable veterans living in areas further
than a 50-mile radius of Anchorage to use contract care from
local physicians.
The Committee is pleased VA has recognized the need for
community-based outpatient clinics in Beaufort, Sumter, and
Orangeburg, SC to improve services to over 100,000 veterans in
12 counties. The Committee encourages VA to operationalize
these clinics expeditiously.
The Committee is aware of needs for CBOC's in the North-
central Virginia area which includes the counties of Caroline,
Stafford, Spotsylvania, Culpeper, King George and the City of
Fredricksburg, and encourages VA to meet these needs
expeditiously.
The Committee urges VA to partner with Northeast
Mississippi Health Care, Incorporated, the existing HHS-funded
Community Health Center in Byhalia, MS, for a demonstration
project to provide cost-effective outpatient primary and
preventative health care services for area veterans in their
home community.
Patient Safety.--The Committee supports VA's efforts to
improve patient safety, for which VA has budgeted $137,000,000.
VA has developed some promising patient safety initiatives,
such as a barcoding system for blood and medications. However,
far more needs to be done to ensure patient safety. The
Committee expects VA to make a priority of patient safety not
only within its own facilities, but also with its health-care
contractors. The lack of medical error reporting by VA
contractors makes it difficult to evaluate the care provided
and compare the care to that provided in VA facilities. VA is
to report within 90 days of enactment of this Act on its
progress in patient safety, including a description of how it
will ensure appropriate patient safety measures are implemented
by facilities it contracts with for medical care.
Homeless veterans.--It is estimated there are 250,000
homeless veterans nationwide on any given night, and more than
one-third of the homeless population are veterans. The
Committee believes meeting the needs of homeless veterans
should be a high priority within VA, yet the level of attention
this problem is given varies widely from one hospital to the
next. The Committee directs VA to submit a report within 120
days of enactment of this Act, describing by each medical
center its staffing and funding levels for homeless programs,
the services provided, and plans to ensure the needs of
homeless veterans in their catchment area are met.
Collections.--The Committee continues to be concerned that
VA's collections efforts fall short of the mark. In November
1999, VA reported that ``the Office of Revenue has determined
that it is appropriate and timely to consider contracting-out
some or all of its ``third-party/first-party'' revenue-
generating processes to improve collections and make the
process as efficient as possible.'' An outsourcing business
plan was developed which involves centralizing certain
processes at the VISN level and pilot-testing contract and
franchising options for central revenue units. The Committee
believes these steps are long overdue and urges the Department
to move forward expeditiously to implement the outsourcing
business plan. VA is to provide a report within 90 days of
enactment of this Act on its progress.
Nurse Pay.--VA has included $63,500,000 in its budget for
nurse pay increases, and the Committee expects VA to allocate
such funds to ensure all nurses receive pay raises in fiscal
year 2001 in the absence of legislative changes to the Nurse
Pay Act. The Committee believes it is unacceptable that in
certain locations, there have been no pay increases for nurses
for several consecutive years. VA is currently assessing the
issues and difficulties involved in administering locality pay;
the Committee looks forward to receiving VA's report to
Congress in early 2001 on its findings and recommendations.
Physician Assistants.--The Committee recognizes the
contributions of Physician Assistants to the veterans health
care system and is aware that no formal representation for
Physician Assistants exists within VHA. VHA is urged to
establish the position of Advisor on Physician Assistants, to
be occupied by a certified practicing Physician Assistant.
VERA.--The Committee supports the core principles
underlying the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA)
system--that VA health care funds should be allocated fairly
according to the number of veterans having the highest priority
for health care, and aligning resources according to the best
practices in health care. At the same time, however, the
Committee believes that when any VISN experiences an operating
shortfall that would threaten its ability to serve eligible
veterans, and VHA has determined that the VISN has implemented
all appropriate economies and efficiencies, VHA should consider
strongly supplemental allocations to that VISN. To that end,
the Committee urges VA to ensure that it reserves sufficient
funds to meet the operating need of those VISNs that may
require supplemental funding during the year.
VERA Study.--Questions have been raised as to whether VERA
may lead to a distribution of funds that does not adequately
cover the special needs of some veterans. To investigate the
progress of this funding allocation method, the Committee
directs the Department to enter into a contract with a
federally-funded research and development center to carry out a
study of the VERA formula no later than 60 days after enactment
of this bill. This study should include the following: (1) an
assessment of the impact of the allocation of funds under the
VERA formula, particularly in Veterans Integrated Service
Networks (VISNs) and subregions receiving reduced funding under
the formula, on the maintenance of older-than-average medical
facilities and medical infrastructure, including facilities
designated as historic landmarks; VISNs with populations of
enrolled veterans who are older and more disabled than the
average population of enrolled veterans; VISNs undergoing major
consolidation with significant attendant costs; backlogs and
waiting periods for appointments for veterans health care in
rural and urban subregions; (2) an assessment of issues
associated with the maintenance of direct affiliations between
Department of Veterans Affairs medical center and university
teaching and research hospitals, including the costs and other
requirements associated with maintaining such affiliations;
whether the VERA formula takes such affiliations into account
in allocating funds; and the role of state-of-the-art equipment
in maintaining such affiliations including the necessity of
such equipment for such affiliations and the need for training
associated with such equipment; (3) an assessment of whether
the VERA formula accounts for differences in weather conditions
when calculating costs of construction and maintenance of
health care facilities and whether VISNs which experience harsh
weather require more resources for the delivery of health care
than regions which experience less harsh weather. VA should
consider and incorporate any existing studies which have been
conducted to date on these issues. The VA shall report to the
Committee on the results of this study no later than May 1,
2001.
Mentally ill veterans.--The Committee expects VA to
maintain adequate capacity for mentally ill veterans, including
substance abuse treatment services. In addition, the Committee
directs VA to produce a report within 180 days of enactment of
this Act regarding the number of medical errors and adverse
events involving people with a mental illness for each VA
facility and CBOC. The report should include the number of
veterans who commit suicide within 30 days of being under any
type of VHA care, and a comparison with private sector
statistics.
Alcohol and mental health care in Alaska.--The Committee
has learned there is only one staff member in the Anchorage
Veterans Center to handle all alcohol and mental health cases
in the entire State of Alaska. The Committee considers this
inadequate to handle the caseload in a State which has the
highest incidence of alcoholism in the entire country and is
one-fifth the size of the Continental United States. Therefore,
the Committee expects VA will provide additional staff to the
Anchorage center for alcohol and mental health treatment. In
addition, the Committee encourages VA to establish an alcohol
detoxification and treatment facility in Anchorage so that
Alaska veterans are not forced to travel to Washington State
for such services.
Contractor overpayments.--In last year's bill, the
Committee provided VA the authority to use a contractor to
collect overpayments made to non-VA medical facilities for care
provided to veterans. Under this new authority VA could keep
the money collected, less a percentage paid to the contractor,
and use it in the VISN in which it was collected to enhance
health care programs. The Committee understands VA is nearly
ready to release a nationwide solicitation for these services.
During this past year a program has been implemented in several
sites to test the idea and it appears this program could be
very successful in recapturing overpayments. However, there are
a few challenges that need to be overcome in order for VA to
maximize recoveries. The contractor does not have access to
complete medical records or claims payment history. This lack
of data impacts the ability to optimize collections. Therefore,
the Committee directs VA to provide that access in a timely way
as a part of any local or nationwide recovery audit program.
Giving the contractor direct access to information in the
Austin Automation Center will facilitate this process for
claims payment.
Fee-Basis Cost Containment Pilot.--In last year's report,
the Committee directed VA to conduct a pilot program of managed
care services, using credentialed providers, in up to four
VISNs, for patients receiving care outside of VA medical
facilities (fee-basis care). The Committee urges the VA to
implement immediately this program in four VISNs. Considering
the significant need to conserve scarce resources, ensure
patient quality care and recapture workload appropriately, the
Committee is interested in comparing the results of this pilot
to the way VA currently runs the various Fee and Contract Care
programs. The Committee requests that the VA provide the
Committee their plans for moving ahead with this program before
the end of the calendar year for Committee review and comment.
Drug costs.--The Committee notes recent GAO testimony
identified additional opportunities for VA to reduce
pharmaceutical costs through joint national contracts with the
Department of Defense. The Committee directs VA to report,
within 60 days of enactment of this Act, on its efforts and
long-term strategy to reduce further its pharmaceutical costs
and increase wherever possible joint national contracts with
DOD.
Tripler Joint Venture Demonstration.--The recent colocation
of VA and DOD healthcare facilities at Tripler Army Medical
Center offers significant opportunities to provide high quality
care to Federal beneficiaries residing in Hawaii and vast
Pacific region through the creation of a truly integrated and
seamless healthcare delivery system. To accomplish this, the
Committee urges VA and DOD to establish formally a joint
venture demonstration project at Tripler. Moreover, adequate
resources should be provided by VA to VAMROC Honolulu to
support reinvention projects and to allow continued and
expanded VA participation of the recently established Hawaii
Federal Healthcare Partnership. The Committee requests a plan
and progress report for the joint venture demonstration project
by March 1, 2002.
Web-enabled technology.--The Committee is aware of the
potential for web-enabled technology to improve coordination
and delivery of medical care, while also reducing transaction
costs associated with traditional care delivery mechanisms, and
encourages VA to conduct evaluations of e-health tools.
Veterans Health Care Buying Cooperative Pilot.--The
Committee encourages VA to establish a pilot health care
demonstration program in New Hampshire involving the
development of a VHA-sponsored preferred provider network in
rural and semi-rural areas. The pilot would seek to improve
access to care for veterans, achieve cost savings, and
stimulate the sharing of health care resources between VHA and
non-VHA providers in rural settings.
Joslin Vision Network.--The Committee supports the
expansion of the Joslin Vision Network to additional pilot
sites in fiscal year 2001. This program will benefit diabetic
patients by offering improved quality of care through increased
access to the highest quality medical expertise and education,
and will reduce costs. Estimated costs for fiscal year 2001 are
$5,000,000.
Advanced digital retinal imaging.--The Committee notes that
the use of advanced digital retinal imaging by primary care
physicians in the evaluation of persons with diabetes to
improve early detection of diabetic retinopathy appears
promising. This technology is currently being demonstrated at
the Oklahoma City VAMC. After evaluating the efficacy, safety,
value and compatibility of this technology with existing
systems in use, VA is encouraged to consider expanding the
demonstration of this technology to additional VA medical
centers.
Health Promotion Centers.--The Committee supports VA's
efforts to collaborate with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention in the area of population-based health promotion and
disease prevention.
Clarksburg/Ruby Memorial demonstration.--The Committee
supports continuation at current levels ($2,000,000) of the
Clarksburg VAMC/Ruby Memorial hospital demonstration project.
Pacific Telemedicine Project.--The Committee continues to
support the development and feasibility analysis of a VA
Pacific Telemedicine Project at the Hawaii VAMROC, which will
enhance and improve the availability and access to health care
for veterans in Hawaii. The Committee directs VA to report
within 90 days of enactment of this Act on its plans to proceed
with this project.
Post-doctoral training program.--The Committee continues to
support the VHA's efforts to strengthen their psychology post-
doctoral training program. The Committee awaits the progress
report that will include the number of training slots for
psychologists and their location. The Committee also has an
interest in the progress being made in interdisciplinary
training programs.
Distance learning project for nurses.--The Committee is
pleased with the success of the VA/DOD distance learning
program. The Committee strongly recommends that the VA and DOD
continue the distance learning project designed to transition
clinical nurse specialists into roles as adult nurse
practitioners.
Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence.--Approximately
22,000 veterans nationwide have multiple sclerosis. While
multiple sclerosis care in VHA is not well-coordinated, there
is a strong community of clinicians with specialized knowledge
and expertise in the treatment of MS. To coordinate the
application of this rich resource, the Committee urges VA to
establish two Centers of Excellence in research, education and
clinical treatment of multiple sclerosis.
Motorized wheelchair demonstration.--The Committee urges VA
to conduct a demonstration project to assess the impact on
vocational rehabilitation and the ability of veterans with
physical disabilities to return to work, of a newly developed
technology that enables persons with mobility impairments to
traverse virtually all terrain and climb stairs and curbs
without assistance. The Research and Development Office's
Rehabilitation Research and Cooperative Studies Services should
be involved in such an effort.
Rural Veterans Health Care Initiative.--The Committee
expects continuation at the current level of the Rural Veterans
Health Care Initiative at White River Junction, VT VAMC.
Other Issues.--The Committee urges VA to support a clinical
guidelines demonstration project, which could improve the
quality of patient care.
The Committee notes that the National Center for Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is an internationally
recognized leader in PTSD research. Given the similarities
between PTSD and various types of trauma suffered by women and
children, the Committee encourages the National Center to
expand its research into the effects of PTSD on women and
children, particularly the families of veterans and the victims
of violence.
The Committee urges the VA to study the feasibility of
utilizing remote telemedicine-video/audio technologies in
conjunction with data capture, data analysis and embedded
algorithm-driven decision support for VA patients in intensive
care units.
The Committee has included bill language transferring not
to exceed $27,907,000 to the general operating expenses account
for expenses of the Office of Resolution Management and Office
of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication. The
Committee directs that funds for this activity be included in
the general operating expenses budget request for fiscal year
2001.
The Committee has included bill language delaying the
availability until August 1, 2001, of $900,000,000 in the
equipment, lands, and structures object classifications.
The Committee has included bill language to make available
through September 30, 2002, up to $500,000,000 of the medical
care appropriation. This provides flexibility to the Department
as it continues to implement significant program changes. The
Committee notes VA expects to carry over $79,000,000 from
fiscal year 2000 2-year funds.
medical and prosthetic research
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $321,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 321,000,000
House allowance......................................... 351,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 331,000,000
program description
The ``Medical and prosthetic research'' account provides
funds for medical, rehabilitative, and health services
research. Medical research supports basic and clinical studies
that advance knowledge leading to improvements in the
prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases and
disabilities. Rehabilitation research focuses on rehabilitation
engineering problems in the fields of prosthetics, orthotics,
adaptive equipment for vehicles, sensory aids and related
areas. Health services research focuses on improving the
effectiveness and economy of delivery of health services.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $331,000,000 for medical and
prosthetic research, an increase of $10,000,000 above the
budget request and the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The
Committee remains highly supportive of this program, and
recognizes its importance both in improving health care
services to veterans and recruiting and retaining high-quality
medical professionals in the Veterans Health Administration.
Amid reports that some VA medical centers continue to
discourage investigators from pursuing research and career
development grants, the Committee urges VA to extend at least
through fiscal year 2001 the expiration date of new policy
designed to ensure that VERA research funds are used to
maximize medical center support for the research program. The
Committee believes more time is needed to evaluate whether this
policy will provide physician-investigators with designated
time sufficient to conduct research and appropriate
infrastructure support.
The Committee directs VHA to explore the feasibility of
establishing a Nursing Research Program that would enable
nurses to conduct research that focuses on the specific health
care needs of aging veterans. Such a program would enhance
nursing practice and target specific health promotion, disease
prevention, and disease management efforts to this community.
The Committee urges VA to provide adequate funding for
Hepatitis C research, in such critical areas as the role of
combat exposure in transmission of Hepatitis C.
Recent research has documented the link between
neurofibromatosis (NF) and cancer, brain tumors, and heart
disease. In view this link, which suggests that research on NF
could benefit a vast segment of the veteran population, the
Committee encourages VA to increase its NF research portfolio,
in addition to continuing to collaborate with other Federal
agencies. In addition, the Committee requests that VA be
prepared to describe its efforts toward this end at its fiscal
year 2002 appropriations hearing.
The Committee encourages VHA to expand its research
portfolio on lymphoid malignancies. Recent studies prove that
veterans exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War have an
increased risk of contracting lymphoid malignancies. The
Institute of Medicine's review committee on Agent Orange has
also found an association between Agent Orange and the
development of lymphoid malignancies.
medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $59,703,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 64,884,000
House allowance......................................... 62,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 62,000,000
program description
This appropriation provides funds for central office
executive direction (Under Secretary for Health and staff),
administration and supervision of all VA medical and
construction programs, including development and implementation
of policies, plans, and program objectives.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $62,000,000 for medical
administration and miscellaneous operating expenses, an
increase of $2,297,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level. The decrease of $2,884,000 is a general reduction, to be
taken subject to normally reprogramming guidelines. The amount
recommended should be sufficient to maintain on-board staff.
Last year a reimbursement process between VHA, NCA, and VBA
for project technical and consulting services to be provided by
the Facilities Management Service Delivery Office was
established. The estimated level of reimbursement to the MAMOE
account in fiscal year 2001 for facilities management support
is $7,200,000.
Departmental Administration
general operating expenses
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $912,594,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 1,061,854,000
House allowance......................................... 1,006,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,050,000,000
program description
This appropriation provides for the administration of
nonmedical veterans benefits through the Veterans Benefits
Administration [VBA], the executive direction of the
Department, several top level supporting offices, of the Board
of Contract Appeals, and the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $1,050,000,000 for general
operating expenses, an increase of $137,406,000 above the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The amount provided includes
$826,488,000 for the Veterans Benefits Administration and
$223,512,000 for general administration. In addition to this
appropriation, resources are made available for general
operating expenses through reimbursements totaling $296,717,000
for fiscal year 2001, with total estimated obligations of
approximately $1,346,717,000.
Bill language is recommended, as proposed by the
administration, reflecting a one-time adjustment of $30,000,000
from the ``Readjustment benefits'' account to GOE. This will
allow all administrative vocational rehabilitation services,
including contractual services, to be funded out of GOE.
Bill language is included making available $45,000,000 of
the GOE appropriation for 2 years.
The reduction of $3,000,000 below the budget request within
general administration is to be taken from offices slated for
significant personnel increases under the budget request.
Within VBA, the decrease of $8,854,000 below the President's
request is to be taken from lower priority initiatives other
than staffing. VBA's budget proposal includes a total of
$60,288,000 in non-payroll initiatives, compared to fiscal year
2000 VBA nonpayroll initiatives budget of $34,030,000.
The Committee remains very troubled by the lack of progress
within the Veterans Benefits Administration in improving the
timeliness and quality of processing for disability
compensation claims. In fiscal year 1999, the time it took to
process an original disability claim worsened from the year
before, growing from 168 days in 1998 to 205 days in 1999 with
only marginal improvements in the quality of decision-making.
The number of rating cases pending over 180 days increased from
about 27 percent of the total ``backlog'' in July 1999 to 32
percent in March 2000.
Recently the General Accounting Office found that ``VBA has
not systematically evaluated regional office practices to
identify best practices that hold the most promise for
improving the claims-processing performance of regional offices
across the nation. VBA took steps in 1997 to identify
potentially promising practices; however it has neither
followed up on this effort nor developed a system for
evaluating promising practices and disseminating the results to
regional offices.'' The Committee expects VBA to follow
expeditiously GAO's recommendation outlined in its report (GAO/
HEHS-00-65) to establish timeframes for developing and
implementing a formal plan for evaluating and disseminating
information on practices that hold promise for improving the
abysmal performance of VBA regional offices.
Numerous recommendations made in prior years for improving
the claims processing system by organizations such as the
National Academy of Public Administration have not been fully
implemented. Regional offices, while having been grouped into
service delivery networks, continue to operate generally as 58
fairly autonomous regional offices, not closely aligned to
headquarters. The Committee believes one step in improving
performance and accountability would be to ensure that
headquarters exercises line authority over the field.
The Committee directs VBA to report on (1) its efforts to
evaluate and disseminate best management practices; (2) how it
is establishing better accountability between headquarters and
the field including giving headquarters line authority over the
field; (3) an evaluation of the progress being made on each
electronic initiative; and (4) the progress each regional
office is making in improving the timeliness and quality in
disability claims processing. The report is due concurrent with
VA's submission of the fiscal year 2001 operating plan.
The Committee encourages VBA to explore new technologies,
especially medical couplers, which could improve the efficiency
and accuracy of the process.
The Committee is aware of the hardship encountered by
Alaska veterans who need the services of a Decision Review
Officer, and must travel 5,000 or more miles round trip to
Seattle to obtain these services. The Committee believes VA
should establish a Decision Review Officer in Anchorage.
The Committee is aware of reports of discrimination within
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Information and
Technology and the Washington Regional Office of the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Committee is extremely troubled
by the serious nature of these allegations. The Committee is
aware that VA's Office of Resolution Management is currently
investigating the allegations raised. The Committee is further
aware that a Task Force has been established to investigate
discrimination complaints within the VA departments in
question. The Committee strongly supports these steps, and
directs the Department to provide all necessary resources to
resolve the outstanding allegations. The Committee directs the
Secretary to report back to the Committee with its findings and
recommendations no later than December 15, 2000.
The Committee notes that between September 15, 1981 and
September 23, 1996 certain veterans who received separation pay
and later repaid it so they could receive veterans disability
compensation may have been unfairly penalized because of their
inability to recover the Federal income taxes on the separation
pay that was returned to the Federal Government. In view of
this, the Committee directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
and the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress by September
30, 2001 on remedies which may correct this penalty, and which
might include the return of tax paid on separation pay that was
returned to the Government. The report shall include the
following: (1) the number of veterans who received separation
pay during the period September 15, 1981, and ending September
23, 1996, paid taxes on the pay, but were never able to recover
the Federal taxes paid on the separation pay after the pay was
returned; (2) the aggregate amount of income tax paid by
veterans during this period on the separation pay; (3) the
aggregate amount of separation recouped by the Federal
Government during this period; (4) a description and assessment
of various remedies available for compensating the veterans
during this period, including joint remedies of the Secretaries
as to the most appropriate remedy; and (5) if the
recommendation of the Secretaries is the repayment to such
veterans of the income taxes paid by veterans on separation
pay, an estimate of the aggregate amount that would be
repayable as a result of implementation of the recommendation.
The Committee recommends the current level of $25,000 for
official reception and representation expenses.
national cemetery administration
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $97,256,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 109,889,000
House allowance......................................... 106,889,000
Committee recommendation................................ 109,889,000
program description
The National Cemetery Administration was established in
accordance with the National Cemeteries Act of 1973. It has a
fourfold mission: to provide for the interment in any national
cemetery the remains of eligible deceased servicepersons and
discharged veterans, together with their spouses and certain
dependents, and permanently to maintain their graves; to mark
graves of eligible persons in national and private cemeteries;
to administer the grant program for aid to States in
establishing, expanding, or improving State veterans'
cemeteries; and to administer the Presidential Memorial
Certificate Program.
There are a total of 153 cemeterial installations in 39
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The
Committee's recommendation for the National Cemetery
Administration provides funds for all of these cemeterial
installations, including the Tahoma National Cemetery.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $109,889,000 for the National
Cemetery Administration. This is an increase of $12,633,000
over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same as the
budget request.
The increase above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level will
fund 47 additional FTE, for a total of 1,453. This will allow
for growth in cemeterial interment workloads, an increased
level of contracting to address deferred maintenance needs, and
additional supplies and equipment to maintain increased
gravesites.
The Committee has included bill language transferring not
to exceed $117,000 to the ``General operating expenses''
account for expenses of the Office of Resolution Management and
Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication. The
Committee directs that funds for this activity be included in
the general operating expenses budget request for fiscal year
2001.
office of the inspector general
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $43,200,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 46,464,000
House allowance......................................... 46,464,000
Committee recommendation................................ 46,464,000
program description
The Office of Inspector General was established by the
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for the audit
and investigation and inspections of all Department of Veterans
Affairs programs and operations.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget request of $46,464,000
for the inspector general. This is an increase of $3,264,000
above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
The Committee has included bill language transferring not
to exceed $30,000 to the ``General operating expenses'' account
for expenses of the Office of Resolution Management and Office
of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication. The
Committee directs that funds for this activity be included in
the general operating expenses budget request for fiscal year
2001.
construction, major projects
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $65,140,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 62,140,000
House allowance......................................... 62,140,000
Committee recommendation................................ 48,540,000
program description
The construction, major projects appropriation provides for
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of VA,
including planning, architectural and engineering services, and
site acquisition where the estimated cost of a project is
$4,000,000 or more.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $48,540,000
for construction, major projects, a decrease of $13,600,000
below the budget request and the House allowance.
The following table compares the Committee recommendation
with the budget request.
CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available
Location and description through 2001 House Committee
2000 Request allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Program:
Seismic corrections: Palo Alto, CA................... ........... 26,600 26,600 ..............
Beckley, WV nursing home care unit................... ........... ........... ........... 1,000
Advance planning fund: Various stations.............. ........... 14,500 14,500 14,500
Asbestos abatement: Various stations................. ........... 2,025 2,025 2,025
Less: Design fund.................................... ........... -1,330 -1,330 ..............
Less: Working reserve................................ ........... ........... ........... -1,735
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... ........... 41,795 41,795 15,790
======================================================
Veterans Benefits Administration: Advance planning fund.. ........... 250 250 250
National Cemetery Administration:
Fort Logan National Cemetery gravesite development... ........... 16,100 16,100 16,100
Oklahoma National Cemetery........................... 1,400 ........... ........... 12,000
Pittsburgh National Cemetery......................... 125 ........... ........... 1,000
Advance planning fund: Various stations.............. ........... 2,500 2,500 2,500
Design fund.......................................... ........... 1,600 1,600 1,600
Less: Design fund.................................... ........... -805 -805 -1,400
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................................... ........... 19,395 19,395 31,800
======================================================
Claims Analyses: Various stations........................ ........... 700 700 700
------------------------------------------------------
Total construction, major projects................. ........... 62,140 62,140 48,540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has included $12,000,000 for the construction
of the Oklahoma national cemetery, and $1,000,000 for
additional planning and design activities for a new national
cemetery in Pittsburgh, PA. Initial funding for the Pittsburgh
project was provided in fiscal year 2000.
The recommendation includes $10,000,000 in advance planning
funds for VA implementation of the Capital Asset Realignment
for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative. GAO has estimated
that VA spends $1,000,000 a day to maintain excess capacity.
Therefore, it is critical that VA begin the process of
assessing its infrastructure needs in each of its ``markets''
and take steps necessary to sell, transfer or exchange
underutilized properties. This will enable VA to maximize VA
medical care funds for health care services for veterans,
rather than maintaining unused buildings. The Committee is
concerned VA did not act expeditiously in developing the CARES
protocol and awarding the funding provided in fiscal year 2000
for CARES. The Committee expects VA to give this program top
priority, assess the contractor-developed options for each
market based on absolute and discriminating criteria as
recommended by GAO, and award the funds recommended herein
expeditiously for additional market studies.
The Committee has not recommended funds for the Palo Alto
nursing home care unit, or other major construction medical
project funding, as the Committee supports all such projects
proceeding only upon CARES validation.
The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the design of a
nursing home care unit at the Beckley, WV VAMC. The Committee
expects that the project will be reviewed as part of the CARES
process for VISN 6. Construction funds will be recommended upon
VA's confirmation that the project is consistent with the VISN
strategic plan which emerges from the CARES process.
The Committee supports VA's efforts to explore new uses for
the Miles City, MT VA facility, which has extensive excess
capacity, and expects VA to keep it apprised of its activities
in this area.
The Committee notes that funding of $2,000,000 is included
for the master planning and design development activities for
the development of national cemeteries in Atlanta, GA; Detroit,
MI; Miami, FL; and Sacramento, CA.
CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $160,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 162,000,000
House allowance......................................... 100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 162,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The construction, minor projects appropriation provides for
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of VA,
including planning, architectural and engineering services, and
site acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is less
than $4,000,000.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $162,000,000 for minor
construction, the same as the budget request and $2,000,000
above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
The Committee expects that VA will review and approve all
minor construction projects in a manner that is consistent with
the process applied by the Capital Investment Board which
reviews major projects, and consistent with the Capital Asset
Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative. A central
office work group, consisting of both VHA and other department
officials, is to review all minor projects using criteria
consistent with those developed for CARES. If total costs of
projects being initiated at any facility exceeds $4,000,000,
the recommendations of the work group must be approved by the
Deputy Secretary.
In that vein, the Committee has no objection to VHA
proceeding with the design of a series of projects at the West
Roxbury and Boston, MA VA facilities which will facilitate the
integration of services at the VA Boston Healthcare System.
However, until a CARES contractor reviews the projects to
evaluate whether they are consistent with the future mission of
the VISN envisioned by the CARES evaluation, no construction
funds are to be awarded.
The Committee directs the Department to expend
expeditiously remaining funds previously appropriated in Public
Law 103-211 to repair the earthquake-damaged gymnasium on the
VAMC campus in Sepulveda, California.
parking revolving fund
program description
The revolving fund provides funds for the construction,
alteration, and acquisition (by purchase or lease) of parking
garages at VA medical facilities authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8109.
The Secretary is required under certain circumstances to
establish and collect fees for the use of such garages and
parking facilities. Receipts from the parking fees are to be
deposited in the revolving fund and would be used to fund
future parking garage initiatives.
committee recommendation
No new budget authority is requested by the administration
or provided for fiscal year 2001.
grants for construction of state extended care facilities
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $90,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 60,000,000
House allowance......................................... 90,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000,000
program description
This account is used to provide grants to assist States in
acquiring or constructing State home facilities for furnishing
domiciliary or nursing home care to veterans, and to expand,
remodel or alter existing buildings for furnishing domiciliary,
nursing home, or hospital care to veterans in State homes. The
grant may not exceed 65 percent of the total cost of the
project, and grants to any one State may not exceed one-third
of the amount appropriated in any fiscal year.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for grants for the
construction of State extended care facilities, an increase of
$10,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, and an
increase of $40,000,000 above the budget request. This program
cost-effectively meets long-term health care needs of veterans.
The Committee notes the need for State home beds is expected to
double by the year 2010, and there is a backlog of $150,000,000
in priority one projects.
The Committee is aware that Alaska has one of the nation's
largest veteran populations per capita but is one of only three
States without a State veterans home. VA should work with the
Alaska State Department of Military and Veterans Affairs to
assess the most cost-effective means of providing a State
veterans home, including leasing existing facilities;
contracting with existing nursing home providers; repair,
upgrade or rehabilitation of existing facilities; and new
construction. VA, together with the State of Alaska should
report back to the Committee on its joint recommendation
including possible costs no later than March 1, 2001.
grants for the construction of state veterans' cemeteries
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 25,000,000
House allowance......................................... 25,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,000,000
program description
Public Law 105-368, amended title 38 U.S.C. 2408, which
established authority to provide aid to States for
establishment, expansion, and improvement of State veterans'
cemeteries which are operated and permanently maintained by the
States. This amendment increased the maximum Federal Share from
50 percent to 100 percent in order to fund construction costs
and the initial equipment expenses when the cemetery is
established. The States remain responsible for providing the
land and for paying all costs related to the operation and
maintenance of the State cemeteries, including the costs for
subsequent equipment purchases.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for grants for
construction of State veterans' cemeteries in fiscal year 2001,
the same as the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the budget
request. This amount is estimated to be sufficient to meet all
fiscal year 2001 State cemetery grant applications.
administrative provisions
The Committee has included eight administrative provisions
carried in earlier bills. Included is a provision enabling VA
to use surplus earnings from the national service life
insurance, U.S. Government life insurance, and veterans special
life insurance programs to administer these programs. This
provision was included for the first time in fiscal year 1996
appropriations legislation. The Department estimates that
$36,520,000 will be reimbursed to the ``General operating
expenses'' account as a result of this provision.
The Committee has not included bill language requested by
the administration authorizing the reimbursement of the Office
of Resolution Management and the Office of Employment
Discrimination Complaint Adjudication for services provided,
from funds in any appropriation for salaries and other
administrative expenses. Instead, transfer authority totaling
up to $28,054,000 from the medical care, national cemetery
administration, and OIG appropriations has been provided. In
the future, resources for this activity are to be included in
the GOE budget request. In addition, $2,022,000 is assumed in
``General operating expenses'' for these activities.
A new administrative provision is included which requires
receipts collected under the Millennium Act to be maintained in
the collections funds subject to appropriations.
The Committee has included a provision authorizing the
transfer of up to $1,200,000 from the ``Medical care'' account
to general operating expenses to fund contracts and services in
support of VBA's Benefits Delivery Center, Systems Development
Center, and Finance Center located on the Hines VAMC campus.
Future budget requests for these activities should be included
in general operating expenses.
In view of a recent General Counsel opinion which found
that the Parking Revolving Fund is the exclusive funding source
for surface parking lot projects, a provision has been included
authorizing the transfer of funds from the ``Construction,
minor projects'' and ``Medical care'' accounts. In its budget
request, the Department included funds in these accounts
totaling $6,500,000 for surface parking lot projects.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $25,860,183,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 32,458,550,000
House allowance......................................... 29,980,030,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,633,726,000
general description
The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was
established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public
Law 89-174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the
principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned
with the Nation's housing needs, fair housing opportunities,
and improving and developing the Nation's communities.
In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and
interests of the Nation's communities and of the people who
live and work in them, HUD administers mortgage and loan
insurance programs that help families become homeowners and
facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and
homeownership subsidy programs for low-income families who
otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat
discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair
housing opportunity; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate
supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid neighborhood
rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of
our urban centers from blight and decay.
HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the
marketplace and fosters programs and research that stimulate
and guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but
better communities and living environments.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends for fiscal year 2001 an
appropriation of $30,633,726,000 for the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. This is an increase of $4,754,778,000
above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
housing certificate fund
(Including Transfer of Funds)
Appropriations, 2000.................................\1\ $11,304,420,000
Budget estimate, 2001.................................\2\ 14,127,824,000
House allowance.......................................\2\ 13,275,388,000
Committee recommendation..............................\2\ 13,171,400,000
\1\ Includes an advance appropriation of $4,200,000,000 for fiscal year
2001.
\2\ Includes an advance appropriation of $4,200,000,000 for fiscal year
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding for the section 8 programs,
including vouchers, certificates, and project-based assistance.
Section 8 assistance is the principal appropriation for Federal
housing assistance, with almost 3 million families assisted
under section 8. Under these programs, eligible low-income
families pay 30 percent of their adjusted income for rent, and
the Federal Government is responsible for the remainder of the
rent, up to the fair market rent or some other payment
standard.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$13,171,400,000, of which $13,131,400,000 shall be used to fund
expiring section 8 contracts including the costs of sticky or
enhanced vouchers for families that choose to continue to live
in multifamily housing in which a mortgage is refinanced and
the housing was previously eligible for the Preservation
Program, as well as in certain circumstances where owners of
assisted multifamily housing opt-out of the section 8 program.
In addition, this account includes the Administration's
recommendation for an advance appropriation of $4,200,000,000
for the remainder costs of contracts renewed in fiscal year
2001 for the months requiring section 8 assistance during
fiscal year 2002. An additional $1,300,000,000 in recaptures,
carryover from fiscal year 2000 also is expected to be
available for section 8 contract renewals.
Other activities eligible for funding under this account
include the conversion of section 23 projects to assistance
under section 8, the family unification program, and the
relocation of witnesses in connection with efforts to fight
crime in public and assisted housing pursuant to a law
enforcement or prosecution agency.
In addition, the Committee believes that section 8 tenant-
based assistance provides a needed opportunity for disabled
families to have a more diverse housing choice with an
opportunity to mainstream into a community of their choice. In
cases where elderly public housing and assisted housing
projects are designated as elderly-only, it is expected that up
to $40,000,000, be used to provide needed section 8 tenant-
based housing assistance for disabled families that would
otherwise be served by public and assisted housing.
The Committee also reiterates its continuing concern over
HUD's accounting practices for identifying excess section 8
contract reserves as well as excess project-based section 8
assistance. The Department has made strides in overhauling its
section 8 accounting systems. Nevertheless, there remains
significant concerns over the accuracy of its section 8
accounting. The Committee reminds HUD that an accurate fiscal
forecast of the funding in all HUD programs is critical to
HUD's credibility and is a requirement for a sound relationship
with this Committee.
The Committee also directs HUD to identify in its fiscal
year 2002 budget justification the renewal costs associated
with each project-based section 8 program, such as the section
8 moderate rehabilitation program and the section 515 program.
The Committee has not included any additional funds for
incremental section 8 assistance as requested by the
Administration. While the Committee understands there is demand
for additional section 8 assistance, the Administration's
budget projections and recommendations have created such
uncertainty over the ability or desire of the Administration to
meet its financial commitment to preserve and renew existing
section 8 contracts in future budgets that it would be very
ill-advised to add additional section 8 incremental assistance
at this time.
Moreover, the Congress and the Administration need to
address increasing concerns that section 8 (tenant-based)
vouchers do not always provide real rental choice for assisted
families. Instead, because of market distortions in how section
8 rents are calculated, families with vouchers often have
little choice in their rental decisions, leaving them often in
low-income and very low-income neighborhoods and living in
substandard housing. In a number of cases, families with
vouchers are unable to use their vouchers to obtain affordable
housing.
As a result, the Committee is concerned that incremental
housing vouchers remain the cornerstone of the Administration's
strategy to address the housing needs of low-income Americans.
As noted, there is significant evidence in a number of recent
utilization studies that many families are having a difficult
time in using vouchers to find housing, especially in tight and
low vacancy housing marketplaces. A recent survey of public
housing agencies by the Council of Large Public Housing
Authorities found that as many as one in five families with a
voucher are unable to find housing in their communities.
Finally, HUD has failed to make incremental vouchers available
on a timely basis to low-income families. For each of the last
2 years, it has taken most of the fiscal year to allocate and
make the incremental vouchers available to families.
The Committee requires HUD to fund a new housing production
block grant program from ``excess'' section 8 funds; with this
program effective for fiscal year 2001 only. The Committee
believes that this nation needs to begin to face front and
recognize the growing housing needs of very low-income
families, especially the elderly and disabled.
The Committee has adopted the Administration's
recommendation to defer $4,200,000,000 in section 8 funds tied
to fiscal year 2001 contracts with great reluctance. As with
fiscal year 2000, this hard choice had to be made since the
Committee had to compensate for other shortfalls generated by
the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget.
PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $2,900,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 2,955,000,000
House allowance......................................... 2,800,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,955,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding for modernization and capital
needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing
authorities), including management improvements, resident
relocation and homeownership activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,955,000,000
for the public housing capital fund, the same as the budget
request and $55,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level. HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this
account as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937, but is provided $75,000,000
for emergency capital needs.
PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $3,138,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 3,192,000,000
House allowance......................................... 3,139,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,192,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding for the payment of operating
subsidies to some 3,050 public housing authorities (except
Indian housing authorities) with a total of over 1.2 million
units under management in order to augment rent payments by
residents in order to provide sufficient revenues to meet
reasonable operating costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,192,000,000
for the public housing operating fund, an increase of
$54,000,000 over the fiscal year 2000 level and the same as the
budget request. The Committee remains concerned about the cost
and accuracy of public housing operating subsidies as allocated
under the performance funding system (PFS). The PFS is an
outdated formula that no longer provides an accurate measure of
public housing costs and the Department is late in developing a
new and more accurate funding formula. The Committee continues
to be concerned that the Department has not collected adequate
data from PHAs on operating costs to ensure that the new
formula will provide an appropriate level of funding for PHAs.
