Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-201
_______________________________________________________________________


 
 DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1996

                                _______


  July 21, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


    Mr.  Lewis, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

               ADDITIONAL, DISSENTING AND SEPARATE VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2099]
    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill 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, 1996, and for other 
purposes.
                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

_______________________________________________________________________


                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs....................     2
                                                                      4
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development......    20
                                                                     23
Title III--Independent Agencies:
        American Battle Monuments Commission...............    49
                                                                     41
        Community Development Financial Institutions.......
                                                                     41
        Consumer Product Safety Commission.................    50
                                                                     42
        Corporation for National and Community Service.....    51
                                                                     42
        Court of Veterans Appeals..........................    51
                                                                     43
        Cemeterial Expenses, Army..........................    52
                                                                     44
        Environmental Protection Agency....................    52
                                                                     44
        Office of Science and Technology Policy............    64
                                                                     71
        Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
            Environmental Quality..........................    64
                                                                     72
        Federal Emergency Management Agency................    65
                                                                     72
        Consumer Information Center........................    69
                                                                     79
        Office of Consumer Affairs.........................    69
                                                                     80
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration......    70
                                                                     80
        National Credit Union Administration...............    76
                                                                     85
        National Science Foundation........................    76
                                                                     86
        Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation..............    80
                                                                     89
        Selective Service System...........................    80
                                                                     90
Title IV--Corporations:
        Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation..............
                                                                     90
        Resolution Trust Corporation.......................    82
                                                                     92
Title V--General Provisions................................    83
                                                                     92
                          Summary of the Bill

    The Committee recommends $79,407,521,000 in new budget 
(obligational) authority for the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 19 independent 
agencies and offices. This is $10,960,886,061 below the 1995 
appropriations level.
    The following table summarizes the amounts recommended in 
the bill in comparison with the appropriations for fiscal year 
1995 and budget estimates for fiscal year 1996.


                       Fiscal Year 1996 Rationale

    The fiscal year 1996 recommendations for the VA, HUD, and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill are the result of a 
fundamental recognition that significant changes are required 
if the goal of a balanced budget is to be realized. The funding 
provided in the Bill which accompanies this report, when 
combined with the rescissions package contained in H.R. 1944, 
begins the long process toward achieving that goal.
    In summary, the Subcommittee's allocation of budget 
authority (House Report 104-197) is $8,352,096,061 below the 
fiscal year 1995 enacted appropriation and $8,828,000,093 below 
the President's budget request. The total outlay allocation for 
the Subcommittee rises by $1,237,991,000 over the fiscal year 
1995 level. However, this amount includes outlays associated 
with appropriations enacted by previous Congresses over which 
the Committee has limited control and the new outlays 
associated with the fiscal year 1996 appropriation actually 
decreases substantially when compared to the fiscal year 1995 
new outlays. The new outlay authority allocated to the 
Subcommittee is reduced by $1,235,920,000 from the fiscal year 
1995 enacted appropriation and $3,377,686,000 below the 
President's budget request.
    In order to achieve the reductions mandated, the Committee 
conducted a zero-base review of each department, agency, and 
office under its jurisdiction. The goal of this review was to 
determine exactly what was being done by the government, why 
was it being done, how was it being done, and if it was a 
necessary activity, could it be done cheaper. The following 
report and accompanying Bill spell out in detail the results of 
the Committee's work thus far. The job is not complete, but a 
substantial amount of progress has been made toward getting the 
programs under control while maintaining essential government 
activity.
    The Committee recognizes that tough times are here to stay 
and short-term measures such as ``outlay enhancers'' will do 
little to address the long-term goal of a balanced budget. 
Therefore, to the extent possible, the Committee has avoided 
the use of ``outlay enhancers'' and other mechanisms which 
merely postpone the difficult decisions. The reductions 
contained in the Bill which accompanies this report are real 
reductions which present real challenges for various government 
offices if fundamental change is to be realized.
                                TITLE I

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation......................... $37,649,060,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................  37,734,180,061
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................  38,606,762,093
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     -85,120,061

    The Department of Veterans Affairs is the third largest 
Federal agency in terms of employment with an average 
employment of approximately 230,000. It administers benefits 
for 26,000,000 veterans, and 44,000,000 family members of 
living veterans and survivors of deceased veterans. Thus, 
70,000,000 people, comprising about 27 percent of the total 
population of the United States, are potential recipients of 
veterans benefits provided by the Federal Government.
    A total of $37,649,060,000 in new budget authority is 
recommended by the Committee for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs programs in fiscal year 1996. The funds recommended 
provide for compensation payments to 2,549,678 veterans and 
survivors of deceased veterans with service-connected 
disabilities; pension payments for 743,500 non-service-
connected disabled veterans, widows and children in need of 
financial assistance; educational training and vocational 
assistance to 519,899 veterans, servicepersons, and reservists, 
and 39,160 eligible dependents of deceased or seriously 
disabled veterans; housing credit assistance in the form of 
325,595 guaranteed loans provided to veterans and 
servicepersons; administration or supervision of life insurance 
programs with 5,398,882 policies for veterans and active duty 
servicepersons providing coverage of $449,956,000,000; 
inpatient care and treatment of beneficiaries in 173 hospitals, 
39 domiciliaries, and 136 nursing homes; outpatient care in 376 
clinics which includes independent, satellite, community-based, 
and rural outreach clinics involving 26,300,000 visits; and the 
administration of the National Cemetery System for burial of 
eligible veterans, servicepersons and their survivors.

                    Veterans Benefits Administration

                       Compensation and Pensions

                     (including transfer of funds)
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation......................... $17,649,972,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................  17,626,892,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................  17,649,972,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     +23,080,000

    This appropriation provides funds for service-connected 
compensation payments to an estimated 2,549,678 beneficiaries 
and pension payments to another 743,500 beneficiaries with non-
service-connected disabilities. The average cost per 
compensation case in 1996 is estimated at $5,732, and pension 
payments are projected at a unit cost of $4,077. The estimated 
caseload and cost by program for 1995 and 1996 are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           1995                 1996              Difference    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:                                                                                                       
    Compensation:                                                                                               
        Veterans.................................           2,226,900            2,246,900              +20,000 
        Survivors................................             305,259              302,778               -2,481 
        Clothing allowance (non-add).............             (68,100)             (68,700)               (+600)
    Pensions:                                                                                                   
        Veterans.................................             427,900              408,900              -19,000 
        Survivors................................             359,800              334,600              -25,200 
        Vocational training (non-add)............                (150)                (100)                (-60)
    Burial allowances............................             102,800              102,100                 -700 
                                                  ==============================================================
Funds:                                                                                                          
    Compensation:                                                                                               
        Veterans.................................     $11,457,695,000      $11,562,863,000        +$105,168,000 
        Survivors................................       3,036,153,000        3,017,599,000          -18,554,000 
        Clothing allowance.......................          33,452,000           33,738,000             +286,000 
        Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508 and                                                                 
         102-568)................................           2,528,000            1,430,000           -1,098,000 
    Pensions:                                                                                                   
        Veterans.................................       2,228,200,000        2,219,000,000           -9,200,000 
        Survivors................................         838,100,000          811,600,000          -26,500,000 
    Vocational training..........................             748,000              514,000             -234,000 
    Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508, 102-568                                                                
     and 103-446)................................          12,905,000           12,305,000             -600,000 
    Payment to medical care (Public Laws 101-508                                                                
     and 102-568)................................          10,717,000           11,445,000             +728,000 
    Payment to medical facilities................           6,000,000            3,000,000           -3,000,000 
    Burial benefits..............................         108,739,000          109,925,000           +1,186,000 
    Other assistance.............................           1,961,000            1,975,000              +14,000 
    Unobligated balance and transfers............        -110,306,000         -135,422,000          -25,116,000 
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation........................      17,626,892,000       17,649,972,000          +23,080,000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Administration has again proposed dividing the 
compensation and pensions appropriation into three separate 
accounts: compensation, pensions, and burial benefits and 
miscellaneous assistance. The Committee has again disapproved 
this proposal and recommends a single compensation and pensions 
appropriation in fiscal year 1996.
    The 1996 pension budget request includes funds for a 
proposed cost-of-living increase of 3.1 percent. Legislation 
will be proposed to provide a 3.1 percent increase for all 
compensation beneficiaries. The estimated cost of this 
compensation adjustment is $340,000,000.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee is recommending the 
budget estimate of $17,649,972,000 for compensation and 
pensions. The bill also includes requested language reimbursing 
$13,735,000 (an increase of $1,500,000 above the original 
request due to a revised VA estimate) to the general operating 
expenses account and $11,445,000 to the medical care account 
for administrative expenses of implementing cost saving 
provisions required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1990, Public Law 101-508, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992, 
Public Law 102-568, and the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act 
of 1994, Public Law 103-446. These cost savings provisions 
include verifying pension income against Internal Revenue 
Service and Social Security Administration (SSA) data; 
establishing a match with the SSA to obtain verification of 
Social Security numbers; and the $90 monthly VA pension cap for 
Medicaid-eligible single veterans and surviving spouses alone 
in Medicaid-covered nursing homes. Also, the bill includes 
requested language permitting this appropriation to reimburse 
such sums as may be necessary to the medical facilities 
revolving fund ($3,000,000 estimated in fiscal year 1996) to 
help defray the operating expenses of individual medical 
facilities for nursing home care provided to pensioners as 
authorized by the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992. Currently, 
the revolving fund receives payment through a lump-sum transfer 
of funds which must be estimated for the coming year. The 
proposed monthly reimbursement will allow for an exact payment 
to be delivered into the revolving fund after the actual number 
of patients is accounted for by the medical facility, 
eliminating the need to estimate future payments and easing the 
accounting burden. The $12,000,000 previously transferred from 
this account to the medical facilities revolving fund is 
transferred back, as requested.
    The Administration has proposed language that would provide 
indefinite 1996 supplemental appropriations for compensation 
and pension payments. The Committee believes the current 
funding procedures are adequate and has not included the 
requested language in the bill. The Committee recognizes that 
additional funding may be necessary when the final disposition 
of proposed legislation is known.
                         READJUSTMENT BENEFITS
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................  $1,345,300,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................   1,286,600,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................   1,345,300,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     +58,700,000

    This 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. Eligibility to receive this assistance began in 1987. 
Basic benefits are funded through appropriations made to the 
readjustment benefits appropriation. Supplemental benefits are 
also provided to certain veterans through transfers from the 
Department of Defense. This law also provides education 
assistance to certain members of the Selected Reserve and is 
funded through transfers from the Departments of Defense and 
Transportation. In addition, certain disabled veterans are 
provided with vocational rehabilitation, specially adapted 
housing grants, and automobile grants with the approved 
adaptive equipment. This account also finances educational 
assistance allowances for eligible dependents of those veterans 
who died from service-connected causes or have a total and 
permanent service-connected disability as well as dependents of 
servicepersons who were captured or missing-in-action.
    The Committee recommends the budget estimate of 
$1,345,300,000 for readjustment benefits in fiscal year 1996. 
The estimated number of trainees and costs by program for 1995 
and 1996 are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        1995               1996            Difference   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of                                                               
 trainees:                                                              
    Education                                                           
     and                                                                
     training:                                                          
     dependents             39,700             39,160               -540
    All-                                                                
     Volunteer                                                          
     Force                                                              
     educationa                                                         
     l                                                                  
     assistance                                                         
     :                                                                  
        Veteran                                                         
         s and                                                          
         servic                                                         
         eperso                                                         
         ns....            339,200            355,600            +16,400
        Reservi                                                         
         sts...            109,341            115,799             +6,458
    Vocational                                                          
     rehabilita                                                         
     tion......             48,000             48,500               +500
                --------------------------------------------------------
      Total....            536,241            559,059            +22,818
                ========================================================
Funds:                                                                  
    Education                                                           
     and                                                                
     training:                                                          
     dependents       $100,874,000        $99,401,000        -$1,473,000
    All-                                                                
     Volunteer                                                          
     Force                                                              
     educationa                                                         
     l                                                                  
     assistance                                                         
     :                                                                  
        Veteran                                                         
         s and                                                          
         servic                                                         
         eperso                                                         
         ns....        911,853,000        985,512,000        +73,659,000
        Reservi                                                         
         sts...        133,720,000        147,453,000        +13,733,000
    Vocational                                                          
     rehabilita                                                         
     tion......        296,590,000        309,150,000        +12,560,000
    Housing                                                             
     grants....         14,839,000         14,839,000                  0
    Automobiles                                                         
     and other                                                          
     conveyance                                                         
     s.........          4,901,000          4,901,000                  0
    Adaptive                                                            
     equipment.         21,500,000         23,020,000         +1,520,000
    Work-study.         29,407,000         33,758,000         +4,351,000
    Payment to                                                          
     States....         13,000,000         13,000,000                  0
    Jobs                                                                
     training                                                           
     (P.L. 102-                                                         
     484)......          8,416,000                  0         -8,416,000
    Unobligated                                                         
     balance                                                            
     and other                                                          
     adjustment                                                         
     s.........       -248,500,000       -285,734,000        -37,234,000
                --------------------------------------------------------
      Total                                                             
       appropri                                                         
       ation...      1,286,600,000      1,345,300,000        +58,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Veterans Insurance and Indemnities
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $24,890,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      24,760,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      24,890,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........        +130,000

    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 (NSLI), applicable to certain World War II 
veterans; servicemen's indemnities, applicable to Korean 
conflict veterans; and veterans mortgage life insurance, 
applicable to individuals who have received a grant for 
specially adapted housing.
     The budget estimate of $24,890,000 for veterans insurance 
and indemnities in fiscal year 1996 is included in the bill. 
The amount provided will enable VA to transfer more than 
$17,610,000 to the service-disabled veterans insurance fund, 
transfer $7,590,000 in payments for the 3,971 policies under 
the veterans mortgage life insurance program, as well as 
provide payments for the 1,581 policies under a small NSLI 
program called ``H.'' These policies are identified under the 
veterans insurance and indemnity appropriation since they 
provide insurance to service-disabled veterans unable to 
qualify under basic NSLI.

                 Guaranty and Indemnity Program Account

                     (Including transfer of funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Administrative 
                                       Program account      expenses    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.....      $504,122,000       $65,226,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation......       507,095,000        65,226,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.....       504,122,000        78,085,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995                                        
 Appropriation......................        -2,973,000                 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the VA home loan guaranty program is to 
facilitate the extension of mortgage credit on favorable terms 
by private lenders to eligible veterans. All operations of the 
loan guaranty program for loans closed on or after January 1, 
1990, except for manufactured home loans, are financed from the 
guaranty and indemnity program fund. The Federal Credit Reform 
Act of 1990 requires budgetary resources to be available prior 
to incurring a direct loan obligation or a loan guarantee 
commitment. In addition, the Act requires all administrative 
expenses of a direct or guaranteed loan program to be funded 
through a program account.
     The Committee recommends the budget estimate of such sums 
as may be necessary (estimated to be $504,122,000) for funding 
subsidy payments and $65,226,000 to pay administrative 
expenses. The recommendation maintains funding for 
administrative expenses at the current level. The appropriation 
for administrative expenses may be transferred to and merged 
with the general operating expenses account.
                     Loan guaranty program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Administrative 
                                       Program account      expenses    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.....       $22,950,000       $52,138,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation......        43,939,000        59,371,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.....        22,950,000        52,138,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995                                        
 Appropriation......................       -20,989,000        -7,233,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The loan guaranty program account provides for the costs of 
direct and guaranteed home loans, as well as necessary 
administrative expenses, for loans closed prior to January 1, 
1990, and for all manufactured home loans closed prior to 
September 30, 1991. This program also provides for the 
subsidies for all manufactured home loans guaranteed after 
September 30, 1991. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 
requires budgetary resources to be available prior to incurring 
a direct loan obligation or a loan guarantee commitment. In 
addition, the Act requires all administrative expenses, 
including those arising from the servicing of loans obligated 
or committed prior to 1992, to be funded through a program 
account.
     The Committee has provided the budget requests of such 
sums as may be necessary (estimated to be $22,950,000) for the 
loan guaranty program account and $52,138,000 to pay 
administrative expenses. The appropriation for administrative 
expenses may be transferred to and merged with the general 
operating expenses account.

                      direct loan program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Limitation on     Administrative
                     Program account    direct loans        expenses    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1996                                                        
 Recommendation...           $28,000          $300,000          $459,000
Fiscal Year 1995                                                        
 Appropriation....            25,000         1,000,000         1,020,000
Fiscal Year 1996                                                        
 Budget Request...            28,000           300,000           459,000
Comparison with                                                         
 Fiscal Year 1995                                                       
 Appropriation....            +3,000          -700,000          -561,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The direct loan program account provides funds for 
subsidies to severely disabled veterans for specially adapted 
housing and for the administrative expenses to carry out the 
direct loan program. The budget also requests a limitation on 
direct loans for specially adapted housing.The Federal Credit 
Reform Act of 1990 requires budgetary resources to be available 
prior to incurring a direct loan obligation. In addition, the 
Act requires all administrative expenses of a direct loan 
program to be funded through a program account.
     The bill includes the budget requests of a $300,000 
limitation on specially adapted housing loans, such sums as may 
be necessary for program costs (estimated to be $28,000), and 
$459,000 for administrative expenses. The appropriation for 
administrative expenses may be transferred to and merged with 
the general operating expenses account.
                  EDUCATION LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Limitation on    Administrative 
                     Program account    direct loans        expenses    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1996                                                        
 Recommendation...            $1,000            $4,000          $195,000
Fiscal Year 1995                                                        
 Appropriation....             1,061             4,034           195,000
Fiscal Year 1996                                                        
 Budget Request...             1,093             4,120           203,000
Comparison with                                                         
 Fiscal Year 1995                                                       
 Appropriation....               -61               -34                 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires 
budgetary resources to be available prior to incurring a direct 
loan obligation. In addition, the Act requires all 
administrative expenses of a direct loan program to be funded 
through a program account.
    The bill includes $1,000 for program costs and $195,000 for 
administrative expenses. The appropriation for administrative 
expenses may be transferred to and merged with the general 
operating expenses account. In addition, the bill includes 
language limiting program direct loans to $4,000, approximately 
the current limitation level.

            VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Limitation on    Administrative 
                     Program account    direct loans        expenses    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1996                                                        
 Recommendation...           $54,000        $1,964,000          $377,000
Fiscal Year 1995                                                        
 Appropriation....            54,000         1,964,000           767,000
Fiscal Year 1996                                                        
 Budget Request...            56,000         2,022,000           377,000
Comparison with                                                         
 Fiscal Year 1995                                                       
 Appropriation....                 0                 0          -390,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This appropriation covers the 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 $774 (based 
on indexed chapter 31 subsistence allowance rate) are available 
to service-connected disabled veterans enrolled in vocational 
rehabilitation programs 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. The 
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires budgetary resources 
to be available prior to incurring a direct loan obligation. In 
addition, the Act requires all administrative expenses of a 
direct loan program to be funded through a program account.
    The bill includes $54,000 for program costs, the current 
subsidy level, and the budget request of $377,000 for 
administrative expenses. The administrative expenses may be 
transferred to and merged with the general operating expenses 
account. In addition, the bill includes language limiting 
program direct loans to $1,964,000, the current limitation 
level. It is estimated that VA will make 4,567 loans in fiscal 
year 1996, with an average amount of $430.

          NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Administrative 
                                                            expenses    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.......................          $205,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation........................           218,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.......................           455,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation........           -13,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This program will test the feasibility of enabling VA to 
make direct home loans to native American veterans who live on 
U.S. trust land. This program is a five-year pilot program 
which began in 1993. The bill includes $205,000 for 
administrative expenses, a decrease of $13,000 below the 
current appropriation, which may be transferred to and merged 
with the general operating expenses account.
                     Veterans Health Administration

                              Medical Care
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation......................... $16,713,521,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................  16,214,684,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................  16,961,487,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........    +498,837,000

    This appropriation provides for medical care and treatment 
of eligible beneficiaries in VA hospitals, nursing homes, 
domiciliaries and outpatient facilities; contract hospitals; 
State domiciliaries, nursing homes and hospitals; contract 
community nursing homes; and outpatient programs on a fee 
basis. Hospital and outpatient care are also provided by the 
private sector for certain dependents and survivors of veterans 
under the civilian health and medical programs for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. Funds are also used to train 
medical residents, interns, and other professional, paramedical 
and administrative personnel in health-science fields to 
support VA's medical programs.
    The VA is requesting $16,961,487,000 for medical care in 
fiscal year 1996, an increase of $746,803,000 above the current 
appropriation level. Within the most recent outlay allocation, 
it is not possible for the Committee to provide the budget 
request and maintain a balance among the other programs funded 
in the bill. The 1996 Budget Resolution assumed a freeze for 
medical care at the 1995 level. However, concern has been 
expressed that the VA needs time to streamline its medical 
operations and adjust to the current funding level.
    In order to allow time for such an adjustment, the bill 
includes $16,713,521,000 for medical care in fiscal year 1996. 
In providing an increase of $498,837,000 above the current 
appropration, the Committee wishes to make clear that this is a 
one-time adjustment to permit the VA to undertake the necessary 
planning and make the required adjustments to anticipated 
future year allocation levels. The Committee notes that this 
budgetary constraint is in agreement with the VA's future year 
funding plans. The Administration's outyear budgets assume a 
reduction in medical care of approximately $509,000,000 in 
fiscal year 1997, a further reduction of $339,000,000 in fiscal 
year 1998, a further reduction of $339,000,000 in fiscal year 
1999, and a further reduction of $339,000,000 in fiscal year 
2000. Thus, the Administration's planned fiscal year 2000 
medical care request is $15,434,953,000, a decrease of 
$779,731,000 below the current fiscal year 1995 level.
    The Committee, to compensate for the constraints imposed by 
the outlay allocation, reduced some programs in the VA and 
other agencies to permit funding a part of the increase for 
medical care. To make up the difference, two legislative 
savings provisions are included in the bill. These savings 
provisions are carried and explained under the VA's 
administrative provisions. As is the intention regarding the 
funding increase, the Committee wishes to make clear that the 
savings provisions are also carried on a one-time basis.
    In streamlining its activities, there are several areas 
that the VA should explore reducing which would not impact the 
number of patients treated. For example, information from the 
VA shows that similar hospitals have different levels of 
staffing and resources to treat approximately the same number 
of veterans. Such data indicates that one hospital had nearly 
twice the staffing and resources as another hospital in the 
same grouping. Savings can and should be achieved by reducing 
staffing and resources at less efficient hospitals. Savings are 
also possible from improving management and coordination at 
medical centers, as well as reductions in non-direct patient 
care activities. While training, education, and research 
activities are important, the level of effort for these 
programs needs to be reexamined in light of the budgetary 
situation. The Committee wishes to emphasize that the treatment 
of veteran patients is the highest priority.
    Another area that should be explored is the consolidation 
and closing of underutilized services. The Committee recognizes 
that such actions are not easy and require time to implement. 
However, these reasons should not be used to avoid making 
difficult decisions. The VA should also reexamine the cost-
effectiveness of contracting out for various services, 
including direct patient care, and make such changes when 
warranted. Clearly, the VA must change the way business has 
been conducted.
    Eligibility reform is being considered by the VA and the 
Congress. Such proposals have the potential to streamline 
health care, provide flexibility to shift care from inpatient 
to more efficient outpatient settings, and, by one estimate, 
save approximately $2,000,000,000 per year. This effort will 
permit an increased number of veterans to receive medical 
treatment than is currently possible. The Committee supports 
budget neutral eligibility reform.
    Complaints have been heard of where veteran patients and 
their families were treated in an insensitive manner by VA 
staff. Such treatment cannot be tolerated. Our commitment as a 
Nation is to have all veterans and their families receive the 
best and most courteous medical treatment possible. The 
Committee expects that the VA redouble its efforts to ensure 
that goal.
    Beneficiary travel has increased from $77,951,000 in fiscal 
year 1993 to $100,890,000 estimated for fiscal year 1996. This 
is an area that the VA is encourged to examine for cost 
savings.
    The VA plans to reduce funds for equipment in fiscal year 
1995 by $57,467,000 below the amount requested and provided 
last year. The Committee agrees that the VA's goal of reducing 
the equipment backlog of hundreds of millions of dollars is a 
high priority and does not expect that this activity will be 
reduced in fiscal year 1996 below the requested level.
    The recommended amount includes the following:
    +$500,000 for a Low Vision Center in Ophthalmology at the 
East Orange VA Medical Center.
    +$500,000 for a geriatric patient care program at the Lyons 
VA Medical Center.
    +$396,000 to provide outpatient care at the Grafton 
Development Center in Grafton, North Dakota.
    +$300,000 to provide an outpatient access in Williamsport, 
Pennsylvania.
    +$1,500,000 to expand existing community-based outpatient 
clinics in Wood County and Tucker County, West Virginia.
    The Committee urges the Department of Veterans Affairs' 
Central Office and appropriate field office to continue efforts 
at negotiating a co-location of the Toledo, Ohio, VA Outpatient 
Clinic with the proposed Army National Guard Armory on the 
campus of the Medical College of Ohio in Toledo. The VA is to 
submit a report of the options for such co-location within 60 
days of the enactment of this legislation.
    Currently, there are a number of Federal programs designed 
to assist the homeless. These programs are primarily funded in 
the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and 
Human Services, Education, and Veterans Affairs; and the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Although hundreds of 
millions of dollars are appropriated each year for homeless 
programs, the problem does not seem to diminish. The VA is to 
work with other Federal agencies with homeless programs to 
improve coordination in the provision of this assistance. The 
VA should be prepared to discuss how improvements in 
effectiveness can be made in the overall Federal effort at next 
year's budget hearings.
    Fort Benjamin Harrison in Indianapolis, Indiana, is 
scheduled to close at the end of the year. The Army is 
considering a proposal to have the VA take over operations of 
the Hawley Army Health Clinic. The Committee urges the VA to 
also consider this proposal.
    The 1996 budget proposes funding of lease costs for the 
relocation and expansion of the satellite outpatient clinic 
near Ft. Myers, Florida. The Committee strongly supports this 
urgently needed relocation and expansion of the existing 
outpatient clinic.

                    Medical and prosthetic research
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................    $251,743,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................     251,743,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     257,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........               0

    This account includes medical, rehabilitative and health 
services research. Medical research is an important aspect of 
VA programs, providing complete medical and hospital service 
for veterans. The prosthetic research program is also essential 
in the development and testing of prosthetic, orthopedic and 
sensory aids for the purpose of improving the care and 
rehabilitation of eligible disabled veterans, including 
amputees, paraplegics and the blind. The health service 
research program provides unique opportunities to improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the health care delivery 
system.
    The Committee recommends $251,743,000 for medical and 
prosthetic research in fiscal year 1996. This amount will 
continue VA's important research program at the current 
appropriation level.
    Within the total amount recommended, the Secretary is to 
utilize $1,250,000 to establish an Office of Veterans Affairs 
Technology and Commercialization. Working with the National 
Technology Transfer Center, the program would support the 
commercialization of processes developed in the VA's research 
program. A portion of the funds are for establishing an 
assistive technology prototyping center to speed the 
development and commercialization of technologies applicable to 
the needs of veterans. It is anticipated that the center would 
eventually become self-supporting.
    The VA is requesting $33,218,000 in fiscal year 1996 for 
health service research. The Committee supports that level of 
funding for this research effort.
    The VA has entered into a five-year partnership with a 
major not-for-profit research foundation in support of research 
on diabetes. Last year's report recommended such a cost sharing 
effort. The Committee continues to support diabetes research, a 
major health concern facing our nation's veterans.
    Last year's report indicated enthusiastic support for the 
establishment of a Department of Veterans Affairs medical 
research service minority recruitment initiative in 
collaboration with minority health professions institutions. 
The Committee supports the continued development of this 
program.
    The Secretary is urged to maintain the prostate research 
program at least at the current level. This funding helps 
address a major health problem for aging veterans.
    Electromedicine is used in the treatment of chronic pain. 
The VA is urged to conduct a clinical study on the capability 
of using low-frequency currents in the treatment of severe pain 
not well controlled by conventional therapy and other 
disorders.
                Health professional scholarship program
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................               0
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................     $10,386,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      10,386,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     -10,386,000

    This appropriation provides funds for the payment of health 
professional scholarship program grants to students who agree 
to service obligations with the Department of Veterans Affairs 
at one of its medical facilities. This program, first funded in 
fiscal year 1982, was designed to address serious recruitment 
difficulties in nursing and other associated health 
disciplines. Overall, recruitment problems have diminished 
since the early 1980s and with it the priority of this program. 
Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee is not recommending 
funds for the health professional scholarship program in fiscal 
year 1996.