HUD also is prohibited from using any funds under this account
as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937.
The Committee remains concerned with HUD's inability to
develop a fair and cost-effective system to assess the
financial and physical condition of the Nation's public housing
stock. Despite the recent efforts of the Department to revise
its new ``Public Housing Assessment System'' or ``PHAS'', a
number of significant programmatic and operational problems
with the system exists. Both the General Accounting Office
(GAO) and the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
have recently identified numerous problems with PHAS. In its
July 25, 2000 report (GAO/RCED-00-168), GAO found that despite
the results of the first round of physical inspections
performed under PHAS which indicated that most of HUD's public
and multifamily housing was in satisfactory condition, HUD's
quality assurance reviews ``found that a number of these
inspections were not carried out consistently'' with HUD's
requirements. GAO also found that HUD's (1) processes for
overseeing its inspection contractors have problems and (2)
response to develop and implement formal processes for
requesting changes in inspection scores has been slow. NAPA's
preliminary report concluded that ``HUD's current system
exhibits significant deficiencies'' and validated the housing
industry's concern that ``these deficiencies result from the
rapidity with which the system has been developed and deployed,
and the inadequacy of consultations during the process.'' The
Committee has also found that HUD's technological capacity
continues to fall short of being able to handle the data it is
designed to collect.
The Committee is very troubled by these findings.
Accordingly, the Committee directs HUD to delay the
implementation of PHAS until it (1) has complied fully with the
recommendations in GAO's July 25, 2000 report and (2) has
demonstrated clearly to Congress that it can administer its
reporting requirements so that housing authorities can carry
out their responsibilities smoothly, during normal working
hours and without undue delay. Last, the Committee is aware
that HUD has established a PHAS Advisory Board. The Committee
believes that HUD should carry out its stated intention to
convene this board officially under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act and industry representation on the board should
consist of industry group representatives as well as public
housing authority directors. This board should examine the
issue of inspection reliability. HUD should use the PHAS
Advisory Board to help answer the questions of what makes up an
acceptable inspection and what an acceptable, overall
inspection failure rate is.
The Committee is aware of the important role that HUD plays
in providing housing for elderly and disabled Americans.
However, the Committee understands that elderly and disabled
Americans also face critical health care needs. Therefore, the
Committee directs HUD to work with the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop
strategies to expand housing-based health care for elderly and
disabled people living in Public Housing and HUD-assisted
multifamily housing. The Committee directs HUD and HHS to
report to the Committee on its findings and recommendations,
including how HUD and HHS as well as State and local health
care providers can address these needs. Nevertheless, it is
expected that HHS will be the lead in the provision of any
health care assistance.
Drug Elimination Grants for Low-Income Housing
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $310,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 345,000,000
House allowance......................................... 300,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 310,000,000
Program Description
Drug elimination grants are provided to public and Indian
housing agencies to combat drug-related crime in and around
public housing developments.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $310,000,000
for drug elimination grants for low-income housing, of which
$4,500,000 shall be awarded for technical assistance grants,
$10,000,000 shall be appropriated to fund Operation Safe House
which is administered by the HUD inspector general, $10,000,000
for administrative costs of the HUD inspector general
associated with Operation Safe House, and $20,000,000 for
competitive grants under the New Approach Anti-Drug Program.
The Committee remains concerned about HUD interfering with
local decisonmaking on the use of drug elimination grants and
believes that the proposed Community Gun Safety and Violence
Reduction Initiative is both unneeded and inappropriate. HUD
has no legal authority to direct local PHAs to conduct gun buy-
back programs. Instead, PHAs have broad authority on the use of
these funds and the Committee believes that PHAs are in the
best position to use these funds to meet local needs in their
efforts to maximize anti-drug and anti-crime efforts. The
Committee directs HUD to identify in the fiscal year 2002
budget justifications the goals of the program and the actual
performance of the grantees in meeting the goals.
Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing
[HOPE VI]
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $575,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 625,000,000
House allowance......................................... 565,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 575,000,000
Program Description
The ``Revitalization of severely distressed public
housing'' account is intended to make awards to public housing
authorities on a competitive basis to demolish obsolete or
failed developments or to revitalize, where appropriate, sites
upon which these developments exist. This is a focused effort
to eliminate public housing which was, in many cases, poorly
located, ill-designed, and not well constructed. Such
unsuitable housing has been very expensive to operate, and not
possible to manage in a reasonable manner due to multiple
deficiencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $575,000,000
for the ``HOPE VI'' account, $50,000,000 less than the budget
request and the same as the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The
Committee urges the Department to continue funding innovative
projects that work both as public and mixed-income housing as
well as building blocks to revitalizing neighborhoods.
The Committee remains concerned about the future of this
program once the Department meets its goal of demolishing
100,000 public housing units by the end of 2003. The Department
is directed to advise the Committee on what form this program
should take after 2003. The Committee remains concerned about
the wide swing in the per unit cost of HOPE VI projects
throughout the country as well as data that indicates a high
cost for planning and professional services. Nevertheless, the
Committee believes that the HOPE VI program is one of the
better managed and administered programs within the Department
and wishes to work with HUD in developing program reforms to
control these costs.
HUD also is directed to report to the Committee by May 1,
2001 on the physical condition of elderly public housing units
and any special approaches employed by HUD in meeting the
physical needs of elderly public housing.
NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $620,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 650,000,000
House allowance......................................... 620,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 650,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account funds the native American housing block grants
program, as authorized under title I of the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996
(NAHASDA). This program provides an allocation of funds on a
formula basis to Indian tribes and their tribally designated
housing entities to help them address the housing needs within
their communities. Under this block grant, Indian tribes will
use performance measures and benchmarks that are consistent
with the national goals of the program, but can base these
measures on the needs and priorities established in their own
Indian housing plan.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $650,000,000 for the native
American housing block grant, of which $6,000,000 is set aside
for a credit subsidy for a demonstration of the section 601
Loan Guarantee Program. The Committee recommendation is the
same as the budget request.
The Committee remains concerned about the implementation by
the administration of the native American housing block grant
and the potential risk of problems within such a new and
complex program. The Committee reminds HUD that it is required
to report on the implementation of this program to the
Committee on a semi-annual basis, including recommendations to
ensure that the native American housing block grant program
meets the needs of this population.
The Committee believes that training and technical
assistance in support of NAHASDA should be shared, with
$4,000,000 to be administered by the National American Indian
Housing Council (NAIHC) and $2,000,000 by HUD in support of the
inspection of Indian housing units, contract expertise,
training and technical assistance in the training, oversight,
and management of Indian housing and tenant-based assistance.
The Committee is very concerned by reports that HUD has not
released any funds to NAIHC for fiscal year 2000. This is
unacceptable, and HUD is prohibited from using any technical
assistance until all funds have been allocated to NAIHC for
both fiscal year 2000 and 2001.
INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 6,000,000
House allowance......................................... 6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This program provides access to private financing for
Indian families, Indian tribes and their tribally designated
housing entities who otherwise could not acquire housing
financing because of the unique status of Indian trust land. As
required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account
includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees
authorized under this program.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 in program subsidies to
support a loan guarantee level of $71,956,000. This is the same
as the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the fiscal year 2001
budget request. The Committee requests HUD to provide a status
report on the program by June 1, 2001, assessing the success of
the program in providing homeownership opportunities for native
Americans, a breakdown on the use of the program by State and
tribal area, and recommendations for program improvement.
office of rural housing and economic development
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 27,000,000
House allowance......................................... 20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 27,000,000
program description
The Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development was
established to ensure that the Department has a comprehensive
approach to rural housing and rural economic development
issues. The account includes funding for technical assistance
and capacity building in rural, underserved areas, and grants
for Indian tribes, State housing finance agencies, State
economic development agencies, rural nonprofits and rural
community development corporations to pursue strategies
designed to meet rural housing and economic development needs.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends $27,000,000 for the Office of
Rural Housing and Economic Development for fiscal year 2001 to
support housing and economic development in rural communities
as defined by USDA and HUD. This funding level is $2,000,000
more than the fiscal year 2000 level and the same as the budget
request. HUD is directed to administer this program according
to existing regulatory requirements. It is expected that any
changes to the program shall be made subject to notice and
comment rulemaking.
The Committee is aware of an audit (Rpt. 00-DE-156-0001)
dated March 31, 2000 conducted by the Office of Inspector
General that concluded that the Office of Native American
Programs inappropriately awarded $6,000,000 of the funding
available for the 1998 Rural Housing and Economic Development
Grants program. The Committee believes that the funding of the
award for Alaska was appropriate as the funds were explicitly
targeted in the legislation for the rural housing and economic
development needs of Native Alaskans. However, the $2,000,000
grant award made to Sioux Ogala Tribe, located in Pine Ridge,
South Dakota was made inappropriately by HUD. The legislation
required these funds to be awarded on a competitive basis and
the award of these funds is a clear violation of the law. The
Committee understands that the Sioux Ogala Tribe has
substantial housing and community development needs and cannot
afford to pay back these funds. Instead, the Committee expects
the Secretary to refund these amounts out of the overall
funding of the Native American Housing Block Grants program.
The Committee also believes that the funding of the HUD
Colonias Initiative under the Rural Housing and Economic
Development Grants program is inappropriate. Carving out a
portion of these funds for colonias resulted in limiting the
ability of a number of other deserving and eligible entities to
compete for these funds.
Community Planning and Development
community development grants
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $4,781,235,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 4,900,000,000
House allowance......................................... 4,505,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,800,000,000
program description
Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award
block grants to units of general local government and States
for the funding of local community development programs. A wide
range of physical, economic, and social development activities
are eligible with spending priorities determined at the local
level, but the law enumerates general objectives which the
block grants are designed to fulfill, including adequate
housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic
opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate
income. Grant recipients are required to use at least 70
percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit
low- and moderate-income persons.
Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community
development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective
formulas, one of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age
of housing stock. Seventy percent of appropriated funds are
distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are
distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting
designated amounts for special purpose grants and Indian
tribes. Pursuant to the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act, Indian tribes are eligible to receive 1 percent of
the total CDBG appropriation, on a competitive basis.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,800,000,000
for the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] program in
fiscal year 2001. This is a reduction of $100,000,000 below the
budget request for fiscal year 2001, but $19,235,000 above the
fiscal year 2000 level.
Set-asides under CDBG include $71,000,000 for native
Americans; $3,000,000 for the Housing Assistance Council;
$2,200,000 for the National American Indian Housing Council;
$3,000,000 to support Alaska Native-Serving Institutions and
Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions; $3,000,000 for
competitive grants awarded to Tribal Colleges and Universities
to build, expand, renovate, and equip their facilities;
$25,000,000 for the National Community Development Initiative
and $19,500,000 for section 107 grants, including $3,000,000
for community development work study, $10,000,000 for
historically black colleges and universities, $7,000,000 for
insular areas and $6,500,000 for Hispanic-serving institutions.
In addition, this legislation includes a set-aside of
$130,000,000 within the CDBG program for the Economic
Development Initiative (EDI) to finance efforts that promote
economic and social revitalization.
At a minimum, the Secretary is directed to fund the
following grants as part of the economic development
initiative:
$500,000 for The Palace Theater for its renovation in
Manchester, NH;
$300,000 for the Manchester Historic Association for the
restoration of the Millyard Museum in Manchester, NH;
$500,000 for Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon
for construction and program activities at Bicentennial
Hall in Portland, Oregon;
$500,000 for the Portland Oregon Visitors Association for
the Pioneer Courthouse Square Lobby Renovation project
in Portland, Oregon;
$1,000,000 for the Community Action Agency of Southern
New Mexico, Inc., for construction of a regional food
bank and supporting offices; and
$500,000 for the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, to
construct a permanent site for the Santa Fe Area
Farmers Market at the historic Santa Fe rail yard.
$250,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Las Cruces, new
Mexico to upgrade existing facilities;
$500,000 for Tatum, New Mexico to replace its community
center;
$150,000 for the Bataan Death March Memorial for
renovations in Las Cruces, New Mexico;
$1,000,000 for University of Idaho for the construction
of the Center for Science and Technology in Idaho
Falls, Idaho;
$1,000,000 for the City of Salmon, Idaho for land
acquisition, construction, and alteration for the
Sacajawea Interpretive, Cultural, and Education Center;
$500,000 for the Clearwater Economic Development
Association in Northern Idaho, for implementation of
the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Plan;
$500,000 for Lewis-Clark State College for start-up
activities associated with the Idaho Virtual Incubator;
$1,200,000 for MSU-Billings for the acquisition of a
College of Business facility to house economic
development activities;
$1,000,000 for Billings, Montana for the completion of
the Billings depot project;
$500,000 for the Jefferson County Local Development
Corporation in Whitehall, Montana for economic
development activities;
$350,000 for the Human Resources Development council in
Bozeman, Montana for the restoration of a historic
property for community services offices;
$300,000 for the City of Columbia falls for the
restructuring of the Old Main Veterans Facility;
$1,500,000 for the City of Memphis for the construction
of the Stax Museum of American Soul Music in Memphis,
Tenn;
$1,000,000 for the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries for
the purchase and renovation of a former Detroit YMCA
facility;
$500,000 for Northern Initiatives to capitalize an Upper
Peninsula Michigan Equity Fund to assist in the
development of small businesses;
$500,000 for the University of Utah for the planning and
design of the Museum of Science and Nature;
$700,000 for the Covenant House Michigan for the
construction costs of a permanent Rights of Passage
facility;
$500,000 for the City of Provo, Utah for the
redevelopment of the Ironton area;
$1,000,000 for West Valley City, Utah for the
construction of the West Valley City Multi-Cultural
Community Center.
$500,000 for the Hart Mountain Wyoming foundation for an
interactive learning center in Powell, Wyoming;
$500,000 for the Vermont Rural protection Task force for
the purchase of equipment;
$500,000 for the Southern Vermont Recreation Center
foundation in Springfield, VT;
$500,000 for the Vermont Housing and conservation Board
for the development of affordable housing in Northern
Vermont;
$500,000 for Marlboro College for a technology incubator
facility in downtown Brattleboro, VT;
$500,000 for the Vermont Housing and conservation Board
for the development of affordable housing in Williston,
VT;
$500,000 for the Town of Hartford, VT for the development
of the Railroad Row Historic District in downtown White
River Junction, VT;
$500,000 for Vermont Technical College for economic
development in Randolph, VT;
$250,000 for the Town of Fairfield, VT for the
development of the President Chester A. Arthur visitor
facility;
$600,000 for the City of Montrose, Colorado for the
development of affordable low-income housing;
$900,000 for the Trinity Repertory Company in providence,
RI for the conversion of an abandoned banking building;
$300,000 for Upper Darby Township, PA to assist residents
with homes that are sinking due to soil subsidence;
$150,000 for the Urban Redevelopment Authority of
Pittsburgh, PA for economic development on Pittsburgh's
North Shore;
$100,000 for the City of Hazleton, PA for economic
development and revitalization activities;
$750,000 for the City of Johnstown, PA for downtown
economic development;
$300,000 for the City of Philadelphia, PA to assist in
the relocation of families in the Logan neighborhood
whose homes were built on an improperly filled creek
bed;
$500,000 for Ford City, PA for brownfield revitalization;
$300,000 for the City of Chester, PA for the
redevelopment of DeShong Park;
$250,000 for Erie, PA for the Discovery Square museum
expansion;
$500,000 for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia, PA
for relocation costs;
$200,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Allentown, PA for
the Northern Lehigh Community Center;
$400,000 for Allegheny County, PA for the redevelopment
of the Braddock-Swissvale-Rankin industrial site;
$500,000 for the National Museum for American Jewish
History in Philadelphia, PA for expansion efforts;
$500,000 for the Reading Berks Emergency Shelter in
Reading, PA for the construction of a transitional
housing facility for the homeless;
$250,000 for the City of Lancaster, PA for the
development of the Lancaster Square project;
$100,000 for Clarion County, PA for continued development
of Liberty Towers Senior Activities Facility;
$250,000 for the Nueva Esperanza Community Development
Corporation in Philadelphia, PA for economic
revitalization of commercial and industrial facilities;
$200,000 for Light of Life Ministries in Allegheny
County, PA for infrastructure improvements at the
Serenity Village homeless program;
$250,000 for Universal Community Homes for economic
development activities in Philadelphia, PA;
$250,000 for the City of Philadelphia to address the
safety concerns related to abandoned and structurally
impaired homes
$600,000 for the City of East Providence, RI to develop
recreational facilities at Crescent Park;
$300,000 for the City of State Line, Mississippi for
downtown infrastructure and economic revitalization;
$1,000,000 for the City of Madison, Mississippi for the
renovation of the historic downtown of Madison,
Mississippi;
$500,000 for Mississippi State University for the
renovation and expansion of facilities for the
Stoneville, Mississippi Research and Education Complex;
$500,000 for the City of Canton for the establishment of
a State film complex;
$2,000,000 for the rehabilitation and restoration of Cain
Hall on the campus of Hinds Community College in
Raymond, Mississippi;
$1,200,000 for the City of Bangor, Maine for the
installation of steel bulkheading on the Penobscot
River;
$550,000 for Vinalhaven Elder Care Services, Inc. for the
development of an elder care facility;
$500,000 for the City of Dayton, Ohio for the restoration
of the Main Street historic district;
$500,000 for the City of Cincinnati for the expansion of
Findlay Market;
$500,000 for Cleveland Tomorrow in Cleveland, Ohio for
the restoration of the Euclid Beach Carousel;
$700,000 for the Cleveland Botanical garden for the
development of a glass house conservatory;
$500,000 for Skagit County for the preservation of
farmland in Skagit County, Washington;
$1,000,000 for the Pacific Science Center in Seattle,
Washington to complete the Mercer Island Slough
Environmental Education Center;
$500,000 for the Seattle Art Museum in Seattle,
Washington for site development;
$500,000 for the City of Takoma, Washington for the
Downtown Revitalization and Shelter Improvements
program;
$1,000,000 for the City of Lincoln, Nebraska for the
construction of the Northbridge Center for Children and
Youth;
$500,000 for the Southwest Border Region Partnership for
an assessment of the border region's future economic
health;
$250,000 for the Centro de Salud familiar La Fe in El
Paso, Texas for community outreach activities to assist
low-income families;
$1,000,000 for the City of Houston for redevelopment
activities within Freedman's Town;
$250,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Brownsville,
Texas for building repairs and community services;
$250,000 for the George Gervin Youth center in San
Antonio for the construction of a youth center;
$500,000 for the City of Beaumont, Texas to revitalize
the Charlton-Pollard neighborhood;
$500,000 for the Lubbock Science Spectrum Museum to
establish a Brazos River exhibit;
$500,000 for the Bayfront Arts and Science Park in Corpus
Cristi, Texas for the expansion of the park;
$250,000 for West Texas A&M University to develop an
integrated services center in Amarillo, Texas;
$250,000 for Sam Houston State University for the
redevelopment of the Sam Houston Memorial Museum;
$3,500,000 for the University of Louisville for the
expansion of the university's main library;
$1,000,000 for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for the Oklahoma
City Murrah Revitalization project;
$1,000,000 for the National Council on Agricultural Life
and Labor in Dover, Delaware for a variety of housing
assistance programs;
$1,000,000 for the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Alabama for the Gorgas House Renovation Project;
$100,000 for the Hammoundville Armory in the Town of
Valley Head, Valley Head, Alabama for the renovation of
historic facility to enhance economic development and
tourist activity;
$500,000 for Monroeville, Alabama for the Monroe County
Courthouse Restoration Project;
$1,000,000 for the Mobile Public Library, Mobile, Alabama
for the renovation of facilities as part of
neighborhood redevelopment project;
$500,000 for the City of LaFayette, (Chambers County)
Alabama for the Chambers County Courthouse Restoration
Project;
$100,000 for Union Springs, AL for the rehabilitation of
facilities for downtown restoration/revitalization;
$250,000 for the Mobile Historic Development Commission
for the Oakleigh District Revitalization Project;
$250,000 for the National Community College for the Deaf
and Blind in Talladega Alabama for the renovation of
facilities for development of economic education
program;
$500,000 for Tuscaloosa, Alabama for the Tuscaloosa
Alberta City Project;
$500,000 for the City of Brundidge, Alabama for the
completion of Pike County Covered Arena;
$500,000 for the City of Mobile, Alabama for the
Battlehouse Restoration Project;
$500,000 for Tennessee Valley Family Services Youth Home
in Guntersville, Alabama for the renovation of
facilities for neighborhood economic development;
$700,000 for Kansas State Historical Society for the
restoration of the home of William Allen White;
$1,000,000 for the development of the Life Center at
Franklin Pierce College in Ridge, NH.
$100,000 for the Housing Partnership in Portsmouth, NH to
provide below market rents and to rehabilitate
deteriorated buildings;
$400,000 for the Northern Forest Heritage Park in Berlin,
NH to develop facilities;
$3,000,000 for the City of Meridian, Mississippi for the
rehabilitation of the opera house;
$500,000 for Rowan Oak for the restoration of the home of
William Faulkner in Oxford, Mississippi;
$500,000 for the George Ohr museum for the development of
an African-American art center;
$500,000 for Ocean Springs, MS for the restoration of the
old high school administration building;
$500,000 for Mississippi State University School of
Architecture in Starkville, MS for rural
revitalization;
$2,500,000 for the University of Alaska for a pilot
training simulator;
$450,000 for Bird TLC for the construction of Potter's
Marsh Conservation Center;
$2,000,000 for Catholic Community Services for the
reconstruction of a homeless shelter and to acquire new
housing stock for battered women;
$270,000 for the Fairbanks Hospitality House for the
purchase and renovation of an emergency shelter;
$500,000 for Kids are People, Inc for a transitional
living program for homeless youth and an emergency
shelter in Wasilla, Alaska;
$3,000,000 for the Alaska Pacific University for the
restoration of an historic property in Anchorage,
Alaska;
$250,000 for downtown redevelopment activities in
Marceline, Missouri;
$500,000 to the Ozark Action, Inc. of Missouri for low-
income rural housing;
$400,000 to Sedalia, Missouri for the Katy Depot
Restoration Project;
$200,000 for the Bond Family Housing Center in St. Louis,
Missouri for the Transitional Housing Program;
$2,000,000 for the Community Development Corporation of
Kansas City and Health Midwest Partners for Change for
the revitalization initiative on the northwest corner
of 63rd Street and Prospect Avenue;
$2,000,000 for the Missouri Botanical Gardens for
development and revitalization activities associated
with McRee Town;
$1,000,000 for Arkansas State University at Mountain
Home, Arkansas for the construction of a multipurpose
auditorium;
$1,000,000 for the construction of the sexually
Transmitted Disease and HIV Prevention and Research
Center in Marion County, Indiana.
$670,000 to the City of Spartanburg, South Carolina for
Arkwright/Forest Park revitalization;
$670,000 to the South Carolina Association of Community
Development Corporations in Charleston, SC for job
creation, small business development and quality of
life improvements within the State of South Carolina;
$660,000 to the University of South Carolina in Columbia,
South Carolina to enlarge the main building at the
University of South Carolina School of Public Health;
$500,000 to Helping Hands Hawaii in Honolulu, Hawaii for
community based activities including the delivery of
goods and services to Hawaii's needy;
$750,000 to Waipahu Community Association in Waipahu,
Hawaii for renovations and the establishment of a
Waipahu festival market fair;
$500,000 to the Kauai Economic Development Board in
Lihue, Hawaii for site acquisition, design,
construction and equipment for the West Kauai
Technology Center;
$250,000 to the Maui Academy of Performing Arts in
Puunene, Hawaii for the acquisition and renovation of
the facility;
$250,000 to the Homestake Opera House in Lead, South
Dakota for renovation of the interior of the Homestake
Opera House;
$250,000 to Cedar Youth Services in Lincoln, Nebraska to
complete construction of the Northbridge Center for
Children and Youth;
$500,000 for the Lowell Cultural and Performing Arts
Downtown Initiative in Lowell, Massachusetts for
development of the site for the Lowell Performing Arts
Center;
$500,000 to the City of Boston, Massachusetts for its
Main Streets Program;
$325,000 to the City of Racine, Wisconsin for
construction of the Racine Root River Pathway;
$300,000 to the City of Beloit, Wisconsin for the Beloit
urban renewal project;
$300,000 to the Historic Third Ward Association in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin to establish a public market;
$250,000 to Jentry-McDonald Corporation in Baltimore,
Maryland for capital improvements to the Jentry-
McDonald House;
$250,000 to the City of Takoma Park, Maryland for the
construction of the Takoma Park Computer Center;
$250,000 to Montgomery County, Maryland for costs
associated with the Wheaton Small Business Technology
Center;
$250,000 for the Central Montana Foundation to upgrade,
install technology, and facilitate occupancy of One
Stop Center in Lewistown, MT;
$250,000 to the City of Indianapolis, Indiana for
infrastructure needs in the King Park homeownership
zone;
$1,000,000 to the City of Belen, New Mexico for
construction of a community center;
$350,000 for Rio Arriba County, NM for an environmental
impact statement;
$150,000 for Cochita Pueblo, NM for the construction of a
community center;
$450,000 to the City of San Francisco, California for
preservation and restoration of the Old Mint;
$500,000 to Booker T. Washington Outreach, Inc. in
Monroe, Louisiana for construction of an Elderly Living
Center;
$2,400,000 to Wheeling Jesuit University in Wheeling,
West Virginia for construction of a science/computer
center;
$1,800,000 to the city of Hinton, West Virginia for
construction of a High Technology office building and
small business incubator;
$250,000 to the Tubman African American Museum in Macon,
Georgia for construction of the Tubman African American
Museum;
$250,000 to the Lemmon Area Charitable and Economic
Development Corporation in Lemmon, South Dakota for
economic development activities;
$750,000 to the City of Fresno, California for the
development of the Fresno Community Health Center
Regional Medical Center;
$250,000 to the City of Inglewood, California for the
Market Street Senior Center;
$100,000 to the Mathilda Geppert Childcare Center in
Vermillion, South Dakota for development of a child day
care center;
$75,000 to the City of Clark, South Dakota for
construction of a community childcare facility;
$300,000 to the City of Brandon, South Dakota to
construct a community library;
$1,500,000 to the City of Aberdeen, South Dakota for
construction of a community center;
$500,000 to the Sioux Falls Empire Fair Association in
Sioux Falls, South Dakota for infrastructure
improvements to the W.H. Lyons Fairgrounds;
$250,000 to the City of Redfield, South Dakota for
infrastructure improvement at its industrial park;
$250,000 to Fairfield University in Fairfield,
Connecticut for continued construction of an
Information Technology Center;
$250,000 to Prince George's County, Maryland for the
Prince George's County Technology Commercialization
Center;
$100,000 to the American Visionary Arts Museum in
Baltimore, Maryland for expansion of the museum;
$1,500,000 to the Discovery Center in Williston, North
Dakota for construction of a visitor center and
reconstruction of former barracks at Fort Buford State
Historic Site;
$250,000 to the Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones in
North Dakota;
$250,000 to North Dakota State University in Fargo, North
Dakota for development of a campus-based technology
park;
$500,000 to the City of Taylorsville, Illinois for an
emergency services center;
$1,000,000 to Loyola University in Chicago, Illinois for
development of a life sciences center;
$200,000 to the Merit Music Program in Chicago, Illinois
to expand Project BEGIN;
$400,000 to the City of Freeport, Illinois for
Brownfields cleanup;
$100,000 to the City of Benton, Illinois for streetscape
and beautification of downtown Benton;
$250,000 to the City of Charlotte, North Carolina for
economic development activities within Charlotte's
Wilkinson Boulevard Corridor;
$250,000 to the Museum of Latin American Art in Long
Beach, California to expand and upgrade existing
facilities;
$250,000 to FAME Renaissance in Los Angeles, California
to continue work on a small business incubator;
$250,000 to the City of San Francisco, CA for a homeless
housing initiative;
$250,000 to West River Foundation in South Dakota;
$100,000 to the South Dakota Housing Development
Authority in Pierre, South Dakota for housing
development;
$250,000 to Barry University in Miami Shores, Florida for
an Intercultural Community Center;
$500,000 to the City of Waterloo, Iowa for the
redevelopment of blighted portions of the downtown
area;
$1,800,000 to Comprehensive Housing Assistance, Inc., in
Baltimore, Maryland for renovations to the Concord
Apartments;
$250,000 to Patterson Park Development Corporation for
the purchase and rehabilitation of homes in the
Patterson Park neighborhood;
$500,000 to the City of Davenport, Iowa for development
of Friendly House;
$500,000 to the City of Council Bluffs, Iowa for land
purchase and construction of an elderly community
center;
$500,000 to the City of Des Moines, Iowa for planning of
the redevelopment of the Riverpoint area;
$1,190,000 to City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin for
revitalization of Menomonee Valley industrial area;
$10,000 to LaCrosse County, Wisconsin for economic
development information centers;
$450,000 to Biomedical Research Foundation of Northwest
Louisiana, Shreveport, Louisiana for infrastructure
improvements to InterTech Park and construction of a
Cleanroom Biotechnology Incubator;
$1,000,000 to University Heights Science Park, Newark,
New Jersey for University Heights Science Park's Newark
Digital Century Center;
$500,000 to City of Woodbury, New Jersey for downtown
economic development activities;
$500,000 to Bayshore Economic Development Corporation for
development of the Henry Hudson Trail;
$400,000 for Sheperd College in Sheperdstown, West
Virginia for renovation of Scarborough Library;
$400,000 for Bethany College in Bethany, West Virginia
for continued work on a health and wellness center;
$250,000 to Town of Millville, New Jersey for development
of the Glasstown Center project;
$400,000 to City of Burlington, Vermont for Firehouse
Center;
$400,000 to City of Montpelier, Vermont for Pyralisk Arts
Center;
$200,000 to Vermont Youth Orchestra Association,
Colchester, Vermont for rehabilitation of the Fort
Ethan Allen Riding Hall;
$250,000 to Kellogg-Hubbard Library, Montpelier, Vermont
for restoration of historic library and addition to the
children's library;
$750,000 to Vermont Housing and Conservation Board in
Brattleboro, Vermont for rehabilitation of the Westgate
apartments;
$250,000 to City of Detroit, Michigan for development of
a pedestrian friendly Promenade along the Detroit
River;
$250,000 to Bushnell Theatre, Hartford, Connecticut for
final completion of renovation;
$225,000 to Boys and Girls Club of Drew County, Arkansas
for construction of general purpose facility;
$225,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of McGhee, AR for the
construction of a facility;
$250,000 to the City of Santa Ana, California for the
IDEA high-tech education center;
$250,000 to the Tri-States River heritage Foundation in
Kennewick, Washington for an analysis of the new
economic development opportunities related to the
Hanford Reach National Monument;
$250,000 to Frank Lloyd Wright Darwin Martin House,
Buffalo, New York for restoration work;
$1,750,000 to Washington State Department of Community
Development to address farmworker housing issues in the
State;
$250,000 to Trinity Repertory Pell-Chafee Theatre,
Providence, Rhode Island for theater expansion and
operations;
$1,250,000 to City of Henderson, Nevada for downtown
redevelopment and infrastructure upgrade;
$250,000 to Opportunity Village Foundation, Las Vegas,
Nevada for start-up funding for downpayment assistance
program to disabled;
$500,000 to Boys and Girls Club of Las Vegas, Nevada for
the renovation and expansion of existing facilities;
$750,000 to Henry and Martinsville Counties, Virginia for
economic development activities;
$250,000 to Bayview Citizens for Social Justice and the
Northampton-Accomack Planning District Commission to
support economic development projects on the Eastern
Shore of Virginia;
$250,000 to Monroe Community College, Rochester, New York
to establish a Virtual Campus Center;
$1,000,000 City of Wildwood, New Jersey for
revitalization of the Pacific Avenue Business District;
$250,000 for the West Virginia School of Osteopathic
Medicine in Lewisburg, West Virginia for expansion of
the ambulatory care facility;
$250,000 to Northeast Ventures Corporation, Duluth,
Minnesota to provide capital support for micro
enterprise in Northeast Minnesota;
$250,000 to City of Portland, Oregon for the Portland-
Vancouver Regional Housing Affordability Pilot Program;
$400,000 to Prince George's County, Maryland for
architecture, design and engineering work for
redevelopment of McGuire House;
$250,000 to Howard County, Maryland for renovations to
Route 1.
For each of the aforementioned EDI grants, HUD shall
conduct a close-out review of each grant within 5 years to
ensure the funds are used for the purpose specified. Any grants
not obligated within 5 years shall be rescinded and reallocated
within the next round of CDBG funds.
In addition, HUD is required to report on all projects
funded under any EDI grants awarded independently by HUD,
identifying the purpose of the project, the funding structure
of the project, the economic impact and social utility of the
project, and the lessons learned from the project that can be
applied as a model throughout the country.
The Committee includes $60,000,000 for the Youthbuild
program, of which $10,000,000 is for capacity building and new
programs in underserved and rural areas. In addition,
$4,000,000 is set-aside for capacity building by Youthbuild
USA.
The Committee has included up to $55,000,000 for supportive
service contracts, a critical activity.
In addition, $29,000,000 is provided for the cost of
guaranteed loans, as authorized under section 108 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, to subsidize a
total loan principal not to exceed $1,261,000,000.
home investment partnerships program
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,600,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 1,650,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,585,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,600,000,000
program description
Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as
amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.
This program provides assistance to States and units of local
government for the purpose of expanding the supply and
affordability of housing. Eligible activities include tenant-
based rental assistance, acquisition, and rehabilitation of
affordable rental and ownership housing and, also, construction
of housing. To participate in the HOME Program, State and local
governments must develop a comprehensive housing affordability
strategy [CHAS]. There is a 25-percent matching requirement for
participating jurisdictions which can be reduced or eliminated
if they are experiencing fiscal distress.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,600,000,000
for the HOME Investment Partnership Program. This amount is the
same as the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $50,000,000 less
than the budget request. The Committee includes $20,000,000 for
housing counseling.
homeless assistance
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,020,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 1,200,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,020,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,020,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The ``Homeless Assistance Grants Program'' account is
intended to fund the emergency shelter grants program, the
supportive housing program, the section 8 moderate
rehabilitation single-room occupancy program, and the shelter
plus care program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,020,000,000 for homeless
assistance grants. The amount recommended is the same as the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $180,000,000 below the
budget request for fiscal year 2001. This funding level rejects
the Administration's request for $105,000,000 for section 8
homeless assistance. In addition, $105,000,000 is funded in a
separate account for Shelter Plus Care. The Committee remains
concerned about the funding structure of the McKinney homeless
assistance grants programs and the overall direction of HUD's
administration of the program. The Committee believes that
there is a need for a strong continuum of care approach which
results in permanent and stable housing, not a revolving door.
There is a particular need to stabilize homeless persons with
mental disabilities to avoid this revolving door syndrome as
well as the destabilizing impact this population can have on
the effectiveness of local continuum of care strategies.
Therefore, the Committee is including again this year a
requirement that a minimum of 30 percent of funds be allocated
to permanent housing.
In addition, there is a 25-percent match requirement for
services to maintain a balance between homeless services and
the development of transitional and permanent housing.
The Committee continues to be very concerned over HUD's
administration of the McKinney homeless assistance programs
through formula funding to local continuums of care. With the
exception of the Emergency Shelter Grants program, the
legislation for the Supportive Housing program, Shelter Plus
Care and the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation SRO program
requires a national competition by grantees, not a formula
allocation. This is especially troubling since HUD uses a
modified allocation formula pursuant to the Community
Development Block Grants (CDBG) program to award funding to
local continuums of care. The CDBG formula has no real nexus to
homeless needs and the use of the CDBG formula also means that
local continuums of care are assured of receiving a minimum
amount of funds where a grant application meets certain minimum
requirements regardless of the actual homeless assistance needs
of the jurisdiction. Additional funds are then allocated to the
local continuums of care where there is a reallocation of funds
in cases where local continuums of care fail to meet the basic
requirements.
In addition, HUD has failed to establish the necessary
oversight requirements that are needed to ensure the
appropriate use of McKinney homeless assistance funds. In
effect, the continuum of care process has become a self-
certifying process that presumes the appropriate use of funds
at the local level. While the Committee believes that many, if
not most, homeless assistance providers manage their homeless
assistance programs and activities very well, there is
inadequate information to ensure the funds are used well or
even appropriately.
The Committee believes that HUD must collect data on the
extent of homelessness in America as well as the effectiveness
of the McKinney homeless assistance programs in addressing this
condition. These programs have been in existence for some 15
years and there has never been an overall review or
comprehensive analysis on the extent of homelessness or how to
address it. The Committee believes that it is essential to
develop an unduplicated count of homeless people, and an
analysis of their patterns of use of assistance (HUD McKinney
homeless assistance as well as other assistance both targeted
and not targeted to homeless people), including how they enter
and exit the homeless assistance system and the effectiveness
of assistance. The Committee recognizes that this is a long
term effort involving many partners. However, HUD is directed
to take the lead in approaching this goal by requiring client
level reporting at a jurisdictional level within 3 years.
To improve the capacity of local providers and
jurisdictions to collect data, the bill includes language that
makes implementation of management information systems (MIS),
as well as collection and analysis of MIS data, an eligible use
of Supportive Housing Program funds. Further, the bill includes
language allowing HUD to use 1 percent of homeless assistance
grant funds for technical assistance, for management
information systems, and to further its efforts to develop an
automated, client-level APR system. Of this amount, at least
$1,500,000 should be used to continue on an annual basis to
provide a report on a nationally representative sample of
jurisdictions whose local MIS data can be aggregated yearly to
document the change in demographics of homelessness, demand for
homeless assistance, to identify patterns in utilization of
assistance, and to demonstrate the effectiveness of assistance.
The Committee also expects HUD to use technical assistance
funds to assist in the development of an unduplicated count.
The Committee instructs HUD to use these funds to contract with
experienced academic institutions to analyze data and report to
the agency, jurisdictions, providers and the Committee on
findings.
HUD is directed to convene a group of experts including
academics, practitioners, national organization
representatives, local and State government officials, and
Federal officials to make recommendations to Congress by June
1, 2001 on alternatives to the formula by which ``pro rata
shares'' are determined for local and State jurisdictions in
its homeless assistance grants program. While this Committee
supports the concept of a homeless assistance block grant for
allocating funds, the current formula allocation and ``pro rata
shares'' approach appears to be in violation of current
statutory authority. The Committee, therefore, expects HUD to
submit its program administration to the Department of Justice
for a legal review of its implementation. The Committee also
support the efforts of the Senate and House Banking Committees
to develop a block grant program to address homeless needs.
This would provide for State and local oversight on the use of
homeless assistance funds as well as facilitate the access of
other programs for homeless assistance. In addition, contrary
to some concerns, this approach would not further
institutionalize homeless assistance since a homeless block
grant could be merged into the HOME program after 5 years. This
approach would allow homeless concerns to be addressed through
comprehensive strategies to address overall housing and
community development needs for States and jurisdictions.
The Committee expects that HUD field staff will oversee the
implementation of homelessness programs funded under this
title. This oversight should include annual site visits and
desk and field audits of a representative sample of programs in
each jurisdiction. Using this information, it should analyze
Annual Performance Reports and forward an annual plan for
addressing problem areas.
The Committee is concerned that a small percentage of
homeless people are chronically homeless and chronically ill,
have no reasonable residential alternative beyond shelter and
the streets, and are disproportionately using public resources.
It is the intention of this Committee that HUD and local
providers increase the supply of permanent supportive housing
for chronically homeless, chronically ill people over time
until the need is met (estimated 150,000 units). This includes
preserving the current supply of such housing and providing new
housing. Accordingly, the Committee requires HUD to use not
less than 30 percent of the funds appropriated for homelessness
programs for permanent supportive housing including those who
are chronically homeless and chronically ill people. In
addition, the Committee has funded the shelter plus care
program as a separate program at $105,000,000.
The Committee also recognizes that homelessness cannot be
ended by homeless assistance providers alone--it requires the
involvement of a full range of Federal programs. Accordingly,
the Committee has included $500,000 for staffing for the
Interagency Council on the Homeless. It instructs the Council
specifically to require HUD, HHS, Labor, and VA to quantify the
number of their program participants who become homeless, to
address ways in which mainstream programs can prevent
homelessness among those they serve, and to describe
specifically how they provide assistance to people who are
homeless. The Committee directs that the Council will be under
the authority of the Assistant to the President for Domestic
Policy within the Executive Office of the President. Members of
the council shall be Cabinet Secretaries, and the Chairmanship
of the Council shall rotate among the Secretaries of the
following agencies: HUD, HHS, Labor, and VA. The members of the
Council shall meet at least annually.
To the extent that State and local jurisdictions receive
homeless assistance, HUD is directed to ensure that these
jurisdictions pass on at least 50 percent of all administrative
funds to the nonprofits administering the homeless assistance
programs.
In addition, each year, the Committee faces requests for
additional funds for the renewal of Shelter Plus Care and
Supportive Housing contracts. The Committee supports
maintaining existing programs and infrastructure for homeless
assistance where appropriate. However, these requests for
funding are very troubling since the local continuum of cares
in which this housing is located explicitly rejected the
funding of these expiring contracts. Moreover, the Committee
has rejected the idea of funding these expiring contracts,
especially the Shelter Plus Care expiring contracts, under the
Housing Certificate Fund. These contracts are part of the
continuum of care and to move these funding requirements to the
Housing Certificate Fund would institutionalize these contracts
and minimize the concept of the continuum of care as a
comprehensive approach to homeless assistance needs. The
Committee further directs HUD to report to the Congress by May
15, 2001 on (1) the method by which HUD will control quality in
supportive housing and shelter plus care projects; (2) the
criteria by which HUD will judge the need to renew supportive
housing and shelter plus care projects; and (3) how supportive
housing and shelter plus care projects fit into the continuum
of care.
The Committee also funds the Shelter Plus Care program as a
separate account at $105,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. The
Committee rejects the Administration's request to fund contract
renewals of $37,000,000 for the Shelter Plus Care program under
the Housing Certificate Fund since this action would divorce
the program from accountability requirements that are needed to
ensure the financial integrity of projects as well as any
review to ensure the project is meeting the needs of the
homeless.
SHELTER PLUS CARE
Appropriations, 2000....................................................
Budget estimate, 2001...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $105,000,000
Program Description
The Shelter Plus Care program provides rental housing
assistance for homeless persons with disabilities, including
tenant-based rental assistance, sponsor-based rental
assistance, project-based rental assistance, or SRO assistance.
Funding for supportive services is provided from other sources.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $105,000,000
for the Shelter Plus Care program for fiscal year 2001. This
program was previously funded under the Homeless Assistance
Grants account with the Administration recommending that the
funding for Shelter Plus Care contract renewals of some
$37,000,000 be funded through the Housing Certificate Fund in
fiscal year 2001. The Committee rejects this recommendation
since there would be no oversight or accountability for
renewals to ensure the financial integrity of the project or to
ensure the project is meeting the needs of the homeless within
the overall structure and review process of the local continuum
of care. The Committee is concerned that the continuum of care
process does not meet the statutory requirements of the
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, and is especially concerned
that HUD's use of a modified formula allocation pursuant to the
formula requirements of the Community Development Block Grants
program does not meet the nationwide needs of the homeless or
provide for the necessary oversight procedures to ensure the
funds are being well used. The Committee also believes that the
Shelter Plus Care program is a critical program designed to
meet the needs of homeless persons with disabilities and that
converting this funding to a nationwide competition will help
ensure that these funds are targeted to those persons and
localities with the greatest needs. Shelter Plus Care programs
must still be coordinated with local continua of care.
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA]
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $232,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 260,000,000
House allowance......................................... 250,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 232,000,000
Program Description
The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA]
Program is designed to provide States and localities with
resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive
strategies for meeting the housing needs of persons living with
HIV/AIDS and their families.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $232,000,000
for this program, the same as the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level and $28,000,000 less than the budget request. This
Committee remains concerned about HUD's management of this
program as well as the increased costs of this program. Of
particular note, the budget for HOPWA currently exceeds the
annual budget request of $210,000,000 for the section 811
Housing for Persons with Disabilities program, a program
designed to provide housing assistance for all people with
disabilities, including those with AIDS.
The Committee also requires HUD to allocate these funds in
a manner designed to preserve existing HOPWA programs to the
extent those programs are determined to be meeting the needs of
persons with AIDS in a manner consistent with the requirements
of the HOPWA program.
Housing Programs
Housing for special Populations
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $911,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 989,000,000
House allowance......................................... 911,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 996,000,000
Program Description
This account consolidates the housing for the elderly under
section 202; housing for the disabled under section 811; and
public housing for Indian families. Under these programs, the
Department provides capital grants to eligible entities for the
acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing.
Twenty-five percent of the funding provided for housing for the
disabled is available for tenant-based assistance under section
8.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $996,000,000
for development of additional new subsidized housing. Included
in this recommendation is $783,000,000 for capital advances for
housing for the elderly (section 202 housing) and $213,000,000
for capital advances for housing for the disabled (section 811
housing). This is an increase of $7,000,000 above the
administration's budget request for fiscal year 2001 and
provide an increase of $73,000,000 for section 202 and
$12,000,000 for section 811 over the fiscal year 2000 levels.
Up to 25 percent of the funding allocated for housing for the
disabled can be used to fund section 8 assistance for the
disabled.
The section 202 funds include up to $50,000,000 for the
conversion of section 202 housing to assisted living
facilities, up to $50,000,000 for grants for the new
construction or substantial rehabilitation of assisted living
facilities, and up to $50,000,000 for service coordinators.
federal housing administration
fha--mutual mortgage insurance program account
(including transfer of funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000................................ $100,000,000 $140,000,000,000 $330,888,000
Budget estimate, 2001............................... 250,000,000 160,000,000,000 330,888,000
House allowance..................................... 100,000,000 160,000,000,000 330,888,000
Committee recommendation............................ 250,000,000 160,000,000,000 330,888,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fha--general and special risk program account
(including transfer of funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000...................... $50,000,000 $18,100,000,000 $211,000,000 $153,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................... 50,000,000 21,000,000,000 211,455,000 101,000,000
House allowance........................... 50,000,000 21,000,000,000 211,455,000 101,000,000
Committee recommendation.................. 50,000,000 21,000,000,000 211,455,000 101,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the
mortgage and loan insurance activity of about 40 HUD mortgage/
loan insurance programs which are grouped into the mutual
mortgage insurance [MMI] fund, cooperative management housing
insurance [CMHI] fund, general insurance fund [GI] fund, and
the special risk insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and
accounting control purposes, these are divided into two sets of
accounts based on shared characteristics. The unsubsidized
insurance programs of the mutual mortgage insurance fund and
the cooperative management housing insurance fund constitute
one set; and the general risk insurance and special risk
insurance funds, which are partially composed of subsidized
programs, make up the other.
The amounts for administrative expenses are to be
transferred from the FHA program accounts to the HUD ``Salaries
and expenses'' accounts.
Language is proposed to provide a commitment limitation
amounting to $160,000,000,000 in the ``MMI/CMHI'' account and
$21,000,000,000 in the ``GI/SRI'' account.
committee recommendation
The Committee has included the requested amounts for the
``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program'' account: a limitation on
guaranteed loans of $160,000,000,000, a limitation on direct
loans of $250,000,000, and an appropriation of $330,888,000 for
administrative expenses. For the GI/SRI account, the Committee
recommends $21,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans,
a limitation on direct loans of $50,000,000, and $211,455,000
for administrative expenses. The administrative expenses
appropriation will be transferred and merged with the sums in
the Department's ``Salaries and expenses'' account and the
``Office of the Inspector General'' account.
In addition, the Committee directs HUD to continue direct
loan programs in 2001 for multifamily bridge loans and single
family purchase money mortgages to finance the sale of certain
properties owned by the Department. Temporary financing would
be provided for the acquisition and rehabilitation of
multifamily projects by purchasers who have obtained
commitments for permanent financing from another lender.
Purchase money mortgages would enable governmental and
nonprofit intermediaries to acquire properties for resale to
owner-occupants in areas undergoing revitalization.
The Committee is troubled that HUD has ignored the guidance
it provided when it amended Section 204 of the National Housing
Act (12 U.S.C. 1710) to create the ``Asset Control Areas''
(ACA) program. By partnering with qualified nonprofit
organizations and local governments, the ACA program was
intended to address the growing number of FHA-owned, foreclosed
homes in distressed communities across the country and promote
homeownership as a tool to stabilize these neighborhoods under
siege because of HUD's negligence.
Unfortunately, many participants in the ACA pilot programs
are finding that most properties are so dilapidated that the
cost of needed rehabilitation or demolition (of the worst
properties in the inventory) far exceeds the market value for
these homes, making homeownership virtually impossible for the
low-income families Congress intended to serve. Pilot
participants are finding that HUD's current ACA pricing
structure appears to be adequate only in strong real estate
markets, where homeownership rates and income levels are high.
For seriously distressed properties, or those located in weak
real estate markets with higher concentrations of low-income
residents, however, the discount structure is grossly
inadequate. Furthermore, appraisers often do not understand
local code requirements and many times have no understanding of
repair estimates or rehab costs. These problems have resulted
in inflated and imprecise appraisals that, even after HUD's
discount, leave the homes overpriced for the local market,
creating huge subsidy gaps.
In passing the enabling legislation 2 years ago in the VA,
HUD Appropriations Act, Congress gave HUD maximum flexibility
and ``sole discretion'' in determining a pricing structure for
the ACA program that would support the effective redevelopment
of FHA's foreclosed inventory of homes in selected target areas
and in crafting a program that promotes neighborhood
revitalization through homeownership opportunities. As such,
the Committee directs HUD to amend its pricing structure in
order to meet the needs and conditions of local communities and
sell these assets to ``preferred purchasers'' (nonprofits or
local governments) at enough of a discount to enable the
purchasers to rehabilitate them and sell them at prices
affordable to low-income residents. Repair estimates should be
based on local code and certificate of occupancy standards and
should be provided to appraisers prior to the appraisal.
Likewise, local certified appraisers who are familiar with
local code, rehabilitation standards and costs for repairs
should perform the appraisals from which the discount will be
applied. In cases where homes are severely dilapidated and
demolition is the only feasible solution, HUD should pay for
the demolition costs at whatever expense necessary based on the
condition of the inventory, in order to meet local community
standards.
Further, HUD should sell homes at prices that, after
``adequate rehabilitation'' (defined by the Conferees as
``homes that are in good, safe and habitable condition, where
major systems are dependable and in good repair, and where the
properties are marketable to owner occupants given the
standards and preferences of the local community''), will
assure that the homes are affordable to families at or below 60
percent of area median income, paying no more than 30 percent
of their income for their housing (mortgage principle and
interest, taxes and insurance).
HUD is directed to report to the Committee by May 15, 2001
on the current status of the FHA single family property
disposition program, enacted as part of the VA/HUD fiscal year
1999 Appropriations bill, including the status of the program
and an analysis of all savings achieved to date and anticipated
to be achieved over the next 5 years. Moreover, the Committee
is aware of the large number of single-family homes currently
in the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) inventory. The
Committee believes FHA can be a positive force in reducing this
inventory while helping neighborhoods and communities redevelop
their housing stock. Therefore, the Committee directs FHA to
use available funds in the MMIF to repair and/or rehabilitate
single-family homes in its inventory. The Committee directs FHA
to give priority to local governments and non-profit
institutions who have established neighborhood redevelopment
plans. FHA should use its financial resources to repair and
renovate homes where there are established redevelopment plans.
FHA should be in the business of rebuilding and stabilizing
neighborhoods to help prevent property flipping and predatory
lending, which have devastated many communities across the
country.
The Committee is aware of the reforms announced by the FHA
on May 19, 2000 to combat problems associated with property
flipping and predatory lending. The Committee commends the
Department for announcing these important reforms. The
Committee supports the reforms announced, and urges the
Department to move forward expeditiously in implementing the
reforms. The Committee directs HUD to report back to the
Committee on Appropriations no later than December 15, 2000 on:
(1) How the FHA reforms are being implemented; (2) The current
status of the implementation of the reforms; (3) FHA's long-
term plan for institutionalizing the reforms; (4) How FHA plans
to monitor compliance with the reforms; and (5) What resources
will be devoted to monitoring compliance.
Government National Mortgage Association
guarantees of mortgage-backed securities
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 2000:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
$200,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
9,383,000
Budget estimate, 2001:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
200,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
9,383,000
Administrative (contract) expenses
40,000,000
House allowance, 2001:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
200,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
9,383,000
Administrative (contract) expenses
...........................
Committee recommendation:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
200,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
9,383,000
Administrative (contract) expenses
...........................
program description
The Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA],
through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees
privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. GNMA
is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United
States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed
generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as amended.
GNMA is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to guarantee
the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that
are based on and backed by a trust, or pool, composed of
mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the Federal
Housing Administration, the Farmers Home Administration, or the
Department of Veterans Affairs. GNMA's guarantee of mortgage-
backed securities is backed by the full faith and credit of the
United States.
In accord with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990 [OBRA] requirements for direct and guaranteed loan
programs, the administration is requesting $9,383,000 for
administrative expenses in the mortgage-backed securities
program. Amounts to fund this direct appropriation to the ``MBS
program'' account are to be derived from offsetting receipts
transferred from the ``Mortgage-backed securities financing''
account to a Treasury receipt account.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments of
mortgage-backed securities of $200,000,000,000. This amount is
the same level as proposed by the budget request. The Committee
also has included $9,383,000 for administrative expenses, the
same as the budget request. The Committee does not include an
additional $40,000,000 for administrative ``contract''
expenses, as requested by the Administration.
Policy Development and Research
research and technology
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $45,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 62,000,000
House allowance......................................... 40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 45,000,000
program description
Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970,
as amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to undertake programs of research,
studies, and reports relating to the Department's mission and
programs. These functions are carried out internally and
through grants and contracts with industry, nonprofit research
organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements
with State and local governments and other Federal agencies.
The research programs focus on ways to improve the efficiency,
effectiveness, and equity of HUD programs and to identify
methods to achieve cost reductions. Additionally, this
appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation and monitoring
activities and to conduct housing surveys.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $45,000,000 for research and
technology activities in fiscal year 2001. This amount is the
same as the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $17,000,000 less
than the budget request. Of this funding, $10,000,000 is
allocated to the Partnership for Advancing Technologies in
Housing (PATH) program. The Committee expects the PATH program
to continue its cold climate housing research with the Cold
Climate Housing Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska. In
addition, because HUD in the past has used this office's broad
authority to administer new and unauthorized programs, this
office is denied demonstration authority except where approval
is provided by Congress in response to a reprogramming request.
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
fair housing activities
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $44,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 50,000,000
House allowance......................................... 44,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 44,000,000
program description
The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding
for both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the
Fair Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP].
The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local
agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968, as amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale,
rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of
brokerage services. The major objective of the program is to
assure prompt and effective processing of title VIII complaints
with appropriate remedies for complaints by State and local
fair housing agencies.
The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by
section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1987, as amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed
to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to
public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating
or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair
housing opportunities.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommendation provides $44,000,000, of which
$22,000,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP]
and no more than $22,000,000 is for the fair housing
initiatives program [FHIP]. The funding for the FHIP program
includes $7,500,000 to fund the final year of a three-year
audit-based enforcement initiative. This appropriation does not
include $2,500,000 for the Project for Accessibility Training
and Technical Assistance, $1,000,000 for a HUD training
academy, or $3,500,000 for the Fair Housing Partnership.
The Committee emphasizes that State and local agencies
under FHAP should have the primary responsibility for
identifying and addressing discrimination in the sale, rental,
and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage
services. It is critical that consistent fair housing policies
be identified and implemented to insure continuity and
fairness, and that States and localities continue to increase
their understanding, expertise, and implementation of the law.
The Committee remains concerned that the HUD Office of Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity continues to pursue regulatory
authority over the property insurance industry through the Fair
Housing Act. This activity is not within the ambit of the law.
Moreover, while HUD has indicated that it does not intend to
focus its regulatory authority over the property insurance
requirements, the Committee reminds the Department that the
McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 explicitly states that, ``unless
a Federal law specifically relates to the business of
insurance, that law shall not apply where it would interfere
with State insurance regulation.'' Any HUD assertion of
authority regarding property insurance regulation contradicts
this statutory mandate.
Moreover, HUD's insurance-related activities duplicate
State regulation of insurance. Every State and the District of
Columbia have laws and regulations addressing unfair
discrimination in property insurance and are actively
investigating and addressing discrimination where it is found
to occur. HUD's activities in this area create an unwarranted
and unnecessary layer of Federal bureaucracy.
Office of Lead Hazard Control
LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $80,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 120,000,000
House allowance......................................... 80,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992 established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act under which HUD is authorized to make grants to
States, localities and native American tribes to conduct lead-
based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities in
private low-income housing. This has become a significant
health hazard, especially for children. According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], some 890,000
children have elevated blood levels, down from 1.7 million in
the late 1980s. Despite this improvement, lead poisoning
remains a serious childhood environmental condition, with some
4.4 percent of all children aged 1 to 5 years having elevated
blood lead levels. This percentage is much higher for low-
income children living in older housing.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for lead-based paint
hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2001.
This is $20,000,000 less than the President's budget request
for fiscal year 2001 and $20,000,000 more than the fiscal year
2000 appropriation level. Of this amount, HUD may use up to
$10,000,000 for the Healthy Homes Initiative under which HUD
conducts a number of activities designed to identify and
address housing-related illnesses. The Committee continues to
be concerned that HUD does not have a coherent and
comprehensive police for addressing the risks of lead-based
paint hazards in housing. The Department is expected to develop
a policy that links Federal education outreach and remediation
efforts with State, local, nonprofit and private funding
efforts towards the abatement of lead-based paint hazards.
Management and Administration
salaries and expenses
(including transfers of funds)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHA funds GNMA CGDB
Appropriation by funds by funds by Title VI Indian Total
transfer transfer transfer transfer housing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000........... 477,000 518,000 9,383 ......... 150 200 1,005,733
Budget estimate, 2001.......... 565,000 518,000 9,383 ......... 150 200 1,094,722
House allowance................ 474,647 518,000 9,383 1,000 150 200 1,003,380
Committee recommendation....... 477,000 518,000 9,383 ......... 150 200 1,005,733
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The recommendation includes a single ``Salaries and
expenses'' account to finance all salaries and related expenses
associated with administering the programs of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. These include the following
activities:
Housing and mortgage credit programs.--This activity
includes staff salaries and related expenses associated with
administering housing programs, the implementation of consumer
protection activities in the areas of interstate land sales,
mobile home construction and safety, and real estate settlement
procedures.
Community planning and development programs.--Funds in this
activity are for staff salaries and expenses necessary to
administer community planning and development programs.
Equal opportunity and research programs.--This activity
includes salaries and related expenses associated with
implementing equal opportunity programs in housing and
employment as required by law and Executive orders and the
administration of research programs and demonstrations.
Departmental management, legal, and audit services.--This
activity includes a variety of general functions required for
the Department's overall administration and management. These
include the Office of the Secretary, Office of General Counsel,
Office of Chief Financial Officer, as well as administrative
support in such areas as accounting, personnel management,
contracting and procurement, and office services.
Field direction and administration.--This activity includes
salaries and expenses for the regional administrators, area
office managers, and their staff who are responsible for the
direction, supervision, and performance of the Department's
field offices, as well as administration support in areas such
as accounting, personnel management, contracting and
procurement, and office services.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,002,233,000
for salaries and expenses. This amount is the same as the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the budget request. The
appropriation includes the requested amount of $518,000,000
transferred from various funds from the Federal Housing
Administration, $9,383,000 transferred from the Government
National Mortgage Association, $1,000,000 from the community
development block grant funds, $150,000 from title VI, and
$200,000 from the native American housing block grant.
In addition, the Department is prohibited from employing
more than 77 schedule C and 20 noncareer senior executive
service employees.
The Department also is prohibited from employing more than
9,100 FTEs, including all OMHAR employees and any contract
employees working on-site in a position which would normally be
occupied by an FTE. HUD also is prohibited from employing more
than 14 FTEs in the Office of Public Affairs.
The Committee is concerned that HUD's request for salaries
and expenses does not reflect the Secretary's implementation of
the HUD 2020 management reform plan. The Committee directs HUD
to submit to the Committee as part of its operating plan, an
analysis of the HUD budget request for salaries and expenses
for fiscal year 2001, including all projected savings from the
Secretary's reform efforts. The report should include a
breakdown of all salaries and expenses and staff by program,
office, and grade, including all staffing costs in the field.
All expenses, other than staffing costs, such as travel costs
and public relations costs, within this account also should be
clearly identified.
The Committee is concerned that the Department has not met
its obligation to dismantle the Community Builders program, and
instead has taken the program in house. The VA/HUD fiscal year
2000 Appropriations Act was clear that the Community Builders
program was to terminate as of September 1, 2000, and HUD was
directed not to recreate the positions within HUD. The
Committee also is concerned that HUD has overhired, outside its
own budget request. Even more troubling is the fact that the
average cost of FTEs continues to climb each year, with costs
exceeding inflation. In fact, the average cost of FTEs for HUD
grew from $58,000 in fiscal year 1995 to $72,000 in fiscal year
1999 to an estimated $78,000 in fiscal year 2000. To control
the out of control cost of HUD FTEs, the legislation caps the
average cost per FTE at $78,000.
In addition, HUD has failed to provide an adequate staffing
analysis to the Congress despite repeated requests to match
program needs with staffing expertise. As a result, the
Committee requests HUD to submit a report by January 31, 2001
to the Committee on Appropriations that identifies how the
Department has matched staffing expertise with program needs,
including an analysis of future staffing needs and cost.
The Committee recognizes that HUD's Office of Multifamily
Housing Assistance Restructuring (OMHAR) is authorized to
terminate on September 30, 2001. The original intent of this
office was to ensure that the ``mark-to-market'' program was
implemented without political influence from HUD and to ensure
that qualified staff with the necessary expertise could be
hired to oversee the program's implementation. When the program
was enacted into law, both the administration and the Congress
anticipated significant savings for section 8 renewals since
above market contract rents were to be lowered to real market
rent levels. However, the program has been fraught with delays
due to unnecessary and prolonged negotiation tactics by OMHAR,
an overly prescriptive operating program guide, and the
inability to utilize fully State housing finance agencies that
were intended by the Congress to administer most of the
restructuring activities. And due to these delays, no full
restructuring deals had been completed until last month.
Due to OMHAR's failure to implement effectively the
program, the Committee prohibits the Department and OMHAR in
providing any salary bonuses or increases, or staff promotions
until it has been able to complete 100 full restructuring deals
by June 29, 2001. The Committee hopes that OMHAR will
streamline the restructuring process and provide the
flexibility necessary for the State housing finance agencies to
administer the program as intended by the Congress.
The Committee believes that OMHAR's authorization should
not be continued and instead, its functions should be
transferred to HUD beginning in fiscal year 2001. The Committee
directs HUD in consultation with OMHAR to develop a transition
plan that will detail how the mark-to-market program functions
will be transferred from OMHAR to FHA's Office of Multifamily
Housing. A preliminary transition plan should be submitted to
the Committees on Appropriations by December 15, 2000 with a
final transition plan included as part of the Department's
fiscal year 2001 Operating Plan. The transition should be
completed no later than September 30, 2001. The transition plan
must include a workload analysis on the appropriate level of
staffing needed at FHA to oversee the program and a process for
hiring or terminating current OMHAR employees and officers.
Further, the Committee directs HUD to be in charge of making
any staffing changes (e.g., hiring, terminations, extensions)
during fiscal year 2001.
The Committee has been concerned for some time as to
whether funds appropriated for information technology are being
well spent and are helping to improve the performance of the
Department. To help ensure that HUD's investments in
information technology are managed wisely, the Committee
directs HUD to provide data on its information technology
projects. HUD is reportedly managing its information technology
investment portfolio and therefore providing this information
to the Committee would not impose any additional burden. The
report to the Committee should be submitted on a quarterly
basis and contain: (1) information technology investments
(including new projects or initiatives, ongoing projects or
initiatives, and steady State operations (such as the day-to-
day operations and maintenance of computer and communications
facilities and existing systems) that HUD is planning to fund
during the fiscal year and the estimated costs, any changes to
those investment plans, the importance of the investments to
HUD, funding spent to date, and planned spending for the
remainder of the fiscal year; (2) information on whether the
investments are meeting the cost, schedule, and results targets
set for them, and any oversight or corrective actions being
taken; and (3) other metrics or performance indicators that HUD
is using to monitor project health and risks, and reassess the
progress or continued worth of its investments.
In particular, HUD is directed to report by March 1, 2001
on all funding spent over the last 4 years to develop all
accounting systems within the Department, including the current
status and any changes that have been made to the contracts for
these accounting requirements. This report should identify the
overall costs of these systems, current status and the
benchmarks for completion. Funding for these requirements are
to be included in the Department's operating plan and any
changes in funding shall be subject to reprogramming
requirements.
Office of Inspector General
(including transfer of funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug
FHA funds by elimination
Appropriation transfer grants Total
transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000............................ $50,657,000 $22,343,000 $10,000,000 $83,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001........................... 52,000,000 22,343,000 10,000,000 84,000,000
House allowance................................. 50,657,000 22,343,000 10,000,000 83,000,000
Committee recommendation........................ 55,500,000 22,343,000 10,000,000 87,843,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
This appropriation would finance all salaries and related
expenses associated with the operation of the Office of the
Inspector General [OIG].
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a funding level of $87,843,000 for
the Office of Inspector General (OIG). This amount is
$4,843,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and
$3,500,000 above the budget request. This funding level
includes $22,343,000 by transfer from various FHA funds and
$10,000,000 from drug elimination grants, the same level as
proposed in the budget request. The Committee commends OIG for
its commitment and its efforts in reducing waste, fraud and
abuse in HUD programs.
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $19,493,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 25,800,000
House allowance......................................... 22,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,000,000
program description
This appropriation funds the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight [OFHEO], which was established in 1992 to
regulate the financial safety and soundness of the two housing
Government sponsored enterprises [GSE's], the Federal National
Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation. The Office was authorized in the Federal Housing
Enterprise Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also
instituted a three-part capital standard for the GSE's, and
gave the regulator enhanced authority to enforce those
standards.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is $3,800,000 less
than the budget request and $2,507,000 more than the fiscal
year 2000 level. The Committee directs OFHEO to submit to the
Congress a staffing and resource plan that identifies staffing
needs with oversight responsibilities.
Administrative Provisions
The Committee recommends 18 administrative provisions. A
brief description follows.
Sec. 201. Financing Adjustment Factor. Promotes the
refinancing of bonds.
Sec. 202. Fair Housing and Free Speech. Provides free
speech protections.
Sec. 203. HOPWA. Technical correction for allocations.
Sec. 204. Due Process for Homeless Assistance. Requires HUD
to establish due process requirements for removing convenors/
administrators in the McKinney Homeless Assistance programs.
Sec. 205. HUD Reform Act Compliance. Requires HUD to award
assistance on a competitive basis.
Sec. 206. NEPA Review. Delegates NEPA review under the
McKinney homeless assistance programs.
Sec. 207. Technical Corrections to National Housing Act.
Technical corrections to FHA.
Sec. 208. Defines Law Enforcement Families under NAHASDA.
Allows housing assistance for law enforcement officers.
Sec. 209. Prohibition of Federal Funds in Support of the
Sale of Tobacco Products. Prohibits HUD from funding any
facility that predominantly sells cigarettes or tobacco
products.
Sec. 210. Prohibition of Implementation of Puerto Rico PHA
Settlement Agreement. Prohibits the implementation of the PRPHA
settlement agreement without adequate evidence of meeting goals
to address mismanagement, fraud and abuse.
Sec. 211. HOPE VI Grant for Hollander Ridge. Reprograms
HOPE VI funding.
Sec. 212. Reduced FHA Downpayments for Teachers and Police.
Allows reduced downpayment requirements for teachers and
police.
Sec. 213. Computer Access for Public Housing Residents.
Allows development of computer infrastructure as an eligible
expense of public housing capital account and HOPE VI.
Sec. 214. Mark-to-Market Reform. Makes properties in
Independence, Missouri eligible for mark-to-market.
Sec. 215. Section 236 Excess Income. Extends section 236
excess income eligibility through 2001.
Sec. 216. CDBG Eligibility. Grandfathers program
eligibility for existing CDBG grantees.
Sec. 217. Low-Income Multifamily Risk-Sharing Mortgage
Insurance. Establishes a new multifamily insurance program that
targets at least 25 percent of insured units to very low-income
families.
Sec. 218. Exemption for Alaska and Mississippi from
requirement of resident on board of PHA. Exempts Alaska and
Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA tenant on the
board of a PHA for fiscal year 2001.
TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $28,359,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 26,196,000
House allowance......................................... 28,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 26,196,000
program description
The American Battle Monuments Commission [ABMC] is
responsible for the maintenance and construction of U.S.
monuments and memorials commemorating the achievements in
battle of our Armed Forces where they have served since April
1917; for controlling the erection of monuments and markers by
U.S. citizens and organizations in foreign countries; and for
the design, construction, and maintenance of permanent military
cemetery memorials in foreign countries. The Commission
maintains 24 military memorial cemeteries and 31 monuments,
memorials, markers, and offices in 15 countries around the
world. In addition, the Commission administers three large
memorials on U.S. soil. It is presently charged with erecting a
World War II Memorial in the Washington, DC, area.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget request of $26,196,000
for the American Battle Monuments Commission, which is
$2,163,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $8,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 8,000,000
House allowance......................................... 8,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board was
authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to
investigate accidental releases of certain chemical substances
resulting in serious injury, death, or substantial property
damage. It became operational in fiscal year 1998.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board, a decrease of $1,000,000 below
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the budget request.
The Committee is extremely troubled by the lack of
accomplishments and the fractionalized, unproductive
environment that has characterized this agency for most of the
last year. While the new management structure seems to be
yielding some positive results, the Committee will be
monitoring closely the agency's activities and productivity.
The Committee notes that three of the Board members
recently petitioned the President to remove the former chairman
from his position as a board member. The Committee urges the
President to act on this request expeditiously to address very
serious allegations of malfeasance in office, neglect of duty,
and inefficiency. Failure of the White House to Act will make
it very difficult for the agency to move beyond the divisive
and unproductive environment and meet its objectives.
The Committee has included bill language authorizing the
Inspector General of FEMA to act as the Inspector General of
the Chemical Safety Board. Funds have been included to
accomplish this requirement in the FEMA OIG appropriation.
Not later than March 1, 2002, and each year thereafter, the
Chief Operating Officer of the Board shall prepare a financial
statement for the preceding fiscal year, covering all accounts
and associated activities of the Board. Each financial
statement of the Board will be prepared according to the form
and content of the financial statements prescribed by the
Office of Management and Budget for executive agencies required
to prepare financial statements under the Chief Financial
Officers Act of 1990, as amended by the Government Management
Reform Act of 1994. Each financial statement prepared under 31
USC 3515 by the Board shall be audited according to applicable
generally accepted government auditing standards by the
Inspector General of the Board or an independent external
auditor, as determined by the Inspector General. The IG shall
submit to the Chief Operating Officer of the Board a report on
the audit not later than June 30 following the fiscal year for
which a statement was prepared.
The Committee has again included bill language limiting the
number of career senior executive service positions to three.
Department of the Treasury
Community Development Financial Institutions
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Program Account
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $95,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 125,000,000
House allowance......................................... 105,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 95,000,000
program description for cdfi fund
The community Development Financial Institutions Fund
primarily provides grants, loans, equity investments, deposits,
and technical assistance to new and existing community
development financial institutions. These include community
development banks, credit unions, and venture capital funds;
revolving loan funds; and microloan funds. Recipient
institutions engage in lending and investment for affordable
housing, small business and community development within
underserved communities.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends $95,000,000 for CDFI, the same
level as appropriated in fiscal year 2000 and $30,000,000 below
the administration's request. While the CDFI Fund has made a
greater effort to measure its performance, its track record is
still unclear and some of its activities clearly overlap with
those of other Federal programs designed to revitalize
distressed communities. The Committee believes that it is not
only important to understand whether the Fund's activities are
achieving its mandated purposes, but just as importantly, how
cost-effective and efficient its activities are in comparison
to other similar Federal efforts. Accordingly, the Committee
directs CDFI to include in its fiscal year 2002 Congressional
Justifications, a comparison of its activities with other
similar Federal efforts, including those of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and National Credit Union
Administration. This comparison should include measurable
performance outcomes including the number of affordable rental
housing units developed.
The Committee also recommends a set-aside of $5,000,000 for
grants, loans, and technical assistance and training programs
to benefit Native American, Alaskan Natives, and Native
Hawaiian communities in the coordination of development
strategies, increased access to equity investments, and loans
for development activities. Development activities include
investment in business opportunities, mortgage lending, human
development, and other activities that support long-term
economic growth in Indian communities. The Committee, however,
is concerned about the Fund's capacity to administer this
program due to its lack of expertise in Native American issues
and therefore, directs the Fund to use qualifying entities that
have expertise in and familiarity with Native American lending
and community development activities.
The Committee remains concerned about CDFI's lending
activities in rural areas, especially the Fund's use of its
Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) program. The administration notes
that changes to the BEA authorizing language is needed to
remove its impediment to serve rural areas. The Committee urges
the administration to work with the Banking Committees to
resolve this problem.
Consumer Product Safety Commission
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $48,814,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 52,500,000
House allowance......................................... 51,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 52,500,000
program description
The Commission is an independent regulatory agency that was
established on May 14, 1973, and is responsible for protecting
the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer
products; assisting consumers to evaluate the comparative
safety of consumer products; developing uniform safety
standards for consumer products and minimizing conflicting
State and local regulations; and promoting research and
investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related
deaths, illnesses, and injuries.
In carrying out its mandate, the Commission establishes
mandatory product safety standards, where appropriate, to
reduce the unreasonable risk of injury to consumers from
consumer products; helps industry develop voluntary safety
standards; bans unsafe products if it finds that a safety
standard is not feasible; monitors recalls of defective
products; informs and educates consumers about product hazards;
conducts research and develops test methods; collects and
publishes injury and hazard data, and promotes uniform product
regulations by governmental units.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $52,500,000 for the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, the same as the budget estimate and
an increase of $3,686,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level.
Corporation for National and Community Service
national and community service programs
operating expenses
(including transfer and rescission of funds)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $433,153,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 533,700,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 433,500,000
program description
The Corporation for National and Community Service, a
Corporation owned by the Federal Government, was established by
the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 (Public
Law 103-82) to enhance opportunities for national and community
service and provide national service educational awards. The
Corporation makes grants to States, institutions of higher
education, public and private nonprofit organizations, and
others to create service opportunities for a wide variety of
individuals such as students, out-of-school youth, and adults
through innovative, full- and part-time national and community
service programs. National service participants may receive
education awards which may be used for full-time or part-time
higher education, vocational education, job training, or
school-to-work programs.
The Corporation is governed by a Board of Directors and
headed by the Chief Executive Officer. Board members and the
Chief Executive Officer are appointed by the President of the
United States and confirmed by the Senate.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $433,500,000
for the Corporation for National and Community Service. Of this
amount, $75,000,000 is for education awards; $207,500,000 is
for grants under the National Service Trust, including the
AmeriCorps program; $10,000,000 is for the Points of Light
Foundation; $18,000,000 is for the Civilian Community Corps;
$43,000,000 is available for school-based and community-based
service-learning programs; $29,000,000 is for administrative
expenses; $5,000,000 is for audits and other evaluations;
$7,500,000 is for America's Promise; $2,500,000 is for the
Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc.; $2,500,000 is for
the Boys and Girls Clubs of America; and $5,000,000 is for
Communities In Schools. The total amount is $347,000 more than
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $100,200,000 below the
budget request.
For the second consecutive year, the Corporation received
an unqualified opinion on its Statement of Financial Position
and in general, the Corporation had made significant progress
in correcting some of its long-standing financial management
problems. However, the independent auditors were again unable
to render an opinion on the Corporation's Statement of
Operations and Changes in Net Position, and the Statement of
Cash Flows. More importantly, the Corporation continues to be
hampered by material weaknesses in five major management areas.
One of the most critical material weaknesses is in the area
of grants management. The Inspector General (IG) has found
numerous problems in the grants management area including
instances of waste, fraud, and abuse by State commissions and
national non-profit grantees. In the administration's request,
the Corporation has requested the legal authority to provide
additional administrative funds to troubled State grantees.
Currently, each State commission must provide a 50 percent
match for any administrative funds received from the
Corporation. Nevertheless, the Corporation seeks to waive this
matching requirement for troubled grantees.
The Committee is extremely troubled by the administration's
proposal to provide additional funds to troubled grantees and
to waive the current matching requirement. The Committee
believes that the administration's proposal sends the wrong
signal that the Federal Government awards poor performers.
Accordingly, the Committee rejects these proposals and the
administration's request for an additional $3,600,000 in
program administration funds for troubled grantees. Instead,
the Committee directs the Corporation to develop a ``resolution
plan'' for each troubled grantee identified by either the
Corporation or the IG that would lay out the steps necessary to
correct the grantee's problems. The resolution plan should (1)
evaluate the use of a ``receiver'' that would temporarily take
over the grantee's administrative and operational duties until
the problems were fully corrected, (2) include a workload
analysis to determine the level of program responsibilities
that the grantee can adequately perform, and (3) establish a
timeline with identifiable and reasonable milestones to correct
fully the problems with the grantee. Further, the Corporation
should seriously consider the use of administrative sanctions
it currently has available and propose to the Committee by
December 15, 2000 any additional legislative recommendations on
strengthening or increasing administrative sanctions.