      Medical administration and miscellaneous operating Expenses
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $63,602,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      69,789,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      72,262,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........      -6,187,000

    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.
    The Committee recommends $63,602,000 for medical 
administration and miscellaneous operating expenses in fiscal 
year 1996. This amount represents a reduction of $6,187,000 
below the current appropriation level. The reduction is to be 
taken at the VA's discretion, subject to normal reprogramming 
procedures.
    The VA's new veterans integrated service networks (VISNs) 
moves the decisions affecting patients made by management 
closer to the patient. Major administrative and structural 
changes currently underway are altering the system from a 
centralized, largely inpatient-oriented healthcare provider to 
a more efficient, localized outpatient model in line with 
contemporary healthcare practice in the country today. Greater 
flexibility in the field also reduces the need for management 
staff in the central office. The Committee supports this 
decentralization concept and urges the VA to accelerate its 
streamlining efforts. In implementing this streamlining, the VA 
is not to transfer the costs of Veterans Health Administration 
employees whose permanent duty station is Washington, D.C. and 
are currently funded from the MAMOE account to the medical care 
appropriation.

               Grants to the republic of the philippines
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................               0
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................        $500,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................               0
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........        -500,000

    This program previously provided a grant to the Philippine 
Government for the continued effective care and treatment of 
U.S. veterans in the Veterans Memorial Medical Center (VMMC) at 
Manila. However, with the suspension of U.S. veteran admissions 
to the VMMC, the VA proposes to discontinue providing U.S. 
funds to maintain and upgrade the physical plant at this 
facility. The Committee concurs with this recommendation and is 
not providing any funds for this program in fiscal year 1996.

                   TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Limitation on     Administrative
                     Program account    direct loans        expenses    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1996                                                        
 Recommendation...            $7,000           $70,000           $54,000
Fiscal Year 1995                                                        
 Appropriation....             7,000            70,000            54,000
Fiscal Year 1996                                                        
 Budget Request...             7,000            70,000            56,000
Comparison with                                                         
 Fiscal Year 1995                                                       
 Appropriation....                 0                 0                 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This program provides loans to nonprofit organizations to 
assist them in leasing housing units exclusively for use as a 
transitional group residence for veterans who are in (or have 
recently been in) a program for the treatment of substance 
abuse. The amount of the loan cannot exceed $4,500 for any 
single residential unit and each loan must be repaid within two 
years through monthly installments. The amount of loans 
outstanding at any time may not exceed $100,000.
    The bill includes $7,000 for the estimated cost of 
providing loans for this program, $54,000 for associated 
administrative expenses, and a $70,000 limitation on direct 
loans. The administrative expenses may be transferred to and 
merged with the general post fund.
                      Departmental Administration

                       GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................    $821,487,000
 Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation.........................     890,193,000
 Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request........................     915,643,000
 Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation.........     -68,706,000

    The general operating expenses appropriation provides for 
the administration of non-medical veterans benefits through the 
Veterans Benefits Administration and top management direction 
and support. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 changed the 
accounting of Federal credit programs and required that all 
administrative costs associated with such programs be included 
within the respective credit accounts. Beginning in fiscal year 
1992, costs incurred by housing, education, and vocational 
rehabilitation programs for administration of these credit 
programs are reimbursed by those accounts. The bill includes 
$118,600,000 in other accounts for these credit programs. In 
addition, $13,735,000 is transferred from the compensation and 
pensions account for administrative costs of implementing cost 
saving provisions required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1990 and the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992.
    The Committee recommends $821,487,000 for general operating 
expenses in fiscal year 1996. This amount represents a total 
decrease of $68,706,000 below the current appropriation level--
$36,706,000 as a general reduction and $32,000,000 as an offset 
to a legislative provision carried under VA's administrative 
provisions. The general reduction is to be taken at the 
discretion of the Secretary, subject to normal reprogramming 
procedures. The legislative proposal will permit $32,000,000 of 
excess revenues in three insurance programs to be used for 
administrative expenses. Thus, the general operating expenses 
budget request, which assumed $32,000,000 for administration of 
three life insurance programs, can be reduced accordingly.
    To continue improving the timeliness of claims, the 
Committee does not intend that any reduction be applied to the 
Board of Veterans Appeals or the Veterans Benefits 
Administration's compensation, pensions, and education program. 
The Committee suggests that the VA consider reductions in 
central office staffing and excess layers of management; 
travel, other than for training; and relocation costs. The 
Veterans Benefits Administration should consider the 
continuation of consolidating certain regional office 
functions. Consistent with the recommendation under the medical 
care account, the VA should also reexamine the cost-
effectiveness of privatizing or contracting out for various 
services, and make such proposals when warranted.
    The VA is urged to examine additional efficiencies possible 
through the consolidation of ADP processing activities. In the 
past, each part of the VA has, to a great extent, operated 
autonomously. This has often resulted in a lack of overall 
coordination and a duplication of efforts. The Committee 
expects that top management will address this matter.
    The Committee understands that the VA will lack authority 
to pay administrative costs of the Service Members Occupational 
Conversion and Training Act beginning in fiscal year 1996. The 
VA estimates that approximately $500,000 may be needed to close 
down program activities. The bill includes language to permit 
the general operating expenses to cover such costs.
    The bill includes language permitting the $25,500,000 
earmarked in the 1995 Appropriations Act for the Veterans 
Benefits Administration's modernization program to be available 
for any expense authorized to be funded from the general 
operating expenses account. This provision will provide the VA 
with greater flexibility in utilizing its funds.
    The Committee notes that various reports by the CNA 
Corporation, GAO, and legislative oversight committees have 
raised concerns regarding the modernization program. The bill 
includes language which prohibits funding for the previously 
planned Stage III acquisition of computer equipment and 
services in the Benefits Delivery Centers of the Veterans 
Benefits Administration modernization program. It now appears 
the VA has the capability to perform the Veterans Service 
Network (VETSNET) automated data processing operations in its 
Austin Automation Center (AAC) in Texas. To avoid unnecessary 
duplication of equipment and services, the Committee intends 
that VA use existing capability at the ACC to support the 
planned Stage III VETSNET applications, and that up to 
$3,500,000 in general operating expenses funds be available for 
the AAC to implement its support for VETSNET.

                        NATIONAL CEMETERY SYSTEM
 Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation........................     $72,604,000
 Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation.........................      72,604,000
 Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request........................      75,308,000
 Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation.........               0

    The National Cemetery System 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 
with available grave space the remains of eligible deceased 
servicepersons and discharged veterans, together with their 
spouses and certain dependents, and to permanently 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. This appropriation provides for 
the operation and maintenance of 148 cemeterial installations 
in 39 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
    The Committee recommends $72,604,000 for the national 
cemetery system in fiscal year 1996. This amount will continue 
this important activity at the current appropriation level.

                       OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
 Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation........................     $30,900,000
 Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation.........................      31,815,000
 Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request........................      33,500,000
 Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation.........        -915,000

     The Office of Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for the audit, 
investigation and inspection of all Department of Veterans 
Affairs programs and operations. The overall operational 
objective is to focus available resources on areas which would 
help improve services to veterans and their beneficiaries, 
assist managers of VA programs to operate economically in 
accomplishing program goals, and prevent and deter recurring 
and potential fraud, waste and inefficiencies.
     The Committee has provided $30,900,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General in fiscal year 1996, a decrease of $915,000 
below the current year level. The reduction is to be taken at 
the discretion of the VA, subject to normal reprogramming 
procedures. The Committee is aware that at the recommended 
funding level, the current level, or the budget request, the IG 
will not be able to reach the authorized employment level of 
417.
                      CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................    $183,455,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................     354,294,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     513,755,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........    -170,839,000

    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 
$3,000,000 or more. Emphasis is placed on correction of life/
safety code deficiencies in existing VA medical facilities. 
Funds again are requested for the design fund which would 
develop construction documents for projects planned for the 
following budget year.
    A program of $513,755,000 is requested for construction, 
major projects, in fiscal year 1996. The bill includes 
$183,455,000 for the construction of major projects, a decrease 
of $170,839,000 below the current level and $330,300,000 below 
the budget request.
    The changes from the budget request are as follows:
    -$154,700,000 requested for a new medical center in Brevard 
County, Florida. The Committee recognizes the critical need for 
access to healthcare that has existed for over ten years among 
veterans in the southeast. Florida has the highest percentage 
of veterans 65 years of age and older in the Nation and the 
numbers are increasing daily. The unmet need for these services 
was addressed in the 1996 budget request for full funding of a 
new hospital and nursing home in Brevard County, Florida. 
However, the overriding requirements for budgetary savings will 
not allow for full funding of the Brevard County facility in 
fiscal year 1996. In the event that significant additional 
appropriations are not provided for the phased construction of 
the Brevard County hospital in the 1996 appropriations process, 
the fiscal year 1995 appropriation of $17,200,000 shall be used 
for the design and construction of a comprehensive medical 
outpatient clinic which shall serve as the first phase of the 
Brevard County medical facility.
    -$188,500,000 requested for the VA/Air Force Joint Venture 
at Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, California. The Committee 
has made this recommendation solely because of the budgetary 
situation--both present and anticipated in the future. It is 
the Committee's intention that an outpatient clinic be 
constructed at Travis. The VA is directed to develop a cost 
estimate for such an outpatient clinic in time that those funds 
may be included at the conference stage on this bill.
    +$1,000,000 for design of a new national cemetery in 
Albany, New York area.
    +$5,000,000 for design of an ambulatory care addition and 
patient environmental improvements project at the Wilkes-Barre 
VA Medical Center.
    +$4,000,000 for the relocation of medical school functions 
at the Mountain Home VA Medical Center. This is a continuation 
of the project funded in previous years.
    +$1,500,000 for design of an ambulatory care addition 
project at the Asheville, NC, VA Medical Center.
     +$1,400,000 for design of a new national cemetery in the 
Joliet (Chicago), Illinois area.
    The specific amounts recommended by the Committee are as 
follows:

                        DETAIL OF BUDGET REQUEST                        
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Available                              
   Location and description       through        1996          House    
                                    1995       request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Program:                                                        
    Replacement and                                                     
     modernization:                                                     
        Brevard County, FL,                                             
         new medical center/                                            
         nursing home.........      $17,200    $154,700               0 
        Travis, CA, VA/Air                                              
         Force joint venture..       22,600     188,500               0 
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal,                                                     
           replacement and                                              
           modernization......       39,800     343,200               0 
                               =========================================
    Outpatient improvements:                                            
        Boston, MA, ambulatory                                          
         care addition........  ...........      28,000          28,000 
    Patient environment:                                                
        Lebanon, PA, renovate                                           
         nursing units........  ...........       9,000           9,000 
        Marion, IL,                                                     
         environmental                                                  
         improvements.........  ...........      11,500          11,500 
        Marion, IN, replace                                             
         psychiatric beds.....  ...........      17,300          17,300 
        Perry Point, MD,                                                
         renovate psychiatric                                           
         wards................  ...........      15,100          15,100 
        Reno, NV, replacement                                           
         bed building/                                                  
         ambulatory care......        7,300      20,100          20,100 
        Salisbury, NC,                                                  
         environmental                                                  
         enhancements.........  ...........      17,200          17,200 
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal, patient                                             
           environment........        7,300      90,200          90,200 
                               =========================================
    General : Mountain Home,                                            
     TN, relocation of medical                                          
     school...................        9,500  ...........          4,000 
    Advance planning fund:                                              
        Asheville, NC,                                                  
         ambulatory care                                                
         addition.............  ...........  ...........          1,500 
        Various stations......  ...........      17,500          17,500 
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal, advance                                             
           planning fund......  ...........      17,500          19,000 
    Design fund:                                                        
        Wilkes-Barre, PA,                                               
         repair and renovate                                            
         facility.............  ...........  ...........          5,000 
        Various stations......  ...........       4,000           4,000 
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal, design                                              
           fund...............  ...........       4,000           9,000 
                               =========================================
    Hazardous substance                                                 
     abatement: Various                                                 
     stations.................  ...........         500             500 
    Asbestos abatement:                                                 
     Various stations.........  ...........      17,625          17,625 
    Less: FY 1995 design fund.  ...........      (4,930)        (4,930) 
                               =========================================
          Subtotal, VHA.......       56,600     496,095         163,395 
                               =========================================
National Cemetery Program:                                              
    Design fund:                                                        
        Joliet, IL, planning                                            
         and design...........  ...........  ...........          1,400 
        Various stations......  ...........       1,000           1,000 
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal, design                                              
           fund...............  ...........       1,000           2,400 
                               =========================================
    Advance planning fund:                                              
        Albany, NY, planning                                            
         and design...........  ...........  ...........          1,000 
        Various stations......  ...........         540             540 
                               -----------------------------------------
          Subtotal, advance                                             
           planning fund......  ...........         540           1,540 
    Florida National Cemetery.  ...........       5,600           5,600 
    Less: FY 1995 design fund.  ...........        (280)          (280) 
                               -----------------------------------------
        Subtotal, NCS.........  ...........       6,860           9,260 
                               =========================================
Judgment Fund: Various                                                  
 stations.....................  ...........      10,300          10,300 
                               =========================================
Claims Analyses: Various                                                
 stations.....................  ...........         500             500 
                               =========================================
      Total construction,                                               
       major projects.........      $56,600    $513,755        $183,455 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An appropriation of $34,800,000 was provided in 1995 for an 
ambulatory care addition project at the San Juan VA Medical 
Center. The parking facility component of that project is being 
started by borrowing $7,000,000 of unobligated balances in the 
parking revolving fund. The bill includes language transferring 
$7,000,000 from the major construction account for that project 
to the parking revolving fund to restore the borrowed funds.
    The VA is proposing to eliminate language defining the 
timeframe for awarding design and construction contracts, and 
removing a report requirement on projects not awarded in the 
timeframe. The bill retains this language which has been 
carried for a number of years and is designed to ensure that 
major construction projects proceed in a timely manner.
    It is the Committee's intention that the parking facility 
construction at the Cleveland VA Medical Center proceed as 
originally planned prior to the new addition/renovation 
project. It is further intended that the spinal cord injury 
addition is to proceed as originally planned as well.
    In fiscal year 1992, $700,000 was provided to design a 
central air conditioning project at the Fargo VA Medical 
Center. The Medical Center has suggested that improvements to 
patient privacy be included in the project. The VA is urged to 
request funding for the patient privacy/air conditioning 
project in the fiscal year 1997 budget request.

                      construction, minor projects
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................    $152,934,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................     152,934,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     229,145,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........               0

    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 $3,000,000. Emphasis is placed on correction of code 
deficiencies in this appropriation request.
    The Committee recommends $152,934,000 for the construction, 
minor projects appropriation in fiscal year 1996. The Committee 
has recommended maintaining the current level of funding 
because of the high priority it places on the minor 
construction program.
    Within the amount recommended is funding for the renovation 
of an outpatient surgery clinic at the Syracuse VA Medical 
Center. This project will renovate existing space to 
consolidate endoscopy, bronchoscopy and outpatient surgery in 
one location with IV conscious sedation and infusion therapy.
                         parking revolving fund
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................              $0
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      16,300,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................               0
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     -16,300,000

    This appropriation provides funds for the construction, 
alteration, and acquisition (by purchase or lease) of parking 
garages at VA medical facilities.
    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 can be used to fund future 
parking garage initiatives.
    No new budget authority is requested in fiscal year 1996. 
Leases will be funded from parking fees collected. The 
Committee concurs with the VA's proposal and is not including 
any funds in the bill for the parking revolving fund. The bill 
includes the requested language permitting operation and 
maintenance costs of parking facilities to be funded from the 
medical care appropriation.
    Within the unobligated balance of funds available, the VA 
is urged to fund a parking garage addition at the Syracuse VA 
Medical Center. This project will address the critical shortage 
of parking spaces at the hospital.

       grants for construction of state extended care facilities
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $47,397,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      47,397,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      43,740,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........               0

    This program provides grants to assist States to construct 
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. A grant may not exceed 65 
percent of the total cost of the project. Grants for State 
nursing facilities may not provide for more than four beds per 
thousand veterans in any State.
    The Committee recommends $47,397,000 for grants for 
construction of State extended care facilities in fiscal year 
1996. This amount represents the current funding level.

        grants for the construction of state veterans cemeteries
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................      $1,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................       5,378,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................       1,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........      -4,378,000

    Public Law 95-476 established authority to provide aid to 
States for establishment, expansion, and improvement of State 
veterans' cemeteries. States receive financial assistance to 
provide burial space for veterans which serves to supplement 
the burial services provided by the national cemetery system. 
The cemeteries are operated and permanently maintained by the 
States. A grant may not exceed 50 percent of the total value of 
the land and the cost of improvements. The remaining amount 
must be contributed by the State.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of $1,000,000 
for grants for the construction of State veterans cemeteries in 
fiscal year 1996.

                       administrative provisions

                   (including the transfer of funds)

    The bill contains eight administrative provisions. The 
first six provisions, sections 101-106, are requested by the 
Administration and are carried in the 1995 Appropriations Act. 
Two new provisions, sections 107 and 108, have been added that 
create legislative savings. The Committee, because of a 
deficient outlay allocation, has included these savings 
provisions as a partial offset for the increase provided in the 
medical care account.
    Sec. 107 imposes limits on the amount of compensation 
benefits certain incompetent veterans in the care of the VA may 
accumulate. This legislation was carried in the Omnibus 
Reconciliation Act of 1990. This proposal would only be in 
effect during fiscal year 1996 and creates 1996 budget 
authority savings of $170,000,000 and outlay savings of 
$157,000,000.
    Sec. 108 funds administrative expenses associated with 
three VA life insurance funds (National Service Life, U.S. 
Government Life, and Veterans Service Life) from the funds' 
excess reserves. Currently, these costs are funded through the 
general operating expenses appropriation. This legislation is 
part of the recommendations of the Administration's National 
Performance Review, and was also proposed in the 1995 Budget 
Request. This proposal would only be in effect during fiscal 
year 1996 and creates 1996 outlay savings of $27,520,000 in the 
general operating expenses account from reducing the 
appropriation by $32,000,000.
                                TITLE II

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation......................... $19,089,543,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................  25,453,518,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request (Revised)...............  24,340,032,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........  -6,363,975,000

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development was 
established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Act, effective November 9, 1965. The Department is the Federal 
agency principally responsible for programs concerned with the 
Nation's housing needs and the development and preservation of 
the Nation's communities. In carrying out its responsibilities, 
the Department administers a wide variety of programs, 
including Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance 
programs that help families become homeowners and facilitate 
the construction and rehabilitation of rental units; rental 
assistant programs for lower income families who otherwise 
could not afford decent housing; the Government National 
Mortgage Association mortgage-backed securities program that 
helps insure an adequate supply of mortgage credit; programs 
that aid community and neighborhood development and 
preservation; programs to help protect the homebuyer in the 
marketplace; and funds to assist states in their efforts to 
combat housing discrimination and to further fair housing.
    Since the creation of HUD as a cabinet agency in 1965, a 
significant number of major housing bills and miscellaneous 
smaller bills have been signed into law creating additional 
programs, now totaling 240. Many of these programs, while 
intended to serve meritworthy goals, have led to program 
duplication, excessive administrative burdens, variance from 
HUD's core mission to provide safe, decent and affordable 
housing, and heavily regulated programs that lack flexibility 
to tailor local decisions on the best use of limited program 
resources.
    The Administration's budget estimate for fiscal year 1996 
requests the termination of 60 active programs. The Committee 
strongly agrees with the Administration on the need to reduce 
the number of HUD programs and proposes no additional 
appropriation for 36 of these programs. The Committee has not 
eliminated funding for programs such as payments for the 
operation of low-income housing, HOME investment partnership 
grants, or community development grants until appropriate 
replacement programs are authorized.

                            Housing Programs

  housing certificates for families and individuals performance funds
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................              $0
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................               0
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request (Revised)...............   6,509,955,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........               0

    The Administration's proposed housing certificates for 
families and individuals performance funds account would 
consolidate funding for the tenant-based section 8 rental 
assistance programs and associated counseling activities into a 
single program. Over time this program would replace the 
current subsidy system for public housing, as well as several 
project-based section 8 assistance programs.
    The Committee recommends no appropriation for this 
unauthorized program in fiscal year 1996.

          public and indian housing capital performance funds
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................              $0
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................               0
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................   4,884,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........               0

    The proposed public and Indian housing capital performance 
funds program would consolidate all current public housing 
capital programs into one account, including public housing 
development, modernization, and amendments, as well as major 
reconstruction of public housing, severely distressed public 
housing, and Indian housing development and modernization 
activities.
    The Committee recommends no appropriation in fiscal year 
1996 for this unauthorized program.

               annual contributions for assisted housing

                     (including transfer of funds)
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation......................... $10,041,589,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................  11,083,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................               0
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........  -1,041,411,000

    The annual contributions for assisted housing account is 
the principal appropriation at the Department for providing 
housing assistance to low-income families. Programs in this 
account include public housing, Indian housing, modernization, 
section 8 certificates and vouchers (rental assistance), 
housing for the elderly and disabled, preservation activities, 
lead-based paint grants, amendments, and housing opportunities 
for persons with AIDS.
    The Committee is recommending an appropriation of 
$10,041,589,000 for annual contributions for assisted housing 
in fiscal year 1996. The amount recommended is $1,041,411,000 
below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1995.
    Unlike previous years, the fiscal year 1996 appropriation 
for annual contributions for assisted housing account includes 
a spending limitation of $19,939,311,000. The debate involving 
this account is similar to many across the federal government. 
At a time when the federal government relies too heavily on 
borrowing and there is a desire to take the necessary steps to 
balance the budget, we face the difficult task of how to limit 
spending without reducing the real output--in this case, the 
number of affordable housing opportunities available to low 
income households.
    In fiscal year 1996, the Congressional Budget Office 
estimates the annual contributions for assisted housing account 
will consume roughly two-thirds of HUD's estimated 
$30,142,000,000 of outlays. By fiscal year 2002, it is 
estimated that subsidized housing will require over 
$30,000,000,000 in outlays just to maintain FY 1995 program 
levels.
    Most cabinet agencies are expected to freeze or reduce 
outlays over the next seven years. If left unchecked, annual 
contributions for assisted housing and the renewals of these 
contracts could conceivably eliminate funding for all of HUD's 
other programs, including community development grants, 
homeless assistance, funding for the HOME program, and 
operating assistance for public housing authorities. The 
Committee finds this result unacceptable.
    The Committee believes local housing authorities are in a 
better position to know which programmatic and administrative 
changes are more appropriate for their residents, housing 
inventory, and management team. For this reason, the Committee 
has left many decisions open for discretion. Additional details 
on these changes are included under administrative provisions 
of the bill and this Committee report.
    Within the amount provided in 1996, the Committee 
eliminates funding for 22 programs in the annual contributions 
for assisted housing account and makes the following program 
recommendations:
  --A total of $2,500,000,000 for public housing modernization. 
        While this is a reduction from fiscal year 1995, it 
        represents a seven percent increase over the average 
        funding level for the past ten years. The Committee 
        urges housing authorities to implement diligently 
        administrative cost reductions and proposed 
        programmatic reforms as they become law, including the 
        substantial reforms for this program pending in the 
        fiscal year 1995 rescissions bill. Language is also 
        added requiring housing authorities to grant the 
        Secretary discretion in determining whether to 
        demolish, dispose of, or reduce the density of housing 
        projects under the jurisdiction of the housing 
        authority to receive funding or enter into new 
        modernization contracts from this or previous 
        appropriations Acts. Such funds may be used to 
        implement these decisions.
  --A total of $100,000,000 for 1,002 Indian housing units. 
        These funds will assist Indian housing authorities to 
        develop additional housing units on Indian reservations 
        where there is no alternative housing available.
  --A total of $1,000,000,000 for a new earmark entitled, 
        ``special needs housing,'' including section 202 
        (elderly), section 811 (disabled), and housing 
        opportunities for persons with AIDS (HOPWA) programs. 
        The authorizing committees should craft legislation 
        following the model of changes proposed by the 
        Administration for fiscal year 1996 to reduce contract 
        terms and operating costs of the Sections 202 and 811 
        programs, thus ensuring adequate program levels under 
        this earmark.
  --A total of $862,125,000 for 76,294 non-incremental section 
        8 vouchers to replace operating subsidies and 
        modernization assistance for public housing and 
        project-based assistance in section 8 projects 
        scheduled for renewal in fiscal year 1996, to be 
        authorized in subsequent legislation.
  --A total of $200,000,000 is authorized to be transferred by 
        the Secretary from unobligated carryover balances to a 
        reformed preservation program, subject to 
        authorization. The Committee is concerned about 
        excessive costs under the existing program and is 
        encouraged by recent discussions to authorize a capital 
        grants funding mechanism.
  --A total of $10,000,000 for lead-based paint abatement 
        activities, as requested by the Administration.
  --A total of $17,300,000 for family self-sufficiency, as 
        requested by the Administration.
  --A total of $4,941,589,000 for the renewal of expiring 
        section 8 subsidy contracts for two years, as requested 
        by the Administration in its revised budget estimate. 
        The Committee is aware of the ongoing ``mark-to-
        market'' discussions involving FHA-insured properties 
        receiving section 8 project-based assistance about to 
        expire. While the Committee would prefer that the 
        authorization committees fund this activity under 
        budget reconciliation, the Committee supports the 
        policy of renewing these section 8 contracts at the 
        requested lower fair market rent (FMR) levels to 
        require a baseline re-estimate of mandatory accounts. 
        After such a baseline reestimate occurs later this 
        year, the authorization committees ought to be able to 
        fully offset mark-to-market legislation in January, 
        1996.
  --A total of $610,575,000 for section 8 amendments, as 
        requested by the Administration.
    The following table outlines in detail the Committee's 
recommendations. The Department is expected to adhere to these 
recommendations, subject to normal reprogramming procedures.

    ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ASSISTED HOUSING FISCAL YEAR 1996--GROSS   
                              RESERVATIONS                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Units       Cost        Term      Budget authority 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New authority...         NA          NA          NA     $10,041,589,000 
New spending:                                                           
    Public                                                              
     housing                                                            
     modernizati                                                        
     on.........         NA          NA          NA       2,500,000,000 
    [Tenant                                                             
     Opportunity                                                        
     Program]...         NA          NA          NA         [15,000,000]
    Indian                                                              
     housing....      1,002     $99,800          NA         100,000,000 
Special needs                                                           
 housing........         NA          NA          NA       1,000,000,000 
    [Section                                                            
     202].......        [NA]        [NA]        [NA]      [undetermined]
    [Section                                                            
     811].......        [NA]        [NA]        [NA]      [undetermined]
    [HOPWA].....        [NA]        [NA]        [NA]      [undetermined]
Section 8                                                               
 replacement                                                            
 assistance.....     76,294       5,650           2         862,125,000 
Preservation \1\         NA          NA          NA        [200,000,000]
Lead-based paint         NA          NA          NA          10,000,000 
Family self-                                                            
 sufficiency....         NA          NA          NA          17,300,000 
Section 8                                                               
 contract                                                               
 renewals.......    435,028       5,680           2       4,941,589,000 
Section 8                                                               
 amendments.....         NA          NA          NA         610,575,000 
                 -------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....    512,322          NA          NA     10,041,589,000  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Secretary may transfer up to $200,000,000 of unobligated carryover  
  balances to fund a revised program.                                   

    In entering into renewed section 8 rental assistance 
contracts for an estimated 435,028 units, the Department is 
directed by the Committee to draft such agreements to allow the 
Secretary discretion to modify annual adjustment factors and 
implement other savings proposals.
    Although the Committee has accepted the Administration's 
request to eliminate funding for the public housing drug 
elimination grant program, the Committee notes these activities 
are eligible under the public housing modernization program.
    Language is added under administrative provisions to merge 
the assistance for the renewal of expiring section 8 subsidy 
contracts with the annual contributions for assisted housing 
account.

              housing opportunities for persons with aids
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................              $0
 Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation.........................           \1\ 0
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     186,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........               0

\1\ $186,000,000 was provided for HOPWA in fiscal year 1995 under the 
annual contributions for assisted housing account.