The Committee remains troubled by the Corporation's
inability to provide information to the Congress or American
taxpayer on what they are getting in return for the funds
provided to the Corporation. Currently, the Corporation is only
able to provide anecdotal examples and data on a budgeted basis
for its programs. The IG has repeatedly stressed the importance
of a cost accounting system that would be able to track and
provide information on how the programs are actually
performing. The Committee was disappointed to learn that the
Corporation has been slow in responding to these concerns.
Accordingly, the Committee has included bill language to direct
the Corporation to use $2,000,000 out its allocation for
program administration for the acquisition of a cost accounting
system for the Corporation's financial management system, an
integrated grants management system that provides comprehensive
financial management information for all Corporation grants and
cooperative agreements, and the establishment, operation and
maintenance of a central archives serving as the repository for
all grant, cooperative agreement, and related documents. The
Corporation is directed to ensure that the cost accounting
system and the grants management system conform to Federal
requirements, including those established for such systems by
the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program. The
Corporation is also directed to provide a report that describes
its progress to date for each of these areas, expenditures for
the period by category (e.g. contract or salaries), purpose,
and amount, as well as cumulative expenditures to the Committee
on a quarterly basis. Further, the Corporation is prohibited
from providing any salary increases (with the exception of
locality adjustments and other appropriate adjustments provided
to all government employees) or bonuses to its employees graded
at management levels or above until the Corporation has
certified with the IG's concurrence that an adequate cost
accounting and grants management system has been acquired,
implemented, and conforms to all Federal requirements.
As identified by the IG and independent auditors in last
year's financial statements audit, the National Service Trust
account continues to maintain a significant surplus of funds to
meet its existing liabilities. The Committee remains concerned
that the administration may be requesting more funds than is
necessary to meet its existing liabilities for the AmeriCorps
program; thus, bill language is included to rescind $50,000,000
in surplus funds. The Committee directs the Corporation to
maintain an enrolled level of AmeriCorps participation that it
can fully support with its existing Trust account level, minus
the rescission. The Committee also directs the Corporation to
provide quarterly reports to the Committee on the assets and
liabilities of the National Service Trust fund, including
information on interest earned and interested received.
The Committee continues its strong support for the
Corporation's literacy and mentoring efforts and activities to
support homeless families and individuals, especially the
homeless veterans of this nation. The Committee directs the
Corporation to expand its support in these areas and provides
$40,000,000 for the ``America Reads'' literacy and mentoring
program.
The Committee commends and supports the efforts that
AmeriCorps has made under its E-Corps program in bringing
technology to America's neediest communities. E-Corps
volunteers bring technology skills to people who have been left
out or left behind in the digital economy by training and
mentoring children, teachers, and non-profit and community
center staff on how to use computers and information
technology. Many E-Corps members are engaged in training
students and community members directly. The Committee
recommends that, in addition to these activities, E-Corps
members focus on training community center staff, teachers and
others who will remain as trainers within the community, in
order to build stability, continuity, and institutional memory.
To boost the E-Corps program, the Committee directs the
Corporation to provide $25,000,000 for E-Corps activities.
The Committee has provided $2,500,000 in direct funds to
the Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc. (PAT). PAT is an
early childhood parent education and family support program
that provides parents information on child development. PAT has
more than 2,100 sites in 49 States, the District of Columbia,
and six other countries. The Committee supports and expects PAT
to continue its efforts to empower parents as their children's
first teachers and to provide early literacy experiences for
children.
The Committee has provided $2,500,000 in direct funds to
the Boys and Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) to establish an
innovative outreach program designed to meet the special needs
of youth in public and Native American housing communities.
These funds are expected to be matched by the private sector
and will be provided to selected communities for the direct
start-up and continuation of BGCA clubs that serve youth in
federally assisted public and Indian housing. The Committee
expects BGCA to work cooperatively with America's Promise to
minimize duplicative activities in addressing the needs of at-
risk youth.
The Committee has provided $5,000,000 to Communities In
School, Inc. (CIS). CIS is the Nation's largest non-profit
organization dedicated to school dropout prevention and has
been able to leverage significant private resources with
Federal resources. The Committee expects CIS to continue its
partnerships with other organizations such as America's Promise
in helping our Nation's youth.
The Committee has also provided $7,500,000 in direct funds
to the America's Promise--the Alliance for Youth organization.
The Committee fully supports this effort and applauds America's
Promise for addressing problems with at-risk youth in this
nation by using and assisting current national and local
efforts. The Committee also supports America's Promise's
current activities and plans to work with local businesses,
charities, and other public entities to minimize duplicative
activities and leverage private resources. America's Promise is
also encouraged to continue the development of measurable
outcome goals on a national basis and for each of its
``Communities of Promise'' to ensure adequate oversight and
accountability.
Lastly, the Committee has included bill language to correct
a technical problem with funds appropriated last year for the
Girl Scouts of America, Inc. The Committee continues its strong
support for the Girl Scouts' anti-violence efforts initiated in
fiscal year 2000.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $3,985,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 5,000,000
House allowance......................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
Program Description
The Office of Inspector General within the Corporation for
National and Community Service is authorized by the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended. The goals of the Office are to
increase organizational efficiency and effectiveness and to
prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. The Office of Inspector
General within the Corporation for National and Community
Service was transferred to the Corporation from the former
ACTION agency when ACTION was abolished and merged into the
Corporation in April 1994.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for
the Office of Inspector General (OIG). This is a $1,015,000
increase over the amount appropriated for this Office in fiscal
year 2000 and is equal to the administration's request level.
The additional funds for the OIG should be used for the
purpose of its continuing efforts to review and audit the State
commissions of the Corporation. The OIG has identified numerous
problems with State commissions and the Committee supports
fully the OIG's work in this area.
Bill language has also been included to provide the OIG
with more flexibility on the expenditure of funds.
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $11,450,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 12,500,000
House allowance......................................... 12,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,445,000
program description
The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was established by
the Veterans' Judicial Review Act. The court has exclusive
jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans'
Appeals. It has the authority to decide all relevant questions
of law; interpret constitutional, statutory, and regulatory
provisions; and determine the meaning or applicability of the
terms of an action by the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is
authorized to compel action by the Department unlawfully
withheld or unreasonably delayed. It is authorized to hold
unlawful and set-aside decisions, findings, conclusions, rules
and regulations issued or adopted by the Department of Veterans
Affairs or the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $12,455,000 for the Court of
Appeals for Veterans claims, an increase of $1,995,000 above
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The decrease of $55,000
below the budget request reflects a revised estimate for the
pro bono program, for which $895,000 is included.
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $12,426,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 15,949,000
House allowance......................................... 17,949,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,949,000
program description
Responsibility for the operation of Arlington National
Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery is
vested in the Secretary of the Army. As of September 30, 1999,
Arlington and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries
contained the remains of 277,932 persons and comprised a total
of approximately 628 acres. There were 3,604 interments and
2,152 inurnments in fiscal year 1999; 3,700 interments and
2,200 inurnments are estimated for the current fiscal year; and
3,700 interments and 2,300 inurnments are estimated for fiscal
year 2001.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget request of $15,949,000
for the Army's cemeterial expenses. This amount is $3,523,000
above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same as the
fiscal year 2001 budget request.
Environmental Protection Agency
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $7,562,811,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 7,276,599,000
House allowance........................................\1\ 7,143,888,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,534,190,000
\1\ Does not include $60,000,000 for NIEHS or $70,000,000 for ATSDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
general description
The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] was created
through Executive Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 designed to
consolidate certain Federal Government environmental activities
into a single agency. The plan was submitted by the President
to the Congress on July 8, 1970, and the Agency was established
as an independent agency in the executive branch on December 2,
1970, by consolidating 15 components from 5 departments and
independent agencies.
A description of EPA's pollution control programs by media
follows:
Air.--The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 authorize a
national program of air pollution research, regulation,
prevention, and enforcement activities.
Water quality.--The Clean Water Act, as amended in 1977,
1981, and 1987, provides the framework for protection of the
Nation's surface waters. The law recognizes that it is the
primary responsibility of the States to prevent, reduce, and
eliminate water pollution. The States determine the desired
uses for their waters, set standards, identify current uses
and, where uses are being impaired or threatened, develop plans
for the protection or restoration of the designated use. They
implement the plans through control programs such as permitting
and enforcement, construction of municipal waste water
treatment works, and nonpoint source control practices. The CWA
also regulates discharge of dredge or fill material into waters
of the United States, including wetlands.
Drinking water.--The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as
amended in 1996, charges EPA with the responsibility of
implementing a program to assure that the Nation's public
drinking water supplies are free of contamination that may pose
a human health risk, and to protect and prevent the
endangerment of ground water resources which serve as drinking
water supplies.
Hazardous waste.--The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 mandated EPA to develop a regulatory program to
protect human health and the environment from improper
hazardous waste disposal practices. The RCRA Program manages
hazardous wastes from generation through disposal.
EPA's responsibilities and authorities to manage hazardous
waste were greatly expanded under the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984. Not only did the regulated universe of
wastes and facilities dealing with hazardous waste increase
significantly, but past mismanagement practices, in particular
prior releases at inactive hazardous and solid waste management
units, were to be identified and corrective action taken. The
1984 amendments also authorized a regulatory and implementation
program directed to owners and operators of underground storage
tanks.
Pesticides.--The objective of the Pesticide Program is to
protect the public health and the environment from unreasonable
risks while permitting the use of necessary pest control
approaches. This objective is pursued by EPA under the Food
Quality Protection Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
through three principal means: (1) review of existing and new
pesticide products; (2) enforcement of pesticide use rules; and
(3) research and development to reinforce the ability to
evaluate the risks and benefits of pesticides.
Radiation.--The radiation program's major emphasis is to
minimize the exposure of persons to ionizing radiation, whether
from naturally occurring sources, from medical or industrial
applications, nuclear power sources, or weapons development.
Toxic substances.--The Toxic Substances Control Act
establishes a program to stimulate the development of adequate
data on the effects of chemical substances on health and the
environment, and institute control action for those chemicals
which present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment. The act's coverage affects more than 60,000
chemicals currently in commerce, and all new chemicals.
Multimedia.--Multimedia activities are designed to support
programs where the problems, tools, and results are cross media
and must be integrated to effect results. This integrated
program encompasses the Agency's research, enforcement, and
abatement activities.
Superfund.--The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 established a national
program to protect public health and the environment from the
threats posed by inactive hazardous waste sites and
uncontrolled spills of hazardous substances. The original
statute was amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986. Under these authorities, EPA
manages a hazardous waste site cleanup program including
emergency response and long-term remediation.
Leaking underground storage tanks.--The Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 established the
leaking underground storage tank [LUST] trust fund to conduct
corrective actions for releases from leaking underground
storage tanks that contain petroleum or other hazardous
substances. EPA implements the LUST response program primarily
through cooperative agreements with the States.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends a total of $7,534,190,000 for EPA.
This is an increase of $257,591,000 above the budget request
and a decrease of $28,621,000 below the fiscal year 2000
enacted level.
The Committee believes EPA's state revolving funds
represent a critical investment in our nation's water quality.
With the significant unmet need in water infrastructure
financing, the Committee has made the state revolving fund
programs a high priority and has restored the President's
reduction of $550,000,000 to the clean water SRF.
The agency is directed to notify the Committee prior to
each reprogramming in excess of $500,000 between objectives,
when those reprogrammings are for different purposes. The
exceptions to this limitation are as follows: (1) for the
``Environmental programs and management'' account, Committee
approval is required only above $1,000,000; and (2) for the
``State and tribal assistance grants'' account, reprogramming
of performance partnership grant funds is exempt from this
limitation.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $642,303,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 674,348,000
House allowance......................................... 650,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 670,000,000
program description
EPA's ``Science and technology'' account provides funding
for the scientific knowledge and tools necessary to support
decisions on preventing, regulating, and abating environmental
pollution and to advance the base of understanding on
environmental sciences. These efforts are conducted through
contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with
universities, industries, other private commercial firms,
nonprofit organizations, State and local government, and
Federal agencies, as well as through work performed at EPA's
laboratories and various field stations and field offices.
Trust Fund resources are transferred to this account directly
from the Hazardous Substance Superfund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $670,000,000 for science and
technology, a decrease of $4,348,000 below the budget request
and an increase of $27,697,000 above the enacted level. In
addition, the Committee recommends the transfer of $38,000,000
from the Superfund account, for a total of $708,000,000 for
science and technology.
The Committee has made the following changes to the budget
request:
+$1,500,000 for the National Jewish Medical and Research
Center for research on the relationship between indoor
and outdoor pollution and the development of
respiratory diseases.
+$1,900,000 for the National Environmental Respiratory Center
at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute. The
research should be coordinated with EPA's overall
particulate matter research program and consistent with
the recommendations set forth by the National Academy
of Sciences report on PM research.
+$1,000,000 for the Environmental Technology
Commercialization Center to increase the transfer of
federally-developed environmental technology.
+$1,250,000 for the Center for Air Toxics Metals at the
Energy and Environmental Research Center.
+$1,500,000 for the Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics
Research Center.
+$250,000 for acid rain research at the University of
Vermont.
+$1,500,000 for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research
Center.
+$250,000 for the Institute for Environmental and Industrial
Science at Southwest Texas State University.
+$750,000 for the Integrated Public/Private Energy and
Environmental Consortium [IPEC] to develop cost-
effective environmental technology, improved business
practices, and technology transfer for the domestic
petroleum industry.
+$1,000,000 for the University of South Alabama, Center for
Estuarine Research.
+$3,902,000 for the Mine Waste Technology Program and the
Heavy Metal Water Program at the National Environmental
Waste Technology, Testing, and Evaluation Center.
+$3,625,000 for the Water Environment Research Foundation.
+$3,625,000 for the American Water Works Association Research
Foundation (AWWARF).
+$400,000 for Texas Institute for Applied Environmental
Research at Tarleton State University.
+$500,000 for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology
Research.
+$750,000 for the Geothermal Heat Pump (GHP) Consortium. GHP
conserves energy, reduces harmful emissions into the
atmosphere and decreases energy costs. Continued
federal support is needed to ensure successful
deployment of this new technology.
+$750,000 for the Kalamazoo River Watershed Initiative
through Western Michigan University's Environmental
Research Institute.
-$800,000 from the EMPACT program.
-$28,000,000 from the climate change technology initiative.
The Committee supports a funding level of $7,000,000 for
the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation [SITE] program,
funded from the transfer from Superfund to this account. The
Committee supports efforts through the SITE program to identify
cost-effective, innovative technology solutions for
contamination problems such as Brownfields, sediments and fuel
oxygenates. Of the amount provided for the SITE program,
$500,000 is for a demonstration project at the Port of
Ridgefield, WA, involving an innovative steam extraction
technology. EPA is expected to work with the State and the port
to ensure that cleanup of the Ridgefield site continues in an
efficient and timely manner beyond the demonstration project
under the SITE program.
The Committee also urges EPA through the SITE program to
give consideration to funding a demonstration of a prototype
ceramic microfiltration technology for the treatment of acid
mine drainage.
The Committee supports funding at not less than current
levels for the hazardous substance research center program, to
be funded by funds transferred from Superfund, and the science
and technology appropriation.
NAS study on health benefits associated with air pollution
regulations.--There have been many concerns raised regarding
the methodology used by EPA in calculating incremental health
benefits that have been associated with air pollution
regulatory proposals. The magnitude of health benefit estimates
is highly dependent upon the assumed concentrations threshold
of a particular response to a pollutant health effect. It is
important EPA employ the most scientifically defensible
methodology in estimating health benefits. The EPA is directed
to engage the NAS, within 90 days of this authorization, to
conduct a study of this issue and recommend to the agency a
common methodology to be followed in all future analyses. A
report of the study shall be forwarded to the Congress within
12 months after the NAS receives the EPA request.
Updated NAS study on ozone.--As authorized by Section 185B
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the National Academy
of Sciences on behalf of EPA in 1991 conducted the study,
``Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air
Pollution.'' The Act ``requires EPA to conduct a study in
conjunction with the NAS on the role of ozone precursors in
tropospheric ozone formation and control.'' The issue of VOC
versus NOX control was specifically addressed in the
1991 report and two key conclusions were made. ``NOX
reductions can have either a beneficial or detrimental effect
on ozone concentrations, depending upon the locations and
emissions rates of VOC and NOX sources . . .'' and
``Some modeling and field studies show that ozone
concentrations can increase in the near field in response to
NOX reductions but decrease in the far field.''
Since the issuance of the NAS study almost a decade ago,
ambient ozone impacts have decreased dramatically. Ambient
monitoring of ozone, VOC and NOX has greatly
improved as well. These data along with extensive urban and
regional modeling activity have closed many of the knowledge
gaps cited in the NAS study. In fact, there have been serious
questions raised concerning the potential disbenefits of
further NOX control in terms of achieving and
maintaining the current NAAQS for ozone. As a result of this
large body of new scientific evidence, EPA is directed to
engage the NAS within 90 days of this Act, for an update on the
current ozone problem in urban and regional settings with
specific emphasis on the role of NOX control in
meeting mandated air quality goals. A report shall be submitted
to Congress within eighteen months after the NAS receives the
EPA request.
NAS study of carbon monoxide episodes in meteorological and
topographical problem areas.--The Committee directs EPA to
contract with the National Academy of Sciences for a study of
carbon monoxide episodes in meteorological and topographical
problem areas, addressing the public health significance and
strategies for managing these rare occurrences in national
ambient air quality standards non-attainment areas, due mostly
to cold-weather inversions. One of the major case studies is to
be Fairbanks, AK.
BEN Model.--The Committee understands EPA is considering
revisions to the economic model utilized by EPA to identify and
calculate the economic benefit of regulatory noncompliance, the
so-called ``BEN Model.'' In view of the significant
ramifications associated with revisions to the BEN Model, it is
imperative that an independent peer review be undertaken. The
Committee directs EPA to undertake such a review prior to
finalizing revisions to the BEN Model or the formal adoption of
its proposed new approach to the recovery of economic benefit.
Bill language relative to the liquidation of obligations is
included as an administrative provision.
The Committee has not included proposed bill language
relative to the environmental services fund.
environmental programs and management
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,895,267,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 2,099,461,000
House allowance......................................... 1,895,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,000,000,000
program description
The Agency's ``Environmental programs and management''
account includes the development of environmental standards;
monitoring and surveillance of pollution conditions; direct
Federal pollution control planning; technical assistance to
pollution control agencies and organizations; preparation of
environmental impact statements; enforcement and compliance
assurance; and assistance to Federal agencies in complying with
environmental standards and insuring that their activities have
minimal environmental impact. It provides personnel
compensation, benefits, and travel and other administrative
expenses for all agency programs except hazardous substance
Superfund, LUST, Science and Technology, Oil Spill Response,
and OIG.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $2,000,000,000 for environmental
programs and management, an increase of $104,733,000 above the
2000 level and a decrease of $99,461,000 below the budget
request.
The Committee has made the following changes to the budget
request:
+$8,600,000 for the National Rural Water Association.
+$2,300,000 for the Rural Community Assistance Program.
+$550,000 for the Groundwater Protection Council.
+$1,000,000 for the National Environmental Training Center at
West Virginia University.
+$1,550,000 for the Small Flows Clearinghouse. The Committee
encourages EPA to support a pilot project through the
Small Flows Clearinghouse that would create an Internet
site to help small rural communities complete Federal,
State and local loan and grant applications.
+$1,250,000 for the national onsite and community wastewater
treatment demonstration project through the Small Flows
Clearinghouse.
+$2,500,000 for the Southwest Center for Environmental
Research and Policy.
+$4,000,000 for the Small Public Water System Technology
Centers at Western Kentucky University; the University
of New Hampshire; the University of Alaska-Sitka;
Pennsylvania State University; the University of
Missouri-Columbia; Montana State University; the
University of Illinois; and Mississippi State
University.
+$500,000 for the final year of Federal funding to assist
communities in Hawaii to meet successfully the water
quality permitting requirements for rehabilitating
native Hawaiian fishponds.
+$5,000,000 under section 104(b) of the Clean Water Act for
America's Clean Water Foundation for implementation of
onfarm environmental assessments for livestock
operations, with the goal of improving surface and
ground water quality.
+$500,000 for the Ohio River Watershed Pollutant Reduction
Program, to be cost-shared.
+$1,000,000 to continue the sediment decontamination
technology demonstration in the New York-New Jersey
Harbor.
+$1,500,000 for the National Alternative Fuels Vehicle
Training Program.
+$300,000 for the Coalition for Utah's Future to continue the
Envision Utah project including the development of a
sustainable plan for future growth and environmental
stewardship in the Wasatch Front.
+$300,000 for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management.
+$750,000 for planning, coordination and development of a
comprehensive watershed based implementation program
for the Santa Fe River.
+$500,000 for the Brazos-Navasota watershed management
project.
+$500,000 for the Kentucky Center for Wastewater Research to
establish training, education and database management
for wastewater research to identify the greatest
threats to regional watersheds.
+$250,000 for the Maryland Bureau of Mines for an acid mine
drainage remediation project to reduce or eliminate the
loss of quality water from surface streams in the
Kempton Mine complex.
+$2,000,000 to the University of Missouri-Rolla for research
and development of technologies to mitigate the impacts
of livestock operations on the environment.
+$500,000 for marsh restoration activities at Acowmin Marsh
and Little River Marsh near North Hampton and Rye, NH.
+$200,000 for the Tri-State Water Quality Council for
development of voluntary nutrient reduction programs,
establishing a basinwide water quality monitoring
program, and related activities.
+$500,000 for the Global Environmental Management Education
Center within the College of Natural Resources at the
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point to provide
training and outreach education for safeguarding the
quality of surface and groundwater resources.
+$1,000,000 for the Frank Tejeda Center for Excellence in
Environmental Operations to continue its efforts to
demonstrate new technology for water and wastewater
treatment.
+$1,250,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants
Program. The Committee expects that the funds provided
for the Chesapeake Bay small watersheds program,
managed by the Fish and Wildlife Foundation, shall be
used for community-based projects including those that
design and implement on-the-ground and in-the-water
environmental restoration or protection activities to
help meet Chesapeake Bay Program goals and objectives.
+$1,000,000 for the Lake Champlain management plan.
+$1,000,000 for the Long Island Sound Program Office, for a
total of $1,500,000.
+$500,000 for the Environmentors project.
+$200,000 for the Northeast Waste Management Officials
Association to continue solid waste, hazardous waste,
cleanup and pollution prevention programs.
+$2,000,000 for the Food and Agricultural Policy Research
Institute's Missouri watershed initiative project to
link economic and environmental data with ambient water
quality.
+$500,000 for the Small Business Pollution Prevention Center
at the University of Northern Iowa.
+$750,000 for the painting and coating compliance enhancement
project through the Iowa Waste Reduction Center.
+$1,890,000 for the Michigan Biotechnology Institute for
development and demonstration of environmental cleanup
technologies.
+$200,000 for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the
University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture
and Human Resources to continue projects aimed at
improving the acceptability and efficacy of
agriculturally-based environmental restoration
technologies.
+$1,000,000 for the Animal Waste Management Consortium
through the University of Missouri, acting with Iowa
State University, North Carolina State University,
Michigan State University, Oklahoma State University,
and Purdue University to supplement ongoing research,
demonstration, and outreach projects associated with
animal waste management.
+$1,000,000 to complete a cumulative impacts study by the
National Academy of Sciences of North Slope oil and gas
development.
+$750,000 for an expansion of EPA's efforts related to the
Government purchase and use of environmentally
preferable products focused on biobased products with
an emphasis on soy-based industrial oils, greases and
hydraulic fluid. This includes $200,000 to complete the
soy smoke initiative through the University of
Missouri-Rolla.
+$975,000 for the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management water and wastewater training programs.
These funds are strictly for training purposes.
+$1,000,000 to continue the National Biosolids Partnership.
+$250,000 for the Vermont Department of Agriculture to work
with the conservation districts along the Connecticut
River in Vermont to reduce nonpoint source pollution.
+$600,000 for the Wetland Development project in Logan, UT.
+$500,000 for the Economic Development Alliance of Hawaii to
accelerate commercialization of biotechnology to reduce
pesticide use in tropical and subtropical agricultural
production.
+$100,000 for the Connecticut River Science Consortium to
develop an interdisciplinary scientific monitoring and
analysis project in the Connecticut River Basin.
+$1,000,000 to develop and demonstrate new tools for imaging
and monitoring the movement of fluids and contaminants
in the shallow subsurface using time-lapse geophysical
imaging and tomography techniques. This project will
involve researchers from Boise State University, the
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory, other Federal labs and industry.
+$500,000 for Mississippi State University, the University of
Mississippi and the University of Georgia to conduct
forestry best management practice water quality
effectiveness studies in the States of Mississippi and
Georgia.
+$750,000 for the University of Idaho's groundwater
assessment project for rural Idaho cities and towns.
+$500,000 for a study by the City of Fairbanks using
geographic information system mapping to assess methods
to comply with NPDES requirements.
+$150,000 to Colchester, VT to study nonpoint source
influences on water quality in Mallets Bay on Lake
Champlain and to plan for mitigation, with a focus on
stormwater management and on-site disposal systems.
+$750,000 for the Resource and Agricultural Policy Systems
Project at Iowa State University.
+$700,000 to continue the Urban Rivers Awareness Program at
the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia for its
environmental science program.
+$500,000 for the Kenai River Center for continued research
on watershed issues and related activities.
+$750,000 for the New Hampshire Estuaries Project management
plan implementation.
+$100,000 to continue the Design for the Environment for
Farmers Program to address the unique environmental
concerns of the American Pacific area through the
adoption of sustainable agricultural practices.
+$5,000,000 to the Gas Research Institute for the development
of a biorefinery commercialization pilot project which
will utilize thermal-depolymerization technology to
break down waste streams into usable products.
-$98,000,000 from the climate change technology initiative
[CCTI]. GAO found that EPA provided no justification
for the requested increase for CCTI.
-$600,000 from the environmental monitoring for public access
and community tracking [EMPACT] program. The amount
provided is the same as the current level for this
program.
-$9,000,000 from the Montreal protocol fund.
-$1,000,000 from environmental education.
-$3,840,000 from the regional geographic program.
-$4,841,000 from the innovative community partnership
program.
-$3,395,000 from urban environmental quality and human
health.
-$4,000,000 from international environmental monitoring.
-$9,000,000 from the information integration initiative.
While the Committee strongly supports efforts to
improve the quality, reliability and integration of
environmental data and information systems, EPA has not
developed a comprehensive plan for the information
exchange network or a detailed spending proposal to
guide the allocation of resources under this proposed
new program. Moreover, EPA has not fully assessed its
information integration needs nor that of the States.
Therefore, the Committee has provided $5,000,000 for
continued planning and design of the exchange network.
-$29,000,000 as a general reduction, subject to normal
reprogramming guidelines.
The Committee directs that no reductions be taken below the
President's request from pesticides registration or
reregistration activities, the NPDES permit backlog, RCRA
corrective action, High Production Volume Chemical Challenge
Program, endocrine disruptor screening program, the National
Estuary Program, the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, and the
water quality monitoring program along the New Jersey-New York
shoreline. The Committee supports no less than fiscal year 2000
funding levels for the Great Lakes National Program Office,
compliance assistance activities ($25,000,000), and the
regional environmental enforcement associations. Finally, the
Committee supports the fiscal year 1999 level for the 104(g)
wastewater operator training program.
The Committee supports EPA's New Source Review RACT/BACT/
LAER Clearinghouse, a partnership between EPA and states that
enables all stakeholders to access the latest information about
air pollution control technologies. This activity should be
funded at not less than $1,500,000 in fiscal year 2001.
TMDL Rules.--The Committee is very troubled with EPA's TMDL
water quality rules addressing impaired waters under section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The regulations are inconsistent
with the Clean Water Act, inflexible and prescriptive, and have
enormous cost implications for the States and the private
sector. Moreover, there are serious gaps in data, research, and
monitoring to meet the requirements EPA has set forth.
Therefore, the Committee is very distressed with the
administration's decision to thwart congressional intent in
finalizing this flawed rule.
The Committee has provided large increases under the
``State and tribal assistance grants'' for section 319 nonpoint
source grants and section 106 water quality grants to enable
the States to continue planning and monitoring activities, and
to increase efforts to control nonpoint sources of water
pollution. In addition, the Committee expects the following
TMDL studies to be initiated promptly.
NAS Study of TMDLs.--The Committee directs EPA to contract
expeditiously with the National Academy of Sciences for a
review of the quality of science used to develop and implement
TMDLs. The study will evaluate the information required to
identify sources of pollutant loadings and their respective
contributions to water quality impairment; the information
required to allocate reductions in pollutant loadings among
sources; whether such information is available for use by
States; whether such information, if available, is reliable;
and if such information is not available or is not reliable,
what methodologies should be used to obtain such information.
The final report shall include recommendations for improving
the methodologies evaluated under the study and shall be
submitted to the Congress by June 1, 2001.
TMDLs Cost Assessment.--To obtain better cost information,
the Committee directs EPA to conduct a comprehensive assessment
of the potential State resources which will be required for the
development and implementation of TMDLs and present the results
of this study to Congress within 120 days of enactment of this
Act. At a minimum, the report should (1) identify any expected
increase in State personnel needed to develop and implement
40,000 TMDLs; (2) specify additional data collection activities
to make listing decisions; (3) identify the cost of conducting
the needed studies to collect high quality data on the current
loads from sources (point and nonpoint sources) of a pollutant
on 303(d) listed waters slated for TMDL development; and (4)
provide an estimate of the annual costs to the private sector
due to TMDL implementation and related costs.
TMDL Monitoring Data.--In addition, the Committee directs
EPA to prepare an analysis of the monitoring data needed for
development and implementation of TMDLs. Such analysis shall
address the data gaps identified in the March 2000 GAO report
``Water Quality, Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by
Inconsistent and Incomplete Data,'' including gaps in data
needed to assess all State water, identify waters that are
impaired, identify pollution sources, develop TMDLs and develop
plans to implement TMDLs. The analysis shall include an
estimate of the cost of collecting the monitoring data. In
conducting the analysis, the Administrator shall solicit
comments from each State regarding the Agency's analysis and
estimate.
TMDL Guidance.--The Committee is very concerned that some
EPA Regional offices, including Region IX, issued and
implemented TMDL guidance to impose stringent requirements in
individual permits prior to the TMDL rule being finalized.
Region IX should not be mandating these requirements, and it is
unclear whether this Region or any other Region has authority
to do so.
Workforce Issues.--The Committee continues to be concerned
with EPA's haphazard approach to allocating and justifying
staffing levels in its program offices and regions. According
to GAO, EPA has no workforce planning strategy to determine the
number and types of people needed to carry out strategic goals
and objectives, EPA has not assessed changes in its workload
resulting from factors such as productivity improvements and
delegations of responsibilities to States, and EPA has not made
much progress toward its stated goal of developing a process
for continually monitoring and assessing its workforce in light
of changes in its internal and external environment such as the
increased role of State environmental agencies. GAO found that
recent workforce planning efforts ``have not received the
resources and senior management commitment needed to bring them
to fruition, and they have fallen short of their objectives.''
GAO has been directed to undertake a comprehensive assessment
of EPA human capital management, and the Committee will be
following these efforts closely in order to address these
concerns directly in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation.
Financial Management Issues.--The Committee is troubled by
the fact that EPA did not receive a ``clean'' financial audit
for fiscal year 1999 by the Inspector General. EPA failed to
provide complete, accurate and reliable information by the
agreed upon dates to the OIG. Moreover, none of the
recommendations made by the IG 1 year ago to improve financial
management at EPA have been fully addressed. A key concern is
the need to replace EPA's Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS), which is outdated and very costly to operate.
The Committee expects EPA will take all necessary steps
recommended by the OIG to improve financial management,
including developing a plan to replace IFMS in a timely way,
which would involve forming an IFMS replacement team to ensure
sufficient staff expertise to undertake the replacement of
IFMS, completing an options study for IFMS replacement, and
developing a budget for this project. The Committee expects to
be kept apprised of EPA's efforts in this area.
Grants oversight.--The Committee is troubled that EPA's
Inspector General continues to raise serious concerns about
EPA's oversight of grants, which amount to more than half of
EPA's total budget. This has been a material management control
weakness since 1996, when the IG found that EPA grantees too
often did not provide the products and services specified in
the grant agreements, meet performance goals, or comply with
procurement requirements. In the past year, the IG noted
continuing concerns about inadequate monitoring of grantees to
ensure proper performance, noncompetitive grant awards, and
grants being issued when contracts were more appropriate. An IG
audit found an EPA headquarters office and EPA regional office
awarded grants with identical work plans to the same recipient,
paying twice for the same work while EPA did not receive the
product it expected. Examples of grantees who did not complete
the work promised but received all the funds have also been
identified. The Committee directs EPA to report quarterly on
its efforts to address these critical management concerns,
beginning with the submission of the fiscal year 2001 operating
plan.
Compliance Assistance.--The Committee directs that
compliance assistance activities within the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) be funded at no
less than $25,000,000. The Committee is disturbed by EPA's
continuing attempts to avoid the intent of Congress in this
regard. EPA's delay in fully funding the program in fiscal year
2000 until after Congressional oversight and with only 2 months
remaining in the fiscal year is inexcusable, not to mention
detrimental to improving compliance by the regulated community.
Furthermore, EPA's diversion of compliance assistance resources
in the middle of fiscal year 2000 to the civil enforcement
office can only be seen as an attempt to avoid Congressionally
directed spending levels. Therefore, the Committee directs that
no funds spent by the Office of Regulatory Enforcement or the
Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training count
towards the $25,000,000 compliance assistance floor. If OECA
spends funds in those offices on compliance assistance
activities, it should consider moving those compliance
assistance functions and personnel to the Office of Compliance,
as originally intended by the Administrator's enforcement
reorganization as approved by Congress. Likewise, the Agency
should not attempt to divert compliance assistance funds to
other activities such as compliance monitoring. The lack of
senior-level enforcement management commitment to funding
compliance assistance activities troubles the Committee.
Compliance assistance must remain an essential element of EPA
regulatory policy.
Small Business Division.--The Committee directs EPA to fund
the Small Business Division in the Office of Policy, Economics
and Innovation at $3,000,000 and no less than 10 full time
equivalents (excluding Senior Environmental Employees). EPA
efforts which assist and promote small business compliance with
existing and new environmental regulations will only benefit
the environment. Recent EPA rulemakings, economic impact
analysis and policy initiatives make it clear that EPA must do
more to develop and incorporate the needs of small business
into its activities. Stakeholder comments gathered by the
Agency during its revision of the EPA Small Business Strategy
reinforce this point. In allocating these resources to the
Division, EPA should include a Division action plan along with
its Agency operating plan submission to Congress. The plan
should discuss how the Division will use its staff and funds to
increase delivery of compliance information and tools to small
business, increase development and delivery of information
about small business characteristics, impacts and needs to the
Agency, and increase the consideration of small business needs
and issues within the Agency during EPA's rulemaking,
enforcement and policy development activities.
Environmental Data Management.--The Committee is very
disappointed in the lack of progress by the Office of
Environmental Information in meeting critical commitments and
addressing serious concerns about the quality and reliability
of EPA data. EPA still does not have a long-term strategy that
would address specifically how it will address the myriad of
information management issues such as insuring the quality of
EPA data and error correction processes, integrating EPA's many
information management system and those of the States, how it
will work with the States to achieve this, addressing data
gaps, and reducing reporting burdens. While EPA has finally
begun to address major computer security concerns which were
first raised at least 5 years ago, EPA has yet to demonstrate a
strong commitment to establishing an effective long-term
computer security testing and monitoring program. The Committee
has also noted its concerns about EPA's plans for an
information integration initiative. While the Committee
supports this initiative in concept, very little progress has
been made in the last year in developing a detailed plan for
how this will work, resource requirements, and the specific
role of the States in this effort.
National Environmental Performance Partnership System.--The
Committee is disappointed with the lack of progress at EPA in
using the National Environmental Performance Partnership System
(NEPPS) to change fundamentally EPA's relationship with the
States in implementing environmental protection programs. The
OIG recently found that the NEPPS program, including the
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) program, has not been well-
integrated into EPA programs or accepted by EPA managers. The
OIG identified several factors for this, including the lack of
leadership, training and guidance; and the lack of goals and
performance measures. The OIG stated, ``For many EPA regional
managers and staff, NEPPS has not focused on environmental
results or deferred work that was not a priority. Instead,
NEPPS has been added to a long list of traditional work
responsibilities. Further, some regional program managers and
staff viewed NEPPS as only a paperwork exercise to get a
performance partnership agreement in place.'' The Committee
expects EPA to implement expeditiously the OIG recommendations
to address these key shortcomings, and report to the Committee
within 90 days of enactment of this Act on its progress.
National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA).--The Committee notes
that EPA recently released the first phase (emission estimates
and ambient concentration data) of its National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA). The Committee is aware of the potential
value of this tool. The Committee is also aware of recent
concerns by States and other stakeholders regarding errors in
NATA's inputs and models. Therefore, the Committee requests
that EPA conduct and publish an uncertainty and variability
analysis of NATA and its inputs and models; and an analysis of
how the uncertainties and variabilities combine to affect the
final risk estimates and characterizations. Furthermore, the
Committee requests that EPA form a working group with State
representatives and other stakeholders to help identify and
correct NATA deficiencies and improve future NATA releases. The
Committee also requests that EPA submit all components of NATA
for full scientific peer-review.
3MRA Risk Assessment Model.--The Committee is concerned
that EPA has not peer-reviewed the 3MRA risk assessment model
which it plans to use to identify lower-risk wastes than can
``exit'' the RCRA system. The Committee directs EPA to submit
the 3MRA risk model to an independent peer review, such as the
National Academy of Sciences, and respond publicly to the
findings of the peer review prior to using it to establish
regulatory determinations.
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).--The Committee
understands that EPA is currently completing an assessment
requested last year on the quality of the data included in the
Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database.
Given that the Agency and many State regulatory agencies rely
almost exclusively on IRIS values in promulgating regulations,
the Committee remains concerned over the potential for rules to
rely on outdated scientific information. As a result, the
Committee requests that the Agency devote all necessary
resources, including continued collaboration with external
entities where possible, to meet its goal of issuing 21 new or
revised toxicological assessments in fiscal year 2001. In
addition, the Committee requests that EPA conduct needs
assessments with public input to determine the need for
increasing this annual rate of updates to existing IRIS files
during 2002-2005 as well as the need to add new IRIS files for
chemicals not now included. Furthermore, the Committee also
expects the Agency to adhere consistently to its policy to
accept and respond to new toxicity information during
rulemakings, as articulated in EPA's August 26, 1994 memorandum
entitled ``Guidance on the Use of Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) Values,'' as well as its December 21, 1993
memorandum entitled ``Use of IRIS Values in Superfund Risk
Assessment.''
Tribal Water Quality program.--The Committee continues to
value and support the Tribal Coordinated Water Quality program
and the work of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and
expects EPA to continue to fund these programs, including the
NWIFC coordination role. The Committee expects EPA to maintain
a base funding level amount for each tribe in this program of
$110,000 and to provide $160,000 to NWIFC for coordination. To
accomplish the overall program, EPA is to provide $700,000 in
addition to the existing GAP funding presently received by the
tribes and the NWIFC.