    The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 
program is authorized by the Housing Opportunities for Persons 
with AIDS Act, as amended. The purpose of the program is to 
provide states and localities with resources and incentives to 
devise long-term comprehensive strategies for meeting the 
housing needs of persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. 
Government recipients must have a HUD-approved Comprehensive 
Plan/Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), with 
funds allocated among eligible grantees based on section 854(c) 
of the National Affordable Housing Act.
    The budget proposed a separate appropriation in fiscal year 
1996 for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS 
(HOPWA) program. The Committee recommends continued funding for 
this activity under the annual contributions for assisted 
housing account under the earmark for special needs housing.
                         flexible subsidy fund

    The flexible subsidy fund assists financially troubled 
subsidized projects under various FHA authorities. Subsidies 
are intended to prevent potential losses to the FHA fund 
resulting from project insolvency and to preserve these 
projects as a viable source of housing for low- and moderate-
income tenants.
    As requested by the Administration, the bill provides for 
termination of this program in fiscal year 1996 and includes 
language to allow excess receipts from the section 236 program 
to be deposited into the flexible subsidy fund.

                       rental housing assistance

                              (rescission)

    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 
authorizes the section 236 rental housing assistance program 
which subsidizes the monthly mortgage payment that an owner of 
a rental or cooperative project is required to make. This 
interest subsidy reduces rents for lower income tenants. No new 
commitment activity has occurred in this program since 1973.
    The budget proposes a rescission totaling $198,119,000 in 
fiscal year 1996. Of this amount, not more than $2,000,000 in 
annual contract authority and $35,119,000 in budget authority 
results from normal project terminations. The balance of 
$163,000,000 will result from section 236 mortgage prepayments. 
The bill includes the requested rescission of $198,119,000 for 
the rental housing assistance program in fiscal year 1996.

         public and indian housing operation performance funds
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................              $0
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................               0
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................   4,884,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........               0

    The proposed public and Indian housing operation 
performance funds program would consolidate funding for several 
existing HUD programs, including operating subsidies for public 
and Indian housing, drug elimination grants, and public housing 
service coordinators. The program would allocate amounts 
according to the existing performance funding system (PFS) 
formula modified to include newly eligible anti-crime and 
social service activities. At the end of a specified transition 
period, the public and Indian housing operation performance 
funds program would be folded into the proposed tenant-based 
housing certificates for families and individuals performance 
funds program. Eligible households would be provided 
certificates and housing authorities would be required to 
compete in the marketplace for low-income residents with other 
providers of rental housing.
    The Committee recommends no appropriation for this 
unauthorized program in fiscal year 1996.

         payments for operation of low-income housing projects
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................  $2,500,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................   2,900,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................               0
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........    -400,000,000

    Operating subsidies are provided to public housing 
authorities as a supplement to tenant rental contributions and 
investment income to assist in financing the operation of 
public housing projects. Operating subsidies, along with these 
other sources of income, are required to maintain operating and 
maintenance services and to provide for minimum project 
reserves. The performance funding system (PFS) formula is the 
primary system for determining operating subsidy amounts.
    The bill includes $2,500,000,000 for the payment of public 
housing operating subsidies in fiscal year 1996. In combination 
with program reforms listed under the administrative provisions 
of this bill, future reforms by the authorizing committees, and 
the availability of alternative federal assistance, such as 
section 8 replacement rental assistance, this amount ought to 
fully fund public housing operating subsidies in fiscal year 
1996.
    Costs to operate and maintain public housing have increased 
dramatically over the past 30 years. In 1965, the federal 
government provided no operating subsidies or modernization 
assistance to maintain public housing. Constructed with federal 
dollars and owned by state-chartered local housing authorities, 
public housing remained relatively self-sufficient after 
construction.
    Later, after enactment of the Brooke Amendment and other 
requirements that increased the dependence of housing 
authorities on federal subsidies, assistance grew to total over 
$8,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1995. On average, using this 
funding level as a base, the Department estimates it would cost 
less to provide section 8 ongoing rental assistance to these 
families than to pay operating and rehabilitation costs. This 
is despite the fact that the federal government has already 
invested approximately $90,000,000,000 to construct public 
housing.
    While the Department's analysis would seem to support 
vouchering out all of public housing, it is apparent to the 
Committee that even last year's appropriated amount of over 
$8,000,000,000 provided for public housing is not sustainable. 
However, the Committee does agree that there are many instances 
where it would be cost-effective to voucher out public housing 
compared to rehabilitation and continued operating subsidies. 
Where it is workable, the Committee provides up to 76,294 
section 8 rental assistance units for the purpose of vouchering 
out public housing.
    The Committee supports the authorizing committee's recent 
efforts to develop a public/private management peer review 
board for public and assisted housing. If authorized, the 
Committee would consider funding such an endeavor.
    The Committee directs the Department to allow immediately 
separate waiting lists for PHA projects. This step is necessary 
in order to reduce administrative costs at public housing 
authorities and facilitate a smooth transition into a 
deregulated environment.
    The Committee does not intend that this language interfere 
with legal obligations or litigation any authority may have 
with regard to its individual waiting list nor does it intend 
that these separate lists be utilized in violation of 
applicable civil rights laws.

                        affordable housing fund
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................              $0
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................               0
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................   3,339,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........               0

    The proposed affordable housing fund (AHF) would 
consolidate the funding of a wide range of programs, including 
the HOME Investment Partnerships program, the section 202 
(elderly) and section 811 (disabled) programs, lead-based paint 
hazard reduction, housing counseling, HOPE grants, and the 
national homeownership trust demonstration program. In 
addition, the proposed homeless assistance fund which would 
consolidate six existing homeless programs and the housing 
opportunities for persons with AIDS programs would also be 
folded into AHF by fiscal years 2000 and 1998, respectively.
    A community would use its AHF funds in accordance with its 
consolidated plan, which will identify housing needs, actions 
to address those needs (including strategies for low-income 
homeownership), and performance measures, all within the 
context of a larger plan for community revitalization.
    The Committee recommends no appropriation for this 
unauthorized program in fiscal year 1996.

                  home investment partnerships program
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................  $1,400,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................   1,400,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................               0
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........               0

    The HOME investment partnerships program provides 
assistance to states, units of local government, Indian tribes, 
and insular areas, through formula allocation, for the purpose 
of expanding the supply and affordability of housing. Eligible 
activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, tenant-based 
rental assistance, and new construction. Jurisdictions 
participating in the program are required to develop a 
comprehensive housing affordability strategy.
    The following table indicates the recommended funding level 
of $1,400,000,000 by category:

Local governments.......................................    $816,689,000
States..................................................     544,459,000
Indian Tribes...........................................      14,000,000
Insular Areas...........................................       2,852,000
Technical Assistance....................................      22,000,000
                     housing counseling assistance
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $12,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      50,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................               0
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     -38,000,000

    Sections 106(a)(1)(iii) and 106(a)(2) of the Housing and 
Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, authorize a program 
to provide a broad range of counseling services to tenants and 
homeowners. Based on section 106(a), the Department certifies 
and/or recertifies local public and private nonprofit agencies 
which provide HUD-approved counseling assistance. The Secretary 
is authorized to provide and/or contract with public or private 
organizations to provide information, advice and technical 
assistance. This may include counseling and advice to tenants 
and homeowners concerning property maintenance, financial 
management and other appropriate matters to assists them in 
improving their housing conditions and meeting their 
homeownership responsibilities. The Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1987 authorized an emergency homeownership 
counseling program to provide additional grant assistance to 
nonprofit agencies providing counseling assistance to all 
homeowners--section 106(c). The National Affordable Housing Act 
authorized a new pre-purchase and foreclosure-prevention 
counseling demonstration program--Section 106(d). The Housing 
and Community Development Act of 1992 authorized new counseling 
certification and training programs--sections 106(e) and (f).
    The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for the housing 
counseling program in fiscal year 1996.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program      Limitation on
                                              account      direct loans 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........      $3,000,000     $36,900,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........       3,000,000      22,388,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........       3,000,000      36,900,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995                                        
 Appropriation..........................               0     +16,512,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1992 established a loan guarantee program for Native Americans 
to build or purchase homes on trust land. This program provides 
access to sources of private financing for Indian families and 
Indian housing authorities who otherwise could not acquire 
housing financing because of the unique legal status of Indian 
trust land. Currently there is little or no housing available 
for Native Americans families, whose income exceed those 
allowable in the traditional Indian housing program, when they 
are financially capable of moving on from the traditional 
Indian housing rental or mutual help program. This program 
provides the financial vehicle for these approximately 20,000 
families to construct new homes or purchase existing properties 
on reservations, providing the benefits of allowing Indian 
families to remain on their native land.
    The budget requests $3,000,000 to support loan guarantees 
totaling $36,900,000. The bill includes the requested program 
subsidy and loan guarantee limitation.

                          Homeless Assistance

                        homeless assistance fund
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................              $0
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................               0
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................   1,120,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........               0

    The proposed homeless assistance fund (HAF) would 
consolidate the following six existing homeless assistance 
programs: 1) Emergency shelter grants; 2) supportive housing; 
3) shelter plus care; 4) section 8 moderate rehabilitation 
(single room occupancy); 5) safe havens/rural assistance; and 
6) the innovative homeless initiatives demonstration. The HAF 
would distribute funds to states and localities through a 
needs-based formula similar to the emergency shelter grants 
program with 75 percent of the funds allocated to cities and 
counties and 25 percent reserved for states for use in areas 
outside of cities and counties receiving direct formula 
assistance. The housing assistance fund would transition into 
the affordable housing fund by fiscal year 2000.
    States and localities would have significant flexibility 
both in eligible uses of the funds and in administering the 
fund. HAF would incorporate and extend flexibility to all 
eligible activities currently authorized under the existing 
homeless programs. Localities could choose from a broad menu of 
activities and exercise the flexibility to select those that 
best address local circumstances. Specifically, recipients 
would be authorized to carry out activities such as 
acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, operations, real 
property leasing, tenant-based assistance, project-based 
assistance, supportive services, administration, and capacity 
building.
    The committee recommends no appropriation for this 
unauthorized program in fiscal year 1996.
                       homeless assistance grants
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................$\1\ 873,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation.......................... \2\ 823,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................               0
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     +50,000,000

\1\ Includes proposed deferral of $297,000,000 available for obligation 
September 30, 1995.
\2\ Excludes proposed deferral of $297,000,000.

    The homeless assistance grants account provides funding for 
four homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney Act, 
including the emergency shelter grants program, supportive 
housing program, the section 8 moderate rehabilitation (single 
room occupancy) program, and the shelter plus care program. 
This account also supports activities eligible under the 
innovative homeless initiatives demonstration program.
    The bill includes $576,000,000 for homeless assistance 
grants in fiscal year 1996. When combined with $297,000,000 
proposed to be available for obligation on September 30, 1995, 
HUD homeless assistance grants will total $873,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1996. This is $50,000,000 more than the effective 
amount available in fiscal year 1995 and the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 1994.
    The Committee remains committed to the cause of eliminating 
homelessness from our Nation's streets. Part of this problem is 
the lack of community mental facilities, such as those promised 
at the time of deinstitutionalizing our mentally ill. To the 
extent the Department is able to focus homeless assistance 
complemented by such facilities, the Committee supports such a 
comprehensive approach.
                   Community Planning and Development

                       community opportunity fund
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................              $0
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................               0
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................   4,850,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........               0

    The proposed community opportunity fund (COF) consists of 
two related components: the community development block grant 
(CDBG) program and a new job creation performance bonus pool. 
Under the Administration's proposal, a locality's consolidated 
plan would serve as the planning, application and reporting 
mechanism for COF funds. Under the consolidated plan, the 
community would identify community and neighborhood development 
needs, actions to address those needs (including specific 
activities on which CDBG dollars would be spent), and the 
measures against which its performance would be judged.
    The COF would consolidate a wide range of program 
activities and initiatives, including the existing CDBG 
program, together with the section 108 loan guarantee program, 
the economic development initiative, the leveraged investment 
for tomorrow (LIFT) program, the community viability fund, the 
colonias assistance program, and an array of items funded under 
the authority of section 107 (special purpose grants) of the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended.
    The Committee recommends no appropriation for this 
unauthorized program in fiscal year 1996.

                      community development grants

                     (including transfer of funds)
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................  $4,600,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................   4,600,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................               0
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........               0

    Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to make grants to 
units of general local government and states for local 
community development programs. The primary objective of the 
block grant program is to develop viable urban communities 
providing decent affordable housing and a suitable living 
environment and to expand economic opportunity, principally for 
persons of low- and moderate-income.
    Section 107 special purpose grants provide funds for 
various purposes. These categories include providing assistance 
for community development for insular areas; historically black 
colleges and universities, work study; funding for states and 
units of general local government to correct any miscalculation 
of their share of funds under section 1056; joint community 
development; regulatory barrier removal; community outreach; 
and technical assistance in planning, developing and 
administering programs under Title I.
    The bill provides $4,600,000,000 for community development 
grants in fiscal year 1996. This amount is equal to the 
appropriation for fiscal year 1995.
    Bill language earmarks $46,000,000 for Indian tribes and 
$19,500,000 for section 107 special purpose grants. Section 107 
funding includes $7,000,000 for insular areas, $6,000,000 for 
the work study program, including $3,000,000 for Hispanic-
serving institutions, and $6,500,000 for historically black 
colleges and universities.
    The Committee is encouraged by the activities in the 
Department to redevelop abandoned and contaminated properties 
as part of an economic strategy for economically distressed 
areas with demonstrated potential for productive reuse. The 
Committee strongly supports efforts to enable redevelopment of 
economically distressed communities impacted by brownfields 
under eligible programs and statutes of the Department, like 
CDBG and CRA, and recommends expansion of these programs.
    The Committee continues to encourage HUD to support joint 
projects undertaken by local units of government and 
historically black colleges and universities where such 
projects benefit public, subsidized and elderly housing 
residents and the institution. The Committee believes that such 
joint uses maximize the benefit of expending limited tax 
resources on capital projects which are utilized by low- and 
middle-income students and low-income residents in the 
community surrounding the college or university.
    The bill also includes language limiting guaranteed loans 
under section 108 to $1,000,000,000 and provides $225,000 for 
administrative expenses to be transferred to the departmental 
salaries and expenses account. This is $1,000,000,000 and 
$675,000, respectively, less than the Administration proposed 
for similar activities under the proposed community opportunity 
fund program account.

                    Policy Development and Research

                        RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $34,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      42,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      42,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........      -8,000,000

    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 directs the 
Secretary to undertake programs of research, studies, testing, 
and demonstrations related to the HUD mission. These functions 
are carried out internally; through contracts with industry, 
nonprofit research organizations, and educational institutions; 
and through agreements with state and local governments and 
other federal agencies.
    The bill includes $34,000,000 for research and technology 
in fiscal year 1996.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

                        fair housing activities
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $30,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      33,375,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      45,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........      -3,375,000

    The Fair Housing Act, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 
prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of 
housing and authorizes assistance to state and local agencies 
in administering the provisions of the fair housing law.
    The bill provides $30,000,000 for the fair housing 
assistance program (FHAP). The budget requested $45,000,000, 
providing funding for both FHAP and the fair housing 
initiatives program (FHIP).
    Language is added under administrative provisions 
prohibiting the Department from promulgating regulations on 
property insurance regulations.
                     Management and Administration

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       By Transfer                              
                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Appropriation     FHA Funds     GNMA Funds      CPD           Total    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1996 Recommendation................    $447,584,000    $495,355,000   $8,824,000     $225,000    $951,988,000
FY 1995 Appropriation.................     451,219,000     495,355,000    8,824,000            0     955,398,000
FY 1996 Budget Request................     479,479,000     527,782,000    9,101,000      900,000   1,017,262,000
Comparison with 1995 Approp...........      -3,635,000               0            0     +225,000      -3,410,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Administration requests a single appropriation to 
finance all salaries and related costs associated with 
administering the programs of the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, except the Office of Inspector General and 
the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. These 
activities include housing, mortgage credit, and secondary 
market programs; community planning and development programs; 
departmental management; legal services; and field direction 
and administration. A total of $1,017,262,000 is requested for 
salaries and expenses of the Department in fiscal year 1996, an 
increase of $61,639,000 above 1995.
    The bill does not accept these proposed increases and 
provides $951,988,000, slightly less than the fiscal year 1995 
allocation of $955,623,000. This includes transfers of 
$495,355,000 from the various funds of FHA, $8,824,000 from the 
Government National Mortgage Association, and $225,000 
transferred from the Office of Community Planning and 
Development for the operation of the Section 108 loan guarantee 
program.
    The fiscal year 1996 appropriation for HUD salaries and 
expenses includes $2,000,000 for the Housing Assistance Council 
and $1,000,000 for the Native American Indian Housing Council. 
Previously, these activities were funded under the research and 
technology account.
    The Committee also directs the Department to attain fiscal 
year 1997 staffing levels by September 30, 1996 and provide the 
Committees on Appropriations regular status reports on its 
implementation.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            By Transfer                 
                         -----------------------------------------------
                           Appropriation     FHA Funds         Total    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1996 Recommendation..     $36,427,000     $10,961,000     $47,388,000
FY 1995 Appropriation...      36,427,000      10,961,000      47,388,000
FY 1996 Budget Request..      36,968,000      11,283,000      48,251,000
Comparison with 1995                                                    
 Approp.................               0               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 negotiation, 
award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. 
Internal audits review and evaluate all facets of agency 
operations. Inspection services provide detailed technical 
evaluations of agency operations. The investigative function 
provides for the detection and investigation of improper and 
illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and 
operations.
    The bill includes $47,388,000 for the Office of Inspector 
General in 1996, including $10,961,000 from the various funds 
of the FHA. These are the same amounts as provided in 1995. 
This amount, together with $509,000 from the consolidated fee 
account, will provide $47,897,000 for OIG activities in 1996. 
In addition, the Committee directs the OIG to attain FY 1997 
staffing levels by September 30, 1996.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $14,895,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      15,451,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      14,895,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........        -556,000

    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 (GSEs)--the Federal National 
Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan 
Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). The Office was authorized 
in the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and 
Soundness Act of 1992, and gave the regulator enhanced 
authority to enforce these standards. In addition to financial 
regulation, the OFHEO monitors the GSEs compliance with 
affordable housing goals that were contained in the Act.
    The bill includes the budget request of $14,895,000 for the 
OFHEO in fiscal year 1996. These funds will be collected from 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and will support 69 staff years.
    Bill language is also added under administrative provisions 
to change the assessment collection dates for OFHEO to October 
1st and April 1st of the fiscal year. This will put OFHEO's 
collection dates into the same fiscal year cycle as their 
budget, removing any need for HUD to provide operating funds 
for OFHEO in advance of assessment collections.
                     Federal Housing Administration

             FHA-MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Limitation of     Limitation of    Administrative
                       direct loans    guaranteed loans      expenses   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1996                                                                 
 Recommendation.....    $200,000,000    $110,000,000,000    $308,846,000
FY 1995                                                                 
 Appropriation......     180,000,000     100,000,000,000     308,846,000
FY 1996 Budget                                                          
 Request............     200,000,000     110,000,000,000     341,595,000
 Comparison with                                                        
 1995 Appropriation.     +20,000,000     +10,000,000,000               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in 1992, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 
was split into two separate accounts. One account is the FHA-
mutual mortgage insurance program account and includes the 
mutual mortgage insurance (MMI) and cooperative management 
housing insurance (CMHI) funds. The other account is the FHA-
general and special risk program account and includes the 
general insurance (GI) and special risk insurance (SRI) funds.
    The mutual mortgage insurance program account covers the 
unsubsidized programs. The MMI fund consists of the basic 
single-family home mortgage program, the largest of all the FHA 
programs. The CMHI fund contains the cooperative housing 
insurance program which provides mortgages for cooperative 
housing projects of more than five units which are occupied by 
members of a cooperative housing corporation.
    The bill includes language to limit the commitments in the 
FHA-MMI program account to $110,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 
and provides an appropriation of $308,846,000 for 
administrative expenses. Of the amount for administrative 
expenses, $302,056,000 is transferred to the salaries and 
expenses appropriation and $6,790,000 is transferred to the 
Office of Inspector General appropriation. The bill also 
includes the requested direct loan limitation of $200,000,000.

              FHA-GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Limitation of    Limitation of      Administrative                    
                                          direct loans    guaranteed loans       expenses        Program costs  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1996 Recommendation.................    $120,000,000    $15,000,000,000       $197,470,000                 $0
FY 1995 Appropriation..................     220,000,000     20,885,072,000        197,470,000        188,395,000
FY 1996 Budget Request.................     120,000,000     17,400,000,000        197,470,000        188,395,000
Comparison with 1995 Appropriation.....     100,000,000     -5,885,072,000                  0       -188,395,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general and special risk insurance funds contain the 
largest number of programs administered by the FHA. The GI 
funds cover a wide variety of special purpose single and 
multifamily programs, including loans for property 
improvements, manufactured housing, multifamily rental housing, 
condominiums, housing for the elderly, hospitals, group 
practice facilities, and nursing homes. The SRI fund includes 
insurance programs for mortgages in older declining urban areas 
which would not be otherwise eligible for insurance, mortgages 
with interest reduction payments, those for experimental 
housing, and for high-risk mortgagors who would not normally be 
eligible for mortgage insurance without housing counseling.
    The bill proposes to limit loan guarantee commitments for 
the FHA-general and special risk insurance program account to 
$15,000,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 instead of the 
$17,400,000,000 as requested by the Administration. This 
limitation assumes a one-year suspension of those program 
activities that require a credit subsidy, including the 
multifamily development, risk-sharing programs, and section 221 
refinancing programs. As a result, no appropriation is 
requested for GI-SRI program costs in fiscal year 1996. The FHA 
programs unaffected by the one-year suspension include nursing 
homes, hospitals, single family condominiums, and Title I (home 
improvement and mobile home) loans.
    It is not the intent of the Committee to end FHA 
multifamily insurance for those programs that currently require 
a federal credit subsidy. Instead, the Committee urges the 
authorizing committees to act expeditiously in enacting program 
modifications that will enable these multifamily insurance 
programs to become self-sufficient. To the extent fiscal year 
1995 program subsidies remain available into fiscal year 1996, 
the Committee expects the Department to continue issuing 
guarantees for the programs in question.
    The Committee recommends $197,470,000 for administrative 
expenses. This amount is equal to the budget estimate in order 
to allow the Department to implement mark-to-market reforms. 
The Committee also recommends a direct loan limitation of 
$120,000,000 and the sale of $2,600,000,000 of obligations 
established under section 238 and 519 of the National Housing 
Act in fiscal year 1996.

                Government National Mortgage Association

                GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES

                     LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Limitation of    Administrative
                                       guaranteed loans      expenses   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1996 Recommendation..............    $110,000,000,000      $8,824,000
FY 1995 Appropriation...............     142,000,000,000       8,824,000
FY 1996 Budget Request..............     110,000,000,000       9,101,000
Comparison with 1995 Appropriation..     -32,000,000,000               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The guarantees of mortgage-backed securities program 
facilitates the financing of residential mortgage loans insured 
or guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Farmers Home 
Administration (FmHA). Funds are provided through investments 
in and-term securities guaranteed by the Government National 
Mortgage Association (GNMA) which are backed by pools of such 
mortgages. The investment proceeds are used in turn to finance 
additional mortgage loans. Institutions which provide and 
service mortgages (such as mortgage companies, commercial 
banks, savings banks, and savings and loan associations) 
assemble pools of mortgages and issue securities backed by the 
pools. The program has attracted nontraditional sources of 
credit into the housing market. Approximately 70 percent of the 
funds used to purchase GNMA securities come from nontraditional 
mortgage investors, including pension and retirement funds, 
life insurance companies and individuals.
    The bill includes language to limit loan guarantee 
commitments for mortgage-backed securities of the Government 
National Mortgage Association to $110,000,000,000 in 1996 and 
provides $8,824,000 to fund administrative expenses. The amount 
for administrative expenses is transferred to the salaries and 
expenses appropriation.
    The Committee also directs the General Accounting Office to 
prepare a review by September 1, 1995, of the GNMA fee 
structure and the impact of bidding off the servicing fees of 
mortgage-backed securities. It appears significant savings 
could be gained by moving away from a statutory fee structure 
and allowing the marketplace to determine appropriate servicing 
fees. Specifically, GAO should review the impact of this change 
on the private sector, potential savings to the federal 
government if GNMA were allowed to collect the savings, and, if 
there are savings, how the federal government might transfer 
these savings to FHA, VA, and FmHA borrowers through lower 
interst rates or other measures.
                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    Sec. 201. The bill includes several modifications to the 
public housing program, including: (a) A one-year suspension of 
the 30 percent of adjusted income rent formula for public 
housing, otherwise known as the Brook Amendment; (b) 
establishment of a minimum rent for public housing at $50 per 
unit and the cost of utilities, with additional flexibility 
provided to housing authorities to establish higher minimum 
rents for certain groups of households; (c) ceiling rents to 
stabilize rents for employed residents; and, (d) a one-year 
suspension of the one-for-one public housing replacement 
requirement.
    Sec. 202. The bill includes several modifications to the 
section 8 program, including: (a) An increase in tenant rental 
contributions from 30 to 32 percent of adjusted income, to be 
self-implementing; (b) establishment of a $50 per unit minimum 
rent, to be implemented no later than October 30, 1995; (c) 
adoption of the Administration's proposed reduction of fair 
market rentals (FMR) from the 45th to 40th percentile; (d) 
reduced annual adjustment factors of 1 percent for residents 
who stay in their units and a limitation on adjustments if the 
rent charged for the unit exceeds the local FMR; (e) adoption 
of the Administration's proposed reduction in administrative 
fees for the section 8 program to 7 percent; and (f) the delay 
of the issuance and reissuance of section 8 vouchers and 
certificates for six months during fiscal year 1996, instead of 
three months as proposed by the Administration.
    Sec. 203. The bill provides a one-year suspension of 
federal preferences for public and assisted housing. In its 
place, local PHAs may establish their own preferences. Very low 
(below 50 percent of median income) and low-income (below 80 
percent of median income) targeting requirements remain in 
place for both public and assisted housing programs.
    Sec. 204. The bill includes language to merge the annual 
contributions for assisted housing and the assistance for the 
renewal of expiring Section 8 subsidy contracts accounts. This 
will allow greater administrative flexibility for the 
Department in administering section 8 assistance.
    Sec. 205. This provision of the bill extends for one year 
the home equity conversion mortgage demonstration program, 
enabling an additional 5,000 mortgages.
    Sec. 206. The bill provides debt forgiveness for health 
care facilities in Groveton and Hubbard, Texas. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates there is no budgetary 
impact as a result of forgiving these loans.
    Sec. 207. This provision provides local housing authorities 
the option to delay the expenditures of public housing 
development funds approved by the Secretary. The annual 
contributions for assisted housing account includes a spending 
limitation for the first time and this provision ought to 
assist the Secretary in meeting this limitation if savings do 
not materialize as estimated.
    Sec. 208. The bill includes language to change the 
assessment collection dates for the Office of Federal Housing 
Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) to October 1st and April 1st of 
the fiscal year. This will put OFHEO's collection dates into 
the same fiscal year cycle as their budget, removing any need 
for HUD to provide operating funds for OFHEO in advance of 
assessment collections.
    Sec. 209. The bill includes several spending limitation 
provisions, including:
          (a) prohibition on the use of funds to sign, 
        promulgate, implement, or enforce any requirement or 
        regulation relating to the application of the Fair 
        Housing Act to the business of property insurance;
          (b) prohibition on the use of funds to finalize the 
        Department's proposed rule dated July 21, 1994 
        regarding amendments to Regulation X, the Real Estate 
        Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) regulation;
          (c) consolidation of the Assistant Secretary for 
        Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations with the 
        Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. In addition to 
        eliminating one assistant secretary position, the 
        Committee assumes this action will result in the 
        elimination of four deputy assistant secretary 
        positions. In addition, the Committee assumes the 
        elimination of three offices in the Office of the 
        Secretary that overlap program offices;
          (d) reduction of Schedule C and non-career SES 
        positions by just over 20 percent, roughly the same 
        amount as assumed in the budget resolution. While 
        Congress and its committees have undergone significant 
        downsizing, much of the executive branch remains 
        relatively unchanged. Under this provision, there will 
        remain up to 94 Schedule C and non-career SES positions 
        at the Department for fiscal year 1996;
          (e) prohibition of the use of funds to take action 
        against any State or local entity that has enacted a 
        law or regulation requiring the spoken or written use 
        of the English language or declaring English the 
        official language.
          (f) prohibition of the use of funds to lobby or 
        influence any legislation before Congress. The 
        Committee is concerned about ``reinvention'' gatherings 
        that occurred earlier this year in an apparent attempt 
        to influence housing legislation. Such activities 
        should be clearly distinct from rallies or common 
        political gatherings.
    Sec. 210. The bill includes language clarifying the 
definitions regarding a project for residential rental 
property.

                               TITLE III

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission

                         salaries and expenses
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $20,265,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      20,265,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      20,265,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........               0

    The Commission is responsible for the administration, 
operation and maintenance of cemetery and war memorials to 
commemorate the achievements and sacrifices of the American 
Armed Forces where they have served since April 6, 1917. In 
performing these functions, the American Battle Monuments 
Commission maintains twenty-four permanent American military 
cemetery memorials and twenty-nine monuments, memorials, 
markers and offices in fifteen foreign countries, the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the British 
dependency of Gilbralter. In addition, four memorials are 
located in the United States: the East Coast Memorial in New 
York; the West Coast Memorial, The Presidio, in San Francisco; 
the Honolulu Memorial in the National Memorial Cemetery of the 
Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii; and the American Expeditionary 
Forces Memorial in Washington, D.C. A new memorial in 
Washington D.C., the Korean War Veterans Memorial, is scheduled 
to be dedicated in July, 1995.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of $20,265,000 
for fiscal year 1996 to administer, operate and maintain the 
Commission's monuments, cemeteries, and memorials throughout 
the world. These funds will support a staffing level of 371, 
the same as in the current year.

              Community Development Financial Institutions

   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................              $0
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................     125,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     123,650,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........    -125,000,000

    The CDFI fund provides grants, loans, and technical 
assistance to new and existing community development financial 
institutions such as community development banks, community 
development credit unions, revolving loan funds, and micro-loan 
funds. Recipients must use the funds to support mortgage, small 
business, and economic development lending in currently 
underserved, distressed neighborhoods. The CDFI fund also 
operates as an information clearinghouse for community 
development lenders.
     The Committee recommends termination of this program and 
allows funds provided in fiscal year 1995 to be used for 
termination costs in fiscal year 1996.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $40,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      42,509,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      44,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........      -2,509,000

    The Consumer Product Safety Act established the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, an independent Federal regulatory 
agency, to reduce unreasonable risk of injury associated with 
consumer products. Its primary responsibilities and overall 
goals are: to protect the public against unreasonable risk of 
injury associated with consumer products; to develop uniform 
safety standards for consumer products, minimizing conflicting 
State and local regulations; and to promote research into 
prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,000,000 
for fiscal year 1996, a decrease of $2,509,000 from the fiscal 
year 1995 level and $4,000,000 below the President's budget 
request.
    The Committee recommendation includes a reduction of 
$1,200,000 which was included in the budget base for 
enforcement of the Fire Safe Cigarette Act. Since the Act has 
not been enacted, these resources are not required by the 
Commission for enforcement. The Committee also recommends a 
general reduction of $2,800,000 which is to be allocated 
proportionally among the Commission's Agency Management, Hazard 
Assessment and Reduction, and Compliance and Enforcement 
programs.
             Corporation for National and Community Service

       National and Community Service Programs Operating Expenses
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................               0
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................    $575,000,000
 Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request........................     817,476,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........    -575,000,000

    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 to enhance 
opportunities for national and community service and provide 
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-time national and 
community service programs. National service participants may 
receive educational awards which may be used for full-time or 
part-time higher education, vocational education, job training, 
or school-to-work programs. Funds for the Volunteers in Service 
to America and the National Senior Service Corps are provided 
in the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations 
bill.
    The House Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities' Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee has 
raised questions about the AmeriCorps program. Those 
investigations indicate that other Federal agency funds are 
being used in the AmeriCorps program and that some programs may 
have been involved in quasi-political activities. These are 
serious allegations and the Committee intends to closely 
monitor these investigations and hearings.
    The Corporation was first funded in fiscal year 1994 at the 
$365,000,000 level. The fiscal year 1995 appropriation of 
$575,000,000 is to be reduced by a $105,000,000 rescission to 
$470,000,000. The fiscal year 1996 budget request is 
$817,476,000. The fiscal year 1996 budget allocation for VA, 
HUD, and Independent Agencies represents a significant decrease 
below the fiscal year 1995 allocation. Funding an increase as 
requested for this program is not possible within the 
allocation. The Committee recommends that the new national 
service program be terminated in fiscal year 1996 due to the 
tight budget situation. This recommendation is in agreement 
with the recently adopted conference agreement on the Fiscal 
Year 1996 Budget Resolution.
    The national service program is structured so that the 
majority of funds are obligated at the end of the fiscal year 
and spent during the next fiscal year. As such, funds will be 
needed in fiscal year 1996 to administer the 1995 program 
grants and for necessary termination costs. The bill includes 
language that will permit the Corporation to use fiscal year 
1995 funds for necessary administrative expenses and 
termination costs. The funds are also made available to cover 
necessary administrative and termination costs of the Office of 
Inspector General.

                      office of inspector general
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................               0
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      $2,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................       2,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........      -2,000,000

    The Office of Inspector General within the Corporation for 
National and Community Service is authorized by the Inspector 
General Act of 1978, as amended. Without the national service 
program, the Inspector General is not needed. The Committee 
recommends that this activity be terminated. All necessary 
fiscal year 1996 administrative and termination costs for the 
Office of Inspector General will be provided from fiscal year 
1995 program funds of the Corporation.
                        Court of Veterans Appeals

                         Salaries and Expenses
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................      $9,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................       9,429,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................       9,820,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........        -429,000

    The Veterans Benefits Administration Adjudication Procedure 
and Judiciary Review Act established the Court of Veterans 
Appeals. The Court reviews appeals from Department of Veterans 
Affairs claimants seeking review of a benefit denial. The Court 
has the authority to overturn findings of fact, regulations and 
interpretations of law.
    The bill includes $9,000,000 for the Court of Veterans 
Appeals in fiscal year 1996. This amount is a decrease of 
$429,000 below the current year appropriation. The reduction is 
to be taken at the Court's discretion, subject to normal 
reprogramming procedures.
    The bill also includes requested language permitting not to 
exceed $678,000 for the pro bono program. The Committee notes 
that the Legal Services Corporation is requesting $400,000 for 
the pro bono program in its fiscal year 1996 budget. Such an 
appropriation would permit the Court's request to be reduced 
accordingly.

                      Department of Defense--Civil

                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army

                         salaries and expenses
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $11,296,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      12,017,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      14,134,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........        -721,000

    The Secretary of the Army is responsible for the 
administration, operation and maintenance of Arlington National 
Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. 
At the close of fiscal year 1994, the remains of 250,784 
persons were interred/inured in these cemeteries. Of this 
total, 220,036 persons were interred and 16,461 remains inured 
in the Columbarium in Arlington National Cemetery, and 14,287 
remains were interred in the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home 
National Cemetery. There were 3,250 interments and 1,542 
inurnments in fiscal year 1994. It is projected that there will 
be 3,500 interments and 1,700 inurnments in fiscal year 1995; 
and 3,500 interments and 1,800 inurnments if fiscal year 1996. 
In addition to its principal function as a national cemetery, 
Arlington is the site of approximately 1,900 nonfuneral 
ceremonies each year and has approximately 4,000,000 visitors 
annually.
    The Committee recommends $11,296,000 and 130 full-time 
equivalents to administer, operate, maintain and provide 
ongoing development at the Arlington National and Soldiers' and 
Airmen's Home National Cemeteries for fiscal year 1996. The 
reduction is to taken at the Army's discretion, subject to 
normal reprogramming procedures.

                     Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................  $4,892,430,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................   7,240,887,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................   7,359,409,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........  -2,348,457,000

    The Environmental Protection Agency was created by 
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which consolidated nine 
programs from five different agencies and departments. Major 
EPA programs include air and water quality, drinking water, 
hazardous waste, pesticides, radiation, toxic substances, 
enforcement and compliance assurance, pollution prevention, oil 
spills, Superfund and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
(LUST) program. In addition, EPA provides Federal assistance 
for wastewater treatment, drinking water facilities, and other 
water infrastructure projects. The agency is responsible for 
conducting research and development, establishing environmental 
standards through the use of risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis, monitoring pollution conditions, seeking compliance 
through a variety of means, managing audits and investigations, 
and providing technical assistance and grant support to states 
and tribes, which are delegated authority for actual program 
implementation. Finally, the Agency participates in some 
international environmental activities.
     Among the statutes for which the Environmental Protection 
Agency has sole or significant oversight responsibilities are:
  --National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
  --Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as 
        amended.
  --Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended.
  --Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
  --Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 
        as amended.
  --Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
  --Public Health Service Act (Title XIV), as amended.
  --Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended.
  --Clean Air Act, as amended.
  --Comprehesive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
        Liability Act of 1980, as amended.
  --Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986.
  --Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.
  --Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee has recommended a total 
program and support level of $4,892,430,000, a reduction of 
$2,348,457,000 from the fiscal year 1995 level and 
$2,466,979,000 from the budget request. As noted by the 
Committee in the report accompanying the fiscal year 1995 
appropriation bill, this reduction is recommended without 
prejudice and reflects the severe fiscal constraints that must 
necessarily accompany any legitimate effort to balance the 
Federal budget.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Agency must limit transfers of funds between 
programs and activities to not more than $500,000, except as 
specifically noted, without prior approval of the Committee. No 
changes may be made to any account or program element, except 
as approved by the Committee, if it is construed to be policy 
or a change in policy. Any activity or program cited in the 
report shall be construed as the position of the Committee and 
should not be subject to reductions or reprogramming without 
prior approval of the Committee. It is the intent of the 
Committee that all carryover funds in the various 
appropriations accounts are subject to the normal reprogramming 
requirements outlined above. The Agency is expected to comply 
with all normal rules and regulations in carrying out these 
directives. Finally, the Committee wishes to continue to be 
notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, or 
activities prior to the planned implementation of such 
reorganizations.

                        RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................    $384,052,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................     350,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     426,661,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     +34,052,000

    The Research and Development account funds all extramural 
Environmental Protection Agency research (except Hazardous 
Substances Superfund, LUST, and Oil Spill Response research 
activities) carried out through grants, contracts, and 
cooperative agreements with other Federal agencies, states, 
universities, and private business, as well as on an in-house 
basis. This account also funds supplies and operating expenses 
for all Agency research. Research addresses a wide range of 
environmental and health concerns across all environmental 
media and encompasses both long-term basic and near-term 
applied research to provide the scientific knowledge and 
technologies necessary for preventing, regulating, and abating 
pollution, and to anticipate merging environmental issues.
    The Committee has recommended $384,052,000 for Research and 
Development during fiscal year 1996, an increase of $34,052,000 
above the fiscal year 1995 level, and a decrease of $42,609,000 
from the 1996 budget request.
     The Committee's recommended appropriation includes the 
following amounts:
    $500,000 for the Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics 
Research Center.
    $3,000,000 for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research 
Center.
    $2,000,000 for the Water Environment Research Foundation.
    $3,000,000 for the American Water Works Research 
Foundation.
    $730,000 to continue the study of livestock and 
agricultural pollution abatement.
    $2,000,000 for continued research on urban waste management 
at the University of New Orleans.
    $1,000,000 to continue the PM-10 clean air study in the San 
Joaquin Valley, California.
    $5,000,000 for the Environmental Research Laboratory in 
Duluth, Minnesota.
    $1,500,000 for the Resource and Agriculture Policy Systems 
program at Iowa State University.
    $2,000,000 for research of the damage to waters in the 
Adirondacks at the Fresh Water Institute on Lake George.
    $500,000 for oil spill remediation research at the Spill 
Remediation Research Center.
    Reductions from the budget request include the following:
    $79,200,000 for the Environmental Technology Initiative. 
The Committee believes that a great many grants issued under 
this program are duplicative of work being done or work already 
completed through research grants issued by other Federal and 
State agencies or universities. Moreover, many of these grants, 
though small in dollar amount, fund ``research'' which is 
suspect at best in the context of developing good environmental 
science for application in focusing on and resolving 
environmental concerns. The Committee has provided no funds for 
the ETI program and suggests that available resources be 
utilized in a more effective manner.
    $1,639,000 for the Gulf of Mexico Program. Research and 
Development is a small component of this unauthorized effort by 
EPA to leverage funds of other Federal departments and agencies 
in the development of an oversight program aimed at garnering 
an increased Federal role in the Gulf of Mexico and in the 
watersheds of the Gulf. Until and unless EPA and other federal 
entities are specifically directed to develop such a program 
for the Gulf of Mexico and the broad area that makes up its 
watershed, the Committee directs that all involvement in this 
program by the EPA shall cease.
    Again this year, the Committee notes that the Experimental 
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is designed 
to improve the scientific and technological capacity of states 
with less developed research infrastructure. Developed with 
NASA and the National Science Foundation as partners, the 
Committee strongly urges EPA's continued participation in this 
program at an appropriate financial level.
    The Committee wishes to express its support for the new 
direction the Agency has chosen to take its research program, 
as outlined by the Assistant Administrator at the Committee's 
fiscal year 1996 budget hearings. With peer reviewed, 
meaningful, and quality research, the Agency will be better 
prepared to scientifically support its rulemaking activity, 
which has been criticized in recent years as often being 
deficient of a sound science base. Moreover, this new direction 
will foster a better foundation for the development of longer-
term environmentally and scientifically sound policies and 
statutes for the consideration of the Congress. The Committee 
expects the Agency to make extensive use of the Office of 
Research and Development (ORD) so that its programs and actions 
on an agency-wide basis are justified with sound and credible 
science.
    As part of the peer review process, the Committee expects 
the ORD to place more reliance on oversight and review of its 
ongoing research by the Science Advisory Board. The Board was 
created to offer scientific guidance in the development of 
research and policies of the Agency, and better use of the 
Board throughout the Agency would likely enhance the 
credibility of much of what is suggested by the program 
offices.
    The Committee supports the recommendation of the Science 
Advisory Board and the National Research Council's review of 
the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). In 
particular, the Committee directs EPA's Office of Research and 
Development to maintain its ongoing commitment to the Middle 
Atlantic Region in terms of funding and workyears to complete 
the demonstration and evaluation of the EMAP approach in a 
specific geographic area.
    Finally, in light of the budget constraints that are not 
likely to diminish in the near term, the Committee suggests 
that the Agency actively review the possibility of utilizing 
DOE's National Laboratories for all appropriate research. These 
are generally excellent facilities with fine personnel, and 
could offer budget savings in lieu of building new or repairing 
current facilities. The Committee asks that ORD submit a report 
by April 1, 1996 outlining the results of this review with a 
recommendation by the Agency of what, if any, use of these 
National Labs is appropriate and the time-frame for any such 
proposed use.
    As part of its ongoing efforts with respect to lead 
exposure, the Committee recommends that the Office of Research 
and Development carry out demonstration projects that identify, 
in cooperation with the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, the lowest cost housing interventions that 
effectively reduce occupant exposure to lead; develop, in 
cooperation with the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, performance curves for rhodizonate-based chemical 
spot tests; and characterize, in cooperation with the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration and owners of 
multi-family housing, worker exposure to lead during routine 
operations, maintenance, and repair activities in housing 
units.

                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND COMPLIANCE
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................  $1,881,614,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................   2,339,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................   2,766,121,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........    -457,386,000