New Source Review.--Numerous comments and questions have
been raised about the agency's management of the 1980 New
Source Review (NSR) rule and related guidance and policies.
Given the importance of achieving clean air goals in fair and
cost-effective ways, the Committee directs EPA to enter into an
agreement with the National Academy of Public Administration,
within 90 days of enactment of this Act, to conduct an
independent evaluation of the NSR and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) programs, and to publish a report of its
findings and recommendations. The report, which shall be
completed within 1 year, shall examine: the evolution of the
agency's NSR/PSD regulations, guidance and interpretation of
those regulations, and implementation of NSR/PSD programs; the
respective roles of the States and EPA in implementing NSR/PSD;
the evolution of EPA's policies and strategies on enforcement
of NSR/PSD; and the impacts of the current NSR/PSD program
administration on industrial competitiveness, capital
investment, technological innovation, pollution prevention, and
environmental quality. The Academy shall provide
recommendations to EPA and the Congress on how to manage better
or reform the program. The Committee has provided $500,000 for
this study.
Hazardous Waste Initiative.--The Committee is aware that
many organizations, including the NAS-sponsored Government-
University-Industry Research Roundtable, the National
Institutes of Health, and EPA, have recognized that allowing
certain flexibility within the academic laboratory research
environment can potentially yield superior compliance while
reducing regulatory burden. The Committee is also aware of a
new collaborative initiative involving environmental health
professionals and academic research scientists from 10 major
academic research institutions and authorized State regulatory
officials from each of the EPA regions to establish consensus
best practices for laboratory waste management. The Committee
supports this approach and applauds the commitment to minimize
the potential for harm to human health and the environment and
to promote excellence in environmental stewardship. The
Committee encourages EPA to participate in this initiative and
to provide the maximum flexibility permissible under the
regulatory provisions of RCRA, as appropriate, in support of
the initiative. Within 12 months, EPA is to submit a report to
the Congress evaluating the consensus best practices developed
through the initiative and the need for regulatory changes, if
any, to carry out its recommendations. In addition, EPA should
consider proposing regulatory changes based on the consensus
approach to best practices for academic research laboratory
waste management developed under this initiative.
Lead-paint pre-renovation rule.--The Committee is concerned
that there remains significant confusion over compliance with
EPA's lead-paint pre-renovation rule. Therefore, the Committee
urges the agency to extend the compliance assistance phase of
enforcement through September 2001, and directs EPA to release
additional guidance that will assist the multifamily housing
industry with compliance with the rule. The Committee believes
that child health is best-protected in well-maintained housing
and is concerned that excessive notification requirements will
impede routine repairs and maintenance activities in
multifamily properties. EPA should continue to work with
property owners and the regulated community generally to
develop a practical approach to implementing this rule as soon
as possible.
Radon in drinking water standard.--The Committee is aware
of bipartisan efforts in Congress to introduce legislation
which would improve public health protection from the threat of
radon. The Committee encourages EPA to work closely with the
Congress in crafting this legislation, and postpone final
promulgation of a drinking water standard until such
legislation can be fully considered.
Compendium of Methods for Characterizing Solid Waste.--The
Committee directs EPA to publish Update IVB to SW846 in the
Federal Register not later than 30 days after enactment of this
Act.
Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell project.--The Committee notes
that funds remain available from prior year appropriations for
the Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell demonstration project. These
funds are to be used in fiscal year 2001 for that purpose;
however, EPA shall not award remaining funds until it receives,
not later than September 1, 2000, a written plan from the
vendor which details the vendor's design plans and costs to
complete the pilot project.
Mountain Cloud Water Chemistry and Deposition Program.--The
Committee urges EPA to reinstate under the CASTNet program the
Mountain Cloud Water Chemistry and Deposition Program to resume
long-term cloud chemistry monitoring and research.
Kyoto Protocol.--Bill language has been included, as in the
current year, prohibiting EPA from spending funds to implement
the Kyoto Protocol. The Committee notes that this restriction
on the use of funds shall not apply to the conduct of education
activities and seminars by the agency.
The Committee notes that some EPA programs involve research
or other activities that are associated with climate change. To
the extent that the Committee has funded this work, it has done
so based on the program's individual merits of contributing to
issues associated with energy efficiency and cost savings,
related environmental assessments, and general emission
improvements. The bill language is intended to prohibit funds
provided in this bill from being used to implement actions
solely under the Kyoto Protocol, prior to its ratification.
The Byrd-Hagel resolution which passed in 1997 remains the
clearest statement of the will of the Senate with respect to
the Kyoto Protocol, and the Committee is committed to ensuring
that the administration not implement the Kyoto Protocol
without Congressional consent. The Committee recognizes,
however, that there are also longstanding programs which have
goals and objectives that, if met, could have positive effects
on energy use and the environment. The Committee does not
intend to preclude these programs from proceeding, provided
they have been funded and approved by Congress.
To the extent future funding requests may be submitted
which would increase funding for climate change activities
prior to Senate consideration of the Kyoto Protocol (whether
under the auspices of the Climate Change Technology Initiative
or any other initiative), the Administration must continue to
explain the components of the programs, their anticipated goals
and objectives, the justification for any funding increases, a
discussion of how successes will be measured, and a clear
definition of how these programs are justified by goals and
objectives independent of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.
The conferees expect these items to be included as part of the
fiscal year 2002 budget submission for all affected agencies.
Ozone Protection Activities.--The Committee recognizes that
voluntary efforts to use non-ozone depleting substances prior
to the Clean Air Act mandate provides benefits to stratospheric
ozone recovery. The Committee encourages EPA to develop a more
comprehensive strategy to promote the benefits of ozone
protection. In developing this strategy, EPA should consider
increased public awareness, education, and outreach on the
importance of ozone protection beyond those activities now
employed by EPA. The Significant New Alternative Program (SNAP)
must be the basis for all future refrigerant promotion
supported by the agency. All new agency programs and promotion
must be beneficial to all manufacturers without advantaging any
single manufacturer over another. The EPA should also continue
encouraging manufacturers to look for ways to employ the most
environmentally beneficial refrigerants in their equipment
designs.
Hydraulic fracturing.--The Committee understands that the
Office of Water plans to undertake a study focused on the
hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane wells shortly. In
undertaking such a study, the Committee is concerned that EPA
not duplicate any research efforts or studies underway by
States or other research bodies, such as the Groundwater
Protection Council. In addition, such a study should be
conducted by a credible organization which is widely-recognized
for scientific and technical research studies to ensure that it
is properly designed and executed. Data collected for the study
as well as the study process should be transparent, and after
completion the study should be subjected to peer review.
The Committee has not included proposed bill language
relative to the environmental services fund.
Bill language relative to the liquidation of obligations is
included as an administrative provision.
office of inspector general
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $32,380,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 34,094,000
House allowance......................................... 34,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 34,094,000
program description
The Office of Inspector General provides EPA audit and
investigative functions to identify and recommend corrective
actions of management, program, and administrative deficiencies
which create conditions for existing or potential instances of
fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
Trust fund resources are transferred to this account
directly from the hazardous substance Superfund.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $34,094,000 for the Office of
Inspector General, the same as the budget request. In addition,
$11,000,000 will be available by transfer from the Superfund
account, for a total of $45,094,000. The trust fund resources
will be transferred to the inspector general ``General fund''
account with an expenditure transfer.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $62,362,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 23,931,000
House allowance......................................... 23,931,000
Committee recommendation................................ 23,000,000
program description
The appropriation for buildings and facilities at EPA
covers the necessary major repairs and improvements to existing
installations which are used by the Agency. This appropriation
also covers new construction projects when appropriate.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $23,000,000 for buildings and
facilities, a reduction of $931,000 below the budget request.
The reduction of $931,000 below the President's request is
a general reduction, subject to normal reprogramming
guidelines.
The Committee is concerned that EPA's region II laboratory
facility may not be able to support adequately the workload for
region II, the environmental response team, and the Office of
Research and Development's Urban Watershed Management research
program. Therefore, the Committee directs EPA to report within
60 days of enactment of this Act on its plans to ensure that
region II laboratory needs will be met, as well as the agency's
plans and timeline to replace or improve this facility.
hazardous substance superfund
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,400,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 1,450,000,000
House allowance........................................\1\ 1,270,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,400,000,000
\1\ Does not include $60,000,000 for NIEHS and $70,000,000 for ATSDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
On October 17, 1986, Congress amended the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
[CERCLA] through the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 [SARA]. SARA reauthorized and expanded the
hazardous substance Superfund to address the problems of
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and spills. Specifically,
the legislation mandates that EPA: (1) provide emergency
response to hazardous waste spills; (2) take emergency action
at hazardous waste sites that pose an imminent hazard to public
health or environmentally sensitive ecosystems; (3) engage in
long-term planning, remedial design, and construction to clean
up hazardous waste sites where no financially viable
responsible party can be found; (4) take enforcement actions to
require responsible private and Federal parties to clean up
hazardous waste sites; and (5) take enforcement actions to
recover costs where the fund has been used for cleanup.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $1,400,000,000 for Superfund, a
decrease of $50,000,000 below the budget request and the same
as the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The amount provided
includes $700,000,000 from general revenues, and the balance
from the trust fund.
The amount recommended includes the following:
$910,337,000 for the response program. This includes the
President's full Superfund request for brownfields.
$140,000,000 for enforcement.
$38,000,000 for research and development.
$126,000,000 for management and support.
$75,000,000 for the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, including up to $6,000,000 for
medical monitoring and related activities in Libby, MT;
up to $3,000,000 for the Great Lakes fish consumption
study; $500,000 for subsistence and dietary studies of
contaminants in the environment, subsistence resources
and people in Alaska native populations; and up to
$1,500,000 to complete the Tom's River cancer cluster.
Not more than $1,000,000 should be expended on
toxicological profiles.
$60,000,000 for the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences, including $23,000,000 for worker
training grants and $37,000,000 for research.
$28,663,000 for the Department of Justice.
$5,800,000 for the U.S. Coast Guard.
$5,200,000 for other Federal agencies.
$11,000,000 for the inspector general.
The Committee has included bill language delaying the
availability of $100,000,000 until September 1, 2001.
The Committee expects to be notified of any non-ATSDR
resources to be devoted to Libby, MT medical monitoring and
related activities.
leaking underground storage tank trust fund
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $69,760,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 72,096,000
House allowance......................................... 79,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 72,096,000
program description
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizations Act of 1986
[SARA] established the leaking underground storage tank [LUST]
trust fund to conduct corrective actions for releases from
leaking underground storage tanks containing petroleum and
other hazardous substances. EPA implements the LUST program
through State cooperative agreement grants which enable States
to conduct corrective actions to protect human health and the
environment, and through non-State entities including Indian
tribes under section 8001 of RCRA. The trust fund is also used
to enforce responsible parties to finance corrective actions
and to recover expended funds used to clean up abandoned tanks.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget request of $72,096,000
for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, an increase
of $2,336,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The
Committee directs that not less than 85 percent of these funds
be provided to the States and tribal governments.
In light of widespread contamination of drinking water by
the gasoline additive MTBE from leading underground petroleum
storage tanks, the Committee urges EPA in undertaking
corrective actions and enforcement to give high priority to
releases that pose the greatest threat to human health and the
environment.
oilspill response
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $14,974,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 15,712,000
House allowance......................................... 15,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,000,000
program description
This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1987 and amended by the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, provides funds for preventing and responding to
releases of oil and other petroleum products in navigable
waterways. EPA is responsible for: directing all cleanup and
removal activities posing a threat to public health and the
environment; conducting inspections, including compelling
responsible parties to undertake cleanup actions; reviewing
containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency
plans; pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed cleanups; and
conducting research of oil cleanup techniques. Funds are
provided through the oilspill liability trust fund established
by the Oil Pollution Act and managed by the Coast Guard.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the oilspill
response trust fund, the same as the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level prior to the 0.38 percent rescission and a decrease of
$712,000 below the budget request.
state and tribal ASSISTANCE grants
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $3,445,765,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 2,906,957,000
House allowance......................................... 3,176,957,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,320,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The ``State and tribal assistance grants'' account funds
grants to support the State revolving fund programs; State,
tribal, regional, and local environmental programs; and special
projects to address critical water and waste water treatment
needs.
This account funds the following infrastructure grant
programs: State revolving funds; United States-Mexico Border
Program; colonias projects; Alaska Native villages; and
information integration initiative.
It also contains the following environmental grants, State/
tribal program grants, and assistance and capacity building
grants: (1) nonpoint source (sec. 319 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act); (2) water quality cooperative
agreements (sec. 104(b)(3) of FWPCA; (3) public water system
supervision; (4) air resource assistance to State, local, and
tribal governments (secs. 105 and 103 of the Clean Air Act);
(5) radon State grants; (6) water pollution control agency
resource supplementation (sec. 106 of the FWPCA); (7) wetlands
State program development; (8) underground injection control;
(9) Pesticides Program implementation; (10) lead grants; (11)
hazardous waste financial assistance; (12) pesticides
enforcement grants; (13) pollution prevention; (14) toxic
substances compliance; (15) Indians general assistance grants;
(16) underground storage tanks; and, (17) enforcement and
compliance assurance. The funds provided in this account,
exclusive of the funds for the SRF and the special water and
waste water treatment projects, may be used by the Agency to
enter into performance partnerships with States and tribes
rather than media-specific categorical program grants, if
requested by the States and tribes. The performance
partnership/categorical grants are exempt from the
congressional reprogramming limitation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,320,000,000
for State and tribal assistance grants, an increase of
$413,043,000 over the budget request and a decrease of
$125,765,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
The Committee's recommendation includes the following:
$955,000,000 for performance partnership/categorical
grants and associated program support. Increases above
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level are provided for air
State and local grants (+$5,000,000), section 106 water
quality grants (+$27,043,000), section 319 nonpoint
source grants (+$20,000,000), hazardous waste financial
assistance (+$8,000,000), and Indian general assistance
program (+$9,957,000).
$820,000,000 for drinking water State revolving funds,
the same as the fiscal year 2000 level.
$1,350,000,000 for clean water State revolving funds, an
increase of $550,000,000 above the budget request.
$50,000,000 for water and wastewater projects on the
United States-Mexico border. The Committee directs that
of the funds provided for U.S./Mexico border projects,
$3,500,000 shall be for the El Paso-Las Cruces
Sustainable Water Project, $1,000,000 shall be for the
Del Rio/San Felipe Springs Water Treatment Plant, and
$2,000,000 shall be for the Brownsville water supply
project. A provision has been included restricting
border infrastructure funds to local communities that
have a local ordnance or zoning rule regarding
development.
$35,000,000 for rural and Alaskan Native villages to
address the special water and wastewater treatment
needs of thousands of households that lack basic
sanitation, including $2,000,000 for training and
technical assistance. The State of Alaska will provide
a match of 25 percent.
$110,000,000 for special needs infrastructure grants, as
follows:
$400,000 for the Newmarket, NH outflow discharge pipe.
$500,000 for the Waimea Wastewater Treatment Plant
Interim Expansion in the County of Kauai, HI.
$2,200,000 for water and sewer improvements in Fairbanks,
AK through the North Star Borough.
$1,100,000 for water and sewer improvements in Whittier,
AK.
$2,200,000 for water and sewer improvements in Sitka, AK.
$2,000,000 for Ogden, UT, water and sewer improvements.
$1,000,000 for Grand County, UT Water and Sewer Service
Agency for water infrastructure improvements.
$3,000,000 for the Lockwood, MT wastewater collection
system and wastewater treatment and disposal system.
$2,000,000 for the City of Belgrade, MT wastewater
collection, treatment and disposal system.
$1,000,000 for the West Valley, MT water and sewer
development.
$2,000,000 for the City of Montrose, CO sewage treatment
upgrade.
$750,000 for the Pawtucket, RI water treatment plant
construction.
$3,000,000 for the DeSoto County, MS comprehensive water
and wastewater management project.
$1,000,000 for the City of Pearl, MS wastewater
collection rehabilitation.
$1,000,000 for the Corinna, ME sewer upgrade.
$3,000,000 for the City of Bremerton, WA combined sewer
overflow correction.
$2,000,000 for the Coulee Dam, WA water infiltration
system.
$500,000 for Hoodsport Water System, Mason County, WA
drinking water system improvements.
$2,000,000 for the Berlin, NH water works improvement
project.
$300,000 for Lebanon, NH combined sewer overflow
elimination project.
$1,000,000 for the City of Abilene, TX water treatment
facility.
$2,500,000 for the City of Pownal, VT wastewater
treatment project.
$1,000,000 for Montgomery, VT wastewater demonstration
project.
$1,500,000 for the City of Elizabeth, NJ combined sewer
overflow abatement project.
$1,500,000 for the City of Carteret, NJ combined sewer
overflow improvements.
$2,500,000 for the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority
of Arizona (WIFA) for a loan to Pima County, AZ for
wastewater treatment facility improvements. WIFA may
lend the funds directly to Pima County or use the funds
to support bonds to fund loans to Pima County and other
Arizona communities on Arizona's SRF priority list.
Pima County and other benefitting communities, if any,
shall repay loans to Arizona's SRF.
$3,000,000 for Jefferson County, MS water and sewer
infrastructure needs.
$1,000,000 for West Rankin Metropolitan Sewer Authority
to develop alternative water and wastewater systems for
Rankin County, MS.
$3,000,000 for Logan/Todd, KY Regional Water Commission
for water system improvements.
$3,000,000 for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration
project, Allegheny County, PA.
$1,000,000 for the Springettsbury, PA regional sewer
project.
$900,000 for the Scottsboro, AL sewer project.
$3,000,000 for the Thomasville, AL water facility
project.
$1,000,000 for the Jasper, AL sewer extension project.
$3,000,000 for Grand Forks, ND water treatment plant.
$4,000,000 for the City of Huron, SD to upgrade its water
treatment facility.
$3,000,000 for Rapid City, SD, to upgrade its water
reclamation facility.
$500,000 for the City of Alcester, SD for a wastewater
treatment facility.
$3,250,000 for Clinton, IA to separate storm and sewage
systems.
$1,000,000 for the City of York, SC water treatment plant
upgrade.
$1,400,000 for Branchville, SC water distribution system.
$2,000,000 for St. Clair Shores, MI combined sewer
overflow correction project.
$1,000,000 for Bristol County, MA, wastewater projects.
$1,000,000 for Lawton-Verdi, NV sewer interceptor
project.
$1,000,000 for Beloit, WI combined sewer overflow
project.
$2,000,000 for Milwaukee, WI, Metropolitan Sewerage
District for continued renovations and repairs to the
sewer system.
$1,000,000 for the City of Vallejo, CA for a sanitary
sewer system and Mare Island.
$1,000,000 for the City of Sacramento, CA combined sewer
overflow project.
$1,500,000 for the McCall, ID water plant improvement
project.
$2,300,000 for Granite Reeder, ID Water and Sewer
District sewer system construction.
$1,000,000 for Burley, ID sewer system improvement
project.
$1,000,000 for the Village of Johnsburg, IL wastewater
treatment project.
$3,000,000 for the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation groundwater remediation project near the
Kenai River. The match requirement can be met with non-
Federally funded pre-award work by the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation.
$750,000 for Clovis, NM wastewater treatment system
repair.
$4,600,000 for biological nutrient removal on the eastern
shore of Maryland, including $2,000,000 to the City of
Crisfield; $1,800,000 for the City of Fruitland; and
$800,000 for the Somerset County Sanitary District for
Princess Anne.
$6,000,000 to be divided equally between St. Louis and
Kansas City, MO for the Meramec River enhancement and
wetlands protection project and the Central Industrial
District wastewater project.
$900,000 for Nodaway County, Missouri wastewater needs,
including the communities of Pickering and Ravenwood.
$100,000 for Allendale, MO wastewater infrastructure
improvements.
$830,000 for Los Lunas, NM wastewater system upgrade.
$990,000 for Corrales, NM centralized water and
wastewater treatment system.
$3,180,000 for North and South Valley of the City of
Albuquerque and the county of Bernalillo, NM regional
water and wastewater system improvements.
$1,200,000 for the West Rehoboth Expansion of the Dewey
Beach Sanitary District, DE.
$650,000 for the Cowen Public Service District to provide
water and sewer to the proposed Cowen Industrial Park
in Webster County, WV.
EPA is to work with the grant recipients on appropriate
cost-share arrangements consistent with past practice.
The Committee is once again perplexed with the
administration's decision to cut funding by 40 percent for the
clean water State revolving fund. EPA has been developing new
estimates of the need for water and wastewater infrastructure
funding, referred to as the ``gap analysis.'' Key findings from
EPA's analysis include: (1) the identification of a ``gap''
between total annual spending for wastewater infrastructure
nationally of $6,000,000,000 to cover the projected capital
requirements of the new systems and replace existing systems;
(2) the current course will lead to an annual gap of
$12,000,000,000; (3) wastewater capital investment is declining
but needs to double. Moreover, other sources estimate an annual
gap of $23,000,000,000 between current investments in
infrastructure and the investments that will be needed annually
over the next 20 years to replace aging and failing pipes and
meet clean water and safe drinking water mandates. The
Committee believes the contribution of the EPA State revolving
funds are a critical component to meeting these water
infrastructure needs, and expects the fiscal year 2002 budget
request to reflect this.
Within the funds provided for 106 water quality grants,
$2,000,000 is for grants to coastal States to establish
monitoring and notification programs for detecting pathogens in
coastal recreation waters, upon enactment of authorizing
legislation. Under the 319 program, EPA should give priority to
projects that assist communities in restoring degraded water
bodies listed as ``impaired'' under section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act. In addition, the Committee suggests that 5 percent
of the section 319 funds be allocated to clean lakes, and that
EPA better integrate the Clean Lakes and section 319 programs
by incorporating the section 314 guidance into the 319
guidance.
The Committee directs EPA to finalize Section 106 grant
agreements and make funds fully available to States under the
established allotment formula within 60 days of apportionment
for all Section 106 eligible uses using performance partnership
agreements or other accepted grant mechanisms at the State
option, so long as the State maintains the fiscal year 2000
level of effort.
The Committee has not included bill language requested by
the administration authorizing a set-aside of up to 19 percent
of State revolving funds for nonpoint source grants. The
Committee notes it has recommended $220,000,000 in section 319
grants for nonpoint source controls. In view of the need for
wastewater infrastructure financing, the Committee cannot
support the administration's proposal.
The Committee has provided no funds for the
administration's proposals for a new $85,000,000 clean air
partnership grant program or a new $50,000,000 Great Lakes
grant program. These programs are not specifically authorized
and cannot be supported in view of the many higher priority
agency activities.
The Committee has included bill language, which has been
carried for several years, clarifying that drinking water
health effects research is to be funded out of the science and
technology account only.
Bill language has been included, as in fiscal year 2000,
which allows States in fiscal year 2001 and hereafter to
include as principal, amounts considered to be the cost of
administering SRF loans to eligible borrowers.
Bill language is included, as the administration requested,
regarding section 319 grants to Indian tribes.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
The Committee has included an administrative provision
requested by EPA regarding the liquidation of obligations in
multiple-year appropriations accounts. Similar language was
included last year.
The Committee has also included a provision as proposed by
the administration, authorizing EPA to enter into cooperative
agreements with Indian tribal governments to facilitate the
administration of environmental programs on Indian
reservations.
The Committee has included bill language reinstating the
12-month grace period following designation for new
nonattainment areas for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards originally contained in EPA conformity regulations.
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $5,089,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 5,201,000
House allowance......................................... 5,150,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,201,000
program description
The Office of Science and Technology Policy [OSTP] was
created by the National Science and Technology Policy,
Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-238)
and coordinates science and technology policy for the White
House. OSTP provides authoritative scientific and technological
information, analysis, and advice for the President, for the
executive branch, and for Congress; participates in
formulation, coordination, and implementation of national and
international policies and programs that involve science and
technology; maintains and promotes the health and vitality of
the U.S. science and technology infrastructure; and coordinates
research and development efforts of the Federal Government to
maximize the return on the public's investment in science and
technology and to ensure Federal resources are used efficiently
and appropriately.
OSTP provides support for the National Science and
Technology Council [NSTC].
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,201,000 for
the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This amount is the
same as the budget request and $112,000 above the fiscal year
2000 enacted level.
The Committee recognizes the administration's recent
efforts to combat the fear and hysteria being generated around
the use of biotechnology. The Committee is encouraged by the
efforts of OSTP and NSF to educate the public about
biotechnology with scientific facts and reason. The
administration announced a plan on May 3, 2000 to strengthen
science-based regulation and consumer access to information
about food and agricultural biotechnology activities. The
Committee plans to monitor the implementation of this new plan
and encourages OSTP and other Federal agencies such as NSF, the
Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration,
and EPA to provide a coherent and unified voice on the
scientific facts behind biotechnology. The Committee believes
that it is critical that the administration ensures that the
fear and hysteria surrounding biotechnology is minimized,
especially since the Committee has concerns about recent
tactics to misinform the public about other important
scientific endeavors such as nanotechnology. Accordingly, the
Committee directs OSTP to provide recommendations to the
Committee by January 19, 2001 on creating a new office within
OSTP to coordinate the Federal Government's activities and
efforts in providing the public with scientifically-based
information relating to biotechnology.
The issues surrounding indirect costs remain a concern to
the Committee. Despite the Federal Government's numerous
efforts to lower the indirect cost rates, the average indirect
cost rates at universities was about 52.3 percent in fiscal
year 1997--only 0.4 percent lower than the average rate in
fiscal year 1991--according to the Chronicle of Higher
Education. This is confirmed by data available from the Office
of Naval Research and Department of Health and Human Services,
which found that negotiated rates have remained stable for at
least a decade. The 1998 National Science Foundation
Authorization Act (Public Law 105-207) required OSTP to prepare
a report to the Congress on indirect costs to analyze, among
other things, options to reduce or control the rate of growth
of the Federal indirect cost reimbursement rates. This report
was submitted to the Congress on July 21, 2000. While the OSTP
report concluded that Federal policy changes to further reduce
indirect costs would be detrimental to the research enterprise
at our nation's universities, it recommended that ``thoughtful
dialogues between the Federal Government and the universities
on ways to increase administrative efficiency are the best way
to assure a wise and productive government investment.'' The
Committee agrees with the OSTP recommendation and urges OSTP to
review how universities can improve the way they administer
research grants and activities.
The OSTP report also found that there is currently no
systematic method by which the Federal Government collects and
maintains data on indirect cost rates and actual costs. The
Committee recommends that OSTP include in its fiscal year 2002
budget a cost estimate on creating a central database of
Federal research indirect costs and rates.
For the past several years, the Committee has followed with
interest the developing progress that has been made relative to
research and development using high field nuclear magnetic
resonance (NMR) instrumentation and has requested OSTP to
assess the future needs in this field. At present, the greatest
impediment to federal initiatives in this area is the lack of a
commercially-available 900 MHz instrument. There is the view
that new commercial instrumentation could be available in the
very near future. The Committee strongly encourages the OSTP to
convene a working group to monitor developments and plan for
interagency initiatives to allow U.S. scientists to take full
advantage of these new instruments through novel linkages and
collaborations among leading academic institutions and national
laboratories.
Lastly, the Committee is concerned about the participation
of those agencies involved in the information technology
initiative. While the Committee is encouraged by the research
community's response to NSF's information technology program,
it is concerned about those proposals which NSF has received
that could be funded from other agencies such as the National
Institutes of Health. The Committee urges OSTP to coordinate
the activities of the IT participating agencies to ensure that
funding proposals are considered by the appropriate agency.
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $2,816,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 3,020,000
House allowance......................................... 2,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,900,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Council on Environmental Quality/Office of
Environmental Quality was established by the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental Quality
Improvement Act of 1970. The Council serves as a source of
environmental expertise and policy analysis for the White
House, Executive Office of the President agencies, and other
Federal agencies. CEQ promulgates regulations binding on all
Federal agencies to implement the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act and resolves interagency
environmental disputes informally and through issuance of
findings and recommendations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has provided $2,900,000 for the Council on
Environmental Quality, an increase of $84,000 above the fiscal
year 2000 enacted level.
Bill language relative to the use of detailees has been
continued again this year.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Office of Inspector General
(Transfer of Funds)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... 33,666,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 33,660,000
House allowance......................................... 33,661,000
Committee recommendation................................ 33,660,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Prior to 1998, the FDIC inspector general's budgets have
been approved by the FDIC's Board of Directors from deposit
insurance funds as part of FDIC's annual operating budget that
is proposed by the FDIC Chairman. A separate appropriation more
effectively ensures the independence of the OIG.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $33,660,000 for the FDIC inspector
general, which are to be derived by transfer from the bank
insurance fund, the savings association insurance fund, and the
FSLIC resolution fund.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $3,338,421,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 3,580,477,000
House allowance......................................... 876,730,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,515,977,000
general description
FEMA is responsible for coordinating Federal efforts to
reduce the loss of life and property through a comprehensive
risk-based, all hazards emergency management program of
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $3,515,977,000 for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. The amount provided includes
$2,909,220,000 in disaster relief expenditures (of which
$2,609,220,000 is contingency funding) and $906,757,000 for
other programs.
disaster relief
Appropriations, 2000..................................\1\ $2,768,009,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................................\2\ 2,909,220,000
House allowance......................................... 300,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................\2\ 2,909,220,000
\1\ Includes $2,480,425,000 in contingency funds.
\2\ Includes $2,609,220,000 in contingency funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
Through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), FEMA provides a
significant portion of the total Federal response to victims in
Presidentially declared major disasters and emergencies. Major
disasters are declared when a State requests Federal assistance
and has proven that a given disaster is beyond the State's
capacity to respond. Under the DRF, FEMA provides three main
types of assistance: individual and family assistance; public
assistance, which includes the repair and reconstruction of
State, local and non-profit infrastructure; and hazard
mitigation.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the President's request of
$300,000,000 for disaster relief, and an additional
$2,609,220,000 in disaster relief contingency funds.
The Committee has included bill language making available
up to $15,000,000 for map modernization activities in areas
which receive Presidential disaster declarations. The Committee
believes it is critical that accurate maps are developed
following disasters to ensure reconstruction activities are
carried out in accordance with appropriate codes and standards.
These funds are limited strictly to mapping needs associated
with post-disaster reconstruction activities only.
The Committee has not included the administration's
proposal for up to $50,000,000 for buyouts of repetitive loss
properties in areas which receive Presidential disaster
declarations as this issue was addressed in the fiscal year
2000 emergency supplemental appropriation. The Committee is
very disappointed in FEMA's implementation of the buyout
program. Despite clear Congressional directives to engage
stakeholders in a serious dialogue on the establishment of a
program, coordinate with other relevant agencies, and issue
timely regulations, the agency has failed to do so. FEMA has
not established clear guidelines and parameters, incentives for
the purchase of--and disincentives not to purchase--flood
insurance, consistent procedures for estimating pre-flood fair
market value, and procedures to ensure an equitable
distribution of funds to the most appropriate buyout
candidates. Rather than establishing a national program, FEMA
has relied on the States to develop priorities and procedures,
resulting in a haphazard, inconsistent, and inequitable
approach. Almost 1 year after Hurricane Floyd struck the east
coast, there continues to be confusion amongst States and flood
victims as to what the buyout program is intended to
accomplish. The Committee directs in the strongest manner
possible that FEMA rectify these shortcomings immediately.
Under section 311 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, an applicant must agree to obtain
and maintain insurance as a condition of receiving a public
assistance grant. The Committee continues to support FEMA's
efforts to achieve a nationally consistent level of
responsibility among public and certain private nonprofit
entities for natural disaster risks by enhancing building
insurance coverage requirements as a criterion for eligibility
for public assistance. Last spring FEMA issued an advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking and expects to finalize a rule
prior to the end of the calendar year. The Committee urges FEMA
to act expeditiously on this important effort.
The Committee urges FEMA to work with the Quileute Tribe in
Washington State to develop necessary flood mapping for the
Bogachiel and Quillayute River.
The Committee supports FEMA's efforts to streamline
disaster field operations, including developing three levels of
operational responses to disasters; utilizing standardized
staffing templates for large, medium and small disasters;
minimizing and/or eliminating disaster field offices; and State
management of small disasters. The Committee expects FEMA to
keep it informed of its streamlining efforts, with a report
within 90 days of enactment of this Act.
PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION FUND
Appropriations, 2000....................................................
Budget estimate, 2001................................... $30,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Under this initiative, FEMA provides funds for community-
identified mitigation projects that reduce the exposure to
disaster losses. These funds are expected to leverage private
sector resources.
COMMITTEE DESCRIPTION
The Committee recommends funds for this activity under the
``Emergency management planning and assistance'' account, in
lieu of a separate account as proposed by the administration.
disaster assistance direct loan program account
(limitation on direct loans)
STATE SHARE LOAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000.................... $1,295,000 $420,000
Budget estimate, 2001................... 1,678,000 427,000
House allowance......................... 1,295,000 420,000
Committee recommendation................ 1,678,000 427,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Disaster assistance loans authorized by the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. are loans to States for the non-Federal portion of
cost sharing funds and community disaster loans to local
governments incurring substantial loss of tax and other
revenues as a result of a major disaster. The funds requested
for this program include direct loans and a subsidy based on
criteria including loan amount and interest charged.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
For the State Share Loan Program, the Committee has
provided $25,000,000 in loan authority and $427,000 in
administrative expenses. For the cost of subsidizing the
appropriation, the bill includes $1,678,000.
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $179,950,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 221,024,000
House allowance......................................... 190,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 215,000,000
program description
This account provides the necessary resources to administer
the Agency's various programs at headquarters and in the
regions; and the general management and administration of the
Agency in legal, congressional, government, and media affairs,
and financial and personnel management, as well as the
management of the Agency's national security program.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $215,000,000 for FEMA salaries and
expenses. This is a decrease of $6,024,000 below the request
and an increase of $35,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000
enacted level. This is a general reduction subject to normal
reprogramming requirements. The amount recommended is
sufficient to move forward with the headquarters building
project while potentially needing to delay some procurements
until fiscal year 2002. In addition, the amount provided allows
for modest enhancements in terrorism-related programs as
requested by the administration.
office of the inspector general
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $7,965,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 8,476,000
House allowance......................................... 8,015,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000
program description
This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and
investigative functions to identify and correct management and
administrative deficiencies, which create conditions for
existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and
mismanagement. The audit function provides internal audit,
contract audit, and inspection services. Contract audits
provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on
accounting and financial matters relative to the negotiation,
award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts.
Internal audits review and evaluate all facets of agency
operations.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Office of the
Inspector General, an increase of $2,035,000 above the fiscal
year 2000 enacted level.
Bill language has been included which authorizes the FEMA
Inspector General to serve also as the IG for the Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Additional funds are
recommended to enable the OIG to carry out these new
responsibilities. It is estimated that up to 8 additional
permanent full-time employees would be necessary to fulfill
this requirement. The Committee does not intend that this new
responsibility will diminish in any way the OIG's FEMA
oversight responsibilities.
To ensure the independence of the OIG, additional funds
above the President's request are also recommended to enable
the OIG to support its own administrative functions rather than
relying on FEMA for support services such as budget and
accounting, procurement, and personnel.
The Committee expects the OIG to prepare annual audited
financial statements for the new Office of Cerro Grande Fire
Claims.
emergency management planning and assistance
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $267,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 269,652,000
House allowance......................................... 267,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 269,652,000
program description
The emergency management planning and assistance
appropriation provides resources for the following activities:
response and recovery; preparedness; training and exercises;
information technology services; fire prevention and training;
operations support; policy and regional operations; mitigation
programs; and executive direction.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget estimate of
$269,652,000 for emergency management planning and assistance.
This is an increase of $2,652,000 above the fiscal year 2000
level.
The Committee has included funds for the predisaster
mitigation program in this account, rather than in a separate
account as proposed by the administration. The Committee has
recommended the fiscal year 2000 level of $25,000,000 for this
program.
The Committee is concerned about recent findings of the
Inspector General regarding Project Impact. In particular, the
IG found that reported partner contributions are not accurate
and communities are not spending their Federal grant monies
timely. The Committee directs FEMA to submit a report within 90
days of enactment of this Act describing its plans to implement
the recommendations of the IG.
The Committee has not included the administration's
proposal for $25,000,000 for a new grant program for
firefighters. There has not been sufficient justification for
this new program, particularly in view of the extraordinary
budget constraints imposed by the subcommittee's allocation.
Funding for a new local grant program would be possible only by
imposing cuts in other critical areas, such as other U.S. Fire
Administration programs, anti-terrorism, disaster training or
exercises. The Committee cannot support such cuts.
The Committee supports FEMA's budget request of $3,825,000
to prepare urban search and rescue task forces for incidents
involving weapons of mass destruction.
The Committee urges FEMA to work with the Engineering and
Geology Departments at the University of Mississippi and
University of Missouri-Rolla on the development of a
comprehensive earthquake preparedness plan and safe, cost-
effective hazard mitigation measures associated with the New
Madrid Seismic Zone in Mid-America.
The Committee urges the National Fire Academy to work with
West Texas A&M University to establish an on-line fire
management administration program. This program would enable
graduates to interact effectively with law enforcement and
public works personnel, city councils and mayors, and county
government personnel, to coordinate and administer better their
fire department's activities.
The Committee urges FEMA to continue the Chemical Health
and Environmental Management in Schools (CHEMIS) program. This
program provides valuable training to schools, health and
safety officials, and regulatory agencies on the proper method
of storing, handling, and disposing of dangerous chemicals. The
Pan-Educational Institute (PEI) has been successful in
providing this unique training to 24 States.
The Committee has included full funding for the dam safety
program.
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND
The Radiological Emergency Preparedness [REP] Program
assists State and local governments in the development of
offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans within the
emergency planning zones of commercial nuclear power facilities
licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC].
The fund is financed from fees assessed and collected from
the NRC licensees to recover the amounts anticipated by FEMA to
be obliated in the next fiscal year for expenses related to REP
program activities. Estimated collections for fiscal year 2001
are $14,261,000.
emergency food and shelter
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $110,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 140,000,000
House allowance......................................... 110,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 110,000,000
program description
The Emergency Food and Shelter Program originated as a one-
time emergency appropriation to combat the effects of high
unemployment in the emergency jobs bill (Public Law 98-8) which
was enacted in March 1983. It was authorized under title III of
the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, Public
Law 100-177.
The program has been administered by a national board and
the majority of the funding has been spent for providing
temporary food and shelter for the homeless, participating
organizations being restricted by legislation from spending
more than 3.5 percent of the funding received for
administrative costs.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $110,000,000 for the Emergency
Food and Shelter Program, the same as the fiscal year 2000
level and a reduction of $30,000,000 below the budget request.
national flood insurance fund
(transfers of funds)
program description
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
authorizes the Federal Government to provide flood insurance on
a national basis. Flood insurance may be sold or continued in
force only in communities which enact and enforce appropriate
flood plain management measures. Communities must participate
in the program within 1 year of the time they are identified as
flood-prone in order to be eligible for flood insurance and
some forms of Federal financial assistance for acquisition or
construction purposes. In 2000, the budget assumes collection
of all the administrative and program costs associated with
flood insurance activities from policyholders.