    The new Environmental Programs and Compliance account 
encompasses a broad range of abatement, prevention, and 
compliance, and personnel compensation, benefits and travel 
expenses for all media and programs of the Agency except 
Hazardous Substance Superfund, Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
Trust Fund, Oil Spill Response, and the Office of Inspector 
General. Abatement, prevention, and compliance activities 
include setting environmental standards, issuing permits, 
monitoring emissions and ambient conditions and providing 
technical and legal assistance toward compliance and oversight. 
In most cases the states are directly responsible for actual 
operation of the various environmental programs. In addition to 
program costs, this account funds administrative costs 
associated with the operating programs of the Agency, including 
support for executive direction, policy oversight, resources 
management, general office and building services for program 
operations, and direct implementation of all Agency 
environmental programs (except those previously mentioned) for 
Headquarters, the ten EPA Regional Offices, and all field 
operations.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee has recommended 
$1,881,614,000, a reduction of $457,386,000 from the comparable 
fiscal year 1995 level, and $884,507,000 from the comparable 
1996 budget request. This new account encompasses those 
activities previously conducted through the ``Abatement, 
Control, and Compliance'' and ``Program and Research 
Operations'' accounts. Bill language is included which makes 
this appropriation available until expended, and with respect 
to this account only, the Agency must limit transfers of funds 
between programs and activities to not more than $500,000 
without prior notice to the Committee and not more than 
$1,000,000 without prior approval of the Committee. Except for 
this difference, all other reprogramming procedures as outlined 
previously will apply.
    The Committee's recommended appropriation includes funding 
for the following items:
  --$3,000,000 for the Southwest Center for Environmental 
        Research and Policy.
  --$1,500,000 for wastewater operator training grants under 
        Sec. 104(g) of the Clean Water Act.
  --$3,000,000 for the Great Waters Program.
  --$350,000 for the Long Island Sound Office.
  --$14,700,000 for the Great Lakes Program Office.
  --$6,000,000 for the Pollution Prevention State Grant 
        Program.
  --$21,000,000 for Chesapeake Bay program activities, 
        including oyster reef construction.
  --$1,000,000 for the Sacramento River Toxic Pollutant Control 
        Program to be cost-shared with Sacramento County.
  --$1,000,000 for continuing work on the water quality 
        management plan for Skaneatles, Owasco and Otisco Lake 
        watersheds.
  --$300,000 for the Courtland County aquifer protection plan.
  --$8,500,000 for rural water technical assistance activities. 
        These funds are for the National Rural Water 
        Association's training and technical assistance 
        program, the NRWA wellhead/groundwater protection 
        program, the Rural Community Assistance program, the 
        Small Flows Clearinghouse, and the National Underground 
        Injection Council. These funds should be distributed in 
        the same proportion as in fiscal year 1995. The 
        Committee expects that these funds will be used to 
        provide technical assistance to communities. Also, the 
        Committee urges EPA and these organizations to increase 
        efforts to assist small, rural communities. Finally, 
        these funds should be used to fund existing state water 
        programs, particularly those state programs that match 
        Federal dollars.
  --$500,000 for the continuation of the Small Public Water 
        Systems Technology Assistance Center at Montana State 
        University.
  --$300,000 for a feasibility study for the delivery of water 
        from the Tiber Reservoir to Rocky Boy Reservation.
  --$2,000,000 for the small grants program to communities 
        disproportionately impacted by pollution.
  --$1,000,000 for community/university partnership grants.
  --$300,000 for the National Environmental Justice Advisory 
        Council.
  --$1,000,000 for ongoing Earthvision educational/
        environmental programs.
  --$500,000 for ongoing programs of the Canaan Valley 
        Institute.
  --$691,705,000 for salaries, expenses and administrative 
        costs. Consistent with reductions made in this and in 
        the Research and Development accounts, no funds are 
        available for the Environmental Technology Initiative 
        or the Gulf of Mexico Program. Funds recommended for 
        salaries and expenses remain proportional to those 
        provided in previous years. However, the Committee 
        recognizes that the reduction in this joint account 
        will require the Agency to review staffing and salary 
        and expense needs. In addition, the Agency should 
        review administrative cost requirements, and propose 
        adjustments to fit the redirection of the Agency. The 
        Committee will be receptive to such proposed 
        adjustments, and suggests that, to the extent possible, 
        they be included in the Agency's revised operating 
        plan. Those adjustments not included in the operating 
        plan may be submitted to the Committee through normal 
        reprogramming procedures.
    Reductions from the budget request include the following:
  --$14,691,000 for the Gulf of Mexico Program activities.
  --$11,876,000 for low priority radiation programs involving 
        criteria, standards, guidelines, program implementation 
        and environmental impact assessments.
  --$2,594,000 from the Environmental Justice Program, 
        including no funding for the ``Partners in Protection'' 
        grants.
  --$47,319,000 for the Environmental Technology Initiative.
  --$35,482,000 for lower priority water quality monitoring, 
        analysis, standards, and applications programs.
  --$11,400,000 for Global Climate Change activities, including 
        the ``Energy Star'' programs.
  --$405,000 for the indoor air ``Building Air Quality 
        Alliance'' program.
  --$129,474,000 for low priority enforcement programs.
  --$132,123,000 undistributed reduction. In light of specific 
        program reductions and funding limitations included in 
        the bill, the Agency is directed to determine the 
        lowest priority program, personnel, and administrative 
        needs for inclusion in this undistributed reduction. 
        Notice to the Committee should be made prior to the 
        enactment of any specific reduction in excess of 
        $500,000, unless such reductions are noted in the 
        Agency's revised operating plan.
    The Committee's action to combine the former ``ACC'' and 
``PRO'' accounts will provide the Agency with greater 
flexibility to properly fund and staff those higher priority 
programs which will attain the greatest environmental benefits, 
within the context of shrinking financial resources. At various 
times throughout the history of the Agency, these programs, 
along with research and development, have been combined in this 
manner. The Committee believes that the time has arrived to 
once again structure these programs in a combined manner, thus 
giving the Federal administrators at EPA the tools necessary to 
creatively deal with the fiscal demands observed by the Agency. 
Moreover, removing the barrier of limited year appropriations 
will allow the Agency to make longer-term and perhaps less 
costly decisions where in the past there have been cases 
observed of one program's dollars lapsing while other programs 
go wanting for unavailable funds. Although overall funding for 
these two aforementioned accounts has been reduced in the newly 
created ``Environmental Programs and Compliance'' account, the 
Committee believes that the significant funds appropriated in 
fiscal year 1996, coupled with enhanced spending flexibility, 
should allow EPA to move ahead aggressively in building 
partnerships with states and with industry to resolve the most 
pressing of national environmental concerns.
    The Committee's funding recommendation for fiscal year 1996 
reflects the intent for the Agency to swiftly move away from 
what has been termed a ``command and control'' philosophy and 
instead adopt a ``compliance assistance'' philosophy whereby 
greater and better relationships are developed with the states 
and with industry to identify environmental problems and then 
implement common sense, science-based, and financially sound 
solutions to these problems. EPA should be a facilitator in 
resolving important environmental concerns, not an antagonist 
which regularly uses the ``heavy hand of government'' to force 
compliance with laws. Examples where the Agency has moved down 
this new path include the Common Sense Initiative and Project 
XL, and the Committee commends EPA for introducing and 
fostering these types of flexible partnerships.
    In hearings before the Committee, EPA's Administrator has 
identified this move to more flexible relationships and 
rulemaking activity as a high priority, yet there still remain 
far too many instances where the stated goals of the Agency and 
the daily activities bear no relationship whatsoever. Actions 
proposed in the bill accompanying this report speak to many of 
the regulatory issues in which the Committee believes the 
Agency has headed in the wrong direction, for the wrong 
reasons, and in a manner which can impose unnecessary costs on 
American industry and, ultimately, the consumers and taxpayers 
of this country. The Agency needs to recognize that there are 
simply not enough available financial resources to ``fix'' 
every perceived environmental problem. Rather, the Agency must 
develop priorities so that it can go about the task of 
accomplishing meaningful environmental goals in an orderly and 
systematic way. In making the reductions proposed in the fiscal 
year 1996 bill and in the development of future operating plans 
and budgets, the Committee expects the Agency to be more 
deliberate and aggressive in fostering these new, flexible 
partnerships and relationships with the states and with 
business without compromising the necessary, priority 
environmental goals set forth by the Agency and approved by the 
Congress.
    In the development of such closer relationships with the 
states and with industry, the Agency is expected to eliminate 
dual jurisdiction problems wherever possible and is directed to 
curtail the practice of overfiling on actions that have 
previously been filed by the states. In this regard, the Agency 
is asked to report by June 30, 1996 of the progress it has made 
in the reduction of dual jurisdictional problems as well as on 
the number and reasons for any overfilings it has undertaken 
during fiscal year 1996, a calculation of the savings it has 
achieved by the reduction of dual jurisdiction and overfilings 
and how such savings have been expended for actions other than 
increased enforcement activities.
    In April, 1995 the National Academy of Public 
Administration (NAPA) published its long awaited report, 
``Setting Priorities, Getting Results--A New Direction for 
EPA.'' The Committee is aware of and complements the Agency for 
its active review of the proposals set forth in this report and 
its plans to implement a variety of these early in fiscal year 
1996. In this regard, the Agency should submit to the Committee 
by November 15, 1995 a listing of those specific NAPA proposals 
it has or is expected to adopt within the first six months of 
the fiscal year and then, by June 1, 1996, a report which lists 
all of the recommendations made by NAPA which have been adopted 
by the Agency and the results, if any, of each, as well as a 
list of those NAPA proposals not adopted by the Agency and an 
explanation of why each has not been adopted. Further, the 
Agency should take particularly seriously the recommendation to 
merge OPPE and OARM and should, by April 1, 1996, submit to the 
Committee a reorganization plan which would provide better 
coordination of the planning, economic and political analysis, 
and budget activities at EPA, as well as provide an enhanced 
ability for long-term planning, research, and environmental 
review.
    Finally, much attention has been focused of late on the use 
of risk and cost-benefit analysis in the promulgation of rules 
and regulations by all departments and agencies of the Federal 
government. Perhaps this attention has focused on no such 
Federal entity to the degree it has on the Environmental 
Protection Agency. This is due in part to the nature of the 
regulatory actions EPA is often required by statute to take. 
EPA though, has also received great attention because of its 
past pursuit of rulemakings that lacked specific legal 
underpinnings, or were proposed in such a way as to result in 
exorbitant and unnecessary costs when contrasted to the 
benefits to be achieved by the proposed rule. While the 
Committee acknowledges that circumstances exist whereby a 
strict cost-benefit/risk formula may be difficult to apply, it 
nevertheless expects the Agency to adopt and to utilize 
whenever appropriate a consistent and reasonable such formula 
in the development of all rulemaking activities. All such 
rulemakings are expected to contain a written statement 
outlining the nature of the cost-benefit/risk analysis formula 
employed in the rulemaking and the application and background 
associated with the stated results of each such analysis.
    The Committee is very concerned about the Inspector General 
findings on the validity of data reported with regard to the 
utilization rate of minority business enterprises and women 
business enterprises, and the inability of the current formula 
used to accurately calculate MBE/WBE utilization. The Committee 
directs EPA to take appropriate steps to strengthen the ability 
of its Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 
(OSDBU) to monitor the reporting process to ensure valid and 
accurate data submissions. The Committee directs the Agency to 
change the utilization rate formula to ensure that the 
utilization rate reflects calculations based on procurement 
dollars awarded to MBE/WBE per quarter divided by actual total 
procurement dollars awarded to all firms per quarter. The 
Committee further directs the Agency to institute data 
validation procedures throughout the reporting process and 
develop specific and consistent reporting definitions, and 
report back within six months to Congress on these activities.
    It is the understanding of the Committee that the Agency 
plans to expand the Environmental Finance Centers (EFCs) 
network in fiscal year 1966. These Centers assist local 
government officials and small business managers in selecting 
ways to lower costs and increase private sector investment in 
environmental financing techniques, methods, innovations, and 
issues. The EFCs also provide hands-on technical expertise as 
well. These Centers seek to help in funding unfunded mandates 
and in helping to minimize market barriers to such 
environmental investment. The Committee is very supportive of 
this type of technical assistance and encourages the Agency to 
not only expand the EFC Network in the coming year, but to 
provide the additional funding for this worthwhile effort.
    The Committee notes with concern the potential serious 
adverse economic consequences for the Ohio Valley that could 
result from an ongoing Clean Air Act administrative and 
enforcement matter in EPA Region 3. EPA has brought an 
enforcement action against Ohio Power, a division of American 
Electric Power, for violations of title I of the Clean Air Act 
at the Kammer Generating Station, located in Moundsville, West 
Virginia. This matter may successfully be resolved through EPA 
approval of a proposed revision by the State of West Virginia 
to its sulfur dioxide State Implementation Plan (SIP).
    The Committee is aware that EPA and Ohio Power, after 
discussions with the State of West Virginia, have recently 
reached agreement on a short-term extension of the Kammer 
facility's compliance deadline, thus avoiding, for the time 
being the closure of the Consolidation Coal Company's Shoemaker 
mine, which supplies local coal to the facility.
    The Committee hopes to see this matter resolved in such a 
way as to minimize economic dislocation. Accordingly, the 
committee urges the EPA to continue to work cooperatively with 
the State of West Virginia and the affected sources in the Ohio 
Valley, to reach agreement on a process for revising the SIP 
that includes a reasonable schedule for completion, to allow 
the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection enough 
time to collect the most comprehensive, accurate data feasible.
    The Committee understands it is widely held in the 
scientific community that EPA's draft dioxin risk 
characterization document, which presents the Agency's major 
conclusion that dioxins may produce a broad spectrum of effects 
in humans at or near current background levels, does not 
accurately reflect the science on exposures to dioxins and 
their potential health effects. Further, the Committee is 
concerned that EPA selected and presented scientific data and 
interpretations of that data that are heavily dependent upon 
assumptions and hypotheses that deserve careful scrutiny by the 
scientific community. The Committee also understands that 
inaccuracies and omissions in the risk characterization 
chapter, which have been noted and criticized by EPA's Science 
Advisory Board and the general scientific community, were the 
result of the Agency's failure to consult with and utilize the 
assistance of the outside scientific community in writing 
Chapter 9.
    Because the final dioxin reassessment documents, 
specifically the risk characterization chapter, will provide 
the basis for future Federal policies and regulations relative 
to dioxin and other chemicals, the Committee believes it is 
essential that the reassessment be based on scientific 
consensus and accurately present the state-of-knowledge 
regarding the potential risks that may exist from exposure to 
dioxin in the environment. The Committee thus directs EPA to 
ensure that the concerns and recommendations of the Science 
Advisory Board are properly accounted for in rewriting Chapters 
8 and 9 prior to expending any funds appropriated herein on 
further advancing the reassessment of any rules using the 
reassessment as a basis. EPA should enlist the participation of 
scientists from other relevant federal agencies (at a minimum 
DOD, DOE, FDA, USDA and VA) and those scientists who originally 
authored the other reassessment chapters in rewriting Chapter 9 
in the aforementioned redraft.
    Finally, the Administrator of the EPA shall report back to 
the Committee within 90 days after enactment as to compliance 
with the aforementioned provisions prior to expending any funds 
appropriated herein on further advancing the reassessment of 
any rules using the reassessment as a basis.
    In September, 1994, the EPA issued 102 subpoenas to United 
States companies to require them to provide information about 
the operations of certain Mexican companies operating in Mexico 
under Mexican laws. EPA apparently issued the subpoenas under 
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a statute intended to 
collect, monitor and analyze chemical risk information. The 
Committee is concerned that nothing in TSCA or its legislative 
history provides the Agency the authority to apply this law to 
companies or activities outside the United States. More 
important, the activities of the Agency in this regard may be a 
violation of international law or treaties, such as NAFTA, 
which the United States is a signatory of. The Agency is 
directed to provide an explanation of why it has chosen to use 
TSCA in this manner and is urged to use the procedures 
established by the Commission on Environmental Cooperation 
under NAFTA if it desires to further pursue this information.
    The Committee has concerns about the scope, direction and 
ultimate application of the joint EPA/DOE Life Cycle Assessment 
(LCA) program, initially targeted at the production, use and 
disposal of corrugated containers, newsprint, and aluminum 
cans. This joint study of packaging materials has not been 
adequately coordinated with the private sector nor has the 
justification for such an analysis been clearly demonstrated. 
The Committee is concerned that the concept behind such an 
undertaking is flawed. Further, serious questions arise 
regarding the practical application of the fundings of such a 
study, given that the information sought does not lend itself 
to comparative analysis, and the information that would be 
gathered may very well be subject to misinterpretation, 
misapplication and misuse. The Committee does not believe that 
any appropriation in this bill ought to be used in the 
furtherance of this program until the Committee's concerns are 
satisfied. The Committee is concerned that the international 
activities promoting United States products and services have 
not been focused and should be redirected toward facilitating 
those industries primarily in the pollution prevention and 
environmental mitigation industries where the United States 
holds technological lead, including solar and other renewables, 
hazardous waste clean-up and others. The Committee would like 
to be informed within the fiscal year of the progress being 
made to focus this program fostering cost-sharing and 
innovation with these industry sectors.
    Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) authorizes EPA to require chemical 
companies to report on the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). 
Similarly, Section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 
authorizes EPA to collect data on the use of categories of 
chemical substances. Since these reports began flowing to the 
agency, releases to the environment have decreased 43% for all 
industries reporting on the TRI. It has now come to the 
attention of the Committee that the Agency plans to move from 
the collection of TRI data and category use data to the 
collection of specific substance toxic use data, or TUR. The 
Committee believes that the protection of human health and the 
environment is best achieved by focusing on the reduction of 
releases to the environment, not on the specific use of a 
chemical. Moreover, an effort to require the collection of such 
detailed data appears to be a costly and unnecessary intrusion 
on business as well as an unwarranted and unauthorized step 
beyond the clear intent of EPCRA and TSCA. EPA was specifically 
authorized to collect waste and release information and 
category use data, but was not given the authority to collect 
data on any aspect of business they so desire. The Committee 
has provided no funds for the continued collection of TUR data 
and directs the Agency to cease any further actions in this 
regard.
    Questions have been raised centering on what may be a 
practice of the Agency to register non-agricultural pesticides 
which may be more toxic or more technologically advanced at a 
faster pace than agricultural pesticides which may be less 
toxic or less technologically advanced. While the Committee 
understands that the registration process may take up to two 
years for some pesticides, the Agency is nevertheless 
encouraged to move as swiftly as possible to register all 
pesticides, regardless of their intended use.
    Because of interest on the part of the Administration and 
various Members of Congress, EPA in recent years commissioned 
the Tellus Institute to conduct a review of the literature on 
the costs and benefits of bottle bills and, where possible, 
update the costs and benefits of bottle bills using existing 
information. This review was completed and was then opened for 
public comment. The comment period ended on May 1, 1995 and EPA 
is expected to finish its review of the comments before the end 
of fiscal year 1995. The fundamental conclusion of the review 
is that traditional bottle bills are not cost-effective, and 
EPA has stated that they have taken no position with respect to 
the review. It is the Committee's judgment that because so many 
states have adopted bottle legislation, the need for federal 
dollars to pay for yet another study was unwarranted. This is 
the type of study that should be declined in the future, and 
the Committee notes that no funding has been requested or 
provided to continue any work in this regard.
    In the rescission bill for fiscal year 1995, H.R. 1944, the 
conferees rescinded $5,000,000 from the Agency's ``Green'' 
programs, and noted that programs which essentially duplicate 
or are substantially similar to those offered by commercial 
enterprise or by other Federal agencies, such as the ``Energy 
Star Buildings'' program, should not be continued. The 
Committee reiterates those comments and has directed that none 
of the funds provided for fiscal year 1996 be used to operate 
or promote these programs in any way.
    As a result of a consent decree issued in 1993 following an 
environmental group suit against EPA for not regulating trace 
amounts of dioxin produced inadvertently in the paper making 
process, EPA was required to issue new air standards for 
``hazardous air pollutants'' for the pulp and paper industry by 
1997. At the same time, the Agency was required to issue new 
water standards for toxic substances under the Clean Water Act, 
and thus ultimately proposed to integrate these two rulemakings 
into one. Known as the ``cluster rule,'' this action was 
intended to launch a new era of rulemaking by clustering or 
combining standards for different media to avoid the sometimes 
incompatible and contradictory results that have occurred when 
such standards have been separately proposed. The Committee 
supports the merging of rulemaking procedures in this manner, 
both for the economies that can be achieved and for the 
importance of looking at the ``bigger picture'' when developing 
rules which will impact business and society as a whole. In the 
case of the cluster rule for pulp and paper, however, the 
Committee remains concerned that actions taken by the Agency 
will not only adversely impact the pulp and paper industry but 
could serve to undermine the entire process in much the same 
way as subsequent actions by EPA and others soured the much 
touted ``Reg-Neg'' process for reformulated gasoline. EPA has 
not only separated the rulemaking actions but has developed 
faulty benefit analysis data and appears unwilling to use newer 
data which could be incorporated so that the rule can be 
revised prior to promulgation. The Committee strongly urges the 
Agency to review this matter in its entirety and take every 
step necessary to set it back on a successful path.
    During the Agency hearings on the fiscal year 1996 budget 
request, the Administrator was questioned regarding plans of 
the Agency or any other Federal entity to take any actions 
which could in any way create a specific market share for any 
oxygenate in the reformulated gas program. The response 
indicated that the Agency was in the process of determining 
whether to appeal a recent court ruling which dramatically 
struck down a portion of the 1994 RFG rule which created such a 
market share. That appeal was indeed filed with the court and 
has subsequently been denied. The Committee believes far too 
much time and effort has been spent on this issue and this 
process and it is now time to let the markets work as first 
envisioned in the RFG ``Reg-Neg.'' The Committee has chosen to 
take no specific legislative action at this time which would 
prevent the Agency from spending funds for further endeavors in 
this regard. However, the Committee wants to emphasize in the 
strongest manner possible that the Agency should avoid the 
expenditure of any fiscal year 1996 appropriations for any 
similar action.
    The Committee observes that on September 12, 1994, the 
House voted 222 to 148 to deny funding for the implementation 
and enforcement of the independent foreign refiner baseline 
proposed rule (59 Fed. Reg. 22800 (May 3, 1994)). In response 
to this unambiguous expression of Congressional intent, the EPA 
withdrew the rule. At this time, the Committee notes that the 
World Trade Organization (WTO) is reviewing the existing 
foreign refiner baseline rule to determine whether it is 
consistent with U.S. obligations under the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The Committee believes that any 
effort by EPA to repropose an independent foreign refiner 
baseline rule would be unwise given the ongoing WTO proceeding 
and inconsistent with both the intent of Congress and 
environmental protection. The Committee notes that EPA actions 
inconsistent with last year's Congressional finding are 
unacceptable, and the Committee will utilize any and all means 
to prevent any reversal of EPA's decision to withdraw the rule.
    In a similar vein, the Committee is aware that in isolated 
areas of the country, particularly in northern-tier and arctic 
regions, the use of reformulated gasoline is alleged to be the 
cause of unexplained but nevertheless recurring minor 
illnesses. Over 3,000 such cases of illness were reported in 
the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area during the winter of 1995, and 
some in the Fairbanks, Alaska community continue to believe 
that the chemical properties of RFG interacting with their 
extreme meteorological conditions is a cause for great concern. 
There are no published studies, however, which can find any 
definite link between the use of RFG and these reported 
illnesses. Because of this lack of hard, scientific evidence, 
the Committee is reluctant to impose any specific legislative 
restrictions on the use of RFG. However, EPA is directed to 
continue their reviews of all available literature and data 
developed in response to this situation, and provide for the 
Committee a determination of what additional studies or actions 
are necessary to adequately monitor the issue and develop 
practicable alternatives. With specific regard to those 
moderate nonattainment areas in which the average daily winter 
temperature is below zero degrees Fahrenheit, the Committee 
will await the completion of the scientifically valid report 
required by the Committee in last year's appropriation bill 
before taking steps to fully operate the program.
    No funds have been included in the bill for any final 
action by the Administrator, or her designee, for signing or 
publishing for promulgation of a rule under the Toxic 
Substances Control Act to ban or regulate the use, in any 
manner, of acrylamide and n-methylolacrylamide (NMA) grouts. 
The Committee believes EPA's premise for banning the 
manufacture and distribution of these grouts is based on a 
faulty risk assessment and inadequate cost-benefit analysis. 
Therefore, it is the Committee's intent that the Agency 
immediately withdraw its proposed rule banning the manufacture 
and distribution in commerce of acrylamide and NMA grouts. 
These grouts are an important tool in the repair of sewer 
systems. Loss of this tool would substantially impair the 
ability of municipalities and localities to effect repairs of 
sewer systems without major and costly construction.
    As has been suggested previously, the Committee does not 
take a favorable view of proposed rulemakings which seem not to 
be based on true environmental hazards, but rather on what many 
would consider the Agency's ``political'' agenda. One case in 
point is the rulemakings proposed in March and September of 
1994 to further regulate the use of lead fishing sinkers and 
ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In 
both cases, there was no apparent effort to establish that 
either of these items posed any kind of risk to the environment 
or to human health. In yet another example, the Agency has 
proposed through a rulemaking to include mercury-containing 
lamps as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA), even though lamps contain just trace 
amounts of mercury and overall release an infinitesimal amount 
of mercury into the atmosphere. Even though EPA acknowledges 
that mercury in lamps does not propose a significant threat to 
human health, they nevertheless seem intent to move ahead. Once 
again, the Committee states in the strongest manner possible 
that the Agency should avoid making any further expenditures on 
these unnecessary rulemakings and, moreover, should carefully 
review other similar rulemaking activities which appear not to 
be based on good science.
    Finally, the Committee encourages EPA to consider 
conducting a study of the transport ozone and ozone precursors 
on the national scale. In coordination with EPA's on-going 
efforts and the implementation of Phase II of EPA's ozone 
attainment demonstration program, such a study could be 
conducted with the assistance of NAPA as well as technical 
representatives from states potentially affected by long-range 
ozone transport. Upon review of this matter, the Agency is 
encouraged to develop a response to the Committee as to the 
advisability of such a study, and include, if appropriate, a 
proposed strategy plan for achieving national attainment of the 
ozone standard.
    The Committee has included a legislative provision which 
waives Section 307(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act with respect to the industrial discharge to the Kalamazoo, 
Michigan Water Reclamation Plant, if certain state and local 
environmental and financial standards are met. This provision 
is necessary to prevent the EPA from requiring that separate 
and unnecessary treatment facilities be built for commercial 
operations in the Kalamazoo area which have long-standing 
contractual arrangements with the Reclamation Plant to provide 
enhanced treatment consistent with or better than treatment 
requirements set forth by the EPA.
    The Committee has also approved the Agency's request to 
implement a performance partnership grant program and has 
included appropriate bill language. The Committee is most 
interested in promoting flexibility for the states, reducing 
administrative burdens for both the Federal and state 
governments, and helping states assess and plan for their most 
pressing environmental needs. The concept of performance 
partnerships as proposed in the Agency's budget request, is the 
first step in achieving those goals. However, the Committee 
wishes to receive more information on the actual implementation 
of this program prior to the award of performance partnership 
grants. The Committee directs the Agency to submit a report, 
within 90 days of enactment of this appropriation, which 
outlines the scope of this program in fiscal year 1996, 
explains how states will use the funds, and provides more 
information on how specific grants will be utilized. Once the 
Committee has approved this report and plan, the Agency will be 
permitted to continue the program.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee has included no funds 
for the Lake Champlain Basin Plan. In addition to raising 
serious questions relative to its credibility, the plan as 
currently drafted is scheduled to be submitted directly by the 
states of Vermont and New York to the Administrator for 
approval. Prior to any such approval by the Administrator, the 
Committee directs that any submitted plan be made available for 
review and approval by the Committees of jurisdiction as well 
as by all Members of Congress impacted in any way by the plan.
    By December 31, 1995, the Administrator shall submit to the 
Congress, and make available to the public, a draft report 
providing an assessment of the risk of each of the 
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) mixtures that has been the 
subject of laboratory animal cancer studies or cancer 
bioassays, and a proposed methodology for assigning cancer risk 
numbers to mixtures of PCB's found in the environment. By 
September 1, 1996, the Committee directs that EPA shall have 
completed, by a panel of independent experts on the 
carcinogenicity of PCB's, a peer review of the draft report, 
and shall submit a final report to the Congress and make it 
available to the public. Until submission of the final report, 
EPA regions and the states shall not be required to rely solely 
on the PCB cancer assessment provided in the EPA's Integrated 
Risk Information System database and shall be allowed to 
perform PCB cancer risk assessments taking into account 
relevant information.
    The Committee is aware of the excellent work conducted by 
the Agency in the surveying by helicopter of water quality 
along the New Jersey and New York coastlines. Since its 
inception, this program has helped greatly both in the spotting 
and immediate clean-up of floating pollutants and in the 
reduction of the number of such incidents. Within available 
funds, the Agency is directed to maintain this activity at an 
appropriate level during fiscal year 1996.
    The Committee is aware that the Agency is currently 
reviewing relevant materials and developing a proposed rule 
concerning a Sole Source Aquifer Designation for the Eastern 
Columbia Plateau Aquifer System in eastern Washington State. In 
making such a designation, an aquifer must be the single 
underground water supply of at least 50% of the drinking water 
consumed in the area above the aquifer. In the case of this 
designation, the proposal impacts all or part of seven counties 
covering about 14,000 square miles. There are now approximately 
60 such aquifer designations made nationwide, and ten of these 
are located within Washington. Based on the review of all 
available materials, the Committee does not believe there is 
sufficient technical evidence to support the conclusion made by 
the Agency that contamination poses a high risk to this 
aquifer. Moreover, the state has raised several economic 
concerns that would adversely impact eastern Washington should 
this rule be fully developed and implemented. In fact, the 
State has filed objections to its approval. The Committee 
strongly suggests that EPA hold this matter in abeyance until 
all issues raised by the State are fully explored and resolved 
in a manner which meets the needs of all parties.
    The Committee is aware that the EPA has communicated with 
the State of Texas regarding international sources of pollution 
pursuant to section 179B of the Clean Air Act, especially as it 
relates to El Paso, Texas. The Committee urges EPA to work with 
state and local entities to reach a solution which fulfills the 
requirement of the Clean Air Act while recognizing that certain 
communities have little control over sources of pollution 
emanating from outside the United States. The Committee further 
urges the EPA to cooperate with its counterpart in Mexico to 
share information and technologies relative to this goal.
    Preliminary review as part of EPA's examination of RCRA 
regulations for possible modification has shown that silver 
could be removed from the list of hazardous constituents for 
determining the toxicity characteristic at a great savings to 
many businesses, with no adverse consequences to the 
environment. The agency has found that silver poses no hazard 
to health, and silver-bearing wastes do not appear to be a 
threat to the environment. The agency is encouraged to 
undertake a rulemaking to remove silver from the list of 
substances under the toxicity characteristic, and to conclude 
that rulemaking as quickly as practicable.
    The Committee has also included several legislative 
provisions which limit the expenditure of funds by the 
Environmental Protection Agency during fiscal year 1996 for the 
following matters:
          1. Implementation of Section 118(c)(2)(C) of the 
        Federal Water Pollution Control Act to give states 
        additional time to implement programs under the Great 
        Lakes Program.
          2. Implementation and enforcement of Section 402(p) 
        of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act providing an 
        extension of time for the implementation of Federal 
        permit requirements for municipal and industrial 
        stormwater discharges.
          3. Enforcement of permit limits or compliance 
        schedules for combined sewer overflows or sanitary 
        sewer overflows under Section 402 of the Federal Water 
        Pollution Control Act in order to provide additional 
        time to implement these programs.
          4. Implement or enforce Section 404 of the Federal 
        Water Pollution Control Act to provide Congress 
        additional time to determine the proper management of 
        the nation's wetlands.
          5. Development and implementation of new or revised 
        effluent limitation guidelines, pretreatment standards, 
        new source performance standards, or new or revised 
        water quality standards under the Federal Water 
        Pollution Control Act. An additional legislative 
        provision is included which makes moot the previous 
        four limitations if the Federal Water Pollution Control 
        Act, as amended, is reauthorized.
          6. Imposition or enforcement of requirements that 
        State Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act 
        contain trip reduction programs. Identical language was 
        included in H.R. 1158 as passed by both the House of 
        Representatives and the Senate during fiscal year 1995.
          7. Assignment of automatic credits by EPA on 
        inspection and maintenance plans submitted by states as 
        part of their State Implementation Plan. The Committee 
        continues to believe that states should receive SIP 
        credit based on the value of their program determined 
        by accurate, up-to-date data, and not be faced with an 
        automatic discount before their plan has even been 
        evaluated.
          8. Propose, promulgate, issue or enforce rules or 
        schedules regarding MACT standards for refineries under 
        Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act to permit the 
        Agency time to fully review updated data before 
        implementation of this MACT is final.
          9. Continue the extension of risk management plan 
        requirements under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act 
        for the oil and gas exploration, processing, and 
        production industry so that the Congress will have the 
        opportunity to determine if the Agency has overstepped 
        their regulatory bounds with respect to this action.
          10. Signing and publishing of drinking water 
        regulations for arsenic, radon and other radionuclei. 
        Similar language was included in last year's 
        appropriation bill, Public Law 103-327.
          11. Development of a so-called ``combustion 
        strategy;'' MACT under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act 
        until the Agency develops accurate and complete data 
        which justifies the rulemaking.
          12. Impose or enforce rulemaking regarding a so-
        called ``combustion strategy'' under the Resource 
        Conservation and Recovery Act, unless the Agency 
        follows established procedures for the promulgation of 
        rules with respect to hazardous waste.
          13. Promulgate, implement, or enforce the Federal 
        permitting program under Sections 502(d)(2), 502(d)(3), 
        and 502(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act to prevent 
        unnecessary sanctions from being imposed on the states 
        while they are completing their permitting programs.
          14. Require facilities to submit any data under 
        Section 313(a) of the Emergency Planning and Community 
        Right-to-Know Act that is not already specifically 
        enumerated in the Act, including mass balance, 
        materials accounting, and chemical use data.
          15. Revoke or issue regulations under Section 409 of 
        the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for a pesticide 
        in processed food where a tolerance has been previously 
        established under Section 408 of that Act, and to deny 
        or revoke the issuance of a Section 408 tolerance for a 
        pesticide on a raw agricultural commodity solely on the 
        basis that a food additive regulation cannot be issued 
        or maintained under Section 409 for the pesticide in a 
        processed form of the commodity. The Committee notes 
        that this type of situation, where the Agency appears 
        to purposely use an interpretation of one section of 
        the statute to defeat the intent of another, is highly 
        objectionable. The Committee will continue to review 
        cases such as this and take appropriate actions where 
        the Agency continues to defeat the intent of the 
        statute.
          16. Regulate whole agricultural plants subject to 
        regulation by another Federal agency, thereby making it 
        less costly and burdensome for business to secure 
        proper permits and the like from the Federal 
        government. The Committee notes that genetically 
        engineered plants are subject to significant regulatory 
        scrutiny, including by the Food and Drug Administration 
        to ensure food safety and the Department of Agriculture 
        to avoid release of plant pests or other environmental 
        hazards. The EPA has proposed to broaden its regulation 
        under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
        Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to whole plants that have 
        increased pest resistance developed through 
        biotechnology. The Committee directs EPA to curtail its 
        regulation of genetically engineered plants to avoid 
        redundant regulation and minimize burdens on beneficial 
        research and development. Specifically, such regulation 
        should be limited to application to agricultural plants 
        which contain a pesticidal substance that does not 
        naturally occur in nature or has been regulated under 
        FIFRA when applied externally to plants.
          17. Take legal action against states or individual 
        facilities when such facilities have performed a self-
        audit and have admitted environmental violations to the 
        state in a manner consistent with state laws. Several 
        states have enacted laws which allow a facility or 
        business to perform self-audits and, when violations 
        are found, essentially ``turn themselves in.'' The 
        states, in turn, expect the violation to be mitigated 
        or remedied in a timely and correct manner in lieu of 
        fines being charged to the violator. The Committee 
        believes this type of law makes imminent good sense and 
        should be adopted on the Federal level. In the 
        meantime, the Agency should not be interfering with the 
        states who have moved progressively to address 
        environmental problems in this manner.

                      office of inspector general
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation \1\.....................     $28,542,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      28,542,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      33,050,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriatio...........................


\1\ Total does not include transfer of $5,000,000 from the Hazardous 
Substance Superfund account and $426,000 from the Leaking Underground 
Storage Tanks account.

    The Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides EPA audit 
and investigative functions to identify and recommend 
corrective actions of management, program, and administrative 
deficiencies which create conditions for existing and potential 
instances of fraud, waste, or mismanagement. The appropriation 
for the OIG is funded from three separate accounts: Office of 
Inspector General, Hazardous Substance Superfund, and the 
Leaking Underground Storage Tank trust fund.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee recommends a total 
appropriation of $28,542,000 for the Office of Inspector 
General, the same as the 1995 level and $4,508,000 from the 
budget request. In addition to the amount provided, $5,000,000 
shall be derived by transfer from the Hazardous Substance 
Superfund account, and $426,000 by transfer from the Leaking 
Underground Storage Tank trust fund. This reduction in OIG is 
only a reflection of the general reductions proposed for most 
of the major EPA accounts by the Committee. All funds within 
this account are to be considered annual monies.
    In light of the reduced funding level compared to the 
previous fiscal year, the Committee expects the Inspector 
General to review all ongoing and planned activities to 
determine those which will result in the greatest benefit to 
the Agency and to the taxpayers. Within six months of passage 
of this appropriation, the Inspector General is requested to 
submit a general operations plan which outlines personnel 
requirements, those areas where work will continue, and those 
low priority areas which have been terminated or placed on 
hold.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $28,820,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      43,870,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     112,820,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     -15,050,000

    This activity provides for the design and construction of 
EPA-owned facilities as well as for the maintenance, repair, 
extension, alteration, and improvement of facilities utilized 
by the agency. The funds are used primarily to correct unsafe 
conditions, protect health and safety of employees and Agency 
visitors, and prevent serious deterioration of structures and 
equipment.
    The Committee is recommending $28,820,000 for Buildings and 
Facilities, a reduction of $15,050,000 from the fiscal year 
1995 level and $84,000,000 from the budget request.
    The Committee regrets that extremely difficult budget 
circumstances made it impossible to at this time commit to the 
first $50,000,000 installment of what is planned to be a 
$240,000,000 research facility at Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina. The Committee recognizes the demonstrated need for 
new facilities at this location and will be receptive to 
alternative suggestions, offered by the Agency or by private 
sources, for meeting this need.
                     HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

                     (including transfer of funds)
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................  $1,003,400,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................   1,435,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................   1,562,937,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........    -416,216,000

    The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) program was 
established in 1980 by the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act to clean up emergency 
hazardous materials, spills, and dangerous, uncontrolled, and/
or abandoned hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Amendments 
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) expanded the program 
substantially in 1986, authorizing approximately $8,500,000,000 
in revenues over five years. In 1990, the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act extended the program's authorization through 
1994 for $5,100,000,000 with taxing authority through calendar 
year 1995.
    The Superfund program is operated by EPA subject to annual 
appropriations from a dedicated trust fund and from general 
revenues. Enforcement activities heretofore employed were used 
to identify and induce parties responsible for hazardous waste 
problems to undertake clean-up actions and pay for EPA 
oversight of those actions. In addition, responsible parties 
have been required to cover the cost of fund-financed removal 
and remedial actions undertaken at spills and waste sites by 
Federal and state agencies. The Office of Inspector General 
also receives funding from this account.
    For fiscal year 1996, $1,003,400,000 has been recommended 
by the Committee, a reduction of $431,600,000 from the fiscal 
year 1995 level, and $559,537,000 from the amount included in 
the budget request. For fiscal year 1996, all funds for this 
account are appropriated from the general treasury, leaving the 
Trust Fund essentially intact until new authorizing legislation 
is enacted.
    The Committee's recommended appropriation includes the 
following:
          $646,531,200 for Hazardous Substance Superfund 
        response actions as defined in the Agency's fiscal year 
        1996 budget justification.
          $115,729,100 for management and support. No funds are 
        included for salaries and expenses and management 
        support associated with the Gulf of Mexico program 
        office.
          $77,739,600 for enforcement activities.
          $13,224,100 for research and development.
          $147,100,000 for interagency activities, including: 
        $62,000,000 for the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
        Disease Registry (ASTDR); $49,500,000 for the National 
        Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences (NIEHS); 
        $27,155,000 for the Department of Justice; $4,350,000 
        for the United States Coast Guard; $2,000,000 for the 
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 
        $1,100,000 for the Federal Emergency Management Agency; 
        $680,000 for the Department of the Interior; and 
        $315,000 for the Occupational Safety and Health 
        Administration.
          $3,076,000 for response support in the Office of Air 
        and Radiation.
    The Committee recognizes that the authorizing committees 
with jurisdiction over the Hazardous Substance Superfund 
program have undertaken a serious effort to reform that 
program. In crafting those reforms, the authorizing committees 
are considering changes to virtually every aspect of Superfund, 
including improved selection of remedies and cleanup standards, 
an increase role for states and local communities, and a 
comprehensive rewrite of the Superfund liability system, 
perhaps including a repeal of retroactive liability. Thus, 
fiscal year 1996 clearly will be a transition year for the 
Superfund program. The Committee recognizes that it has a role 
in ensuring that Superfund reforms are enacted responsibly and 
as swiftly as possible, and has pledged to assist the 
authorizing committees in every practical way this year and in 
succeeding fiscal years.
    The Committee's recommendation for fiscal year 1996 will 
essentially permit all ongoing activities ``in the pipeline'' 
to continue unhindered to the normal conclusion of the step of 
the process that they are currently in. For example, if a site 
is currently in the construction phase, such construction will 
continue at its current pace. Likewise, if a site is undergoing 
design, such design will continue until completed. In reaching 
this recommendation, the Committee felt that it was important 
to continue all ongoing activities while at the same time 
recognizing that virtually every Superfund stakeholder, 
including EPA's Administrator, agrees the program ``is broken 
and needs to be fixed.'' The Committee believes that it would 
be entirely irresponsible to fund a program that everyone 
agrees is broken at a level which exceeds last year's 
appropriation. The Committee's funding recommendation therefore 
permits no new sites added to the National Priorities List, 
reduces lower priority research and development and enforcement 
activities, minimizes management and support activities and 
overhead, and maximizes funding for so-called ``on the ground'' 
cleanup related activities within the established Superfund 
program.
    Should the Superfund program be reauthorized during the 
fiscal year, the Committee directs that within thirty days of 
such reauthorization EPA submit any necessary reprogramming 
requests so that funds may be reallocated in a manner which is 
consistent with the reauthorization.
    Further, the Committee understands that the authorizing 
committees are exploring alternative mechanisms for funding 
Superfund cleanups, including the possible use of offsetting 
collections. Thus, the funds appropriated in this bill do not 
in any way constrain the authorizing committee's ability to 
make whatever public policy decisions they deem necessary to 
successfully reform the Superfund program. The Committee 
expects to make all future funding decisions in light of the 
reauthorization and ensure that all funding mechanisms that may 
result in speedier and more cost-effective cleanups are 
utilized.
    Part of the need for reform is based on the statutory 
language and the implementation of the law by the Agency being 
too bureaucratic, inflexible, and time-consuming to allow 
cleanup to proceed as expeditiously as communities and 
responsible parties would like. For example, at the Highway 71/
72 Refinery Site in Bossier City, Louisiana, the community and 
the State have actively opposed the proposed listing of the 
site on the National Priorities List and voice support for a 
community-directed cleanup effort. Superfund-quality studies 
have been completed under the State's direction, and the State 
has identified the areas needing remediation. In addition, a 
specific company has stepped forward to do the necessary 
cleanup.
    Despite these facts, the EPA has indicated that the law 
requires the Agency to do what appear to be repetitive, 
redundant and expensive studies, and, further, prohibits the 
local community from directing the cleanup. This is clearly a 
situation where the law--or the interpretation of the law--
prevents EPA from seeking creative, innovative, and perhaps 
less expensive solutions that encourage communities and states 
to get involved in more timely cleanups. The Committee is not 
convinced that the Agency has no latitude in instances such as 
this and directs that further review be performed on all such 
cases to determine where flexibility exists to get the job done 
in a more cost-effective manner. Despite the effort through the 
authorizing committees to reauthorize and reform this program, 
there is simply no reason the Agency cannot begin immediately 
to effect important changes to the program.
    The Committee has stipulated in the bill the funds provided 
in fiscal year 1996 for the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry. In addition, the Committee supports the 
continued funding of $4,000,000 for the existing ATSDR/minority 
health professions cooperative agreement in support of 
substance specific investigations, with which the Committee has 
been pleased. Finally, the Committee wishes to express its 
support for continued ATSDR funding for a study of the human 
health effects associated with the consumption of Great Lakes 
fish.
    The Committee recognizes that ``brownfields''--properties, 
both land and structures, that have been previously used for 
commercial or industrial purpose and may require remediation--
pose significant challenges and opportunities for many 
communities. These industrial properties, contaminated for 
years, often are difficult to develop because of the high cost 
of initial site assessment, including an array of testing and 
analysis. As a result, many sites remain dormant and pollution 
continues unabated, and often a disproportionate share of 
environmental risks are borne by economically disadvantaged 
communities.
    The Committee is recommending that the EPA provide 
financial assistance to local communities to expedite initial 
assessment of ``brownfield'' sites in order to ensure early 
remediation of these properties. The Committee intends that 
this assistance is guided toward local economic development 
goals. The Committee further encourages the Agency's continued 
support through the Office of Environmental Justice of 
educational programs that allow for partnerships or 
subagreements with regard to technical assistance, and 
education and training related to brownfields issues.
    The Committee urges the Agency to continue the Small Grants 
Program, the Community/University Partnerships Program, and the 
programs and services of the Environmental Justice Advisory 
Council. The Committee also urges the Agency to ensure adequate 
staff in the Office of Environmental Justice to carry out the 
multiple activities of this office.

              LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND

                     (including transfer of funds)
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $45,827,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      70,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      77,273,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     -24,173,000

    Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by 
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, authorized 
the establishment of a response program for cleanup of releases 
from leaking underground storage tanks. Owners and operators of 
facilities with underground tanks must demonstrate financial 
responsibility and bear initial responsibility for cleanup. The 
Federal trust fund is funded through the imposition of a motor 
fuel tax of one-tenth of a cent per gallon, generating 
approximately $150,000,000 per year. Most states also have 
their own leaking underground storage tank programs, including 
a separate trust fund or other funding mechanism, in place.
    The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund provides 
additional cleanup resources and may also be used to enforce 
necessary corrective actions and to recover costs expended from 
the Fund for cleanup activities. The underground storage tank 
response program is designed to operate primarily through 
cooperative agreements with states. However, funds are also 
used for grants to non-state entities including Indian tribes 
under Section 8001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act. The Office of Inspector General also receives funding, by 
transfer from the trust fund, through this appropriation.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee has provided 
$45,827,000, a decrease of $24,173,000 from the 1995 
appropriated level and $31,446,000 from the fiscal year 1996 
budget request. Bill language has been included which limits 
administrative expenses during the fiscal year to $5,285,000, 
and $426,000 has been provided from the fund, by transfer, to 
the Office of Inspector General.
    As was noted previously, Congress created the Leaking 
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund in the late 1980's 
to help states pay for cleanup of petroleum releases from 
underground storage tanks where the cleanup cannot or will not 
be accomplished by a responsible party. To date, 46 states have 
established their own funds for emergency response and clean-
ups of leaking underground storage tanks. EPA estimates that 
states spend about $1,000,000,000 per year on their LUST 
programs, while annual Federal contributions to states for 
these purposes has averaged about $70,000,000. The resulting 
low Federal spending from the fund has left a balance of nearly 
$1,000,000,000 in the trust fund, and the tax is due to expire 
on December 31, 1995.
    The LUST program was intended to become primarily a state-
run program, and according to EPA officials, once states 
developed adequate programs it was envisioned that EPA's role 
would diminish. In addition, the universe of leaking 
underground storage tanks is finite, and the Agency has 
estimated that the number of leaking tanks identified should be 
leveling off, and then diminishing. Currently, only about 3% of 
the leaking tanks identified have no responsible party to pay 
for cleanup. Given the high level of state funding and effort 
for the program, the relatively small Federal contribution, and 
the growing trust fund balance, the Committee requests that the 
General Accounting Office review and report on this program, 
specifically focusing on the following questions:
          Is the Federal LUST trust fund over-funded?
          Is there a need to reauthorize the tax supporting the 
        fund?
          What is EPA's role in the program?
          Could states be funded directly with the tax 
        proceeds, eliminating the need for the trust fund 
        balance?
          What are the true future needs of the program?
          Is there any evidence suggesting a need for continued 
        EPA involvement?
    The Committee has asked that, if possible, this report be 
completed and submitted prior to the fiscal year 1997 budget 
hearing for the Agency.

                           OIL SPILL RESPONSE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $20,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      20,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      23,047,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................

    This appropriation authorized by the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act 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 site inspections; providing for a means to achieve 
cleanup activities by private parties; reviewing containment 
plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency plans; and 
pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed cleanups. Funds are 
provided through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund which is 
composed of fees and collections made through provisions of the 
Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the Comprehensive Oil Pollution 
Liability and Compensation Act, the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, 
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978, and 
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Pursuant to law, the 
fund is managed by the United States Coast Guard.
    The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, 
the same as that provided for fiscal year 1995, and a reduction 
of $3,047,000 from the budget request. Bill language is 
included which limits administrative expenses to $8,420,000, 
the same as was provided during fiscal year 1995.

               WATER INFRASTRUCTURE/STATE REVOLVING FUNDS
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation \1\.....................  $1,500,175,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................   2,262,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................   1,865,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........    -761,825,000

\1\ Program level for SRF increased by $225,000,000 above recommended 
level with use of available funds appropriated in Public Law 103-327.

    The Water Infrastructure/State Revolving Fund programs were 
created to help eliminate municipal discharge of untreated or 
inadequately treated pollutants and thereby maintain or help 
restore this country's water to a swimmable and/or fishable 
quality. For more than a decade, water infrastructure grants 
have been made to municipal, intermunicipal, state, interstate 
agencies, and tribal governments to assist in financing the 
planning, design, and construction of wastewater facilities. 
This account funds state revolving funds for wastewater as well 
as various grant programs to improve water quality, including 
the non- point source program under Section 319 of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, as well as Public 
Water System Supervision grants. Funds appropriated in previous 
years for a Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, pending 
such a fund's authorization, have been made available through 
this account. For 1996, this activity is noted in a separate 
account.
    For fiscal year 1995, the Committee recommends a total of 
$1,500,175,000, a decrease of $761,825,000 from the fiscal year 
1995 level, and $364,825,000 from the level proposed in the 
budget request. In addition to appropriated amounts, the 
program level for the State Revolving Fund is increased by 
$225,000,000 from funds made available in this account in 
Public Law 103-327. Bill language for fiscal year 1996 
stipulates that funds provided for projects pursuant to the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, are available 
only upon enactment of a reauthorization of that statute.
    The Committee's recommended appropriation for this account 
includes:
          $1,225,000,000 for Clean Water State Revolving Funds, 
        of which $1,000,000,000 is a new appropriation and 
        $225,000,000 is made available from the fiscal year 
        1995 appropriation for the unauthorized Safe Drinking 
        Water SRF. Of the available SRF funds, the bill 
        stipulates that $50,000,000 shall be available for 
        wastewater treatment in impoverished communities 
        pursuant to Section 102(d) of H.R. 961, a bill to amend 
        the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which was 
        approved by the House of Representatives on May 16, 
        1995.
          $100,000,000 for high priority wastewater treatment 
        projects near the U.S.-Mexico border, including the New 
        River area.
          $50,000,000 for Colonias communities in Texas.
          $75,000,000 for the Public Water System Supervision 
        Program.
          $25,000,000 for continuation of the Mojave Water 
        Agency groundwater research project.
          $100,000,000 for Section 319 non-point source 
        pollution program.
          $22,500,000 for Water Quality Management cooperative 
        agreements.
          $63,000,000 for special projects included in the 
        budget request, including $50,000,000 for Boston Harbor 
        cleanup.
          $15,000,000, the budget request, for wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements in Alaska Native Villages.
          $5,700,000 for ongoing alternate water source 
        projects in West Central Florida.
          $3,675,000 for water distribution systems in the 
        South Buffalo/Kittanning, Pennsylvania area.
          $15,000,000 for continuing clean water improvements 
        at Onondaga Lake.
          $15,000,000 for continuation of the Rouge River 
        National Wet Weather project.
          $3,000,000 for continuation of water treatment and 
        distribution system rehabilitation in Ogden, Utah.
          $7,300,000 for wastewater facility improvements in 
        the vicinities of Peter Creek, East Bernstadt/
        Pittsburg, and Vicco, Kentucky.
    The Committee notes the Clean Lakes program has worked well 
in many areas over the past years and questions how many lakes 
will fare as a result of the termination of the program. It is 
unclear from testimony received at the fiscal year 1996 budget 
hearings how the Clean Lakes program will be merged with the 
Section 319 non-point source pollution grants, since Section 
319 grants are awarded to government entities and Clean Lakes 
grants are awarded to non-governmental entities. The Committee 
has provided $100 million for the Section 319 program and 
directs the Agency to work with interested states so that 
activities currently being conducted under the Clean Lakes 
program will qualify for funding under the requirements of the 
Section 319 program.
    The 1987 Clean Water Act established the State Revolving 
Fund Program to replace the construction grants program for 
wastewater treatment plants. EPA provides annually appropriated 
capitalization grants for states to use as ``seed money'' to 
establish and expand state revolving loan funds. A state may 
also ``roll over'' unused federal funds from the construction 
grants program to add to its revolving loan fund. The states 
make revolving loan funds available to municipalities for 
constructing or improving wastewater treatment facilities. 
State revolving loan funds were originally scheduled to be 
fully funded and self-sufficient, requiring no additional 
federal funds, by 1994. In 1994 the date was extended to 2004. 
The sum of annual Congressional appropriations for state 
revolving funds totaled about $8.4 billion as of FY 1994. 
Projected additional annual funding to 2004 would raise federal 
costs to about $22 billion.
    Presidential annual budget submissions show that as of the 
end of FY 1994 there were about $1.6 billion in unobligated 
annual appropriations plus about $6.1 billion in unliquidated 
obligations in state revolving funds. Preliminary indications 
are that these balances are the result of states being unable 
to make loans fast enough to keep pace with annual 
Congressional appropriations. The EPA IG recently reported that 
in one state about $283 million in excess grant money had built 
up in the state revolving fund because of unmade loans, and 
indications are that excess grant funds may exist in other 
states as well.
    Given the planned level of funding for the program and 
indications that states are experiencing difficulties in 
loaning funds, the committee has requested that the General 
Accounting Office review and report on this issue, focusing 
primarily on the following questions:
          How has EPA considered and planned for other Federal, 
        state, and private funds that may be used for 
        constructing or improving waste water treatment 
        facilities?
          What other sources of funds are available for waste 
        water treatment facilities, and how did EPA consider 
        these funds in meeting needs?
          Starting with FY 1988, how much money has been 
        provided by other major sources of funds (federal, 
        state, other sources) for construction/improvements of 
        wastewater treatment facilities?
          How does EPA take these other sources into account 
        when requesting annual appropriations and when 
        designing the SRF program to meet the wastewater 
        treatment needs of the country?
          What assurances does EPA have that all state SRFs 
        will be self-sufficient after the federal government 
        has invested $22 billion by the year 2004, and no 
        further Congressional appropriations will be necessary?
          What is the basis for annual appropriation requests 
        of $2 billion and for the total federal funding of $22 
        billion, and to what extent is it planned to meet the 
        nation's wastewater treatment needs?
          How has EPA defined self-sufficiency in terms of 
        annual appropriations and individual state allotments, 
        total program funding of $22 billion, program 
        completion dates (2004), total annual revolving loan 
        power of $2 billion, and individual state revolving 
        loan power?
          How does EPA measure program progress toward the 
        goals of self-sufficiency?
          Based on EPA's measurements, when are individual 
        state SRFs projected to be self-sufficient?
          Why did the SRF program fail to achieve self-
        sufficiency by 1994?
          What has changed to make EPA project self-sufficiency 
        by 2004?
          Are projections of self-sufficiency, total federal 
        funding, and annual revolving loan level by FY 2004 
        still valid?
          For selected states, how do the states define and 
        measure SRF self-sufficiency, and when do the states 
        project their SRFs will be self-sufficient?
          For selected states, what are the most significant 
        factors affecting the ability of SRFs to reach self-
        sufficiency?
          What is the effect of different states' SRFs becoming 
        self-sufficient at different times on the use of future 
        appropriated federal funds?
          Are impediments preventing some communities from 
        obtaining loans?
          By state, how much of the funds made available to the 
        SRF program have been loaned?
          Why have some states loaned all of their grant funds 
        while others have not?
          How did selected states overcome impediments to 
        making loans and what are the consequences on the state 
        SRFs becoming self-sufficient?
    The Committee requests that, if possible, the report be 
submitted prior to the fiscal year 1997 budget hearings for the 
Agency.

                SAFE DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................................
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................    $700,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     500,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........    -700,000,000

    For fiscal year 1996 the Committee has created a new 
account for a Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. In 
fiscal year 1994, $599,000,000 was appropriated for this 
activity, while in fiscal year 1995, $700,000,000 was made 
available. However, such funds were to be made available for 
distribution by formula to the states only after enactment of 
legislation which specifically authorized the creation of such 
a fund and the criteria for expenditures from the fund. Such 
legislation has to date not been enacted. During fiscal year 
1995, the Committee took action to rescind $1,074,000,000 from 
this program, noting that such action was taken without 
prejudice and only because authorization had yet to be approved 
and was, by all accounts, not imminent.
    Citing the same reasoning, the Committee has recommended no 
funding for this activity in fiscal year 1996.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

    The budget request included language which would have 
created a Working Capital Fund for the Environmental Protection 
Agency. After careful review, the Committee was not convinced 
that the Agency's proposal to create such a fund would achieve 
the efficiency or cost savings anticipated by the Agency. The 
Committee has without prejudice therefore denied this request.
                   Executive Office of the President

                OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................      $4,981,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................       4,981,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................       4,981,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriatio...........................

    The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was 
created by the National Science and Technology Policy, 
Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP advises the 
President and other agencies within the Executive Office on 
science and technology policies and coordinates research and 
development programs for the Federal Government.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,981,000 for 
fiscal year 1996, the same amount as provided in fiscal year 
1995 and the amount in the President's budget request.
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................      $1,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................         997,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................       2,188,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........          +3,000

    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established 
by Congress under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA). The Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ), which 
provides professional and administrative staff for the Council, 
was established in the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 
1970. The Council on Environmental Policy has statutory 
responsibility under NEPA for environmental oversight of all 
Federal agencies and is to lead interagency decision-making of 
all environmental matters.
    While the Committee applauds the actions taken by the 
Executive Office of the President to reconstitute the CEQ and 
OEQ in a manner which is more in line with the statutory 
requirements set forth for these entities, the Committee is 
nevertheless concerned that greater oversight and coordination 
of environmental policy and actions of the many Federal 
departments and agencies is necessary. Far too often, 
environmental policy as articulated by the White House bears no 
relationship to the actual implementation of that policy.
    In addition, the Committee remains concerned with the 
apparent disregard of the clear statutory reading of Section 
202 of NEPA, which states in part, ``The Council shall be 
composed of three members who shall be appointed by the 
President to serve at his pleasure, by and with the consent of 
the Senate.'' While the Committee does not necessarily advocate 
that there be three members, it nevertheless notes that there 
has been no effort to either adhere to the statute or request 
that the statute be amended to require just one Council member. 
The Committee would hope that the Executive would address this 
situation prior to next year's budget submission.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee has recommended 
$1,000,000 for CEQ and OEQ to be used for necessary close-out 
costs.
                  Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................    $779,437,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................     821,907,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     796,119,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     -42,470,000

      The Federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA) was 
created by reorganization plan number 3 of 1978. The Agency 
carries out a wide range of program responsibilities for 
emergency planning and preparedness, disaster response and 
recovery, and hazard mitigation under the following 
authorities:
  --Under the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended, 
        responsibility for maintaining the nation's emergency 
        management programs at the State and local levels 
        through financial and technical assistance.
  --Under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, as 
        amended, programs designed to identify and reduce 
        earthquake vulnerability and consequences.
  --Under Executive Order 12148, responsibility for oversight 
        of the national dam safety program.
  --In accordance with provisions set forth in the 1980 Act 
        making appropriations for the Nuclear Regulatory 
        Commission and other statutes, Executive Order 12657, 
        and by Presidential Directive, responsibility for 
        offsite emergency preparedness for fixed nuclear 
        facilities.
  --Under the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, 
        programs to provide for continuity of government as 
        well as emergency resources assessment, management, and 
        recovery.
  --Under the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, 
        as amended, programs to reduce national fire loss, 
        including training and prevention.
  --Under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 
        and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 
        administration of a national program to provide flood 
        insurance and to encourage better flood plain 
        management.
  --Under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
        Assistance Act, as amended, programs to provide 
        assistance to individuals and State and local 
        governments in Presidentially-declared major disaster 
        or emergency areas.
  --Under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 
        agency-wide audit and investigative functions to 
        identify and correct management and deficiencies which 
        create conditions for existing or potential instances 
        of fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
  --Under the Agency Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, 
        systems of accounting, financial management, and 
        internal controls to assure the issuance of reliable 
        financial information and to deter fraud, waste, and 
        abuse of government resources.
  --Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
        Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, and 
        Executive Order 12580, responsibility for specific 
        emergency response activities.
  --Under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as 
        amended, programs designed to provide training to 
        prepare for and respond to hazardous materials 
        incidents.
  --Under Title III of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
        Assistance Act of 1987, as amended, a program to 
        provide food and shelter to the homeless through a 
        National Board chaired by FEMA and composed of 
        representatives of various charities.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee recommends 
$779,437,000, which represents a decrease of $42,470,000 from 
the fiscal year 1995 funding level and $16,682,000 from the 
1996 budget request. This recommendation does not take into 
account the fiscal year 1995 supplemental for disaster relief 
of $6,550,000,000.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Agency must limit transfers of funds between 
programs and activities to not more than $500,000 without prior 
approval of the Committee. Further, no changes may be made to 
any account or program element if it is construed to be a 
change in policy. Any program or activity mentioned in this 
report shall be construed as the position of the Committee and 
should not be subject to any reductions or reprogrammings 
without prior approval of the Committee. Finally, the Committee 
expects that the Agency will fully consult with the Committee 
prior to the implementation of any reorganization, moving of 
regional office locations, and adoption of any new programs or 
activities.

                            DISASTER RELIEF
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................    $320,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation*.........................     320,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     320,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................

*Does not include fiscal year 1995 supplemental appropriation of 
$6,550,000,000 for disaster relief.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency has responsibility 
for administering disaster assistance programs and coordinating 
the Federal response in Presidentially declared disasters. 
Major activities under the disaster assistance program are 
human services which provides aid to families and individuals; 
infrastructure which supports the efforts of State and local 
governments to take emergency protective measures, clear debris 
and repair infrastructure damage; hazard mitigation which 
sponsors projects to diminish effects of future disasters; and 
disaster management, such as disaster field office staff and 
automated data processing support.
    The Committee recommends the President's request of 
$320,000,000 for disaster relief activities in fiscal year 
1996, the same as for fiscal year 1995. In addition to this 
amount, there is a significant unobligated balance of disaster 
relief funds made available in prior years as well as a fiscal 
year 1995 supplemental appropriation of $6,550,000,000 for past 
and anticipated disaster relief. Language requested by the 
Administration for an emergency contingency disaster relief 
fund has been denied.
     Because of the large number and severity of natural 
disasters which have occurred over the past decade, the 
Congress has regularly responded by appropriating significantly 
large supplemental requests for disaster relief. The nature of 
much of the destruction that occurs in a disaster event 
necessarily requires considerable time between the approval of 
such supplementals and the actual expenditure of funds needed 
to replace or repair facilities in a manner consistent with 
law. Nevertheless, the Committee remains concerned with both 
the time involved in resolving outstanding mitigation 
requirements, particularly those involving the January 1994 
Northridge earthquake, as well as the amounts of unobligated 
disaster relief funds carried forward throughout the fiscal 
year. During fiscal year 1996, the Agency is directed to 
provide by the last day of each month a report to the Committee 
which updates the disposition of all ongoing mitigation 
activities, the amounts necessary to carry-out such mitigation, 
and the remaining unobligated balance of disaster relief funds.
    The Committee is very concerned about FEMA's interpretation 
of the Stafford Disaster Assistance Act with regard to the 
definition of private nonprofit Ocean Grove Camp Meeting 
Association in Neptune, New Jersey. This facility, though 
deemed eligible to qualify for disaster assistance in the past, 
has recently been reclassified by FEMA as ineligible, despite 
the fact that this facility is maintained and operated in the 
same manner as publicly owned coastal facilities throughout New 
Jersey. It was not the intent of Congress to exclude the Ocean 
Grove facility from disaster assistance eligibility. The 
Committee recognizes the Ocean Grove facility as an example of 
a nonprofit facility that performs essential services of a 
governmental nature and the Committee therefore directs FEMA to 
revise the Ocean Grove facility's eligibility status 
accordingly.
    On April 19, 1995, at 9:04 a.m., an explosive device 
contained within a rented truck was detonated outside the 
Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 
thereby killing 168 individuals and injuring another 467. 
Within minutes of this disaster, FEMA personnel were actively 
engaged in structuring the Federal response which, coupled with 
the response of the State and local governmental entities, 
business and charity groups throughout the area and the 
country, and thousands of Oklahomans and others from throughout 
the United States, represents perhaps the finest example of 
public and private cooperation during a time of crisis as has 
been observed in many decades. Despite having no specific 
experience with this type of disaster, well trained personnel 
dealing with virtually every aspect of disaster response were 
quickly and efficiently in place and beginning the difficult 
job of responding to this devastating event. Starting with 
FEMA's Director and on down the chain of command in FEMA and 
numerous other departments and agencies, every individual 
involved with the response to this disaster deserves the 
sincere appreciation and gratitude of this Committee for a job 
well done.

            DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                           (STATE SHARE LOAN)
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................      $2,155,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................       2,418,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................       2,155,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........        -263,000

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Limitation on                         
                                  direct loans    AdministrativeExpenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1996                                                        
 Recommendation...............     ($25,000,000)              $95,000   
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation     (175,000,000)               95,000   
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget                                                 
 Request......................      (25,000,000)               95,000   
Comparison with Fiscal Year                                             
 1995 Appropriation...........    (-150,000,000)  ......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in 1992, loans made to States under the cost 
sharing provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act were funded in accordance with the 
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. The Disaster Assistance 
Direct Loan Program Account, which was established as a result 
of the Federal Credit Reform Act, records the subsidy costs 
associated with the direct loans obligated beginning in 1992 to 
the present, as well as administrative expenses of this 
program.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee has provided $2,155,000 
for the cost of State Share Loans, the same as the President's 
request and a decrease of $263,000 from the fiscal year 1995 
level. In addition, the Committee has provided $25,000,000 for 
the limitation on direct loans pursuant to Section 319 of the 
Stafford Act, as well as $95,000 for administrative expenses of 
the program.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................    $162,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................     162,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     169,409,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................

    This activity encompasses the salaries and expenses 
required to provide executive direction and administrative 
staff support for all agency programs in both the headquarters 
and field offices. The account funds both program support and 
executive direction activities.
    The bill includes $162,000,000 for salaries and expenses, 
the same as in fiscal year 1995 and a decrease of $7,409,000 
from the budget request. This reduction from the budget request 
is merely a response to fiscal constraints and should not be 
interpreted as disapproval of the work performed by FEMA 
employees. The Committee expects FEMA to identify lower 
priority activities within the salaries and expenses account 
for reduced funding during fiscal year 1996, and notify the 
Committee of the proposed changes from the budget request made 
in this regard.
    The Committee notes that FEMA is among the very few 
accounts within the jurisdiction of the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent 
Agencies Subcommittee whose fiscal year 1996 budget request 
represented a reduction from the 1995 level. Nevertheless, in 
light of the likelihood that the aforementioned fiscal 
circumstances will not diminish significantly in the 
foreseeable future, the Committee requests that FEMA continue 
to review all Headquarters and Regional Office activities to 
determine where additional savings can be achieved. Such review 
should include the possible closing of Regional Offices as well 
other field offices and facilities of the Agency.
    Bill language included in the budget request which would 
have provided additional amounts for fiscal year 1997 has been 
denied by the Committee.
                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................      $4,400,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................       4,400,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................       4,673,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................

    The Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established 
administratively within FEMA at the time of the Agency's 
creation in 1979. Through a program of audits, investigations 
and inspections, the OIG seeks to prevent and detect fraud and 
abuse and promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the 
Agency's programs and operations. Although not originally 
established by law, FEMA's OIG was formed and designed to 
operate in accordance with the intent and purpose of the 
Inspector General Act of 1978. The Inspector General Act 
Amendments of 1988 created a statutory Inspector General within 
FEMA.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee has recommended 
$4,400,000 for the Office of Inspector General, the same as in 
fiscal year 1995 and $273,000 below the budget request.

              EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................    $203,044,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................     215,960,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     203,044,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     -12,916,000

    This appropriation provides program resources for the 
majority of FEMA's ``core'' activities, including, response and 
recovery; preparedness, training and exercises; mitigation 
programs, fire prevention and training; information technology 
services; operations support; and executive direction. Costs 
for the floodplain management component is borne by 
policyholders and reimbursed from the National Flood Insurance 
Fund.
    A fiscal year appropriation of $203,044,000 has been 
recommended, the same as the budget request and a reduction of 
$12,916,000 from the fiscal year 1995 level. From within this 
appropriated level, $500,000 is for continued work in 
determining geotechnical and structural risks, and planning for 
mitigation, response, and recovery through the Regional 
Earthquake Hazard Mapping and Preparedness Program by Metro and 
DOGAMI, and $1,000,000 is for the development of a statewide 
and regional directory of safe, hurricane-proof evacuation 
shelters in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
and Texas. Finally, an additional $4,000,000 above the budget 
request is provided for Emergency Management Assistance grants 
to the states and is to be derived by a reduction of $4,000,000 
from FEMA's underground storage tank program.
    Bill language included in the budget request which would 
have provided additional amounts for fiscal year 1997 is denied 
by the Committee.