Under the Emergency Program, structures in identified
flood-prone areas are eligible for limited amounts of coverage
at subsidized insurance rates. Under the regular program,
studies must be made of different flood risks in flood prone
areas to establish actuarial premium rates. These rates are
charged for insurance on new construction. Coverage is
available on virtually all types of buildings and their
contents in amounts up to $350,000 for residential and
$1,000,000 for other types.
committee recommendation
The Committee has included bill language, providing up to
$25,736,000 for administrative costs from the Flood Insurance
Program for salaries and expenses. The Committee has also
included bill language providing up to $77,307,000 for flood
mitigation activities including up to $20,000,000 for expenses
under section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act.
The Committee has included requested bill language which
extends the authorization through fiscal year 2001 for
borrowing from the Treasury up to $1,500,000,000, and for flood
mapping studies.
The Committee supports the recommendations contained in the
recent report by the Heinz Center ``Evaluation of Erosion
Risks'' and directs FEMA to put together a plan to develop
erosion hazard maps that display the location and extent of
coastal areas subject to erosion, including a cost estimate and
timeframe.
The Committee directs the GAO to undertake a comprehensive
review of the National Flood Insurance Program, including
implementation of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of
1994, assessing lender compliance, examining participation
rates, and make recommendations to improve participation and
the program generally. This review is to complement, not
duplicate a recent review by the FEMA OIG of compliance with
homeowner flood insurance purchase requirements.
The Committee notes that on March 9, 2000, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers issued changes to the nationwide permits
(NWPs) under the wetlands permitting program under section 404
of the Clean Water Act. The Corps' action will restrict access
to streamlined permitting of minimal impact projects under the
NWPs in 100-year floodplains. The new restrictions are
predicated on the use of flood insurance rate maps issued by
FEMA. However, FEMA acknowledges its maps are outdated and
inaccurate. According to FEMA, flood data updates are needed
for 17,500 panels of the approximately 100,000 panel inventory;
an additional 16,500 panels require map maintenance to update
non-engineering reference features, such as roads and corporate
limits; and the manual cartographic methods used to prepare
most of the maps limit the utility of the maps for users and
FEMA's ability to distribute cost effectively and revise the
maps, requiring converting to digital format 74,500 map panels.
These map modernization requirements will cost an estimated
$750,000,000. A funding source for the comprehensive map
modernization effort has not been identified. Clearly it will
take a significant commitment of time and resources to
modernize fully FEMA's map inventory. In the meantime,
effective implementation of the Corps' rule will be compromised
at best.
The Committee directs FEMA to report within 120 days of
enactment of this Act on (1) the availability to the public of
flood insurance rate maps depicting the 100-year floodplains
that differentiate clearly between the ``floodway'' and the
``flood fringe;'' (2) the availability to the public of flood
insurance rate maps that depict, on a statewide basis, 100-year
floodplains; (3) where such maps are not available, a timetable
for when such maps will be made available; (4) an analysis of
the accuracy of the flood insurance rate maps that are
currently available; and (5) how FEMA will implement its new
responsibilities under General Condition 26 of the nationwide
permit program, including the organization and process for
implementing such responsibilities, and the cost, including the
number of personnel and work-hours involved, of implementing
such responsibilities.
Finally, the Committee notes that FEMA is not and was never
intended to be a regulatory agency, and therefore the Committee
does not expect FEMA to assume a formal role in the NWP
permitting process or spend any appropriated funds to approve,
disapprove or condition applications for ``individual'' or
``standard'' permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Through fee-generated funds transferred from the National
Flood Insurance Fund, this fund would support activities to
eliminate pre-existing, at-risk structures that are
repetitively flooded, and provides flood mitigation assistance
planning support to States.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Through fee-generated funds totaling $20,000,000 in fiscal
year 2001 transferred from the National Flood Insurance Fund,
the National Flood Mitigation Fund will provide a mechanism to
reduce the financial burden of pre-existing, at-risk structures
that are repetitively flooded by removing or elevating these
structures out of flood hazard areas, as well as provide flood
mitigation assistance planning support to States and
communities.
General Services Administration
federal consumer information center
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $2,622,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 6,822,000
House allowance......................................... 7,122,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,122,000
program description
The Consumer Information Center [CIC] was established
within the General Services Administration [GSA] by Executive
Order on October 26, 1970, to help Federal departments and
agencies promote and distribute consumer information collected
as a byproduct of the Government's program activities.
On January 28, 2000, the Consumer Information Center
assumed responsibility for the operations of the Federal
Information Center [FIC] program with the resulting
organization being officially named the Federal Consumer
Information Center [FCIC]. The FIC program was established
within the General Services Administration in 1966, and was
formalized by Public Law 95-491 in 1980. The program's purpose
is to provide the public with direct information about all
aspects of Federal programs, regulations, and services. To
accomplish this mission, the FIC uses contractual services to
respond to public inquiries via a nationwide toll-free
telephone call center. The FIC was previously funded by the
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act.
The new Federal Consumer Information Center combines the
nationwide toll-free telephone assistance program and the
database of the FIC with the CIC website and publications
distribution programs. The FCIC is a one-stop source for
citizens to get information about government programs and
everyday consumer issues.
Public Law 98-63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a
revolving fund for the CIC. Under this fund, FCIC activities
are financed from the following: annual appropriations from the
general funds of the Treasury, reimbursements from agencies for
distribution of publications, user fees collected from the
public, and any other income incident to FCIC activities. All
are available as authorized in appropriation acts without
regard to fiscal year limitations.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $7,122,000 for the Federal
Consumer Information Center. This reflects an increase of
$300,000 from the fiscal year 2001 budget request and is
necessary to bring FCIC's annual income more in balance with
its administrative expenses and to shore up the FCIC Fund
balance. Despite FCIC's actions to reduce costs, fixed expenses
have continued to increase while the appropriation has remained
stable and other funding sources, such as users fees, have
declined due to the reduction in the public's demand for
printed publications. This has resulted in a projected Fund
balance of $291,000 at the end of fiscal year 2001, an amount
insufficient to offset administrative expenses in future years.
The increase of $4,500,000 over the current level mainly is
associated with the Agency's new responsibility for the Federal
Information Center.
The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from
Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications,
user fees from the public, and other income. FCIC's anticipated
obligations for fiscal year 2001 will total approximately
$10,927,000.
In fiscal year 2001, the FCIC program expects to respond to
2,700,000 phone calls, distribute approximately 5,600,000
publications, and receive 13.5 million web accesses. This
represents delivery of a total of 21.8 million information
products to the public.
The Committee strongly supports GSA's decision to allot to
the position of Director, Federal Consumer Information Center,
one Senior Executive Service slot in view of the level of
responsibility of this important agency.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Appropriations, 2000
$13,600,819,000
Budget estimate, 2001
14,035,300,000
House allowance
13,658,600,000
Committee recommendation
13,844,000,000
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
1958 to conduct space and aeronautical research, development,
and flight activities for peaceful purposes designed to
maintain U.S. preeminence in aeronautics and space. These
activities are designed to continue the Nation's premier
program of space exploration and to invest in the development
of new technologies to improve the competitive position of the
United States. The NASA program provides for a vigorous
national program ensuring leadership in world aviation and as
the preeminent spacefaring nation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $13,844,000,000 for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2001, an
increase of $243,181,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level.
The Committee strongly supports NASA's mission of promoting
civilian space flight, exploration, scientific advancement, and
the development of next-generation technologies. The current
centerpiece of NASA's mission is the construction of the
International Space Station that when complete in 2005-2006
will represent the most sophisticated long-duration habitable
microgravity research laboratory in space. This research
facility will significantly enhance human understanding of the
challenges facing humans in exploring the universe and will
serve as a stepping stone to the future exploration of space.
It also will provide a unique science platform for space-based
research in cell and developmental biology, plant biology,
human physiology and all branches of physics. The construction
of this facility has continued with the successful integration
of the long delayed Russian Zvezda service module that will
serve as the initial crew habitation quarters early in fiscal
year 2001.
Nevertheless, the Committee remains very concerned by cost
overruns and unrealistic budgeting by NASA, especially those
associated with the development and construction of the
International Space Station. This concern was highlighted most
significantly by the independent cost assessment and validation
[CAV] report issued in 1998 by a review team headed by Jay
Chabrow. The CAV report estimated that the final cost of the
space station will be some $24,700,000,000, instead of the NASA
estimate of $17,400,000,000 and will take up to 38 months
longer to build than previous NASA estimates. In addition, many
of these higher costs were unfairly borne through budget
reductions in other NASA programs and activities, most
particularly programs and activities designed to increase our
understanding of the space and earth sciences. In addition,
since that report, delays and cost overruns continue to be a
significant problem that NASA has not addressed adequately.
The Committee continues to believe that NASA must
articulate a comprehensive agenda and strategy through a
strategic plan for each of NASA's primary centers that links
staffing, funding resources and mission activities in a manner
that will ensure each primary center will be vested with
specific responsibilities and activities. Within each plan,
NASA should identify where a center has or is expected to
develop the same or similar expertise and capacity as another
center, including the justification for this need. The plan
should also include a specific 10-year profile of flight
missions, identifying the time frames for core missions and
core mission elements. This profile should identify the primary
NASA center responsible for each flight's mission management.
The profile also should articulate clearly the criteria that is
used and/or will be used to permit missions to be built
intramurally, as well as the strategy for using industry and
leading academic laboratories for mission development and
execution. These plans should be updated annually.
As part of the Committee's efforts to understand NASA's
long-term budgeting, the Committee directs NASA by April 15,
2001, to identify the varying cost structures among the NASA
space centers. The Committee is aware that NASA's space centers
have different cost structures. Full-time equivalent costs and
the built-in overhead costs seem to vary from center to center.
As NASA moves to full-cost accounting, the Committee needs to
have a better understanding of NASA's cost structures among the
space centers. It also is expected that the costs of personnel
and equipment among the centers reflect a comparable cost to
NASA. The Committee expects explicit information on full-time
equivalent and overhead costs (including how overhead costs are
calculated) at all of the space centers by each mission,
program, and activity. As of now, NASA has not provided
adequate information on these matters.
The Committee also seeks a clearer picture about NASA's
budget in the outyears. The Committee directs that NASA include
the outyear budget impacts on all reprogramming requests and
include the outyear budget impact of all missions in the annual
operating plan. The operating plan and all resubmissions also
should include an accounting of all program/mission reserves.
The Committee also directs NASA to maintain its current account
structure.
The Committee also expects NASA to continue to refine its
implementation of the Government Performance and Reports Act
[GPRA]. NASA needs to tie its performance goals and the
benchmarks to its annual budget submission.
The Committee remains sensitive to continuing risks
regarding the illegal transfer and theft of sensitive
technologies that can be used in the development of weapons by
governments, entities and persons who may be hostile to the
United States. The Committee commends both NASA and the NASA
Inspector General (IG) for their efforts to protect sensitive
NASA-related technologies. Nevertheless, this will remain an
area of great sensitivity and concern as the development of
technological advances likely will continue to accelerate. The
Committee directs NASA and the NASA IG to report annually on
these issues, including an assessment of risk.
HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $5,487,900,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 5,499,900,000
House allowance......................................... 5,472,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,400,000,000
general description
NASA's ``Human Space Flight'' account provides funding for
human space flight activities, including the development and
assembly of the International Space Station and the operation
of the Space Shuttle. It also includes support of activities
with Russia, upgrades to the performance and safety of the
Space Shuttle, and other activities in support of the
International Space Station and Space Shuttle.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $5,400,000,000 for the Human
Space Flight account. This amount is $99,900,000 less than the
President's request for these activities in fiscal year 2001
and $72,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2000 level.
The Committee continues its strong support of the
International Space Station as a permanent space laboratory for
the research of space and earth science and for unique
investigations for humans living for long durations in a micro-
gravity environment. The station will provide unparalled
scientific research opportunities as well as permanent crew
habitability by international teams in an advanced research
facility located in the near zero-gravity environment of space.
Nevertheless, a reduction of funding is appropriate because of
the program's history of delays and overruns that mean many
activities and associated costs will be pushed into subsequent
fiscal years.
The Committee also supports the international character of
the Space Station as a symbol and tool for international
cooperation and partnership. Despite this support, the
Committee continues to have substantial concerns regarding the
ability of Russia to meet its financial commitment and
partnership obligations to the Space Station, but is sensitive
to the difficult issues that face Russia as it attempts to make
the transition from communism to a more democratic and
commercial society.
The Committee is also troubled over NASA's failure to
provide adequate information on the operational costs of the
International Space Station and believes that NASA must expand
the development of related research efforts, activities and
missions to broaden commercial investment and partnerships
throughout the country through open competitive procedures. The
Committee directs NASA to develop no later than April 15, 2001
a working plan that establishes a 10-year plan for all research
efforts, activities and missions related to the ISS, including
operational needs. This plan needs to be a public document in
which interested parties are provided an opportunity to comment
and participate in its development of the plan and the use of
the International Space Station. In addition, in conjunction
with the primary NASA centers, NASA needs to compete the
research efforts, missions and activities related to the
International Space Station based on objective criteria and
requirements in the Federal Register. These requirements
include the development of and investment in research
facilities and major research equipment, including medical
facilities and equipment.
In addition, the International Space Station program should
be national in scope as it is international in scope. There
should be a university-based center of excellence approach for
universities throughout the country that links the various
science disciplines that are the subject of research on the
ISS. The Committee directs NASA to develop a blueprint plan
that identifies lead universities as well as complimentary
universities that will coordinate with NASA for the individual
science disciplines that will be the focus of research after
assembly is complete. In addition, universities should be
encouraged to coordinate with public and private research
facilities. The Committee encourages NASA to look at the Hubble
Space Telescope (HST) as a model for the development of a
university-based consortium to manage the ISS science research.
The Committee also recognizes the value of software
configuration management for the International Space Station
and encourages NASA to continue evaluating its role in the ISS
program.
Nine space shuttle flights have been planned for fiscal
year 2001, including seven flights for the assembly and
servicing of the International Space Station, one for the
service of the Hubble space telescope (Hubble), and a dedicated
microgravity research flight. The Committee remains concerned
that NASA has focused primarily on shuttle flights targeted to
the assembly of the ISS. The Committee also expects NASA to
schedule an additional annual shuttle flight for microgravity
research as important in order to maintain the continuity and
quality of microgravity research, and directs NASA to report to
the Committee on a schedule for these flights by February 15,
2001.
The Committee supports the full budget request for shuttle
upgrades, and remains supportive of all safety needs associated
with the space shuttle fleet in response to workforce staffing
needs and obsolescence concerns raised in the Annual Report for
1999 of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. This report echoes
many of the concerns highlighted by the National Research
Council's report, Upgrading the Space Shuttle (1999) and the
report of the Space Shuttle Independent Assessment Team (March
7, 2000). It is critical that the shuttle fleet be maintained
in peak condition, especially as shuttle crews work under
extremely stressful conditions that are a natural corollary to
the construction and assembly of the International Space
Station. The commitment of adequate resources has become more
important since the space shuttle fleet will remain the primary
vehicle for human space flight until a decision is made on a
replacement vehicle such as a reusable launch vehicle.
The Committee encourages NASA to continue to evaluate
Lithium-Ion batteries as a power source for space tools used
aboard the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station.
SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, and TECHNOLOGY
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $5,580,895,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 5,929,400,000
House allowance......................................... 5,579,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,837,000,000
Program Description
NASA's ``Science, aeronautics and technology'' account
provides funding for science, research and development programs
to extend knowledge of the Earth, its space environment, and
the universe; to expand the practical applications of aerospace
technology, launch services, and advanced space transportation
technology; to promote and expand aeronautical research and
technology; and to fund academic and education programs.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $5,837,000,000 for the Science,
Aeronautics and Technology account, a reduction of $92,400,000
below the President's request and $256,105,000 above the fiscal
year 2000 enacted level. NASA is directed to make adjustments
within each of the six identified enterprises within this
account to accommodate the stated funding priorities and submit
these adjustments as part of its fiscal year 2001 operating
plan.
Space Science.--NASA's Space Science program seeks to
answer fundamental questions concerning the galaxy and the
universe; the connection between the Sun, Earth, and
heliosphere; the origin and evolution of planetary systems; and
the origin and distribution of life in the universe. The Space
Science program is comprised of a base program of research and
development activities, including research and flight mission
activities and major flight missions which provide major space-
based facilities.
The Committee supports the Space Science program and
recognizes the many contributions this mission has made to our
understanding of the universe and the solar system.
Nevertheless, the loss of two consecutive Mars missions in the
Mars Surveyor program raises serious concerns with regard to
NASA's philosophy of ``faster, better, cheaper.'' The Committee
believes that these losses should have been easily avoided. In
particular, the $125,000,000 Mars Climate Orbiter was lost on
September 23, 1999 because of a failure by Lockheed Martin/JPL
to convert English units into metric units. Subsequently, the
$165,000,000 Mars Polar Lander likely was lost because of a
coding failure that never should have occurred. Both programs
had histories of cost overruns and schedule delays. These
failures follow last year's losses of the Lewis and Clark and
the Wide-field Infrared Explorer (WIRE) missions. Since 1992,
NASA has launched 16 robotic space exploration missions under
the ``faster, better, cheaper'' policy and seven of these
missions have either failed or had serious problems post
launch.
The Mars Program Independent Assessment Team Report,
released on March 14, 2000, acknowledged the value of the Mars
program as well as the viability of the ``faster, better,
cheaper'' philosophy. The Committee also supports this
philosophy but directs NASA to take all necessary steps to
ensure that the right lessons are learned and applied. In
particular, the report emphasized the need to establish
protocols that minimize risk, including the need to provide
experienced leadership, standards for risk assessment and the
development of realistic budgets and reserves for each mission
which also tie decisionmaking to appropriate headquarter
oversight.
The Committee recognizes that the recommendations of the
Mars Program Independent Assessment Team may be applied
throughout the Space Science enterprise in order to minimize
the possibility of future mission failures. This likely will
increase the costs of space science missions in future years.
The Committee, therefore, directs NASA to provide a 5-year
profile of the additional costs that would be associated with
implementing the Mars Program recommendations as part of the
fiscal year 2002 budget submission.
The Committee understands that NASA missions and activities
have inherent risk, and supports NASA's efforts to push the
envelope of human knowledge which requires some risk and must
allow for failure. The Committee also believes that any failure
must be smart failure, not stupid failure.
NASA's fiscal year 2001 request for the Office of Space
Science also provides an important first step toward achieving
a robust and consolidated Sun-Earth Connection (SEC) program.
This new initiative called ``Living With A Star'' and the
intent to accelerate the launch rate of Solar Terrestrial Probe
(STP) missions will strengthen OSS's overall program.
Accordingly, the Committee has provided the full budget
request, $20,000,000, for this initiative in 2001 and directs
NASA to submit a detailed, long-term plan to create a resilient
SEC program by February 15, 2001. The plan should include a
launch schedule, flight profile and creation of an Advanced
Technology Development (ATD) program.
Based on the Committee's direction to select competitively
75 percent of space science advanced technology funding, NASA
recently released an open research announcement in the Cross
Enterprise Technology Development Program (CETDP) that resulted
in an impressive response of over 1,200 proposals worth
$1,500,000,000. However, NASA has raised concerns that
diverting these funds to open solicitations is contributing to
a possible loss of needed ``core competencies'' at the NASA
field centers. Therefore, the Committee requests that the
National Academy of Sciences report to the Committee by June
2001 whether NASA's concern over core competencies is
adequately understood and the desired funding is justified, and
whether the CETDP out-year budget for open solicitations should
be reduced in favor of funding key core competency activities.
In the meantime, NASA should take no action that undermines the
75 percent goal or the planned open research solicitations. If
NASA feels that additional funding is needed in fiscal year
2001 to address transitional core competency issues, then the
agency may propose for the Committee's consideration a
reprogramming of funds from within the Intelligent Synthesis
Environment program.
The Committee fully supports NASA's goal to develop new
long-term partnerships, particularly with university
laboratories throughout the country. As a means of cost
reduction and improving long-term vision, NASA must leverage
existing infrastructures and capabilities at university
laboratories. This approach has the added benefits of
complementing NASA's core capabilities at NASA centers and
improving technology transfer to the private sector. NASA is
encouraged to invest in future partnerships of this type to
enhance the fundamental value of its earth and space science
programs.
The Committee includes an additional $3,000,000 for the
development of the STEP-AIRSEDS program, an electrodynamic and
momentum transfer space tether transportation program.
The Committee continues to note the significant scientific
knowledge and discovery which Hubble Space Telescope generates
now nearly a decade past its initial launch. The Committee
believes that HST should continue to have the capabilities to
generate significant scientific advancement throughout its
currently planned life on orbit. For this reason, the Committee
believes that additional funds are necessary to cover costs to
the program for servicing-related expenses caused by delays in
launch due to the space shuttle's manifest schedule that have
forced the program to deplete critical program reserves. The
Committee believes these costs should be allocated to the Human
Space Flight account absent a reasonable justification from
NASA. As the NASA budget picture becomes clearer, the Committee
anticipates providing additional funds to cover these HST
costs. At the same time, the Committee believes that costs for
the upcoming deployment of the Wide Field Camera 3 (WF3) should
be constrained in accordance with the program's fiscal year
1998 baseline. For this reason, WF3 costs, exclusive of costs
borne by the Office of Space Flight for shuttle integration and
payload processing and related shuttle launch costs, is capped
at $75,500,000.
The Committee includes an increase of $2,500,000 for the
Hubble telescope project to initiate a Composites Technology
Institute in Bridgeport, WV. The Hubble telescope project has
been one of the exemplary programs at NASA that has educated
and heightened public knowledge and appreciation of the wonders
of the universe. To maximize public investment in this program,
NASA is directed to fund fully all upgrades.
Earth Science.--The objective of NASA's Earth Science
Program is to understand the total Earth system and the effects
of natural and human-induced changes on the global environment.
Earth science has three broad goals: to expand scientific
knowledge of the Earth using NASA's unique capabilities from
the vantage points of space, aircraft, and in other such
platforms; to disseminate information about the Earth system;
and to enable productive use of Earth science and technology in
the public and private sectors.
The Committee is concerned about the failure to implement
Congressional directives in the release of specific funding
designated by the Appropriations Committees in the Fiscal Year
2000 VA-HUD Appropriations Act. For this reason, the Committee
is suspending the ability of the Office of Earth Science to
reprogram funds in fiscal year 2001 unless specifically
authorized by the Committees on Appropriations. The Committee
will consider changes to this policy where there are issues
related to near-term launch readiness and mission safety.
The Committee remains troubled by the lack of a follow-on
strategy for the next generation of earth science satellites.
While the Committee is aware of the National Academy of
Sciences plan for follow-on missions, the Committee thus far
has received no notice of a definitive plan or any indication
as to what the future missions will be. The Committee,
therefore, recommends a funding increase of $2,500,000 for the
National Academy of Sciences to initiate follow-on studies from
the National Academy to identify mid- and long-term follow-on
flight profiles.
As part of the follow-on plan, the Office of Earth Science
should devise a flight program that allows for regular flight
opportunities similar to the space science effort in explorer,
discovery and parallel class missions awarded through the
announcement of opportunity process; $1,500,000 for studies
initiating a Landsat-7 follow-on commercial data purchase;
$2,000,000 for phase A/B studies and preliminary advanced
technology development (ATD) work to initiate the global
precipitation mission, identified by the National Academy as a
high priority data requirement; $2,000,000 for phase A/B
studies and preliminary ATD work on the global earthquake
satellite; $5,000,000 for studies on the next generation earth
science data information system, the so called ``new DIS.'' The
Committee believes there should be an emphasis on the re-use of
the existing system in order to minimize future costs while
allowing for the infusion of new technology; $50,000,000 for
formulation studies and ATD on the NPOESS preparatory project
(NPP) mission, of which $5,000,000 shall be an additional
amount allocated to ECS only for the development of high speed
data processing and algorithm validation processes to minimize
NPP flight risks.
The Committee also expects the Office of Earth Science to
allocate management for each of the above follow-on directives,
except the National Academy studies, to the appropriate NASA
centers to integrate fully the Agency's earth science
capabilities into the future of the earth science program.
The Committee provides an additional $40,000,000 above the
request to ensure delivery of a full scale EOSDIS Core System
(ECS) only for a total program level of $115,000,000. Of these
additional funds, $25,000,000 should be used to provide
optimized system functionality, planning for future growth and
adaptations due to instrument team changes, provision for
additional processing, and archival capabilities needed at the
DAAC's. The remaining $15,000,000 is needed to continue and
expand the Synergy program that was begun in fiscal year 2000.
In fiscal year 2001, the Committee believes the Synergy program
should focus on the following: continued development of the
current applications to make them accessible to the general
public; expansion of the number of infomarts/data store fronts
to broaden the application base and implementation of a unified
access data server for local, State and Federal agencies and
the commercial marketplace. As part of this effort, NASA is
directed to integrate the regional earth science application
centers into the Synergy program by the end of fiscal year
2001.
The Committee continues to support programs aimed at
fostering the development of a robust U.S. commercial remote
sensing industry which is being carried out at the Stennis
Space Center as NASA's lead center for commercial remote
sensing. The Committee strongly endorses the partnership
programs developed by the Stennis Space Center that include
sponsored research projects with private companies,
universities, States and localities as well as other
governmental agencies, such as the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. The Committee also expects the management of
the Synergy program to remain at the Goddard Space Flight
Center. Moreover, the Committee provides an additional
$20,000,000 to continue commercial data purchases to meet
NASA's Earth Science and Application data needs. The Committee
further directs NASA to report to the Committee by March 15,
2001 with a 10-year strategy and funding profile for securing
Earth Science and Application data services from U.S.
companies. NASA is directed to develop centers of excellence at
universities throughout the nation to develop this industry and
increase commercial applications, including applications such
as those related to agriculture, flood mapping, forestry,
environmental protection, and urban planning.
In particular, the Committee supports NASA's ongoing
support under its Commercial Remote Sensing program for
academic partnerships, including renewal of its ongoing grant
to support Mississippi State University's remote sensing
program and its center of excellence for geospatial research,
education and training. Within this program, the Committee also
includes $3,000,000 to enhance the University of South
Mississippi's research capability in the use of remotely sensed
data for coastal zone management, $1,000,000 for a carbon cycle
remote sensing technology program for the KARS Regional Earth
Sciences Applications Center at the University of Kansas and
$1,500,000 for the University of North Dakota to support the
Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium.
The Committee is aware of NASA efforts to produce high
resolution topographic maps of regions of the United States.
These results can serve a wide range of users from commercial
and military aviation to environmental and property development
planning. The Committee endorses this program and has provided
$1,500,000 for topographic sensor measurement efforts in
Alaska. The Committee is aware of opportunities to use NASA
aircraft and satellite sensors to make detailed observations of
the ocean currents, weather, and possibly species migrations.
These efforts can have a range of applications from aiding
planning of fish harvests to assisting the weather modeling in
regions heavily influenced by ocean conditions. The Committee
recommendation provides $2,000,000 for remote ocean sensing
research and measurements in the areas of the Bering Sea and
the northernmost Pacific Ocean.
Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications.--The Life
and Microgravity Science Program uses the microgravity
environment of space to conduct basic and applied research to
understand the effect of gravity on living systems and to
conduct research in the areas of fluid physics, materials
science, and biotechnology. The Life and Microgravity Science
Program will conduct research, and provide the opportunity to
refine the definition, design, and development of experimental
hardware planned for the International Space Station.
The Committee supports the Administration's budget request
for the Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications mission
since much of the research associated with these activities are
targeted to the International Space Station.
The Committee recommendation has provided $3,500,000 for a
center on life in extreme thermal environments at Montana State
University in Bozeman. It is expected that NASA will include
funding for this research as part of the fiscal year 2001
Budget.
Aero-Space Technology.--The objective of the Aero-Space
Technology Mission is to pioneer long-term, high-risk, high-
payoff technologies that are effectively transferred to
industry and Government. The program's technology goals are
grouped into three areas to reflect the national priorities for
aeronautics and space: global civil aviation; revolutionary
technology leaps; and access to space. The Aeronautics and
Space Transportation Technology Program includes: Aeronautics,
that addresses critical aeronautical safety, environmental,
airspace productivity, and aircraft performance needs at
national and global levels; space transportation technology,
that will develop technology for the next generation space
transportation system, with a target of reducing vehicle
development and operational costs dramatically; and commercial
technology, that consists of conducting a continuous inventory
of newly developed NASA technologies, maintaining a searchable
data base of this inventory, assessing the commercial value of
each technology, disseminating knowledge of these NASA
technology opportunities to the private sector, and supporting
an efficient system for licensing NASA technologies to private
companies. This program also includes the operation of the
Small Business Innovation Research Program which is designed to
enhance NASA's use of small business technology innovators.
The Committee recommendation includes $9,000,000 for the
Small Air Transportation System (SATS). SATS is NASA's only
focused investment in advanced technology that is designed to
improve the safety and efficiency of general aviation.
The Committee intends that the Ultra Efficient Engine
Technology program be funded at $10,000,000 above the
President's budget. The Committee includes the President's
request of $5,500,000 for the development of Polymer Energy
Rechargeable Systems.
The Committee recommendation supports the President's
budget request for the independent verification and validation
[IV&V] facility and $7,300,000 for the National Technology
Transfer Center.
The Committee strongly supports NASA's Space Launch
Initiative (SLI), whose goals is for NASA to meet its future
space flight needs, including human access to space, using
commercial launch vehicles that will reduce cost and improve
safety and reliability. The Committee fully supports NASA's
request of $290,000,000. NASA is commended for developing an
integrated space transportation plan that links decision
milestones between SLI, Space Shuttle upgrades, Space Station
crew return vehicle development, and third generation space
transportation technology research.
The Committee directs NASA to maintain two key principles
throughout the life of SLI, namely: (1) any launch vehicles
developed will be owned and operated by private industry and be
capable of competing effectively in the commercial marketplace;
and (2) the program will rely on competition from existing and
emerging launch service providers to ensure innovation,
openness, and resiliency. Therefore, NASA must:
--identify the minimum set of requirements that would enable
development of privately owned and operated launch
vehicle(s) that would compete effectively in the
commercial marketplace, and, with the benefit of NASA
provided unique hardware, would service the cargo and
personnel needs of the International Space Station. Any
requirements above this minimum set should be clearly
identified and separately costed for its impact;
--allocate at least 90 percent of SLI funding through full
and open competition;
--promptly name an independent external panel that will
conduct regular reviews of SLI to ensure that NASA
adheres to the two principles cited above; has the
organization and plan in place to implement the
program; has adequately assessed the program
requirements and identified possible alternatives
(particularly those that would enhance commercial
viability); and is on track to enable full-scale launch
vehicle development decisions. The panel should
annually report its findings to the Committee;
--assess crew return vehicle concepts that could serve as a
cost effective building block toward an eventual crew
transfer vehicle. The independent panel should validate
this effort and report to the Committee before NASA
commits any funds for full scale development of a crew
return vehicle; and
--vigorously pursue commercial launch services from existing
and emerging launch service providers, including
efforts targeted to the feasibility of reusable launch
vehicles, for Alternative Access to Space Station and
report to the Committee whether joint procurements with
the Department of Defense for such launch vehicles are
desirable. Although Alternative Access promises to be
an important feature of the initiative, the Committee
believes it is premature to add funding above the
$40,000,000 request. Furthermore, the Committee directs
NASA to consider launch sites other than Cape
Canaveral/Kennedy Space Center as part of the
Alternative Access to Space Station initiative.
The Committee includes $10,000,000 for a Propulsion
Research Laboratory to be located at NASA's Center of
Excellence for Space Propulsion at the Marshall Space Flight
Center.
Mission Communications Services and Academic Programs.--The
Committee has included $2,000,000 for MSU in Bozeman, MT, to
carry out research into advanced hardware and software
technologies for development of advanced optoelectronic
materials. The Committee expects NASA to include these research
endeavors to be included in the fiscal year 2001 budget.
The objective of NASA's academic programs is to promote
excellence in America's education system through enhancing and
expanding scientific and technological competence. Activities
conducted within academic programs capture the interest of
students in science and technology, develop talented students
at the undergraduate and graduate levels, provide research
opportunities for students and faculty members at NASA centers,
and strengthen and enhance the research capabilities of the
Nation's colleges and universities. NASA's education programs
span from the elementary through graduate levels, and are
directed at students and faculty. Academic programs includes
the Minority University Research Program, which expands
opportunities for talented students from underrepresented
groups who are pursuing degrees in science and engineering, and
to strengthen the research capabilities of minority
universities and colleges.
The Committee has included $19,100,000 for the National
Space Grant College and Fellowship Program. This funding is the
same as the fiscal year 2000 level and the President's request
for fiscal year 2001. This program is a valuable tool in
developing educational partnerships in support of science,
mathematics, technology, engineering and geography.
The Committee recommendation has included $12,000,000 for
the NASA EPSCoR Program, $5,400,000 above the budget request
and $2,000,000 over the fiscal year 2000 level. The Committee
expects NASA EPSCoR to support a broad range of research areas
in each EPSCoR State, drawn from Earth science, space science,
aeronautics and space transportation technology, and human
exploration and development of space, and to distribute the
awards, competitively, to the largest number of eligible States
possible.
The Committee has provided $55,000,000 for NASA's minority
university research and education activities. This amount is
$1,200,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and
$9,100,000 above the President's budget request. These funds
should be allocated in the same proportion as last year's funds
were allocated in order to strengthen graduate science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology education at
historically black colleges and universities. African-Americans
continue to be substantially underrepresented at the doctoral
level in many sciences, mathematics, engineering, and
technology fields.
The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for the
NASA International Earth Observing System [EOS] Natural
Resource Training Center at the University of Montana,
Missoula, MT; $2,000,000 for the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee to implement the Wisconsin Initiative for Math,
Science, and Technology initiative; $2,500,000 for the Jason
Foundation for the development of an education program for
school children on the exploration of space; $2,500,000 for the
Bishop Museum/Mauna Kea Astronomy Education Center; $1,000,000
for the implementation of the state-wide learning program for
the Challenger Learning Center in Kenai, Alaska; $1,000,000 for
the University of Akron for nanotechnology research; $1,000,000
for a NASA Center of Excellence in Mathematics, Science and
Technology at Texas College in Tyler, Texas; $1,000,000 for the
Pipelines Project at Iowa State University/Southern
University--Baton Rouge; $1,000,000 for ongoing aerospace
projects at MSE Technology Applications in Butte, Montana;
$250,000 for the Oklahoma Aeronautics and Space Commission for
sounding rockets for the Oklahoma Space and Technology Applied
Research program; $1,000,000 for the Chabot Observatory and
Science Center, Oakland, CA; $1,000,000 for Montana State
University for the techlink program; $3,000,000 is provided to
the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center's Modern Genetic's
project to permit studies that simulate specialized weather
conditions, pathogen attacks, and development and
characterization of genetically modified plants in controlled-
environment chambers; an increase of $10,000,000 for the Green
Bank Radio Astronomy Observatory including $3,000,000 for
operations, $5,000,000 for deferred maintenance and $2,000,000
to complete an education and visitor center; $2,000,000 for the
National Center for Space Research and Technology, a
partnership between the Marshall Space Flight Center and the
University of Alabama Huntsville (as a reduction from the
Propulsion Research Laboratory at Marshall Space Flight
Center); $2,000,000 for equipment for the South Carolina State
Museum's Observatory, Planetarium and Theater; $8,000,000 for
the University of Hawaii for infrastructure needs of the Mauna
Kea Education Center; $15,000,000 for infrastructure needs for
the Life Sciences building at the University of Missouri-
Columbia; and $1,000,000 for the Field Museum for the
development of the ``SUE'' exhibit, a showcase of a 67 million-
year-old Tyrannosaurus Rex; and the full budget request of
$2,000,000 for the Classroom of the Future. NASA is directed to
make appropriate adjustments within each of the six identified
enterprises within this account to accommodate the stated
funding priorities in this paragraph and submit these
adjustments as part of its fiscal year 2000 operating plan.
The Committee includes $2,000,000 for the Lewis and Clark
Rediscovery Web Technology Project which will provide K-12 and
university level teachers internet and interactive web teaching
technologies through a partnership between the University of
Idaho, Wheeling Jesuit College and the University of Montana.
MISSION SUPPORT
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $2,512,024,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 2,584,000,000
House allowance......................................... 2,584,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,584,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides for mission support including
safety, reliability, and mission assurance activities
supporting agency programs; space communications services for
NASA programs; salaries and related expenses in support of
research in NASA field installations; design, repair,
rehabilitation and modification of institutional facilities,
and construction of new institutional facilities; and other
operations activities supporting conduct of agency programs.
Funds provided in the ``Mission support'' account pay for
NASA civil service salary and related expenses, travel,
construction of facilities, and research operations support
[ROS] contractors.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has provided $2,584,000,000 for mission
support activities. This amount is the same as the President's
budget request for these activities and an increase of
$71,976,000 above the current level.
The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for E-Complex upgrades
and relocation of Government equipment at the Stennis Space
Center to accommodate the growth in large, medium and small-
scale liquid propulsion testing as part of the Space Launch
Initiative. An additional $12,000,000 is included to cover a
new Propulsion Test Operations Building, and for upgrades to
the East/West access road.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 22,000,000
House allowance......................................... 23,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 23,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Inspector General was established by the
Inspector General Act of 1978. The Office is responsible for
providing agencywide audit and investigative functions to
identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies
which create conditions for existing or potential instances of
fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $23,000,000 for fiscal year 2001,
$1,000,000 above the President's budget request. The Committee
commends the NASA IG's diligence to addressing issues of fraud
and abuse.
Administrative Provisions
The Committee recommendation includes a series of
provisions, proposed by the administration, which are largely
technical in nature, concerning the availability of funds.
These provisions have been carried largely, in prior-year
appropriation acts.
National Credit Union Administration
central liquidity facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct loan Administrative Revolving loan
limitation expenses program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000................................... $18,600,000,000 $257,000 $996,000
Budget estimate, 2001.................................. 20,700,000,000 296,000 .................
House allowance........................................ 3,000,000,000 296,000 1,000,000
Committee recommendation............................... 600,000,000 296,000 .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The National Credit Union Administration [NCUA] Central
Liquidity Facility [CLF] was created by the National Credit
Union Central Liquidity Facility Act (Public Law 95-630) as a
mixed-ownership Government corporation within the National
Credit Union Administration. It is managed by the National
Credit Union Administration Board and is owned by its member
credit unions.
The purpose of the facility is to improve the general
financial stability of credit unions by meeting their seasonal
and emergency liquidity needs and thereby encourage savings,
support consumer and mortgage lending, and provide basic
financial resources to all segments of the economy. To become
eligible for facility services, credit unions invest in the
capital stock of the facility, and the facility uses the
proceeds of such investments and the proceeds of borrowed funds
to meet the liquidity needs of credit unions. The primary
sources of funds for the facility are the stock subscriptions
from credit unions and borrowings.