                   EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................    $100,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................     130,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     130,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     -30,000,000

    The Emergency Food and Shelter Program within the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency originated in the 1983 Emergency 
Jobs legislation. Minor modifications were incorporated in the 
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. The program is 
designed to help address the problems of the hungry and 
homeless. Appropriated funds are awarded to a National Board to 
carry out programs for sheltering and feeding the needy. This 
program is nationwide in scope and provides such assistance 
through local private voluntary organizations and units of 
government selected by local boards in areas designated by the 
National Board as being in highest need.
    The Committee has recommended $100,000,000 for the 
Emergency Food and Shelter Program, a decrease of $30,000,000 
below the budget request and the fiscal year 1995 funding 
level. The Committee continues to believe this is a well run 
and very worthwhile program and notes the recommended reduction 
is due to fiscal constraints such as those observed elsewhere 
in the bill.
    Once again, bill language is included which limits 
administrative costs to 3.5% for fiscal year 1996.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

    The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 requires the 
purchase of insurance in communities where it is available as a 
condition for receiving various forms of Federal financial 
assistance for acquisition and construction of buildings or 
projects within special flood hazard areas identified by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. All existing buildings and 
their contents in communities where flood insurance is 
available, through either the emergency or regular program, are 
eligible for a first layer of coverage of subsidized premium 
rates.
    Full risk actuarial rates are charged for new construction 
or substantial improvements commenced in identified special 
flood hazard areas after December 31, 1974, or after the 
effective date of the flood insurance rate map issued to the 
community, whichever is later. For communities in the regular 
program, a second layer of flood insurance coverage is 
available at actuarial rates on all properties, and actuarial 
rates for both layers apply to all new construction or 
substantial improvements located in special flood hazard areas. 
The program operations are financed with premium income 
augmented by Treasury borrowings.
    The Committee has included bill language proposed in the 
budget request for salaries and expenses to administer the 
fund, not to exceed $20,562,000, and for mitigation activities, 
not to exceed $70,464,000, including a limitation of 
$12,000,000 for expenses under Section 1366 of the National 
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended.
    The Committee notes that some concern surrounds the 
Agency's plan regarding Flood Rate Insurance Directories 
(FRIDs) as well as a proposal to sell Flood Insurance directly 
to homeowners and businesses. The Committee has provided no 
funds in fiscal year 1996 to produce FRIDs or to sell flood 
insurance directly to the public.
    The Committee is aware that the City of Stockton and San 
Joaquin County, California are restoring existing levee systems 
that a FEMA flood hazard restudy has determined no longer meet 
FEMA's minimum flood protection standards under the National 
Flood Insurance Program. For fiscal year 1996 only, the 
Committee has included language in the bill making no funds 
available for any further work on effective Flood Insurance 
Rate Maps (FIRMs) in Stockton and San Joaquin County, based on 
FEMA's restufy of flood hazards on South Paddy Creek, Middle 
Paddy Creek, Paddy Creek, Bear Creek, Mosher Slough, Calaveras 
River, Potter A Slough, Potter B Slough, Mormon Slough, and the 
Diversion Channel.
    However, nothing in the statute or in the Committee Report 
shall be construed to limit the authoity of the City or the 
County to impose elevation or other requirements for new 
construction based upon the best available flood date, 
including data developed in the preparation of the preliminary 
FIRM. The Committee strongly urges the City and the County to 
take measures to inform property owners of the increased flood 
risk while the City and the County are restoring existing levee 
systems.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

    The Committee has once again this year included bill 
language proposed in the budget request which provides for the 
assessment and collection of fees in an amount that 
approximates the amount anticipated by the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency to be obligated for its radiological 
emergency program during the fiscal year. This amount is 
estimated to be $12,257,000 in fiscal year 1996.
    The Committee is not convinced that the Agency's proposal 
to create a Working Capital Fund for fiscal year 1996 will 
achieve the efficiency or cost savings anticipated by the 
Agency and therefore directs that no workyears or funds be 
diverted or directed to such an effort or activity.
                    General Services Administration

                      CONSUMER INFORMATION CENTER
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation...............................$2,061,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation................................ 2,004,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request............................... 2,061,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation................   +57,000

    The Consumer Information Center (CIC) helps Federal 
departments and agencies promote and distribute consumer 
information and promotes public awareness of existing 
government publications through dissemination of a consumer 
information catalog and other media programs.
    The Consumer Information Center Fund, a revolving fund 
established by Public Law 98-63, provides for the efficient 
operation of the Consumer Information Center. The revolving 
fund finances CIC activities through annual appropriations, 
reimbursement from agencies for distribution costs, fees 
collected from the public, and incidental income.
    The Committee recommends the fiscal year 1996 request of 
$2,061,000. This is an increase of $57,000 from the fiscal year 
1995 level. The bill also includes a limitation on the 
availability of the revolving fund to $7,500,000. Any revenues 
accruing to this fund during fiscal year 1996 in excess of this 
amount shall remain in the fund and are not available for 
expenditure except as authorized in appropriations Acts.
    In addition, the Committee has included language limiting 
administrative expenses to $2,502,000, which is $148,000 above 
the fiscal year 1995 level.

                Department of Health and Human Services

                       OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................      $1,811,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................       2,166,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................       1,811,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........         355,000

    The Office of Consumer Affairs (OCA) strives to assure that 
consumer viewpoints are represented within the Federal 
government and seeks to inform and educate individual citizens 
to deal more effectively in the marketplace.
    The Committee recommends $1,811,000, the budget request for 
fiscal year 1996. The Committee continues a provision in bill 
language allowing the OCA to solicit, accept, and deposit gifts 
to defray the costs of printing, publishing, and distributing 
consumer information.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation......................... $13,671,800,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................  14,376,684,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................  14,260,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........    -704,884,000

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was 
created by the National Space Act of 1958. NASA conducts space 
and aeronautics research, development, and flight activity that 
is designed to ensure and maintain U.S. preeminence in space 
and aeronautical endeavors.
    The Committee has recommended a total program level of 
$13,671,800,000 in fiscal year 1996, which represents a 
reduction of $588,200,000 below the budget request and 
$704,884,000 below the fiscal year 1995 enacted appropriation.

                           HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................  $5,449,600,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................   5,514,897,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................   5,509,600,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     -65,297,000

    This appropriation provides for human space flight 
activities, including development of the space station, and 
operation of the space shuttle. This account also includes 
support of planned cooperative activities with Russia, upgrades 
to the performance and safety of the space shuttle, and 
required construction projects in direct support of the space 
station and space shuttle programs.
    The Committee recommends a total of $5,449,600,000 for the 
human space flight account. The recommendation is $60,000,000 
below the budget request and $65,297,000 below the fiscal year 
1995 enacted appropriation.
    The Committee recommendation reflects savings which accrue 
as a result of the closure of the Yellow Creek Facility at 
Iuka, Mississippi. The Committee has also included language in 
the bill facilitating the transfer of the Yellow Creek Facility 
to the State of Mississippi.
    The Committee urges a timely implementation of a shuttle 
prime contract management structure that will achieve maximum 
cost-savings efficiencies while preserving the nation's 
commitment to shuttle safety.
    The Committee has included language in the Bill which 
delays $390,000,000 of space station funding for ten months, 
until August 1, 1996. It is the Committee's understanding that 
this provision will not have an adverse effect on the execution 
of the program and directs the Administrator to take such 
actions as are necessary to ensure that the program remains on 
schedule and on budget.
                       SHUTTLE MISSION SIMULATORS

    Shuttle mission simulators are critical tools in preparing 
astronaut crews for spaceflight, and their reliability and 
dependability are vital to flight safety and mission success. 
The shuttle program's two primary high-fidelity simulators have 
supported astronaut training since the mid-1970's, and have 
weathered astronaut training sessions for 68 (as of May 1995) 
space shuttle flights. The continued successful performance of 
these complex, high-technology systems is imperative, and is 
worthy of additional concern in consideration of the high 
utilization rates combined with system aging. Accordingly, the 
Committee directs NASA to develop a plan which assures system 
viability and readiness through a program of maintenance, 
monitoring, and replacement of aging components.

            CENTERS FOR THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPACE

    As in the past, the Committee supports adequate funding for 
the Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center to fully accomplish its 
objectives for the Wake Shield Facility. The Committee 
recognizes the positive contributions of the Centers for the 
Commercial Development of Space, particularly in the area of 
space power-related technology. NASA is urged to continue 
support of this activity.

                  SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND TECHNOLOGY
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................  $5,588,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................   5,901,200,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................   6,006,900,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........    -313,200,000

    This appropriation provides for the research and 
development activities of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. These activities include: space science, life 
and microgravity science, mission to planet earth, aeronautical 
research and technology, advanced concepts and technology, 
launch services, and academic programs. Funds are also included 
for the construction, maintenance, and operation of 
programmatic facilities.
    The Committee recommends $5,588,000,000 for Science, 
Aeronautics and Technology in fiscal year 1996. The amount 
recommended is $418,900,000 below the budget request and 
$313,200,000 below the fiscal year 1995 appropriation.
                             SPACE SCIENCE

    The Committee recommends $1,975,400,000 for fiscal year 
1996, an increase of $16,500,000 to the budget request of 
$1,958,900,000. The funding adjustments within this account are 
as follows: No funding is provided for the Space Infrared 
Telescope Facility, a reduction of $15,000,000 from the budget 
request. Funding for the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared 
Astronomy (SOFIA) is set at $28,700,000, a reduction of 
$20,000,000 from the budget request. Finally, the Committee has 
included $51,500,000 for the Gravity Probe B program to ensure 
its schedule remains intact as recommended by the National 
Academy of Sciences in their report on the project.

                     LIFE AND MICROGRAVITY SCIENCES

    The NASA Space Radiation Health Program is designed to 
study how to protect astronauts from radiation in space. 
Protons are a particular concern in the space radiation 
environment, constituting the most abundant particle species 
and contributing as much as half of the biologically 
significant radiation dose to which humans will be exposed in 
the space station program and in future missions. In order to 
accelerate the availability of the benefits of proton research 
to NASA and broaden the base of knowledge gained through the 
interaction of proton and molecular research, the Committee 
directs that no less than $4,500,000 of the funding provided 
for Life and Microgravity Sciences be dedicated to the study of 
protons.

                        MISSION TO PLANET EARTH

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $338,600,000 from 
the fiscal year 1996 budget request of $1,341,100,000. The 
reduction includes $6,000,000 to be taken from the Consortium 
for International Earth Science Network, which will terminate 
NASA support for this project. In addition $332,600,000 in 
other funding reductions are directed. The Administrator of 
NASA is directed to provide a restructured program to the 
Committee by August 31, 1995.

                  AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $55,000,000 in 
aeronautical research and technology. The budget request 
includes $20,000,000 for research on an advanced air traffic 
management system in ``close cooperation with the Federal 
Aviation Administration,'' using as a baseline the 
recommendations of a blue ribbon steering committee consisting 
of senior government and private sector participants. The 
Committee recommends no funding for this effort in fiscal year 
1996 because the steering committee is not yet in place and the 
Committee is not aware of any effort to establish such a 
steering committee. Further, the budget documentation submitted 
to the Congress does not indicate that this effort is a high 
priority of the FAA since less than $10,000,000 has been 
requested for all of the FAA Air Traffic Management Technology 
programs.
    Additionally, the Committee recommends a reduction of 
$35,000,000 from the budget request for high performance 
computing and communications. The Committee believes that a 
number of activities planned for fiscal year 1996 are more 
appropriately the responsibility of private industry and 
directs NASA to carefully evaluate its future high performance 
computing and communications efforts to eliminate projects 
which are more appropriately funded by the private sector.

                      SPACE ACCESS AND TECHNOLOGY

    The Committee recommends $680,000,000 for Space Access and 
Technology, a reduction of $25,300,000 from the budget request 
and an increase of $37,900,000 when compared to the fiscal year 
1995 appropriation.
    The Committee recommends funding for the Earth Applications 
Systems at the fiscal year 1995 level of $49,800,000, a 
reduction of $21,300,000 from the budget request for fiscal 
year 1996.
    The Committee recommendation also includes no funding for 
the Partnership for Next Generation Vehicle, a reduction of 
$7,000,000 from the budget request.
    The Committee reiterates its support for the Q SORT program 
and urges NASA to continue ongoing efforts in domain specific 
software reuse in collaboration with other government agencies.
    The Committee has included $3,000,000 to be used for the 
development of a space port facility in Florida. The Committee 
understands that the authorizing committee of jurisdiction will 
be enacting legislation establishing a program with the goal of 
all Federal funds being matched by State funds and endorses 
such an approach.

                     COMMERCIAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $40,400,000 
for Commercial Technology programs in fiscal year 1996. Within 
the amount provided, the Committee directs that $4,500,000 is 
to be available only for development of a Rural State 
Technology Transfer and Commercialization Center in partnership 
with a land-grant university. The objective of the Center will 
be to establish new companies in rural states using NASA-
developed technologies which have commercial potential, and 
``scouting out'' technologies and matching them with existing 
company strengths.

                        REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES

    The Committee recommends full funding of the budget request 
for the Advanced Space Transportation program which includes 
funding for the X-33 and X-34 reusable launch vehicle programs. 
The Committee endorses these programs because of the 
significant investment being made by the private sector 
partners and the Committee's belief that these programs have a 
fundamental commercial objective which needs to be fostered. 
The Committee encourages NASA to continue these two programs as 
necessary technology demonstrators which can have significant 
commercial applications. In particular, the Committee endorses 
the X-34 program as an innovative initiative that will serve as 
a technology and management testbed for the X-33, as well as 
promoting continued U.S. leadership in the small satellite 
space launch market.

                           ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

    The Committee recommends $102,200,000 for Academic Programs 
in fiscal year 1996, a reduction of $16,500,000 from the budget 
request and no change from the fiscal year 1995 appropriation 
level.
    While the reduction recommended by the Committee is 
substantial, the Committee believes the funding level, which is 
almost 20 percent higher than the fiscal year 1994 funding for 
this effort, is sufficient to achieve established goals. The 
Committee strongly supports and agrees that the recent 
expansion of NASA funded educational programs, which expand 
opportunities and enhance diversity in the NASA sponsored 
research and education community--especially for the minority 
institutions and for socially and economically disadvantaged 
and disabled students, historically underrepresented in NASA 
research and education programs--are meritorious and should be 
supported. The Committee directs NASA to achieve a balance 
between the proportion of NASA funding received by minority 
institutions of higher education and other institutions of 
higher education. The Committee intends that this funding goal 
apply agency and program-wide at the Agency.

         EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH

    The Committee has provided the budget request for the 
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 
(EPSCoR). The Committee is generally pleased with NASA's 
implementation of this program. While the number of full awards 
has been fewer than planned, the Committee urges NASA to 
continue its efforts to integrate EPSCoR researchers into on-
going NASA research and development programs and activities. 
The Committee also hopes that NASA will work with the EPSCoR 
Foundation to disseminate and share information among the 
EPSCoR states so that the states can benefit from the 
experiences of the other participating states.

                            MISSION SUPPORT
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................  $2,618,200,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................   2,554,587,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................   2,726,200,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     +63,613,000

    The appropriation provides for mission support, including: 
safety, reliability, and quality assurance activities 
supporting agency programs; space communication 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 
operational activities supporting the conduct of agency 
programs.
    The Committee recommends a total of $2,618,200,000 for the 
mission support account. The recommended amount is $108,000,000 
below the budget request and $63,613,000 above the fiscal year 
1995 appropriation.
    The Committee recommendation includes a reduction of 
$108,000,000 in salaries and related expenses resulting from 
the voluntary retirement of 1,438 individuals during the 
current year which had not been anticipated when the fiscal 
year 1996 budget request was submitted.
                            NASA DOWNSIZING

     On May 17, 1995 the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration announced the results of its Zero-Base 
Assessment of operations. The conclusions announced at that 
time were the result of an extensive review effort which had 
begun in November of 1994 and gained added urgency when NASA's 
long term budget was reduced approximately $5 billion by the 
President in January of 1995.
    Six basic principles guided the review team as they did 
their work. Those basic principles were:

    1. No NASA Centers are to be closed;
    2. Avoid major program impacts;
    3. Establish meaningful missions and roles for each Center;
    4. Retain core competency of the workforce;
    5. Pursue immediate efficiency and re-structuring saving; 
and
    6. Strive for outsourcing, privatization, and 
commercialization.

    The Committee believes the plan which resulted from the 
Zero-Base Assessment is credible and will achieve $5 billion in 
savings beginning in fiscal year 1997. However, events which 
have transpired since January and which were not considered by 
the Zero-Base Assessment team cause the Committee to be 
concerned that the long term budget target, which is much lower 
than that considered by the management team, can only be 
achieved by revisiting the first two principles. Namely, 
serious action must be taken to reduce infrastructure through 
re-structuring of NASA Centers, and major programs will need to 
be altered or canceled.
    The Committee has therefore included language in the Bill 
which directs NASA to complete a study by March 31, 1996 on the 
cost of performing functions at current Space Flight Centers 
and Research Centers and logical alternative locations, with a 
goal of achieving significant cost savings through 
consolidation or re-structuring.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $16,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      16,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      17,300,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........      -1,300,000

    The Office of Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for audit and 
investigation of all agency programs.
    The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General in fiscal year 1996, the same as provided in 
the fiscal year 1995 appropriation and $1,300,000 below the 
budget request.
                  National Credit Union Administration

                       CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FACILITY

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Limitation of    Administrative 
                                        Direct Loans        Expenses    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1996 Recommendation..............      $600,000,000          $560,000
FY 1995 Appropriation...............       600,000,000           901,000
FY 1996 Budget Request..............       600,000,000           560,000
Comparison with 1995 Appropriation..                 0          -341,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility Act 
established the National Credit Union Administration Central 
Liquidity Facility (CLF) on October 1, 1979 as a mixed-
ownership Government corporation within the National Credit 
Union Administration. It is managed by the National Credit 
Union Administration and is owned by its member credit unions. 
Loans may not be used to expand a loan portfolio, but are 
authorized to meet short-term requirements such as emergency 
outflows from managerial difficulties, seasonal credit, and 
protracted adjustment credit for long-term needs caused by 
disintermediation or regional economic decline.
    The Committee recommends the requested limitations of 
$600,000,000 on new loans and $560,000 on administrative 
expenses.

                      National Science Foundation
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................  $3,160,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................   3,360,520,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................   3,360,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........    -200,520,000

    The National Science Foundation was established in 1950 and 
received its first appropriation of $225,000 in 1951. The 
primary purpose behind its creation was to develop a national 
policy on science, and to support and promote basic research 
and education in the sciences filling the void left after World 
War II.
    The Committee recommends a total of $3,160,000,000 for 
fiscal year 1996. This is a reduction of $200,000,000 from the 
budget request and $200,520,000 below the fiscal year 1995 
appropriation.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Foundation must limit transfers of funds between 
programs and activities to not more than $500,000 without prior 
approval of the Committee. Further, no changes may be made to 
any account or program element if it is construed to be policy 
or a change in policy. Any activity or program cited in this 
report shall be construed as the position of the Committee and 
should not be subject to reductions or reprogramming without 
prior approval of the Committee. Finally, it is the intent of 
the Committee that all carryover funds in the various 
appropriations accounts are subject to the normal reprogramming 
requirements outlined above.

                    RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................  $2,254,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................   2,280,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................   2,454,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     -26,000,000

    The appropriation for Research and Related Activities 
covers all programs in the Foundation except Education and 
Human Resources, Academic Research Infrastructure, Salaries and 
Expenses, NSF Headquarters Relocation, Major Research 
Equipment, and the Office of Inspector General. These are 
funded in other accounts in the bill. The Research and Related 
Activities appropriation includes United States Polar Research 
Programs and Antarctic Logistical Support Activities and the 
Critical Technologies Institute, which were previously funded 
through separate appropriations.
    The Committee recommends a total of $2,254,000,000 for 
Research and Related Activities in fiscal year 1996, a 
reduction of $200,000,000 from the budget request. The 
reduction recommended by the Committee is taken without 
prejudice and is to be allocated by the Foundation in 
accordance with internal procedures, subject to approval by the 
Committee.
              National Consortium for Research on Violence

    The Committee commends the Foundation for its efforts to 
advance fundamental knowledge about interpersonal conflict, 
through support of a National Consortium for Research on 
Violence. Consistent with guidance from the Committee, the 
Foundation ensured the participation of researchers from 
underrepresented populations in planning the program 
solicitation and in the groups that responded to that 
solicitation. In addition, formal linkages with other federal 
agencies resulted in the transfer of $2,000,000 for fiscal year 
1995 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to 
the Foundation for research, by the consortium, on violence in 
public housing. The Foundation allocated $2,000,000 from its 
own budget for fiscal year 1995 for the consortium, an activity 
that will involve a network of researchers from a set of 
leading institutions. The Committee recommends that the 
Foundation continue its funding at that level for fiscal year 
1996.

                        major research equipment
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $70,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................     126,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      70,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     -56,000,000

    This account provides funding for the construction of major 
research facilities that provide unique capabilities at the 
cutting edge of science and engineering.
    The Committee recommends a total of $70,000,000 for the 
major research equipment account for fiscal year 1996. This 
level reflects the total amount requested in the President's 
budget for construction of the Laser Interferometer 
Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO).

                    academic research infrastructure
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................    $100,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................     250,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     100,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........    -150,000,000

    This program is a consolidation of academic research 
facility modernization and support of academic research 
instrumentation.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of $100,000,000 
for this activity in fiscal year 1996.

                     education and human resources
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................    $599,000,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................     605,974,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     599,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........      -6,974,000

    The Foundation's Education and Human Resources activities 
are designed to encourage the entrance of talented students 
into science and technology careers, to improve the 
undergraduate science and engineering education environment, to 
assist in providing all pre-college students with a level of 
education in mathematics, science, and technology that reflects 
the needs of the nation and is the highest quality attained 
anywhere in the world, and extend greater research 
opportunities to underrepresented segments in the scientific 
and engineering communities.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee has provided the 
President's request of $599,000,000. This level is $6,974,000 
below the fiscal year 1995 appropriation. Given the resource 
constraints facing the Foundation, the Committee believes that 
the Foundation support for math and science education should be 
provided strictly on the basis of merit to institutions of 
higher education, independent museums, professional societies 
and associations, state and local educational entities, and 
other similar eligible organizations that are primarily 
associated with educational activities.
                        education system reform

    The Committee strongly supports the Urban Systemic 
Initiative (USI) and commends the Foundation for the 
significant progress made in the first nine awards. The 
Committee urges the Foundation to make all reasonable efforts 
to fully fund these awards and the recent second seven awards 
at the agreed level of $3,000,000 per year. Further, beyond the 
USI program, the Committee recognizes the significant 
accomplishments of the Alliance for Minority Participation in 
Science and the Advanced Technology Education programs. The 
Committee urges the Foundation to give the highest priority 
attention to these two very important activities.

         experimental program to stimulate competitive research

    The Committee is pleased with the efforts which the 
Foundation has made to ensure that the Experimental Program to 
Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is part of the broader 
systemic reform initiatives pursued in recent years. These 
efforts have formed a solid base for education and human 
resource development activities in many of the EPSCoR states. 
The same success has not, however, occurred with respect to the 
research directorates. The Committee believes that new efforts 
are needed to mainstream EPSCoR researchers and research 
clusters into research directorate activities, and to include 
representatives from EPSCoR states on panels, advisory 
committees, and other bodies. EPSCoR is, after all, a research-
based program and its ultimate measure of success must be 
determined by the extent to which its participants can move 
into the mainstream of research programs and research decision-
making. The Committee understands that it takes time to become 
competitive, but it also believes that the Foundation needs to 
place a renewed emphasis on such mainstreaming. The Committee 
directs the Foundation to report by December 1, 1995, on how 
increased interaction can be achieved between the research 
directorates and the EPSCoR states and how better 
representation on appropriate committees can be achieved.

                         salaries and expenses
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................    $127,310,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................     123,966,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................     127,310,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........      +3,344,000

    The Salaries and Expenses activity provides for the 
operation, support and management, and direction of all 
Foundation programs and activities and includes necessary funds 
that develop, manage, and coordinate Foundation programs.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $127,310,000 
for salaries and expenses in fiscal year 1996. This is 
$3,344,000 above the fiscal year 1995 appropriation and the 
same as the President's budget request.

                      office of inspector general
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................      $4,490,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................       4,380,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................       4,490,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........        +110,000

    This account provides National Science Foundation audit and 
investigation functions to identify and correct management and 
administrative deficiencies which could lead to fraud, waste, 
or abuse.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee has recommended 
$4,490,000 for the Office of Inspector General. This is 
$110,000 above the fiscal year 1995 level and is the same as 
the President's budget request.

          national science foundation headquarters relocation
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................      $5,200,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................       5,200,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................       5,200,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriatio...........................

    This account provides reimbursement to the General Services 
Administration (GSA) for expenses incurred by GSA pursuant to 
the relocation of the National Science Foundation.
    The Committee has provided the budget request of $5,200,000 
for this activity in fiscal year 1996.
                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $38,667,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      38,667,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      55,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriatio...........................

    The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, established by 
title VI of Public Law 95-557 in October 1978, is committed to 
promoting reinvestment in older neighborhoods by local 
financial institutions working cooperatively with community 
people and local government. This is primarily accomplished by 
assisting community-based partnerships (NeighborWorks 
organizations) in a range of local revitalization efforts. 
Increases in homeownership among lower-income families is a key 
revitalization tool. Neighborhood Housing Services of America 
(NHSA) supports lending activities of the NeighborWorks 
organizations through a national secondary market that 
leveraged over $125,000,000 last year in private sector 
investment.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,667,000 
for fiscal year 1996, the same amount as provided in fiscal 
year 1995.

                        Selective Service System

                          SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $22,930,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      22,930,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      23,304,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriatio...........................

    The Selective Service System 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 military if Congress 
and the President should authorize a return to the draft.
    The full time civil servants who are in charge of the 
agency's programs are augmented by part-time and volunteer 
personnel, including Army National Guard and Reserve Officers, 
uncompensated civilian board members, and 56 civilian State 
Directors. These individuals receive periodic training in their 
critical responsibilities to ensure that the Agency is ready to 
mobilize in the event of a return to conscription.
    For fiscal year 1996, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $22,930,000, the same as the fiscal year 1995 
appropriation and a decrease of $374,000 from the 1996 budget 
request.

                                TITLE IV

                              CORPORATIONS

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

                   SAVINGS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE FUND

    The Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF), authorized 
for appropriations under section 211 of the Financial 
Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 and 
managed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 
will provide resources for payments on insured deposits of SAIF 
member institutions that fail on or after July 1, 1995. SAIF's 
resources include insurance assessments from SAIF member 
institutions, appropriations and investment income from 
resources not immediately needed for fund operations. Resources 
will be expended from the SAIF to pay insured depositors, to 
pay FDIC salaries and expenses in managing the SAIF, to pay for 
the supervision and regulation of SAIF member institutions, and 
expenses related to receivership management, including the 
disposal of assets acquired from failed thrifts. The sale of 
receivership assets by the FDIC is a source of liquidity for 
the SAIF.
    The Resolution Trust Corporation Completion Act of 1993 
(RTCCA) (P.L. 103-204) provides for a direct appropriation to 
the Secretary of the Treasury for the SAIF. The appropriation 
is subject to specific certifications which must be made by the 
Chairman of the FDIC and may not exceed an aggregate of 
$8,000,000,000 for fiscal years 1994 through 1998. In addition, 
the RTCCA authorizes the SAIF to utilize unexpended 
appropriations of the RTC after the termination of the RTC, 
subject to specific certifications by the Chairperson of the 
FDIC. No funds have been requested in this fiscal year for 
SAIF.
    The Committee is concerned, however, that the SAIF is 
currently undercapitalized. The Committee urges the Corporation 
and the Administration to propose solutions to ensure the 
adequate capitalization of the SAIF.

                         FSLIC RESOLUTION FUND

    The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) 
Resolution Fund (FRF) was established by section 215 of the 
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act 
(FIRREA) of 1989, as a separate fund under the management of 
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FRF is 
the vehicle for liquidating the remaining assets and 
obligations of the former FSLIC. This principally involves 
payments on FSLIC contractual commitments made in prior years 
to assist financially in the acquisition of failed thrift 
institutions.
    Generally, all assets and liabilities of the former FSLIC 
have been transferred to the FRF. This includes all liabilities 
arising under the financial assistance agreements and all 
FSLIC-related litigation.
    Upon termination of the RTC, no later than December 31, 
1995, all assets and liabilities of the RTC shall be 
transferred to the FRF. The FRF will be dissolved upon 
satisfaction of all liabilities and sale of all assets and any 
unexpended funds will be returned to the Treasury.
    In fiscal year 1995, the Committee provided $827,000,000 
and included language which allows for funds in this account to 
be available until expended. No additional funds have been 
requested for the FRF in fiscal year 1996.

                    FDIC AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................              $0
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      15,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      15,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     -15,000,000

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) 
Improvement Act of 1991 required the FDIC to implement an 
affordable housing program. Under this program, the FDIC 
provides rebates and discounts to low- and moderate-income 
households for the purchase of certain affordable single-family 
homes in its inventory of properties retained from failed 
banks. Eligible properties include residential properties with 
appraised values less than or equal to the FHA mortgage loan 
limit for the applicable county, subject to a statutory cap. 
Upon acquiring an eligible property, the FDIC will restrict the 
sale of these properties to low- and moderate-income buyers for 
180 days. After 180 days, properties can be sold to anyone. 
Discounts and subsidies, however, will still be available to 
qualified buyers after the 180-day marketing period.
    The Committee recommends no appropriation in fiscal year 
1996 for the FDIC affordable housing program.

                      Resolution Trust Corporation

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fiscal Year 1996 Recommendation.........................     $11,400,000
Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........................      32,000,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Request.........................      11,400,000
Comparison with Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation..........     -20,600,000

    The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and 
Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) established the Office of 
Inspector General at the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC). 
The Inspector General operates under the provisions of the 
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and audits and 
investigates all RTC programs and operations. The audit 
function provides oversight and evaluation of Corporation 
activities and services to identify and correct conditions 
allowing potential fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The 
investigative function provides for the detection and 
investigation of improper and illegal activities involving 
Corporation programs, personnel, contractors and operations. 
Following RTC's sunset on December 31, 1995, the Office of 
Inspector General will merge its operations with the inspector 
general function in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
(FDIC). The fiscal year 1996 appropriation provides for the 
final quarter and transition of RTC inspector activities.
    The Committee recommends the budget estimate of 
$11,400,000.
                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommends that the 18 general provisions 
carried in the 1995 Appropriations Act be continued in fiscal 
year 1996, except Sec. 509 which prohibits funds for personnel 
compensation and benefits from being available for other object 
classifications. Deletion of this general provision, as 
requestd by the Administration, will permit the departments and 
agencies greater flexibility in the administration of programs.
    The Committee has also included as a general provision 
language emphasizing the importance of federal agency personnel 
adhering to provisions of law relating to risk assessment, the 
protection of private property rights, and unfunded mandates. 
This provision does not establish any new law in these areas. 
It is intended as a statement of Congressional expectations 
regarding program administration once applicable federal law is 
enacted.
    The Administration requests that the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development be given authority to transfer up to two 
percent of any appropriation or earmarked amount among such 
appropriations or earmarked amounts. The Committee believes the 
current funding procedures are adequate and has not included 
the requested language in the bill.