The facility may borrow funds from any source, with the
amount of borrowing limited by Public Law 95-630 to 12 times
the amount of subscribed capital stock and surplus.
Loans are available to meet short-term requirements for
funds attributable to emergency outflows from managerial
difficulties or local economic downturns. Seasonal credit is
also provided to accommodate fluctuations caused by cyclical
changes in such areas as agriculture, education, and retail
business. Loans can also be made to offset protracted credit
problems caused by factors such as regional economic decline.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget request of limiting
administrative expenses for the Central Liquidity Fund [CLF] to
$296,000 in fiscal year 2001. This legislation reinstates a
limitation of $600,000,000 for the principal amount of new
direct loans to member credit unions, and does not appropriate
an additional $1,000,000 to be used for loans to community
development credit unions as requested by the President.
In the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act the
Committee lifted the cap on loans to member credit unions in
order to address anticipated liquidity demands due to the Y2K
date change. It was the intent of the Committee in the 1999
Emergency Supplemental to raise the cap for a possible
liquidity shortage due to Y2K only and it was not the intent of
the Committee to permanently raise the cap. Additionally, the
General Accounting Office reports that although increasing the
caps probably reduced fears, the slight increase in loans to
member credit unions to cover possible liquidity short falls
due to Y2K probably could have been covered by corporate credit
unions and from the Federal Reserve discount window. Therefore,
the Committee recommends to reinstate the cap at $600,000,000
and recommends that if NCUA wishes to raise the cap that it
work with the Committee on Banking and Urban Affairs to amend
the Central Liquidity Facility Act.
While the Committee is supportive of assisting low-income
communities, it is concerned about the duplication of Federal
programs. Accordingly, the Committee suggests NCUA coordinate
its program of issuing loans to community development credit
unions with the community development programs of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund. The Committee would
like to see the results of this effort in NCUA's 2002 budget
justification.
National Science Foundation
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $3,897,184,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 4,572,400,000
House allowance......................................... 4,064,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,297,184,000
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The National Science Foundation was established as an
independent agency by the National Science Foundation Act of
1950 (Public Law 81-507) and is authorized to support basic and
applied research, science and technology policy research, and
science and engineering education programs to promote the
progress of science and engineering in the United States.
The Foundation supports fundamental and applied research in
all major scientific and engineering disciplines, through
grants, contracts, and other forms of assistance, such as
cooperative agreements, awarded to more than 2,000 colleges and
universities, and to nonprofit organizations and other research
organizations in all parts of the United States. The Foundation
also supports major national and international programs and
research facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $4,297,184,000 for the National
Science Foundation for fiscal year 2001. This amount is
$400,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and
$275,216,000 below the budget request.
RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $2,958,462,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 3,540,680,000
House allowance......................................... 3,135,690,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,245,562,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The research and related activities appropriation addresses
Foundation goals to enable the United States to uphold world
leadership in all aspects of science and engineering, and to
promote the discovery, integration, dissemination, and
employment of new knowledge in service to society. Research
activities will contribute to the achievement of these goals
through expansion of the knowledge base; integration of
research and education; stimulation of knowledge transfer among
academia and the public and private sectors; and bringing the
perspectives of many disciplines to bear on complex problems
important to the Nation.
The Foundation's discipline-oriented research programs are:
biological sciences; computer and information science and
engineering; engineering; geosciences; mathematical and
physical sciences; and social, behavioral and economic
sciences. Also included are U.S. polar research programs, U.S.
antarctic logistical support activities, and the Science and
Technology Policy Institute.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,245,562,000
for research and related activities. This amount is
$287,100,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and
$295,118,000 below the budget request.
The Committee supports fully the Foundation's efforts to
push the boundaries of science and technology issues,
especially in the areas of information technology,
biotechnology, and the administration's new focus on
nanotechnology. The Committee also applauds the Foundation's
efforts to address the problem of science and mathematics
education among K-12, undergraduate, and graduate students.
However, in order for the Foundation to reach successfully its
research and education goals, it must reach out to individuals
and schools that have not participated fully in NSF's programs.
Accordingly, the Committee remains concerned about the
administration's request for programs designed to assist
minorities, women, and schools that have not received
significant Federal support.
To improve planning and priority-setting for the Foundation
and improve the Committee's efforts to understand NSF's long-
term budgeting, the Committee directs NSF to provide multi-year
budgets for all of its multi-disciplinary activities beginning
in fiscal year 2002. While the Foundation has provided outyear
budgets for projects under its Major Research Equipment
account, only 1 year budgets have been generally provided for
its activities under the R&RA and Education and Human Resources
accounts. The Committee recognizes that NSF has taken on more
significant initiatives that often require multi-year funding
to meet its research goals. For example, NSF has initiated
major efforts in the areas of information technology,
biocomplexity, and nanotechnology. Accordingly, the Committee
directs NSF to include the outyear budget impacts and needs of
all these major multi-disciplinary activities in the annual
operating plan.
To further NSF's major initiatives, the Committee
recommends an additional $125,000,000 in new funding to enhance
its computer and information science and engineering activities
consistent with the President's Information Technology Advisory
Committee (PITAC) recommendations in its February 1999 report.
These additional funds would increase the level of support for
the information technology initiative to $215,000,000. As
prescribed in the PITAC report and the fiscal year 2000
conference report accompanying the VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act (House Report 106-379), the
Committee expects NSF to provide an increased ratio of grants
at higher funding levels and for longer duration than what is
typically funded. Further, the Committee encourages NSF to
continue its efforts under the Next Generation Internet program
in providing high-speed networking access to remote and hard to
reach areas, especially in rural States.
The Committee recommends $75,000,000 for the Foundation's
biocomplexity initiative, an increase of $25,000,000 over last
year's level. The Committee supports this multi-disciplinary
initiative. This program should also complement the highly
successful Plant Genome Research Program.
The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for the Plant Genome
Research Program and supports the Foundation's request to
initiate the new ``2010 Project'' and supplement the program
with $20,000,000 from other basic research activities
throughout the biological sciences directorate. The Committee
expects the Foundation to continue its support for structural
and functional plant genomic research on economically
significant crops. The Committee recognizes the findings of the
Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Plant Genomes, which
recommended spending at least $320,000,000 over 5 years in new
funds on plant genome research.
The ``2010 Project'' is expected to create needed genome-
wide tools that will lead to more rapid advances in functional
genomics research in valuable food crops. The Committee
encourages NSF to work with the IWG on Plant Genomes to develop
recommendations on how best to make use of the important tools
that will be developed through the ``2010 Project.'' The
Committee is also excited by NSF's supported research in
nutritional genomics, which will lead to the discovery in
plants of key genes controlling metabolic pathways that lead to
production of vitamins, essential amino acids, antioxidants,
and accumulation of minerals essential for human nutrition.
This research could substantially improve the nutritional
quality and health benefit of eating normal portions of fruits
and vegetables, which would greatly benefit people in
developing countries. The Committee encourages NSF
representatives to the IWG on Plant Genomes to work with other
IWG representatives in developing recommendations for the
Committee concerning research and training in nutritional
genomics.
The Committee recommends $125,000,000 for the new multi-
agency nanotechnology initiative. The Committee believes that
the recommended level of funding will be adequate for the
Foundation to begin this initiative in a field that is still
regarded to be in its infancy. The recommended level is less
than the $216,700,000 requested level due to concerns about the
Foundation taking on another major interagency initiative when
its administrative resources have remained relatively flat. The
Committee expects the Foundation to work with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy in carefully crafting a detailed,
rational long-term strategy with performance outcome
measurements for the nanotechnology initiative. Further, the
Committee directs NSF to include in its budget justifications
for fiscal year 2002, a workload-analysis plan that identifies
the resources necessary for the Foundation to carry out this
initiative and other current and future program
responsibilities.
The Committee recognizes the significant infrastructure
needs of our nation's research institutions, especially for
smaller research institutions that have not traditionally
benefitted from Federal programs. The Committee is especially
concerned about the larger schools receiving a disproportionate
share of scarce Federal resources from indirect cost
reimbursements to fund infrastructure needs. As a result, the
Committee recommends $75,000,000 to the Foundation's Major
Research Instrumentation (MRI) account to address the
infrastructure needs of research institutions. NSF is
encouraged to target these funds in assisting smaller research
institutions.
The Committee notes the recent 3 year, $15,000,000
cooperative agreement between NSF and the International Arctic
Research Center (IARC). The Committee commends NSF for its
commitment to the international cooperative research
opportunities made available through IARC.
The Committee notes that NSF is participating in a multi-
agency effort to determine the future needs of the U.S.
research vessel fleet. The Committee is aware that a
replacement vessel for the R/V Alpha Helix, an arctic research
vessel, has a useful life of 2 to 3 years remaining. The
Committee recommends that NSF begin the design and model
testing of a vessel to replace the R/V Alpha Helix and provides
$1,000,000 for this purpose.
The Committee is very concerned that NSF has not proposed
to maintain adequately its existing astronomy facilities. In
last year's Senate report, the Committee expressed its support
for enhanced operations and maintenance and development of new
instrumentation at the Very Large Array and the Very Long
Baseline Array in New Mexico and continued construction of the
Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia. Now that the Green Bank
Telescope is completed, these astronomy facilities need to be
supported in their operations, and new instrumentation and
upgrades must be provided to keep them as world class
facilities. Accordingly, the Committee provides an additional
$13,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 request levels for the
astronomical sciences subactivity for these facilities.
The Committee is very supportive of the research and
development activities being conducted at the National High
Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL). Based at Florida State
University with the University of Florida and Los Alamos
National Laboratory as its partners, the laboratory has
attracted world-class scientists and engineers and has
developed state-of-the-art facilities like no other place in
the world. The NHMFL has submitted its renewal proposal to the
Foundation earlier this year and is being currently reviewed by
NSF and the National Science Board for final funding decisions
this fall. The Committee supports strongly the laboratory and
the work it has accomplished and hopes that the Foundation
continues its support for this outstanding facility.
Lastly, the Committee recognizes the Foundation's funded
research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences (SBE)
area. The Committee is especially interested in SBE activities
to raise science literacy, which is a problem in this country
that will impact the economic health and competitiveness of the
nation. The Committee also encourages the continued involvement
of behavioral and social science research in NSF's multi-
disciplinary initiatives, including information technology and
21st Century Workforce. Further, the Committee encourages NSF
to formulate a plan for increasing the number of young
investigators in SBE and other research areas.
MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $93,500,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 138,540,000
House allowance......................................... 76,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 109,100,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The major research equipment activity will support the
acquisition, construction and procurement of unique national
research platforms, research resources and major research
equipment. Projects supported by this appropriation will push
the boundaries of technological design and will offer
significant expansion of opportunities, often in new
directions, for the science and engineering community.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $109,100,000
for major research equipment. This amount is $15,600,000 more
than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $29,440,000 below
the budget request.
The Committee has provided $45,000,000 for a second
Terascale Computing System, $16,400,000 for the Large Hadron
Collider, and $6,000,000 for the Millimeter Array. The
Committee has also provided $28,200,000 to continue the
construction of the Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation, and $13,500,000 for the south pole station
modernization efforts. No funding is provided for the new
EarthScope or the National Ecological Observatory Network
projects as requested by the administration due to budgetary
constraints.
EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $690,872,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 729,010,000
House allowance......................................... 694,310,000
Committee recommendation................................ 765,352,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Education and human resources activities provide a
comprehensive set of programs across all levels of education in
science, mathematics, and technology. At the precollege level,
the appropriation provides for new instructional material and
techniques, and enrichment activities for teachers and
students. Undergraduate initiatives support curriculum
improvement, facility enhancement, and advanced technological
education. Graduate level support is directed primarily to
research fellowships and traineeships. Emphasis is given to
systemic reform through components that address urban, rural,
and statewide efforts in precollege education, and programs
which seek to broaden the participation of States and regions
in science and engineering.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $765,352,000
for education and human resources (EHR). This amount is
$74,480,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and
$36,342,000 more than the budget request. The Committee also
notes that NSF expects to receive an additional $31,000,000
from the H-1B Visa account, which will further supplement its
EHR activities.
The Committee is deeply disappointed by the
administration's lack of support in its budget request for
assisting smaller research institutions and minorities. The
Committee is particularly troubled by the lack of support
provided to the Office of Innovation Partnerships (OIP) and the
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
(EPSCoR). The Office of Innovation Partnerships, which was
created last year at the Committee's direction, was expected to
raise the attention and focus of addressing the needs of
smaller research institutions and other underfunded entities.
Regrettably, the administration requested no new funds for this
important office. The Committee recommendation provides
$10,000,000 to OIP, an increase of $1,500,000 over last year's
level. The Committee has also provided $65,000,000 to EPSCoR,
an increase of $13,610,000 over last year's enacted level and
$16,590,000 over the budget request.
To address the importance of broadening science and
technology participation to minorities, the Committee
recommendation includes $12,000,000 for the Historically Black
Colleges and Universities--Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP), an
increase of $3,620,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level
and $3,000,000 more than the budget request. These funds are to
be matched by an additional $1,000,000 in funds from the
research and related activities account for a total funding
level of $13,000,000 in fiscal year 2001. The Committee also
supports the administration's budget requests for the Louis
Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation program; the new
Tribal Colleges program; the Minority Graduate Education
program; the Centers of Research Excellence in Science and
Technology program; and the Model Institutions for Excellence
program. The Committee commends the Foundation for creating a
new Tribal Colleges program to address the research and
infrastructure needs of colleges serving Native Americans,
Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiians.
The Committee notes that Alaska and Hawaii do not provide
higher education to Native students through the tribal college
system. It expects the Foundation to include Alaska Native
serving institutions and Native Hawaiian serving institutions
as defined by the Higher Education Act in its Tribal College
program to ensure that Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians are
not excluded from this innovative, new initiative.
The Committee also strongly supports the Foundation's
programs to support women and persons with disabilities.
Specifically, the Committee recommends $16,500,000 for programs
designated for women and persons with disabilities.
The Committee supports the Foundation's efforts to
strengthen the nation's security of its information
infrastructure. The Committee is providing $11,200,000 for the
new Scholarships for Service program to build a cadre of
individuals in the Federal sector with the skills to protect
the nation's information systems.
The Committee also continues its strong support for the
Informal Science Education (ISE) program. The Committee
especially values the ISE program in raising interest among
children and young adults in science and technology and notes
the success of certain settings, such as the Sea Life Center in
Seward, Alaska and the National Aquarium in Baltimore,
Maryland. The ISE has also played a role in the development of
science teachers. The Committee supports NSF's fiscal year 2001
focus on building collaborations between informal and formal
science institutions, opportunities for underrepresented
groups, involvement of parents, and enhancement of public
understanding of mathematics.
The Committee recognizes the importance of research in
nuclear science. NSF's investment is primarily in basic nuclear
science and NSF-supported research has led to important
applications seen in medicine such as CAT scans, nuclear
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission
tomography (PET scans). The Committee, however, is concerned by
the declining Federal support in nuclear engineering education.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Foundation to review the
academic interest in nuclear engineering education and to
provide recommendations on how NSF can support this area. The
findings and recommendations should be provided to the
Committee by no later than March 15, 2001.
The Committee is also concerned by the funding levels
proposed by the Administration for the Foundation's graduate
research education programs. The Committee is concerned
particularly with the proposed reduction in funding for the
highly successful and prestigious Graduate Research Fellowships
(GRF) program. This highly competitive program has produced 18
Nobel Prize winners since 1975. The Committee is very
supportive of the GRF program and provides $55,200,000 for
fiscal year 2002. This will allow the Foundation to raise the
annual stipend amount from its current level of $16,200 to
$18,000 per award. The Committee believes that the increased
stipend will improve the Foundation's ability to attract the
best and brightest students into the science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology fields. The Committee also urges
NSF to increase the GRF program to 900 for the next
competition. The Committee also provides an increase of
$7,500,000 to the Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education
program, raising the program level to $15,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002. While this level is below the President's requested
level of $28,000,000, the Committee believes that it is
difficult to justify a substantial increase to a program that
has only been in place for a year and whose performance has not
been assessed.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $148,900,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 157,890,000
House allowance......................................... 152,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 170,890,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The salaries and expenses appropriation provides for the
operation, management, and direction of all Foundation programs
and activities and includes necessary funds to develop and
coordinate NSF programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $170,890,000
for salaries and expenses. The increase of $13,000,000 above
the budget request is for travel expenses that the
administration had proposed to fund out of its R&RA and EHR
accounts instead of salaries and expenses. Accordingly, the
Committee directs NSF to fund travel only from this account and
not to use other account funds for travel purposes.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $5,450,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 6,280,000
House allowance......................................... 5,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,280,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Inspector General appropriation provides
audit and investigation functions to identify and correct
deficiencies which could create potential instances of fraud,
waste, or mismanagement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,280,000 for
the Office of Inspector General. This amount is $830,000 more
than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and equal to the budget
request.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $74,715,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 90,000,000
House allowance......................................... 90,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 80,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by
the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public
Law 95-557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment helps
local communities establish working partnerships between
residents and representatives of the public and private
sectors. The partnership-based organizations are independent,
tax-exempt, nonprofit entities: often known as Neighborhood
Housing Services [NHS] or mutual housing associations.
Collectively, these organizations are known as the
NeighborWorks network.
Nationally, over 200 NeighborWorks organizations
serve over 1,000 urban, suburban and rural communities in 48
States and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Of the
neighborhoods, 70 percent of the people served are in the very
low and low-income brackets.
The NeighborWorks network improves the quality of
life in distressed neighborhoods for current residents,
increases homeownership through targeted lending efforts,
exerts a long-term, stabilizing influence on the neighborhood
business environment, and reverses neighborhood decline.
NeighborWorks organizations have been positively
impacting urban communities for over two decades, and more
recent experience is demonstrating the success of this approach
in rural communities when adequate resources are available.
Neighborhood Reinvestment will continue to provide grants
to Neighborhood Housing Services of America [NHSA], the
NeighborWorks network's national secondary market.
The mission of NHSA is to utilize private sector support to
replenish local NeighborWorks organizations'
revolving loan funds. These loans are used to back securities
which are placed with private sector social investors.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for the Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation, $10,000,000 less than the budget
request and $5,285,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level.
The Committee recognizes the important work of the
Corporation in assisting low-income families attain
homeownership with the support of public and private resources.
The Committee is especially supportive of the efforts of the
Corporation and the NeighborWorks organization in providing
homeownership counseling, participating in a pilot program to
assist section 8 voucher holders attain homeownership, and
educating potential homebuyers on various lending products. Due
to the Committee's concerns about the growing problems of
predatory lenders on low-income people and communities, the
Committee encourages NRC and its network organizations to
expand its education and counseling programs in impacted areas
such as Baltimore, Maryland; Los Angeles, California; and
Chicago, Illinois.
The Committee is also concerned about the shortage of
available, affordable rental housing across the nation. The
Corporation has been successfully using a mixed-income
affordable rental housing through the use of ``mutual housing''
models. As of June 30, 1999, the Corporation through its mutual
housing associations had created over 5,600 affordable rental
units. The Committee encourages NRC to increase the number of
affordable housing units through this model and to devise a 5-
year strategy on expanding this model across the Nation. This
strategy should be included in the fiscal year 2002 budget
justifications for the Corporation.
Selective Service System
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $23,909,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 24,480,000
House allowance......................................... 23,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,480,000
Program Description
The Selective Service System [SSS] was reestablished by the
Selective Service Act of 1948. The basic mission of the System
is to be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces
adequate to ensure the security of the United States during a
time of national emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have
relied on volunteers to fill military manpower requirements.
However, the Selective Service System remains the primary
vehicle by which men will be brought into the military if
Congress and the President should authorize a return to the
draft.
In December 1987, Selective Service was tasked by law
(Public Law 100-180, sec. 715) to develop plans for a
postmobilization health care personnel delivery system capable
of providing the necessary critically skilled health care
personnel to the Armed Forces in time of emergency. An
automated system capable of handling mass registration and
inductions is now complete, together with necessary draft
legislation, a draft Presidential proclamation, prototype forms
and letters, et cetera. These products will be available should
the need arise. The development of supplemental standby
products, such as a compliance system for health care
personnel, continues using very limited existing resources.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,480,000
for the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as
the budget request for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of
$571,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee recommends inclusion of 25 general provisions
previously enacted in the 2000 appropriations act. They are
largely standard limitations which have been carried in the VA,
HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill in the past.
DIVISION B--THE HOUSING NEEDS ACT OF 2000
TITLE I--PRODUCTION OF NEW HOUSING FOR LOW AND VERY LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
Establishes a $1,000,000,000 block grant program that would
allocate funds to State housing finance agencies on a per
capita basis according to the population of the State.
Allows funds to be used for acquisition, new construction,
reconstruction, or moderate or substantial rehabilitation of
affordable housing; permits funds to be used for rehabilitation
needs and preservation of existing assisted low-income housing
(although no more than 20 percent of the funds can be used for
rehabilitation and preservation); allows conversion of existing
housing to housing for the elderly or for persons with
disabilities.
Requires States to meet a 75 percent matching requirement
to ensure accountability and to leverage additional funds.
Requires housing developed to be low- and mixed-income
housing with at least 30 percent of the units targeted to very
low-income families; sets rents in a manner modeled after the
low-income tax credit program only with deeper targeting where
a unit rent would be 20 percent of the adjusted income of a
family whose income equals 50 percent of the median income for
an area. All assisted units must be targeted to low-income
families.
Establishes a new multifamily risk-sharing mortgage
insurance program to underwrite housing produced under this
title.
TITLE II--SECTION 8 SUCCESS PROGRAM
Allows public housing authorities to increase their payment
standard for assisted rents under section 8 up to 150 percent
of the existing fair market rent or payment standard. Will
ensure that families can find housing using vouchers.
Applies to tight rental markets throughout the country,
including rural and urban areas, and any rent change would be
subject to the approval of a plan by HUD that includes
proactive actions by PHAs to help tenants with vouchers. This
reform should be especially helpful to tight rental markets,
such as San Francisco, Cambridge, MA and Philadelphia, PA.
Limits funds to those held by the PHA under the existing
program; thus would not cost more but would allow flexibility
to ensure that vouchers could be used to find housing.
TITLE III--PRESERVATION OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING
Raises the amount of section 8 project-based assistance
that a PHA can create from 15 percent to 25 percent of
available section 8 assistance, with expedited procedures. This
will allow more project-based section 8 housing to help seniors
and persons with disabilities, in particular.
Requires HUD to maintain section 8 assistance on all HUD-
held and HUD foreclosed multifamily housing. Many elderly and
persons with disabilities have been displaced by HUD since HUD
provides vouchers to residents upon the disposition of a
property. Thus these people can stay in their homes.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of Rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Fair housing activities: $44,000,000.
HOME Investment Partnerships Program: $1,600,000,000.
Homeless assistance grants: $1,020,000,000.
Community development block grants: $4,800,000,000.
Rural housing and economic development: $27,000,000.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund:
$95,000,000.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
Salaries and expenses: $52,500,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental programs and management: $2,000,000,000.
Science and technology: $670,000,000.
State and tribal assistance grants: $3,320,000,000.
Superfund: $1,400,000,000.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Salaries and expenses: $215,000,000.
Emergency management planning and assistance: $269,652,000.
Emergency food and shelter: $110,000,000.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Consumer Information Center: $7,122,000.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Human space flight: $5,400,000,000.
Science, aeronautics, and technology: $5,837,000,000.
Mission support: $2,584,000,000.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee
ordered reported, H.R. 4635, the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies appropriations bill, 2001 and subject to amendment and
subject to its budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 27-1,
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Stevens Mr. Kyl
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 85--AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL
SUBCHAPTER I--PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
* * * * * * *
Part D--Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas
subpart 1--nonattainment areas in general
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7506. Limitations on certain Federal assistance
(a) * * *
(c) Activities not conforming to approved or promulgated plans
(1) * * *
(5) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) Notwithstanding paragraph 5, this subsection shall not
apply with respect to an area designated nonattainment under
section 107(d)(1) until one year after that area is first
designated nonattainment for a specific national ambient air
quality standard. This paragraph only applies with respect to
the national ambient air quality standard for which an area is
newly designated nonattainment and does not affect the area's
requirements with respect to all other national ambient air
quality standards for which the area is designated
nonattainment or has been redesignated from nonattainment to
attainment with a maintenance plan pursuant to section 175(A)
(including any pre-existing national ambient air quality
standard for a pollutant for which a new or revised standard
has been issued).
* * * * * * *
UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937
TITLE I--GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING
* * * * * * *
SEC. 9. PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL AND OPERATING FUNDS.
* * * * * * *
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(E) management improvements, including the
establishment and initial operation of computer
centers in and around public housing through a
Neighborhood Networks initiative, for the
purpose of enhancing the self-sufficiency,
employability, and economic self-reliance of
public housing residents by providing them with
onsite computer access and training resources;
* * * * * * *
(e) * *
(1) * * *
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(I) the costs of repaying, together with
rent contributions, debt incurred to finance
the rehabilitation and development of public
housing units, which shall be subject to such
reasonable requirements as the Secretary may
establish; [and]
(J) the costs associated with the operation
and management of mixed finance projects, to
the extent appropriate[.]; and
(K) the costs of operating computer centers
in public housing through a Neighborhood
Networks initiative described in subsection
(d)(1)(E), and of activities related to that
initiative.
* * * * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(6) training and technical assistance to assist in
the oversight and management of public housing or
tenant-based assistance; [and]
(7) clearinghouse services in furtherance of the
goals and activities of this subsection[.]; and
(8) assistance in connection with the establishment
and operation of computer centers in public housing
through a Neighborhood Networks initiative described in
subsection (d)(1)(E).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 24. DEMOLITION, SITE REVITALIZATION, REPLACEMENT HOUSING, AND
TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR PROJECTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(G) economic development activities that
promote the economic self-sufficiency of
residents under the revitalization program,
including a Neighborhood Networks initiative
for the establishment and operation of computer
centers in public housing for the purpose of
enhancing the self-sufficiency, employability,
an economic self-reliance of public housing
residents by providing them with onsite
computer access and training resources;
* * * * * * *
(m) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) Technical assistance and program oversight.--Of
the amount appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) for
any fiscal year, the Secretary may use up to 2 percent
for technical assistance or contract expertise,
including assistance in connection with the
establishment and operation of computer centers in
public housing through the Neighborhoods Networks
initiative described in subsection (d)(1)(G). Such
assistance or contract expertise may be provided
directly or indirectly by grants, contracts, or
cooperative agreements, and shall include training, and
the cost of necessary travel for participants in such
training, by or to officials of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, of public housing
agencies, and of residents.
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ACT OF 1968
TITLE XIII--NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER I--THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
* * * * * * *
financing
Sec. 1309. (a) All authority which was vested in the
Housing and Home Finance Administrator by virtue of section
15(e) of the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956 (70 Stat.
1084) (pertaining to the issue of notes or other obligations or
the Secretary of the Treasury), as amended by subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1303 of this Act, shall be available to the
Director for the purpose of carrying out the flood insurance
program under this title; except that the total amount of notes
and obligations which may be issued by the Director pursuant to
such authority (1) without the approval of the President, may
not exceed $500,000,000, and (2) with the approval of the
President, may not exceed $1,500,000,000 through September 30,
[2000] 2001, and $1,000,000,000 thereafter. The Director shall
report to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate at any time when he
requests the approval of the President in accordance with the
preceding sentence.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1376. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary through [September 30, 2000] September 30,
2001, for studies under this title.
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 311. * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 312. (a) Appropriations for the Administration for
fiscal year 2002 and thereafter shall be made in accounts,
``Human space flight'', ``International space station'',
``Science, aeronautics and technology'', and an account for
amounts appropriated for the necessary expenses of the Office
of Inspector General. Appropriations shall remain available for
two fiscal years. Each account shall include the planned full
costs of the Administration's related activities.
(b) The Administrator shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations whenever any program or activity exceeds fifteen
percent of the annual or total budget of such program or
activity.
* * * * * * *
AIDS HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ACT
SEC. 856. RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRANTEES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Environmental Review.--For purposes of environmental
review, a grant under this subtitle shall be treated as
assistance for a special project that is subject to section
305(c) of the Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Reform
Act of 1994, and shall be subject to the regulations issued by
the Secretary to implement such section.
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--HOUSING RENOVATION AND MODERNIZATION
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--MORTGAGE INSURANCE
* * * * * * *
FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS
Sec. 202. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Mortgagee Review Board.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established within the
Federal Housing Administration the Mortgagee Review
Board (``Board''). The Board is empowered to initiate
the issuance of a letter of reprimand, the probation,
suspension or withdrawal of any mortgagee found to be
engaging in activities in violation of Federal Housing
Administration requirements or the non-discrimination
requirements of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the
Fair Housing Act, or Executive Order 11063.
(2) Composition.--The Board shall consist of--
(A) the Assistant Secretary of Housing/
Federal Housing Commissioner;
(B) the General Counsel of the Department;
(C) the President of the Government
National Mortgage Association;
(D) the Assistant Secretary for
Administration;
(E) the Assistant Secretary for Fair
Housing Enforcement (in cases involving
violations of nondiscrimination requirements);
[and]
(F) the Chief Financial Officer of the
Department;
[or their designees.] and
(G) the Director of the Enforcement Center;
or their designees.
* * * * * * *
insurance of mortgages
Sec. 203. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) * * *
* * * * * * *
(10) * * *
(11) Reduced downpayment requirements for teachers
and uniformed municipal employees--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the
downpayment requirements contained in paragraph
(2), in the case of a mortgage described in
subparagraph (B)--
(i) the mortgage shall involve a
principal obligation in an amount that
does not exceed the sum of 99 percent
of the appraised value of the property
and the total amount of initial service
charges, appraisal, inspection, and
other fees (as the Secretary shall
approve) paid in connection with the
mortgage;
(ii) no other provision of this
subsection limiting the principal
obligation of the mortgage based upon a
percentage of the appraised value of
the property subject to the mortgage
shall apply; and
(iii) the matter in paragraph (9)
that precedes the first proviso shall
not apply and the mortgage shall be
executed by a mortgagor who shall have
paid on account of the property at
least 1 percent of the cost of
acquisition (as determined by the
Secretary) in cash or its equivalent.
(B) Mortgages covered.--A mortgage
described in this subparagraph is a mortgage--
(i) under which the mortgagor is an
individual who--
(I) is employed on a full-
time basis as: (aa) a teacher
or administrator in a public or
private school that provides
elementary or secondary
education, as determined under
State law, except that
elementary education shall
include pre-Kindergarten
education, and except that
secondary education shall not
include any education beyond
grade 12; or (bb) a public
safety officer (as such term is
defined in section 1204 of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968, except
that such term shall not
include any officer serving a
public agency of the Federal
Government); and
(II) has not, during the
12-month period ending upon the
insurance of the mortgage, had
any present ownership interest
in a principal residence
located in the jurisdiction
described in clause (ii); and
(ii) made for a property that is
located within the jurisdiction of--
(I) in the case of a
mortgage of a mortgagor
described in clause (i)(I)(aa),
the local educational agency
(as such term is defined in
section 14101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801)) for the
school in which the mortgagor
is employed (or, in the case of
a mortgagor employed in a
private school, the local
educational agency having
jurisdiction for the area in
which the private school is
located); or
(II) in the case of a
mortgage of a mortgagor
described in clause (i)(I)(bb),
the jurisdiction served by the
public law enforcement agency,
firefighting agency, or rescue
or ambulance agency that
employs the mortgagor.
(c)(1) * * *
(2) [Notwithstanding] Except as provided in paragraph (3)
and notwithstanding any other provision of this section, each
mortgage secured by a 1- to 4-family dwelling and executed on
or after October 1, 1994, that is an obligation of the Mutual
Mortgage Insurance Fund or of the General Insurance Fund
pursuant to subsection (v), shall be subject to the following
requirements:
* * * * * * *
(3) Deferral and reduction of up-front premium.--In
the case of any mortgage described in subsection
(b)(10)(B):
(A) Paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection
(relating to collection of up-front premium
payments) shall not apply.
(B) If, at any time during the 5-year
period beginning on the date of the insurance
of the mortgage, the mortgagor ceases to be
employed as described in subsection
(b)(10)(B)(i)(I) or pays the principal
obligation of the mortgage in full, the
Secretary shall at such time collect a single
premium payment in an amount equal to the
amount of the single premium payment that, but
for this paragraph, would have been required
under paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection with
respect to the mortgage, as reduced by 20
percent of such amount for each successive 12-
month period completed during such 5-year
period before such cessation or prepayment
occurs.
* * * * * * *
[(s)](t)(1) Each mortgagee (or servicer) with respect to
a mortgage under this section shall provide each mortgagor of
such mortgagee (or servicer) written notice, not less than
annually, containing a statement of the amount outstanding for
prepayment of the principal amount of the mortgage and
describing any requirements the mortgagor must fulfill to
prevent the accrual of any interest on such principal amount
after the date of any prepayment. This paragraph shall apply to
any insured mortgage outstanding on or after the expiration of
the 90-day period beginning on the date of effectiveness of
final regulations implementing this paragraph.
(2) Each mortgagee (or servicer) with respect to a
mortgage under this section shall, at or before closing with
respect to any such mortgage, provide the mortgagor with
written notice (in such form as the Secretary shall prescribe,
by regulation, before the expiration of the 90-day period
beginning upon the date of the enactment of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act) describing any
requirements the mortgagor must fulfill upon prepayment of the
principal amount of the mortgage to prevent the accrual of any
interest on the principal amount after the date of such
prepayment. This paragraph shall apply to any mortgage executed
after the expiration of the period under paragraph (1).
[(t)](u)(1) No mortgagee may make or hold mortgages
insured under this section if the customary lending practices
of the mortgagee, as determined by the Secretary pursuant to
section 539, provide for a variation in mortgage charge rates
that exceeds 2 percent for insured mortgages made by the
mortgagee on dwellings located within an area. The Secretary
shall ensure that any permissible variations in the mortgage
charge rates of any mortgagee are based only on actual
variations in fees or costs to the mortgagee to make the loan.
(2) For purposes of this subsection--
(A) the term ``area'' shall have the meaning given
the term under subsection (b)(2);
(B) the term ``mortgage charges'' includes the
interest rate, discount points, loan origination fee,
and any other amount charged to a mortgagor with
respect to an insured mortgage; and
(C) the term ``mortgage charge rate'' means the
amount of mortgage charges for an insured mortgage
expressed as a percentage of the initial principal
amount of the mortgage.
(v) Notwithstanding section 202 of this title, the
insurance of a mortgage under this section in connection with
the assistance provided under section 8(y) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 shall be the obligation of the General
Insurance Fund created pursuant to section 519 of this title.
The provisions of subsections (a) through (h), (j), and (k) of
section 204 shall apply to such mortgages, except that (1) all
references in section 204 to the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund
or the Fund shall be construed to refer to the General
Insurance Fund, and (2) any excess amounts described in section
204(f)(1) shall be retained by the Secretary and credited to
the General Insurance Fund.
[(v)](w) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development shall submit to the Congress an annual report
on the single family mortgage insurance program under this
section. Each report shall set forth--
* * * * * * *
(x) Management Deficiencies Report.--
* * * * * * *
housing for moderate income and displaced families
Sec. 221. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) * * *
* * * * * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C)(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(viii) This subparagraph shall not apply after
December 31, 2002, except that this subparagraph shall
continue to apply if the Secretary receives a
mortgagee's written notice of intent to assign its
mortgage to the Secretary on or before such date. Not
later than January 31 of each year (beginning in 1992),
the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report
including statements of the number of mortgages
auctioned and sold and their value, the amount of
subsidies committed to the program under this
subparagraph, the ability of the Secretary to
coordinate the program with the incentives provided
under the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act
of 1987 or subsequent Act, and the costs and benefits
derived from the program for the Federal Government.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 236. * * *
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) * * *
(A) during fiscal year [2000] 2001, to all
project owners collecting such excess charges;
and
* * * * * * *
STEWART B. McKINNEY HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE IV--HOUSING ASSISTANCE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Programs
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 443. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
[The provisions of, and regulations and procedures
applicable under, section 104(g) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 shall apply to assistance and projects
under this title.]
SEC. 443. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
For purposes of environmental review, assistance and
projects under this title shall be treated as assistance for
special projects that are subject to section 305(c) of the
Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Reform Act of 1994,
and shall be subject to the regulations issued by the Secretary
to implement such section.
* * * * * * *
UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937
TITLE I--GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING
* * * * * * *
lower income housing assistance
Sec. 8. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(o) Voucher Program.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(13) PHA project-based assistance.--
(A) In general.--If the Secretary enters
into an annual contributions contract under
this subsection with a public housing agency
pursuant to which the public housing agency
will enter into a housing assistance payment
contract with respect to an existing structure
under this subsection--
(i) the housing assistance payment
contract may not be attached to the
structure unless the owner agrees to
rehabilitate or newly construct the
structure other than with assistance
under this Act, and otherwise complies
with this section; and
(ii) the public housing agency may
approve a housing assistance payment
contract for such existing structures
for not more than [15 percent] 25
percent of the funding available for
tenant-based assistance administered by
the public housing agency under this
section.
(B) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) Adjusted rents.--With respect to rents
adjusted under this paragraph--
(i) the adjusted rent for any unit
shall be reasonable in comparison with
rents charged for comparable dwelling
units in the private, unassisted, local
market; and
(ii) the provisions of subsection
(c)(2)(C) shall not apply.
(E) The Secretary shall establish expedited
procedures to allow public housing agencies to
enter into housing assistance payment contracts
with respect to existing structures.
* * * * * * *
(x) Family Unification.--
(1) * * *
(2) Use of funds.--The amounts made available under
this subsection shall be used only in connection with
tenant-based assistance under section 8 on behalf of
[any family (A) who is otherwise eligible for such
assistance, and (B)] (A) any family (i) who is
otherwise eligible for such assistance, and (ii) who
the public child welfare agency for the jurisdiction
has certified is a family for whom the lack of adequate
housing is a primary factor in the imminent placement
of the family's child or children in out-of-home care
or the delayed discharge of a child or children to the
family from out-of-home care, and (B) for a period not
to exceed 18 months, youths who have attained at least
18 years of age and not more than 21 years of age and
who have left foster care at age 16 or older.
* * * * * * *
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974
TITLE I--COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
findings and purpose
* * * * * * *
Sec. 102. (a) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) * * *
* * * * * * *
(F) Notwithstanding any other provision of
this paragraph, any county that was classified
as an urban county pursuant to subparagraph (A)
for fiscal year 1999, at the option of the
county, may hereafter remain classified as an
urban county for purposes of this Act.
* * * * * * *
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--HUD MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REFORM
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Enforcement Provisions
* * * * * * *
SEC. 542. MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE CREDIT [DEMONSTRATIONS] PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development (hereinafter referred to as the `Secretary') shall
carry out programs through the Federal Housing Administration
to [demonstrate the effectiveness of providing] provide new
forms of Federal credit enhancement for multifamily loans. In
carrying out [demonstration] programs, the Secretary shall
include an evaluation of the effectiveness of entering into
partnerships or other contractual arrangements including
reinsurance and risk-sharing agreements with State or local
housing finance agencies, the Federal Housing Finance Board,
the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation, qualified financial institutions,
and other State or local mortgage insurance companies or bank
lending consortia.
(b) Risk-Sharing [Pilot] Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a
[pilot] program through the Federal Housing
Administration to [determine the effectiveness of]
provide for risk sharing related to mortgages on
multifamily housing.
(2) Authority for reinsurance agreements.--The
Secretary may enter into reinsurance agreements (as
such term is defined in section 544) with the Federal
National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation, qualified financial institutions,
qualified housing finance agencies, and the Federal
Housing Finance Board. The agreements may provide for
risk-sharing and other forms of credit enhancement with
respect to mortgage lending on multifamily housing,
including reinsurance with respect to pools of loans on
multifamily housing properties, that the Secretary
determines to be appropriate to carry out the purposes
of this subsection. The agreements shall be in a form
and have such terms and conditions as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate to carry out the purposes
of this subsection.
(3) Development of alternatives.--The Secretary
shall develop and assess a variety of risk-sharing
alternatives, including arrangements under which the
Secretary assumes an appropriate share of the risk
related to long-term mortgage loans on newly
constructed or acquired multifamily rental housing,
mortgage refinancings, bridge financing for
construction, and other forms of multifamily housing
mortgage lending that the Secretary deems appropriate
to carry out the purposes of this subsection. Such
alternatives shall be designed--
(A) to ensure that other parties bear a
share of the risk, in percentage amount and in
position of exposure, that is sufficient to
create strong, market-oriented incentives for
other participating parties to maintain sound
underwriting and loan management practices;
(B) to develop credit mechanisms, including
sound underwriting criteria, processing
methods, and credit enhancements, through which
resources of the Federal Housing Administration
can assist in increasing multifamily housing
lending as needed to meet the expected need in
the United States;
(C) to provide a more adequate supply of
mortgage credit for sound multifamily rental
housing projects in underserved urban and rural
markets;
(D) to encourage major financial
institutions to expand their participation in
mortgage lending for sound multifamily housing,
through means such as mitigating uncertainties
regarding actions of the Federal Government
(including the possible failure to renew short-
term subsidy contracts);
(E) to increase the efficiency, and lower
the costs to the Federal Government, of
processing and servicing multifamily housing
mortgage loans insured by the Federal Housing
Administration; and
(F) to improve the quality and expertise of
Federal Housing Administration staff and other
resources, as required for sound management of
reinsurance and other market-oriented forms of
credit enhancement.
(4) Eligibility standards.--The Secretary shall
establish and enforce standards for financial
institutions and entities to be eligible to enter into
reinsurance agreements under this subsection, as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate.
[(5) Funding.--Using any authority provided in
appropriation Acts to insure loans under the National
Housing Act, the Secretary may enter into commitments
under this subsection for risk sharing with respect to
mortgages on not more than 15,000 units over fiscal
years 1993 and 1994. The demonstration authorized under
this subsection shall not be expanded until the reports
required under subsection (d) are submitted to
Congress.]
(5) Insurance authority.--Using any authority
provided in appropriation Acts to insure mortgages
under the National Housing Act, the Secretary may enter
into commitments under this subsection for risk-sharing
units.
(6) Fees.--The Secretary shall establish and
collect premiums and fees under this subsection as the
Secretary determines appropriate to (A) achieve the
purpose of this subsection, and (B) compensate the
Federal Housing Administration for the risks assumed
and related administrative costs.
(7) Non-federal participation.--The Secretary shall
carry out this subsection, to the maximum extent
practicable, with the participation of well-established
residential mortgage originators, financial
institutions that invest in multifamily housing
mortgages, multifamily housing sponsors, and such other
private sector experts in multifamily housing finance
as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(8) Timing.--The Secretary shall take any
administrative actions necessary to initiate the
[pilot] program under this subsection not later than
the expiration of the 8-month period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Housing Finance Agency [Pilot] Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a
specific [pilot] program in conjunction with qualified
housing finance agencies to [test the effectiveness of]
provide Federal credit enhancement for loans for
affordable multifamily housing through a system of
risk-sharing agreements with such agencies.
(2) [Pilot] Program requirements.--
(A) In general.--In carrying out the
[pilot] program authorized under this
subsection, the Secretary shall enter into
risk-sharing agreements with qualified housing
finance agencies.
(B) Mortgage insurance.--Agreements under
subparagraph (A) shall provide for full
mortgage insurance through the Federal Housing
Administration of the loans for affordable
multifamily housing originated by or through
qualified housing finance agencies and for
reimbursement to the Secretary by such agencies
for either all or a portion of the losses
incurred on the loans insured.
(C) Risk apportionment.--Agreements entered
into under this subsection between the
Secretary and a qualified housing finance
agency shall specify the percentage of loss
that each of the parties to the agreement will
assume in the event of default of the insured
multifamily mortgage. Such agreements shall
specify that the qualified housing finance
agency and the Secretary shall share equally
the full amount of any loss on the insured
mortgage.
(D) Reimbursement capacity.--Agreements
entered into under this subsection between the
Secretary and a qualified housing finance
agency shall provide evidence of the capacity
of such agency to fulfill any reimbursement
obligations made pursuant to this subsection.
Evidence of such capacity may include--
(i) a pledge of the full faith and
credit of a qualified State or local
agency to fulfill any obligations
entered into by the qualified housing
finance agency;
(ii) reserves pledged or otherwise
restricted by the qualified housing
finance agency in an amount equal to an
agreed upon percentage of the loss
assumed by the housing finance agency
under subparagraph (C);
(iii) funds pledged through a State
or local guarantee fund; or
(iv) any other form of evidence
mutually agreed upon by the Secretary
and the qualified housing finance
agency.
(E) Underwriting standards.--The Secretary
shall allow any qualified housing finance
agency to use its own underwriting standards
and loan terms and conditions for purposes of
underwriting loans to be insured under this
subsection without further review by the
Secretary, except that the Secretary may impose
additional underwriting criteria and loan terms
and conditions for contractual agreements where
the Secretary retains more than 50 percent of
the risk of loss.
(3) Mortgage insurance premiums.--The Secretary
shall establish a schedule of insurance premium
payments for mortgages insured under this subsection
based on the percentage of loss the Secretary may
assume. Such schedule shall reflect lower or nominal
premiums for qualified housing finance agencies that
assume a greater share of the risk apportioned
according to paragraph (2)(C).
[(4) Limitation on insurance authority.--Using any
authority provided by appropriations Acts to insure
mortgages under the National Housing Act, the Secretary
may enter into commitments under this subsection with
respect to mortgages on not to exceed 30,000 units over
fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995. The demonstration
authorized under this subsection shall not be expanded
until the reports required under subsection (d) are
submitted to the Congress.]
(4) Insurance authority.--Using any authority
provided in appropriation Acts to insure mortgages
under the National Housing Act, the Secretary may enter
into commitments under this subsection for risk-sharing
units.
(5) Identity of interest.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary shall not apply
identity of interest provisions to agreements entered
into with qualified State housing finance agencies
under this subsection.
(6) Prohibition on ginnie mae securitization.--The
Government National Mortgage Association shall not
securitize any multifamily loans insured under this
subsection.
(7) Qualification as affordable housing.--
Multifamily housing securing loans insured under this
subsection shall qualify as affordable only if the
housing is occupied by very low-income families and
bears rents not greater than the gross rent for rent-
restricted residential units as determined under
section 42(g)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(8) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out
this subsection.
[(d) Independent Studies and Reports.--
[(1) Federal national mortgage association.--The
Federal National Mortgage Association, in consultation
with representatives of its seller-servicers and State
housing finance agencies, shall carry out an
independent assessment of alternative methods for
achieving the purposes of this section and shall submit
a report containing any findings and recommendations,
including any recommendations for legislative or
administrative action, simultaneously to the Secretary
and the Congress not later than 12 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
[(2) Federal home loan mortgage corporation.--The
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, in consultation
with representatives of its seller-servicers and State
housing finance agencies, shall carry out an
independent assessment of alternative methods for
achieving the purposes of this section and shall submit
a report containing any findings and recommendations,
including any recommendations for legislative or
administrative action, simultaneously to the Secretary
and the Congress not later than 12 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
[(3) Secretary.--The Secretary shall submit to the
Congress, and publish, reports under this paragraph
assessing the activities carried out under each of the
pilot programs. The Secretary shall submit and publish
a preliminary report under this paragraph not later
than 9 months after the date of the implementation of
each of the pilot programs, and a final report not
later than 24 months after the date of implementation
on which the pilot program is initiated, which shall
include any recommendations by the Secretary for
legislative changes to achieve the purposes of this
section.
[(4) Comptroller general.--The Comptroller General
of the United States shall carry out an evaluation of
each of the pilot programs under this section and shall
submit to the Congress, not later than 30 months after
the date of implementation for each of the pilot
programs, a report regarding the evaluation, together
with any recommendations for legislative changes to
achieve the purposes of this section. The Comptroller
General shall also submit to the Congress a report
containing a preliminary assessment of the pilot
program not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
[(5) Federal housing finance board.--The Federal
Housing Finance Board shall monitor and assess the
activities carried out under the pilot programs under
this section. The Federal Housing Finance Board shall
submit a preliminary report containing any findings
regarding such activities not later than 9 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and a final
report containing such findings not later than 24
months after the date on which the pilot program is
initiated, which shall include any recommendations by
the Board for legislative changes to achieve the
purposes of this section.]
* * * * * * *
NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1996
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--BLOCK GRANTS AND GRANT REQUIREMENTS
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 201. NATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND ELIGIBLE FAMILIES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Eligible Families.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Non-indian families.--Notwithstanding paragraph
(1), a recipient may provide housing or housing
assistance provided through affordable housing
activities assisted with grant amounts under this Act
for a non-Indian family on an Indian reservation or
other Indian area if the recipient determines that the
presence of the family on the Indian reservation or
other Indian area is essential to the well-being of
Indian families and the need for housing for the family
cannot reasonably be met without such assistance.
(4) Law enforcement officers.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), a recipient may provide housing or
housing assistance provided through affordable housing
activities assisted with grant amounts under this Act
to a law enforcement officer on the reservation or
other Indian area, who is employed full-time by a
Federal, state, county or tribal government, and in
implementing such full-time employment is sworn to
uphold, and make arrests for violations of Federal,
state, county or tribal law, if the recipient
determines that the presence of the law enforcement
officer on the Indian reservation or other Indian area
may deter crime.
[(4)] (5) Preference for tribal members and other
indian families.--The Indian housing plan for an Indian
tribe may require preference, for housing or housing
assistance provided through affordable housing
activities assisted with grant amounts provided under
this Act on behalf of such tribe, to be given (to the
extent practicable) to Indian families who are members
of such tribe, or to other Indian families. In any case
in which the applicable Indian housing plan for an
Indian tribe provides for preference under this
paragraph, the recipient for the tribe shall ensure
that housing activities that are assisted with grant
amounts under this Act for such tribe are subject to
such preference.
[(5)] (6) Exemption.--Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968 shall not apply to actions by federally recognized
tribes and the tribally designated housing entities of
those tribes under this Act.
* * * * * * *
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
Resolution for 2001: Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies:
General purpose, defense discretionary.................. 135 135 132 \1\ 132
General purpose, non-defense discretionary.............. 79,983 79,978 85,975 85,971
Mandatory............................................... 24,710 24,582 24,438 24,103
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2001.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 62,398
2002.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 22,879
2003.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 8,593
2004.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 4,511
2005 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... 4,558
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2001 NA 28,705 NA 31,976
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2001
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+
or -)
Item 2000 Budget estimate House allowance Committee --------------------------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2000
appropriation Budget estimate House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
Compensation and pensions........ 21,568,364 22,766,276 22,766,276 22,766,276 +1,197,912 ............... ...............
Readjustment benefits............ 1,469,000 1,634,000 1,664,000 1,634,000 +165,000 ............... -30,000
Veterans insurance and 28,670 19,850 19,850 19,850 -8,820 ............... ...............
indemnities.....................
Veterans housing benefit program 282,342 165,740 165,740 165,740 -116,602 ............... ...............
fund program account
(indefinite)....................
(Limitation on direct loans). (300) (300) (300) (300) ............... ............... ...............
Administrative expenses...... 156,958 166,484 161,484 162,000 +5,042 -4,484 +516
Education loan fund program 1 1 1 1 ............... ............... ...............
account.........................
(Limitation on direct loans). (3) (3) (3) (3) ............... ............... ...............
Administrative expenses...... 214 220 220 220 +6 ............... ...............
Vocational rehabilitation loans 57 52 52 52 -5 ............... ...............
program account.................
(Limitation on direct loans). (2,531) (2,726) (2,726) (2,726) (+195) ............... ...............
Administrative expenses...... 415 432 432 432 +17 ............... ...............
Native American Veteran Housing 520 532 532 532 +12 ............... ...............
Loan Program Account............
Guaranteed Transitional Housing 48,250 ............... ............... ............... -48,250 ............... ...............
Loans for Homeless Veterans
program account.................
(Limitation on direct loans). (100,000) ............... ............... ............... (-100,000) ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Veterans Benefits 23,554,791 24,753,587 24,778,587 24,749,103 +1,194,312 -4,484 -29,484
Administration............
Veterans Health Administration
Medical care..................... 18,026,481 19,381,587 19,354,587 19,381,587 +1,355,106 ............... +27,000
Delayed equipment obligation. 900,000 900,000 927,000 900,000 ............... ............... -27,000
(Transfer to general (-27,907) ............... (-28,134) (-27,907) ............... (-27,907) (+227)
operating expenses).........
(Transfer to Parking ............... ............... ............... (-2,000) (-2,000) (-2,000) (-2,000)
revolving fund).............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 18,926,481 20,281,587 20,281,587 20,281,587 +1,355,106 ............... ...............
Medical care cost recovery
collections:
Offsetting receipts.......... -608,000 -639,000 -639,000 -639,000 -31,000 ............... ...............
Appropriations (indefinite).. 608,000 639,000 639,000 639,000 +31,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total available............ (608,000) (639,000) (639,000) (639,000) (+31,000) ............... ...............
Medical and prosthetic research.. 321,000 321,000 351,000 331,000 +10,000 +10,000 -20,000
Medical administration and 59,703 64,884 62,000 62,000 +2,297 -2,884 ...............
miscellaneous operating expenses
General Post Fund, National
Homes:
Loan program account (by (7) ............... ............... ............... (-7) ............... ...............
transfer)...................
(Limitation on direct loans). (70) ............... ............... ............... (-70) ............... ...............
Administrative expenses (by (54) ............... ............... ............... (-54) ............... ...............
transfer)...................
General post fund (transfer out). (-61) ............... ............... ............... (+61) ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Veterans Health 19,307,184 20,667,471 20,694,587 20,674,587 +1,367,403 +7,116 -20,000
Administration............
Departmental Administration
General operating expenses....... 912,594 1,061,854 1,006,000 1,050,000 +137,406 -11,854 +44,000
Offsetting receipts.......... (36,754) (36,520) (36,520) (36,520) (-234) ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Program Level....... (949,348) (1,098,374) (1,042,520) (1,086,520) (+137,172) (-11,854) (+44,000)
(Transfer from medical care). (27,907) ............... (28,134) (27,907) ............... (+27,907) (-227)
(Transfer from national (117) ............... (125) (117) ............... (+117) (-8)
cemetery)...................
(Transfer from inspector (30) ............... (28) (30) ............... (+30) (+2)
general)....................
National Cemetery Administration. 97,256 109,889 106,889 109,889 +12,633 ............... +3,000
(Transfer to general (-117) ............... (-125) (-117) ............... (-117) (+8)
operating expenses).........
Office of Inspector General...... 43,200 46,464 46,464 46,464 +3,264 ............... ...............
(Transfer to general (-30) ............... (-28) (-30) ............... (-30) (-2)
operating expenses).........
Construction, major projects..... 65,140 62,140 62,140 48,540 -16,600 -13,600 -13,600
Construction, minor projects..... 160,000 162,000 100,000 162,000 +2,000 ............... +62,000
(Transfer to Parking ............... ............... ............... (-4,500) (-4,500) (-4,500) (-4,500)
Revolving Fund).............
Grants for construction of State 90,000 60,000 90,000 100,000 +10,000 +40,000 +10,000
extended care facilities........
Grants for the construction of 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 ............... ............... ...............
State veterans cemeteries.......
(Transfer to Parking ............... ............... ............... (6,500) (+6,500) (+6,500) (+6,500)
Revolving Fund).............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental 1,393,190 1,527,347 1,436,493 1,541,893 +148,703 +14,546 +105,400
Administration............
======================================================================================================================
Total, title I, Department 44,255,165 46,948,405 46,909,667 46,965,583 +2,710,418 +17,178 +55,916
of Veterans Affairs.......
Appropriations..... (44,255,165) (46,948,405) (46,909,667) (46,965,583) (+2,710,418) (+17,178) (+55,916)
Rescissions........ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Contingent ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
emergency
appropriations....
(By transfer).......... (61) ............... ............... ............... (-61) ............... ...............
(Limitation on direct (102,904) (3,029) (3,029) (3,029) (-99,875) ............... ...............
loans)................
======================================================================================================================
Consisting of:
Mandatory.......... (23,396,626) (24,585,866) (24,615,866) (24,585,866) (+1,189,240) ............... (-30,000)
Discretionary...... (20,858,539) (22,362,539) (22,293,801) (22,379,717) (+1,521,178) (+17,178) (+85,916)
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
Public and Indian Housing
Housing Certificate Fund......... 7,104,420 9,927,824 9,075,388 8,971,000 +1,866,580 -956,824 -104,388
(By transfer)................ (183,000) ............... ............... ............... (-183,000) ............... ...............
Advance appropriation, fiscal 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 ............... ............... ...............
year 2001/2002..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total funding.............. 11,304,420 14,127,824 13,275,388 13,171,000 +1,866,580 -956,824 -104,388
Housing set-asides:
Expiring section 8 contracts. (10,834,135) (13,221,824) (13,275,388) (13,131,000) (+2,296,865) (-90,824) (-144,388)
Section 8 relocation (156,000) (79,000) ............... ............... (-156,000) (-79,000) ...............
assistance..................
Contract administration...... ............... (209,000) ............... ............... ............... (-209,000) ...............
Incremental vouchers......... (346,560) (527,000) ............... ............... (-346,560) (-527,000) ...............
Housing production program... ............... (66,000) ............... ............... ............... (-66,000) ...............
Voucher for disabled......... (40,000) (25,000) ............... (40,000) ............... (+15,000) (+40,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... (11,376,695) (14,127,824) (13,275,388) (13,171,000) (+1,794,305) (-956,824) (-104,388)
Rescission of unobligated
balances:
Section 8 recaptures -1,300,000 ............... -275,388 -275,000 +1,025,000 -275,000 +388
(rescission)................
Section 8 carryover and -943,000 ............... ............... ............... +943,000 ............... ...............
Tenant Protection (resc)....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... -2,243,000 ............... -275,388 -275,000 +1,968,000 -275,000 +388
Public housing capital fund...... 2,900,000 2,955,000 2,800,000 2,955,000 +55,000 ............... +155,000
Public housing operating fund.... 3,138,000 3,192,000 3,139,000 3,192,000 +54,000 ............... +53,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 6,038,000 6,147,000 5,939,000 6,147,000 +109,000 ............... +208,000
Drug elimination grants for low- 310,000 345,000 300,000 310,000 ............... -35,000 +10,000
income housing..................
Revitalization of severely 575,000 625,000 565,000 575,000 ............... -50,000 +10,000
distressed public housing (HOPE
VI).............................
Native American housing block 620,000 650,000 620,000 650,000 +30,000 ............... +30,000
grants..........................
Indian housing loan guarantee 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 ............... ............... ...............
fund program account............
(Limitation on guaranteed (71,956) (71,956) (71,956) (71,956) ............... ............... ...............
loans)......................
======================================================================================================================
Total, Public and Indian 16,610,420 21,900,824 20,430,000 20,584,000 +3,973,580 -1,316,824 +154,000
Housing...................
Community Planning and
Development
Housing opportunities for persons 232,000 260,000 250,000 232,000 ............... -28,000 -18,000
with AIDS.......................
Rural housing and economic 25,000 27,000 20,000 27,000 +2,000 ............... +7,000
development.....................
America's private investment
companies program:
(Limitation on guaranteed (541,000) (1,000,000) ............... ............... (-541,000) (-1,000,000) ...............
loans)......................
Credit subsidy............... 20,000 37,000 ............... ............... -20,000 -37,000 ...............
Urban empowerment zones.......... 55,000 ............... ............... ............... -55,000 ............... ...............
Rural empowerment zones.......... 15,000 ............... ............... ............... -15,000 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................... 70,000 ............... ............... ............... -70,000 ............... ...............
Community development block 4,800,000 4,900,000 4,505,000 4,800,000 ............... -100,000 +295,000
grants..........................
Section 108 loan guarantees:
(Limitation on guaranteed (1,261,000) (1,217,000) (1,217,000) (1,261,000) ............... (+44,000) (+44,000)
loans)......................
Credit subsidy............... 29,000 28,000 28,000 29,000 ............... +1,000 +1,000
Administrative expenses...... 1,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 ............... -1,000 ...............
Brownfields redevelopment........ 25,000 50,000 20,000 25,000 ............... -25,000 +5,000
HOME investment partnerships 1,600,000 1,650,000 1,585,000 1,600,000 ............... -50,000 +15,000
program.........................
Homeless assistance grants....... 1,020,000 1,200,000 1,020,000 1,020,000 ............... -180,000 ...............
Shelter Plus Care................ ............... ............... ............... 105,000 +105,000 +105,000 +105,000
Communities in schools community 5,000 5,000 ............... ............... -5,000 -5,000 ...............
development program.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Community planning 7,827,000 8,159,000 7,429,000 7,839,000 +12,000 -320,000 +410,000
and development...........
Housing Programs
Housing for special populations.. 911,000 989,000 911,000 996,000 +85,000 +7,000 +85,000
Housing for the elderly...... (710,000) (779,000) (710,000) (783,000) (+73,000) (+4,000) (+73,000)
Housing for the disabled..... (201,000) (210,000) (201,000) (213,000) (+12,000) (+3,000) (+12,000)
Federal Housing Administration
FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance
program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed (140,000,000) (160,000,000) (160,000,000) (160,000,000) (+20,000,000) ............... ...............
loans)......................
(Limitation on direct loans). (100,000) (250,000) (100,000) (250,000) (+150,000) ............... (+150,000)
Administrative expenses...... 330,888 330,888 330,888 330,888 ............... ............... ...............
Administrative contract 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 ............... ............... ...............
expenses....................
Additional contract expenses. 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 ............... ............... ...............
Reduced downpayments for ............... ............... ............... -24,000 -24,000 -24,000 -24,000
teachers/police(Sec 219)
FHA--General and special risk
program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed (18,100,000) (21,000,000) (21,000,000) (21,000,000) (+2,900,000) ............... ...............
loans)......................
(Limitation on direct loans). (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) ............... ............... ...............
Administrative expenses...... 64,000 211,455 211,455 211,455 +147,455 ............... ...............
Administrative expenses (147,000) ............... ............... ............... (-147,000) ............... ...............
(unobligated balances)......
Negative subsidy............. -75,000 -100,000 -100,000 -100,000 -25,000 ............... ...............
Subsidy...................... ............... 101,000 101,000 101,000 +101,000 ............... ...............
Subsidy (unobligated (153,000) ............... ............... ............... (-153,000) ............... ...............
balances)...................
Non-overhead administrative 144,000 144,000 144,000 144,000 ............... ............... ...............
expenses....................
Additional contract expenses. 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Housing 634,888 858,343 858,343 834,343 +199,455 -24,000 -24,000
Administration............
Government National Mortgage
Association
Guarantees of mortgage-backed
securities loan guarantee
program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed (200,000,000) (200,000,000) (200,000,000) (200,000,000) ............... ............... ...............
loans)......................
Administrative expenses...... 9,383 9,383 9,383 9,383 ............... ............... ...............
Administrative contract ............... 40,000 ............... ............... ............... -40,000 ...............
expenses....................
Offsetting receipts.......... -422,000 -347,000 -347,000 -347,000 +75,000 ............... ...............
Policy Development and Research
Research and technology.......... 45,000 62,000 40,000 45,000 ............... -17,000 +5,000
Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity
Fair housing activities.......... 44,000 50,000 44,000 44,000 ............... -6,000 ...............
Office of Lead Hazard Control
Lead hazard reduction............ 80,000 120,000 80,000 100,000 +20,000 -20,000 +20,000
Management and Administration
Salaries and expenses............ 477,000 565,000 474,647 473,500 -3,500 -91,500 -1,147
Transfer from:
Limitation on FHA (518,000) (518,000) (518,000) (518,000) ............... ............... ...............
corporate funds.........
GNMA..................... (9,383) (9,383) (9,383) (9,383) ............... ............... ...............
Community Planning and (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) ............... ............... ...............
Development.............
America's Private ............... (1,000) ............... ............... ............... (-1,000) ...............
Investment Companies
Program.................
Title VI................. (150) (150) (150) (150) ............... ............... ...............
Indian Housing........... (200) (200) (200) (200) ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and (1,005,733) (1,094,733) (1,003,380) (1,002,233) (-3,500) (-92,500) (-1,147)
expenses..............
Office of Inspector General...... 50,657 52,000 50,657 55,500 +4,843 +3,500 +4,843
(By transfer, limitation on (22,343) (22,343) (22,343) (22,343) ............... ............... ...............
FHA corporate funds)........
(By transfer from Drug (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ............... ............... ...............
Elimination Grants).........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of Inspector (83,000) (84,343) (83,000) (87,843) (+4,843) (+3,500) (+4,843)
General...................
Office of Federal Housing 19,493 25,800 22,000 22,000 +2,507 -3,800 ...............
Enterprise Oversight............
Offsetting receipts.......... -19,493 -25,800 -22,000 -22,000 -2,507 +3,800 ...............
Administrative Provisions
Sec. 208 FHA..................... -319,000 ............... ............... ............... +319,000 ............... ...............
Annual contribution (transfer (-79,000) ............... ............... ............... (+79,000) ............... ...............
out)............................
Annual contributions (transfer (-104,000) ............... ............... ............... (+104,000) ............... ...............
out)............................
Sec. 212 Rescissions............. -74,400 ............... ............... ............... +74,400 ............... ...............
Sec. 214 Moving to Work.......... 5,000 ............... ............... ............... -5,000 ............... ...............
Sec. 222 Excess Income........... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, administrative -00 ............... ............... ............... +388,400 ............... ...............
provisions................
======================================================================================================================
Total, title II, Department 25,878,948 32,458,550 29,980,030 30,633,726 +4,754,778 -1,824,824 +653,696
of Housing and Urban
Development (net).........
Current year, fiscal (21,678,948) (28,258,550) (25,780,030) (26,433,726) (+4,754,778) (-1,824,824) (+653,696)
year 2001.............
Appropriations..... (23,996,348) (28,258,550) (26,055,418) (26,708,726) (+2,712,378) (-1,549,824) (+653,308)
Rescissions........ (-2,317,400) ............... (-275,388) (-275,000) (+2,042,400) (-275,000) (+388)
Advance appropriation, (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) ............... ............... ...............
fiscal year 2001/2002.
(Limitation on (359,902,000) (383,217,000) (382,217,000) (382,261,000) (+22,359,000) (-956,000) (+44,000)
guaranteed loans).....
(Limitation on (561,076) (562,076) (561,076) (561,076) ............... (-1,000) ...............
corporate funds)......
======================================================================================================================
TITLE III
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments
Commission
Salaries and expenses............ 28,359 26,196 28,000 26,196 -2,163 ............... -1,804
Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board
Salaries and expenses............ 7,970 8,000 8,000 7,000 -970 -1,000 -1,000
Department of the Treasury
Community Development Financial
Institutions
Community development financial 95,000 125,000 105,000 95,000 ............... -30,000 -10,000
institutions fund program
account.........................
Consumer Product Safety
Commission
Salaries and expenses............ 48,814 52,500 51,000 52,500 +3,686 ............... +1,500
Corporation for National and
Community Service
National and community service 433,153 533,700 ............... 433,500 +347 -100,200 +433,500
programs operating expenses.....
Rescission................... -80,000 ............... ............... -50,000 +30,000 -50,000 -50,000
Office of Inspector General...... 3,985 5,000 5,000 5,000 +1,015 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 357,138 538,700 5,000 388,500 +31,362 -150,200 +383,500
Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims
Salaries and expenses............ 11,408 12,500 12,500 12,445 +1,037 -55 -55
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
Salaries and expenses............ 12,426 15,949 17,949 15,949 +3,523 ............... -2,000
Department of Health and Human
Services
National Institute of Health
National Institute of ............... ............... 60,000 ............... ............... ............... -60,000
Environmental Health Sciences...
Public Health Service
Toxic Substance and Environmental ............... ............... 70,000 ............... ............... ............... -70,000
Public Health...................
Environmental Protection Agency
Science and Technology........... 642,303 674,348 650,000 670,000 +27,697 -4,348 +20,000
Transfer from Hazardous 38,000 35,871 35,000 38,000 ............... +2,129 +3,000
Substance Superfund.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science and 680,303 710,219 685,000 708,000 +27,697 -2,219 +23,000
Technology................
Environmental Programs and 1,895,267 2,099,461 1,895,000 2,000,000 +104,733 -99,461 +105,000
Management......................
Office of Inspector General...... 32,380 34,094 34,000 34,094 +1,714 ............... +94
Transfer from Hazardous 11,000 11,652 11,500 11,000 ............... -652 -500
Substance Superfund.........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, OIG.............. 43,380 45,746 45,500 45,094 +1,714 -652 -406
Buildings and facilities......... 62,362 23,931 23,931 23,000 -39,362 -931 -931
Hazardous Substance Superfund.... 1,300,000 1,450,000 1,170,000 1,300,000 ............... -150,000 +130,000
Delay of obligation.......... 100,000 ............... 100,000 100,000 ............... +100,000 ...............
Transfer to Office of -11,000 -11,652 -11,500 -11,000 ............... +652 +500
Inspector General...........
Transfer to Science and -38,000 -35,871 -35,000 -38,000 ............... -2,129 -3,000
Technology..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Hazardous 1,351,000 1,402,477 1,223,500 1,351,000 ............... -51,477 +127,500
Substance Superfund.......
Leaking Underground Storage Tank 69,760 72,096 79,000 72,096 +2,336 ............... -6,904
Program.........................
Oil spill response............... 14,974 15,712 15,000 15,000 +26 -712 ...............
State and Tribal Assistance 2,560,765 1,838,000 2,108,000 2,365,000 -195,765 +527,000 +257,000
Grants..........................
Categorical grants........... 885,000 1,068,957 1,068,957 955,000 +70,000 -113,957 -113,957
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, STAG............. 3,445,765 2,906,957 3,176,957 3,320,000 -125,765 +413,043 +143,043
======================================================================================================================
Total, EPA................. 7,562,811 7,276,599 7,143,888 7,534,190 -28,621 +257,591 +390,302
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology 5,089 5,201 5,150 5,201 +112 ............... +51
Policy..........................
Council on Environmental Quality 2,816 3,020 2,900 2,900 +84 -120 ...............
and Office of Environmental
Quality.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................... 7,905 8,221 8,050 8,101 +196 -120 +51
Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation
Office of Inspector General (33,666) (33,660) (33,661) (33,660) (-6) ............... (-1)
(transfer)......................
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
Disaster relief.................. 287,584 300,000 300,000 300,000 +12,416 ............... ...............
Emergency funding............ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
(Transfer out)............... (-2,900) (-2,900) (-35,500) (-2,900) ............... ............... (+32,600)
Emergency funding............ 2,480,425 2,609,220 ............... 2,609,220 +128,795 ............... +2,609,220
Pre-disaster mitigation.......... ............... 30,000 ............... ............... ............... -30,000 ...............
(Transfer out)............... ............... (-2,600) ............... ............... ............... (+2,600) ...............
Disaster assistance direct loan
program account:
State share loan............. 1,295 1,678 1,295 1,678 +383 ............... +383
(Limitation on direct (25,000) (25,000) (19,000) (25,000) ............... ............... (+6,000)
loans)..................
Administrative expenses...... 420 427 420 427 +7 ............... +7
Salaries and expenses............ 179,950 221,024 190,000 215,000 +35,050 -6,024 +25,000
Office of Inspector General...... 7,965 8,476 8,015 10,000 +2,035 +1,524 +1,985
Emergency management planning and 266,782 269,652 267,000 269,652 +2,870 ............... +2,652
assistance......................
(By transfer)................ (2,900) (5,500) (5,500) (2,900) ............... (-2,600) (-2,600)
Radiological emergency -1,000 ............... ............... ............... +1,000 ............... ...............
preparedness fund...............
Emergency food and shelter 110,000 140,000 110,000 110,000 ............... -30,000 ...............
program.........................
Flood map modernization fund..... 5,000 ............... ............... ............... -5,000 ............... ...............
(By transfer)................ ............... ............... (30,000) ............... ............... ............... (-30,000)
National insurance development (3,730) ............... ............... ............... (-3,730) ............... ...............
fund............................
National Flood Insurance Fund
(limitation on administrative
expenses):
Salaries and expenses........ (24,333) (25,736) (25,736) (25,736) (+1,403) ............... ...............
Flood mitigation............. (78,710) (77,307) (77,307) (77,307) (-1,403) ............... ...............
(Transfer out)............... (-20,000) (-20,000) (-20,000) (-20,000) ............... ............... ...............
National flood mitigation fund ............... (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (+20,000) ............... ...............
(by transfer)...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Emergency 3,338,421 3,580,477 876,730 3,515,977 +177,556 -64,500 +2,639,247
Management Agency.........
Appropriations......... (857,996) (971,257) (876,730) (906,757) (+48,761) (-64,500) (+30,027)
Rescissions............ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Emergency funding...... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
General Services Administration
Federal Consumer Information 2,622 6,822 7,122 7,122 +4,500 +300 ...............
Center Fund.....................
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Human space flight............... 5,487,900 5,499,900 5,472,000 5,400,000 -87,900 -99,900 -72,000
Science, aeronautics and 5,580,895 5,929,400 5,579,600 5,837,000 +256,105 -92,400 +257,400
technology......................
Mission support.................. 2,512,024 2,584,000 2,584,000 2,584,000 +71,976 ............... ...............
Office of Inspector General...... 20,000 22,000 23,000 23,000 +3,000 +1,000 ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NASA................ 13,600,819 14,035,300 13,658,600 13,844,000 +243,181 -191,300 +185,400
Rescissions............ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
National Credit Union
Administration
Central liquidity facility:
(Limitation on direct loans). ............... (600,000) (3,000,000) (600,000) (+600,000) ............... (-2,400,000)
(Limitation on administrative (257) (296) (296) (296) (+39) ............... ...............
expenses, corporate funds)..
Revolving loan program....... 996 ............... 1,000 ............... -996 ............... -1,000
Community development credit ............... 1,000 ............... ............... ............... -1,000 ...............
union revolving loan fund...
National Science Foundation
Research and related activities.. 2,958,462 3,540,680 3,117,690 3,245,562 +287,100 -295,118 +127,872
Major research equipment......... 93,500 138,540 76,600 109,100 +15,600 -29,440 +32,500
Education and human resources.... 690,872 729,010 694,310 765,352 +74,480 +36,342 +71,042
Salaries and expenses............ 148,900 157,890 152,000 170,890 +21,990 +13,000 +18,890
Office of Inspector General...... 5,450 6,280 5,700 6,280 +830 ............... +580
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NSF................. 3,897,184 4,572,400 4,046,300 4,297,184 +400,000 -275,216 +250,884
Rescissions............ ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation
Payment to the Neighborhood 74,715 90,000 90,000 80,000 +5,285 -10,000 -10,000
Reinvestment Corporation........
Selective Service System
Salaries and expenses............ 23,909 24,480 23,000 24,480 +571 ............... +1,480
======================================================================================================================
Total, title III, 29,070,497 30,374,144 26,212,139 29,908,644 +838,147 -465,500 +3,696,505
Independent agencies......
Appropriations..... (26,590,072) (27,764,924) (26,212,139) (27,299,424) (+709,352) (-465,500) (+1,087,285)
Rescissions........ (-80,000) ............... ............... (-50,000) (+30,000) (-50,000) (-50,000)
Emergency funding.. (2,480,425) (2,609,220) ............... (2,609,220) (+128,795) ............... (+2,609,220)
(Limitation on (103,043) (103,043) (103,043) (103,043) ............... ............... ...............
administrative
expenses).............
(Limitation on direct (25,000) (625,000) (3,019,000) (625,000) (+600,000) ............... (-2,394,000)
loans)................
(Limitation on (257) (296) (296) (296) (+39) ............... ...............
corporate funds)......
======================================================================================================================
OTHER PROVISIONS
H.R. 202--Preservation of -14,000 ............... ............... ............... +14,000 ............... ...............
Affordable Housing..............
VA Compensation Date Shift \1\... ............... ............... -1,574,000 ............... ............... ............... +1,574,000
VA Pension Date Shift \1\........ ............... ............... -258,000 ............... ............... ............... +258,000
======================================================================================================================
Grand total (net).......... 99,190,610 109,781,099 101,269,836 107,507,953 +8,317,343 -2,273,146 +6,238,117
Current year, fiscal (94,990,610) (105,581,099) (97,069,836) (103,307,953) (+8,317,343) (-2,273,146) (+6,238,117)
year 2001.............
Appropriations..... (94,907,585) (102,971,879) (97,345,224) (101,023,733) (+6,116,148) (-1,948,146) (+3,678,509)
Rescissions........ (-2,397,400) ............... (-275,388) (-325,000) (+2,072,400) (-325,000) (-49,612)
Emergency funding.. (2,480,425) (2,609,220) ............... (2,609,220) (+128,795) ............... (+2,609,220)
Advance appropriation, (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) ............... ............... ...............
fiscal year 2001/2002.
(By transfer).......... (216,727) (53,660) (83,661) (53,660) (-163,067) ............... (-30,001)
(Transfer out)......... (-203,061) (-20,000) (-50,000) (-20,000) (+183,061) ............... (+30,000)
(Limitation on (103,043) (103,043) (103,043) (103,043) ............... ............... ...............
administrative
expenses).............
(Limitation on direct (349,860) (999,985) (3,243,985) (999,985) (+650,125) ............... (-2,244,000)
loans)................
(Limitation on (359,902,000) (383,217,000) (382,217,000) (382,261,000) (+22,359,000) (-956,000) (+44,000)
guaranteed loans).....
(Limitation on (561,333) (562,372) (561,372) (561,372) (+39) (-1,000) ...............
corporate funds)......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CBO assigned request to authorizing committee.