              House of Representatives Report Requirements

    The following items are included in accordance with various 
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives:

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the House of Representatives 
requires that each Committee report on a bill or resolution 
shall contain a statement as to whether enactment of such bill 
or resolution may have an inflationary impact on prices and 
costs in the operation of the national economy.
    Some individuals would suggest that practically any 
spending by Government is inflationary. If that were true, then 
the funds proposed in this bill would be inflationary. However, 
all Federal spending is not inherently inflationary. It should 
be analyzed in the context of the economic situation in which 
it occurs, the financial condition of Government at the time, 
and the sectors of the economy which the spending may affect.
    The amount proposed for appropriation totals 
$79,407,521,000. This is $10,482,241,093 below the President's 
budget request. Included in the total recommended are funds for 
veterans benefits, assisted housing, community development 
grants, and environmental programs. Other funds will support 
advanced technology and science that directly and indirectly 
increase productivity and national competitiveness.
    It is the considered opinion of the Committee that 
enactment of this bill will not have an inflationary impact on 
prices and costs in the operation of the national economy. 
Further information on the purpose of the spending proposed in 
this bill can be obtained in other parts of this report. Also, 
a large amount of detailed statistical and financial 
information can be obtained in the hearings conducted in 
developing this bill.

                          Rescission of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 1(b), rule X of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the following statement is made describing 
the rescission of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
    The Committee recommends a rescission of $198,119,000 under 
the rental housing assistance program in the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development resulting from section 236 
mortgage prepayments and project terminations.

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 1(b), rule X of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the following statements are made 
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying 
bill.
    The Committee has included language transferring not to 
exceed $25,180,000 from compensation and pensions to general 
operating expenses and medical care. These funds are for the 
administrative costs of implementing cost saving proposals 
required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992.
    The Committee has included language transferring 
$12,000,000 to compensation and pensions from the medical 
facilities revolving fund.
    The Committee recommends transferring the following amounts 
to the VA's general operating expenses appropriation pursuant 
to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990: the guaranty and 
indemnity program account ($65,226,000), the loan guaranty 
program account ($52,138,000), the direct loan program account 
($459,000), the education loan fund program account ($195,000), 
the vocational rehabilitation loans program account ($377,000), 
and the Native American veteran housing loan program account 
($205,000). In addition, the bill provides for transfers of 
$7,000 for program costs and $54,000 for the administrative 
expenses of the transitional housing loan program from the 
general post fund.
    The Committee has included language transferring $7,000,000 
from construction, major projects, to the parking revolving 
fund to provide for the project at the San Juan VA Medical 
Center.
    The Committee recommends providing authority under 
administrative provisions for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs for any funds appropriated in 1996 for compensation and 
pensions, readjustment benefits, and veterans insurance and 
indemnities to be transferred between those three accounts. 
This will provide the Department of Veterans Affairs 
flexibility in administering it entitlement programs.
    The Committee has included language transferring all 
uncommitted prior balances of excess rental charges and all 
collections made during fiscal year 1996 to the flexible 
subsidy fund.
    The Committee has also included language transferring 
$225,000 of funds appropriated for administrative expenses to 
carry out the section 108 loan guarantee program to the 
departmental salaries and expenses account.
    The Committee recommends transferring a total of 
$495,355,000 from the various funds of the Federal Housing 
Administration (not to exceed $308,846,000 from the FHA-mutual 
mortgage insurance program account and $193,299,000 from the 
FHA-general and special risk program account) for salaries and 
expenses of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
    The Committee has included language transferring 
$10,961,000 from various funds of the Federal Housing 
Administration (not to exceed $6,790,000 from the FHA-mutual 
mortgage insurance program account and $4,171,000 from the FHA-
general and special risk program account) to the office of 
inspector general. This allows all funds for the inspector 
general's office to be carried in a single account.
    The Committee has included language transferring $8,824,000 
from the Government National Mortgage Association's guarantees 
of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account to 
HUD's salaries and expenses account.
    The Committee recommends language allowing a transfer of 
$14,895,000 from the federal housing enterprise oversight fund 
to the office of federal housing enterprise oversight account.
    The Committee has included language under HUD 
administrative provisions transferring obligated and 
unobligated balances from the renewal of expiring section 8 
subsidy contracts account to the annual contribution for 
assisted housing account.
    The Committee has included language under the Environmental 
Protection Agency transferring funds from the hazardous 
substance superfund trust fund ($5,000,000) and the leaking 
underground storage tank trust fund ($426,000) to the office of 
inspector general account.
    The bill includes language transferring $20,000,000 from 
the oil spill liability trust fund to the oil spill response 
account.
    The bill includes requested language transferring 
unexpended balances from prior year NASA appropriations to the 
appropriated new accounts carried in the 1996 bill.

                  Compliance With Rule XIII, Clause 3

                               (RAMSEYER)

    In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE

          * * * * * * *
                         CHAPTER 19--INSURANCE

          * * * * * * *

             SUBCHAPTER I--NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 1920. National Service Life Insurance Fund

    (a) The National Service Life Insurance Fund heretofore 
created in the Treasury is continued as a permanent trust fund. 
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, all premiums paid 
on account of National Service Life Insurance shall be 
deposited and covered into the Treasury to the credit of such 
fund, which, together with interest earned thereon, shall be 
available for the payment of liabilities under such insurance, 
including payment of dividends and refunds of unearned 
premiums, and for the reimbursement of administrative costs 
under subsection (c). Payments from this fund shall be made 
upon and in accordance with awards by the Secretary.
          * * * * * * *
    (c)(1) For each fiscal year for which this subsection is in 
effect, the Secretary shall, from the National Service Life 
Insurance Fund, reimburse the ``General operating expenses'' 
account of the Department for the amount of administrative 
costs determined under paragraph (2) for that fiscal year. Such 
reimbursement shall be made from any surplus earnings for that 
fiscal year that are available for dividends on such insurance 
after claims have been paid and actuarially determined reserves 
have been set aside. However, if the amount of such 
administrative costs exceeds the amount of such surplus 
earnings, such reimbursement shall be made only to the extent 
of such surplus earnings.
    (2) The Secretary shall determine the administrative costs 
to the Department for a fiscal year for which this subsection 
is in effect which, in the judgment of the Secretary, are 
properly allocable to the provision of National Service Life 
Insurance (and to the provision of any total disability income 
insurance added to the provision of such insurance).
    (3) This subsection shall be in effect only with respect to 
fiscal year 1996.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 1923. Veterans' Special Life Insurance

  (a) Insurance heretofore granted under the provisions of 
section 621 of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, 
against the death of the policyholder occurring while such 
insurance is in force, is subject to the same terms and 
conditions as are contained in standard policies of National 
Service Life Insurance on the five-year level premium term plan 
except (1) such insurance may not be exchanged for or converted 
to insurance on any other plan; (2) the premium rates for such 
insurance shall be based on the Commissioners 1941 Standard 
Ordinary Table of Mortality and interest at the rate of 2\1/4\ 
per centum per annum; (3) all settlements on policies involving 
annuities shall be calculated on the basis of The Annuity Table 
for 1949, and interest at the rate of 2\1/4\ per centum per 
annum; (4) all premiums and other collections on such insurance 
and any total disability provisions added thereto shall be 
credited to a revolving fund in the Treasury of the United 
States, which, together with interest earned thereon, shall be 
available for the payment of liabilities under such insurance 
and any total disability provisions added thereto, including 
payments of dividends and refunds of unearned premiums, and for 
the reimbursement of administrative costs under subsection (d).
          * * * * * * *
  (d)(1) For each fiscal year for which this subsection is in 
effect, the Secretary shall, from the Veterans' Special Life 
Insurance Fund, reimburse the ``General operating expenses'' 
account of the Department for the amount of administrative 
costs determined under paragraph (2) for that fiscal year. Such 
reimbursement shall be made from any surplus earnings for that 
fiscal year that are available for dividends on such insurance 
after claims have been paid and actuarially determined reserves 
have been set aside. However, if the amount of such 
administrative costs exceeds the amount of such surplus 
earnings, such reimbursement shall be made only to the extent 
of such surplus earnings.
  (2) The Secretary shall determine the administrative costs to 
the Department for a fiscal year for which this subsection is 
in effect which, in the judgment of the Secretary, are properly 
allocable to the provision of Veterans' Special Life Insurance 
(and to the provision of any total disability income insurance 
added to the provision of such insurance).
  (3) This subsection shall be in effect only with respect to 
fiscal year 1996.
          * * * * * * *

         SUBCHAPTER II--UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT LIFE INSURANCE

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 1955. United States Government Life Insurance Fund

  (a) All premiums paid on account of United States Government 
life insurance shall be deposited and covered into the Treasury 
to the credit of the United States Government Life Insurance 
Fund and shall be available for the payment of losses, 
dividends, refunds, and other benefits provided for under such 
insurance, including such liabilities as shall have been or 
shall hereafter be reduced to judgment in a district court of 
the United States or the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia, and for the reimbursement of 
administrative costs under subsection (c). Payments from this 
fund shall be made upon and in accordance with awards by the 
Secretary.
          * * * * * * *
  (c)(1) For each fiscal year for which this subsection is in 
effect, the Secretary shall, from the United States Government 
Life Insurance Fund, reimburse the ``General operating 
expenses'' account of the Department for the amount of 
administrative costs determined under paragraph (2) for that 
fiscal year. Such reimbursement shall be made from any surplus 
earnings for that fiscal year that are available for dividends 
on such insurance after claims have been paid and actuarially 
determined reserves have been set aside. However, if the amount 
of such administrative costs exceeds the amount of such surplus 
earnings, such reimbursement shall be made only to the extent 
of such surplus earnings.
  (2) The Secretary shall determine the administrative costs to 
the Department for a fiscal year for which this subsection is 
in effect which, in the judgment of the Secretary, are properly 
allocable to the provision of United States Government Life 
Insurance (and to the provision of any total disability income 
insurance added to the provision of such insurance).
  (3) This subsection shall be in effect only with respect to 
fiscal year 1996.
          * * * * * * *

                         SUBCHAPTER IV--GENERAL

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 1982. Administrative cost

  [The United States] Except as provided in sections 1920(c), 
1923(d), and 1955(c) of this title, the United States shall 
bear the cost of administration in connection with this 
chapter, including expenses for medical examinations, 
inspections when necessary, printing and binding, and for such 
other expenditures as are necessary in the discretion of the 
Secretary.
          * * * * * * *
           CHAPTER 55--MINORS, INCOMPETENTS, AND OTHER WARDS
Sec.
5501.  Commitment actions.
     * * * * * * *
                                      5505. Limitation on compensation 
                                      payments for certain incompetent 
                                      veterans.

Sec. 5505. Limitation on compensation payments for certain incompetent 
                    veterans

    (a) In any case in which a veteran having neither spouse, 
child, nor dependent parent is rated by the Secretary in 
accordance with regulations as being incompetent and the value 
of the veteran's estate (excluding the value of the veteran's 
home) exceeds $25,000, further payment of compensation to which 
the veteran would otherwise be entitled may not be made until 
the value of such estate is reduced to less than $10,000.
    (b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, if a 
veteran denied payment of compensation pursuant to subsection 
(a) is subsequently rated as being competent, the Secretary 
shall pay to the veteran a lump sum equal to the total of the 
compensation which was denied the veteran pursuant to such 
paragraph. The Secretary shall make the lump-sum payment as 
soon as practicable after the end of the 90-day period 
beginning on the date of the competency rating.
    (2) A lump-sum payment may not be made under paragraph (1) 
to a veteran who, within such 90-day period, dies or is again 
rated by the Secretary as being incompetent.
    (3) The costs of administering this subsection shall be 
paid from amounts available to the Department of Veterans 
Affairs for the payment of compensation and pension.
    (c) This section expires on September 30, 1996.
                              ----------                              

    Section 255(g) of the National Housing Act is to be amended 
as follows:
    (g) Limitation on Insurance Authority.--No mortgage may be 
insured under this section after [September 30, 1995] September 
30, 1996, except pursuant to a commitment to insure issued on 
or before such date. The total number of mortgages insured 
under this section may not exceed [25,000] 30,000. In no case 
may the benefits of insurance under this section exceed the 
maximum dollar amount established under section 203(b)(2) for 
1-family residences in the area in which the dwelling subject 
to the mortgage under this section is located.
    Section 8(c)(2)(A) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
is to be amended as follows:
    (2)(A) The assistance contract shall provide for adjustment 
annually or more frequently in the maximum monthly rents for 
units covered by the contract to reflect changes in the fair 
market rentals established in the housing area for similar 
types and sizes of dwelling units or, if the Secretary 
determines, on the basis of a reasonable formula. However, 
where the maximum monthly rent, for a unit in a new 
construction, substantial rehabilitation, or moderate 
rehabilitation project, to be adjusted using an annual 
adjustment factor exceeds the fair market rental for an 
existing dwelling unit in the market area, the Secretary shall 
adjust the rent only to the extent that the owner demonstrates 
that the adjusted rent would not exceed the rent for an 
unassisted unit of similar quality, type, and age in the same 
market area, as determined by the Secretary. The immediately 
foregoing sentence shall be effective only during fiscal year 
1995 and fiscal year 1996. For any unit occupied by the same 
family at the time of the last annual rental adjustment, where 
the assistance contract provides for the adjustment of the 
maximum monthly rent by applying an annual adjustment factor 
and where the rent for a unit is otherwise eligible for an 
adjustment based on the full amount of the factor, 0.01 shall 
be substracted from the amount of the factor, except that the 
factor shall not be reduced to less than 1.0. The immediately 
foregoing sentence shall be effective only during fiscal year 
1995 and fiscal year 1996.
    Section 1316(b) of the Housing and Community Development 
Act of 1992 is to be amended as follows:
    (b) Allocation of Annual Assessment to Enterprises.--
            (1) Amount of payment.--Each enterprise shall pay 
        to the Director a proportion of the annual assessment 
        made pursuant to subsection (a) that bears the same 
        ratio to the total annual assessment that the total 
        assets of each enterprise bears to the total assets of 
        both enterprises.
          [(2) Timing of payment.--The annual assessment shall 
        be payable semiannually on September 1 and March 1 of 
        the year for which the assessment is made.]
          (2) Timing of Payment.--The annual assessment shall 
        be payable semiannually for each fiscal year, on 
        October 1st and April 1st.
          (3) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the 
        term ``total assets'' means, with respect to an 
        enterprise, the sum of--
                  (A) on-balance-sheet assets of the 
                enterprise, as determined in accordance with 
                generally accepted accounting principles;
                  (B) the unpaid principal balance of 
                outstanding mortgage-backed securities issued 
                or guanateed by the enterprise that are not 
                included in subparagraph (A); and
                  (C) other off-balance-sheet obligations as 
                determined by the Director.

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    The Committee submits the following statements in 
compliance with clause 3, rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, describing the effects of provisions proposed 
in the accompanying bill which may be considered, under certain 
circumstances, to change the application of existing law, 
either directly or indirectly.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue ongoing activities and programs where authorizations 
have not been enacted to date.
    In some cases, the Committee has recommended appropriations 
which are less than the maximum amounts authorized for the 
various programs funded in the bill. Whether these actions 
constitute a change in the application of existing law is 
subject to interpretation, but the Committee felt that this 
should be mentioned.
    The Committee has included limitations for official 
reception and representation expenses for selected agencies in 
the bill.
    Sections 501 through 517 of title V of the bill, all of 
which are carried in the fiscal year 1995 Appropriations Act, 
are general provisions which place limitations on the use of 
funds in the bill and which might, under certain circumstances, 
be construed as changing the application of existing law. The 
bill also includes a new general provision (Sec. 518) which 
prohibits funds in the bill from being available for any 
program, project, or activity not in compliance with any 
Federal law relating to risk assessment, the protection of 
private property rights, and unfunded mandates.
    The bill includes, in certain instances, limitations on the 
obligation of funds for particular functions or programs. These 
limitations include restrictions on the obligation of funds for 
administrative expenses, the use of consultants, and 
programmatic areas within the overall jurisdiction of a 
particular agency.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, readjustment benefits, allowing the use of funds for 
payments arising from litigation involving the vocational 
training program.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, medical care, earmarking and delaying the availability 
of certain equipment and land and structures funds.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, general operating expenses, providing for the 
reimbursement to the Department of Defense for the costs of 
overseas employee mail. This language has been carried 
previously and permits free mailing privileges for VA personnel 
stationed in the Philippines. Language is included which also 
permits this appropriation to be used for administration of the 
Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act in 
1996, allows 1995 funds earmarked for the modernization program 
to be available for the general purposes of the account, and 
prohibits funding for Stage III of the Veterans Benefits 
Administration's modernization program.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, construction, major projects, establishing time 
limitations and reporting requirements concerning the 
obligation of major construction funds, limiting the use of 
funds, and allowing the use of funds for programs costs.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, construction, minor projects, providing that 
unobligated balances of previous appropriations may be used for 
any project with an estimated cost of less than $3,000,000, 
allowing the use of funds for program costs, and making funds 
available for damage caused by natural disasters.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, parking revolving fund, providing for parking 
operations and maintenance costs out of medical care funds.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, administrative provisions, permitting transfers 
between mandatory accounts, and limiting and providing for the 
use of certain funds. These first six provisions have been 
carried in previous appropriations Acts. In addition, two new 
provisions (sections 107-108) have been added to create 
legislative savings in the bill as a partial offset for the 
increase provided in the medical care account. The provisions 
impose limits on the amount of compensation benefits certain 
incompetent veterans in the care of the VA may accumulate, and 
fund administrative expenses associated with VA life insurance 
programs from excess program revenues.
    Language is included under the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, annual contributions for assisted housing, 
capping expenditures for fiscal year 1996; making available to 
the Secretary the option of demolishing, reconfiguring, or 
reducing the density of certain public housing; providing that 
voucher assistance may be used in connection with subsequent 
legislation; permitting the use of unobligated carryover 
balances for assistance to State or local units of government, 
tenant and non-profit organizations; permitting the Secretary 
to use voucher assistance for a number of families equal to the 
number of units covered by certain terminated or expiring 
contracts; and granting authority to use assistance for the 
renewal of terminating or expiring section 8 subsidy contracts 
in connection with any subsequent federal law dealing with such 
terminated or expiring contracts.
    Language is included under the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, flexible subsidy fund, permitting the use of 
excess rental charges.
    Language is included under the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, rental housing assistance, reducing the 
uncommitted balances of previously provided authority by not 
more than $2,000,000 and providing for the rescission of up to 
$163,000,000 of recaptured section 236 budget authority.
    Language is included under the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, community development grants, limiting the 
expenses for ``planning and management development and 
administrative activities.''
    Language is included under the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, FHA general and special risk program 
account, regarding the sale of assigned mortgage notes.
    Language is included under the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, administrative provisions, suspending rent 
formulas, establishing minimum rents, establishing ceiling 
rents, changing the application of replacement rules for 
demolition or disposal of public housing, and allowing 
resubmittal of applications, all under public housing; 
increasing family rental payments, establishing minimum rents, 
establishing fair market rents, limiting administrative fees, 
and delaying issuance and reissuance of vouchers and 
certificates, all under section 8 housing; waiving preferences 
for housing assistance and tenant selection; merging and 
transferring all obligated and unobligated balances in section 
8 renewals account to the annual contributions for assisted 
housing account; extending the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage 
program; cancels indebtedness of two hospital authorities; 
delays outlays for public housing development; changes the 
assessment collection dates for Office of Federal Housing 
Enterprise Oversight; places spending limitations on 
development of property insurance regulations, finalization of 
a real estate settlement procedures regulation, the number of 
assistant secretaries at the Department, the number of schedule 
C and non-career senior executive service employees, actions 
regarding enacted ``English-only'' laws, and lobbying 
activities by the Department; and clarification regarding 
``continiuum of care'' requirements.
    Language is included under the Corporation for National and 
Community Service, national and community service programs 
operating expenses, which permits termination costs in fiscal 
year 1996 to be provided from fiscal year 1995 funds.
    Language is included under the Court of Veterans Appeals, 
salaries and expenses, permitting the use of funds for a pro 
bono program.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, environmental programs and compliance, prohibiting 
funds being available to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration; permitting grants to Indian tribes; exempts a 
wastewater treatment facility from certain provisions of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act if certain provisions are 
met; places spending limits on implementation of various 
sections of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the 
Clean Air Act; permitting grants to States; places a spending 
limitation on development of regulations on drinking water; 
places a limitation on spending for issuance of regulations 
under various sections of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics 
Act; places a limitation on spending for regulation of whole 
agricultural plants; and places a spending limitation on the 
use of funds for taking certain enforcement actions.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, hazardous substance superfund, limiting the 
availability of funds for toxicological profiles and the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, water infrastructure/state revolving fund, which delays 
the availability of certain funds, clarifies the use of 
previously appropriated funds, and permits grants to states.
    Language is included under the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy requiring reimbursement of at least one-half 
the cost of detailed employees.
    Language is included under the Council on Environmental 
Quality and Office of Environmental Quality to carry out the 
orderly termination of the program.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, emergency food and shelter program, limiting 
administrative expenses.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, national flood insurance fund, limiting increases in 
certain fund expenses without prior notice to the Committees on 
Appropriations and limiting the distribution of flood insurance 
rate maps.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, administrative provision, promulgating a schedule of 
fees concerning the radiological emergency preparedness 
program.
    Language is included under the General Services 
Administration, Consumer Information Center, limiting certain 
fund and administrative expenses.
    Language is included under the Department of Health and 
Human Services, Office of Consumer Affairs, permitting the 
acceptance of gifts for the purpose of defraying the costs of 
printing, publishing, and distributing consumer information.
    Language is included under the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, administrative provisions, extending the 
availability of construction of facilities funds, limiting the 
use of funds for leases or construction of contractor-funded 
facilities, permitting funds for contracts for various services 
in the next fiscal year, transferring of prior year 
appropriations to the appropriate new appropriation accounts, 
providing for the transfer of facilities to the State of 
Mississippi and requiring the Administrator to submit a report 
on the cost of space flight and research centers.
    Language is included under the National Credit Union 
Administration, central liquidity facility, limiting new loans 
and administrative expenses.
    Language is included under the National Science Foundation, 
research and related activities, providing for the use of 
receipts from other research facilities, and requiring under 
certain circumstances proportional reductions in legislative 
earmarkings.
    Language is included under the National Science Foundation, 
education and human resources activities, requiring, under 
certain circumstances, a proportional reduction in legislative 
earmarkings.
    Language is included under the National Science Foundation, 
salaries and expenses, permitting funds for contracts for 
various services in the next fiscal year.
    Language is included under the National Science Foundation, 
headquarters relocation, permitting reimbursement of funds to 
the General Services Administration for relocation activities.
    Language is included under the Selective Service System, 
salaries and expenses, permitting the President to exempt the 
agency from apportionment restrictions of the Budget and 
Accounting Act of 1921 and prohibiting the use of funds for 
activities related to the induction of individuals into the 
Armed Forces of the United States.
    Language is included under Corporations requiring release 
in appropriations Acts of loans and mortgage purchase authority 
not otherwise required by law.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following lists the appropriations in the 
accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:
Department of Veterans Affairs:
          Construction, Major Projects
          Transitional Housing Loan Program
Department of Housing and Urban Development:
          All programs
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Environmental Protection Agency:
          Research and Development (except the Clean Air Act)
          Environmental Programs and Compliance (except the 
        Clean Air Act)
          Hazardous Substance Superfund (except the Hazardous 
        Substance Superfund Trust Fund)
          Water Infrastructure/State Revolving Fund
          Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Federal Emergency Management Agency:
          Emergency Food and Shelter Program
          Emergency Management Planning and Asistance (with 
        respect to Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 
        1974, Defense Production Act of 1950 and the Urban 
        Property Protection and Reinsurance Act)
General Services Administration--Consumer Information Center
Department of Health and Human Services--Office of Consumer 
Affairs
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
          All programs
National Science Foundation
          All programs
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

           Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act

    During fiscal year 1996 for purposes of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), 
the following information provides the definition of the term 
``program, project, and activity'' for departments and agencies 
carried in the accompanying bill. The term ``program, project, 
and activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget 
items identified in the 1996 Departments of Veterans Affairs 
and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act, the accompanying House and Senate reports, 
the conference report, or the joint explanatory statement of 
the managers of the committee of conference.
    In applying any sequestration reductions, departments and 
agencies shall apply the percentage of reduction required for 
fiscal year 1996 pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 99-
177 to each program, project, activity, and subactivity 
contained in the budget justification documents submitted to 
the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in 
support of the fiscal year 1996 budget estimates, as amended, 
for such departments and agencies, as subsequently altered, 
modified, or changed by Congressional action identified by the 
aforementioned Act, resolutions and reports. Further, it is 
intended that in implementing the Presidential order, (1) no 
program, project, or activity should be eliminated, (2) no 
reordering of funds or priorities occur, and (3) no unfunded 
program, project, or activity be initiated. However, for the 
purposes of program execution, it is not intended that normal 
reprogramming between programs, projects, and activities be 
precluded after reductions required under the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act are implemented.

    Permanent Obligational Authority--Federal Funds and Trust Funds

    Substantial sums of new budget (obligational) authority are 
made available by permanent legislation for the continuation of 
certain government activities not subject to the annual 
appropriations process. Details of these activities for the 
agencies covered in this bill are reflected in appropriate 
tables appearing at the end of this report. The most 
significant are the insurance and loan guaranty programs of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, and the assisted housing 
programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 
The budget estimates that such permanent authorities will 
aggregate $21,658,694,000 in fiscal year 1996.

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

    Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) requires 
that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget 
authority contain a statement detailing how the authority 
compares with the reports submitted under section 602(b) of the 
Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on 
the budget for the fiscal year. This information follows:
    The bill provides no new spending authority as described in 
section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         602(b) allocation                   This bill          
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget                          Budget                    
                                                     authority        Outlays        authority        Outlays   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison with budget resolution:                                                                              
    Discretionary...............................          61,700          74,056          60,046          74,016
    Mandatory...................................          19,138          17,688          19,362          17,347
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................          80,838          91,744          79,408          91,363
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following information was 
provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:
                                                              (Millions)
Budget authority........................................         $79,408
Outlays:
    1996................................................          45,491
    1997................................................          18,568
    1998................................................           7,379
    1999................................................           2,838
    2000 and beyond.....................................           3,113
          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the Congressional Budget 
Office has provided the following estimates of new budget 
authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for 
financial assistance to state and local governments:
                                                              (Millions)
Budget Authority........................................         $18,278
Fiscal year 1996 outlays resulting therefrom............           1,710
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                           rollcall number: 1

    Date: July 18, 1995.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations, 
fiscal year 1996.
    Motion by: Mr. Lewis (CA).
    Description of Motion: To provide funding for the Selective 
Service System, to limit funding to obtaining voluntary 
environmental audit reports in EPA, and to adjust other 
provisions relating to EPA and FEMA.
    Results: Adopted 29 to 17.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bonilla                         Mr. Bevill
Mr. Bunn                            Mr. Coleman
Mr. Callahan                        Mr. Dixon
Mr. Chapman                         Mr. Durbin
Mr. Dickey                          Mr. Foglietta
Mr. Forbes                          Mr. Hefner
Mr. Frelinghuysen                   Ms. Kaptur
Mr. Hobson                          Mrs. Lowey
Mr. Istook                          Mr. Murtha
Mr. Kingston                        Mr. Obey
Mr. Knollenberg                     Mr. Sabo
Mr. Kolbe                           Mr. Skaggs
Mr. Lewis                           Mr. Stokes
Mr. Lightfoot                       Mr. Thornton
Mr. Livingston                      Mr. Torres
Mr. McDade                          Mr. Wilson
Mr. Miller                          Mr. Yates
Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Neumann
Mr. Packard
Mr. Regula
Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mr. Taylor
Mrs. Vucanovich
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                           rollcall number: 2

    Date: July 18, 1995.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations, 
fiscal year 1996.
    Motion by: Mr. Stokes.
    Description of Motion: To strike legislative provisions and 
funding limitations dealing with EPA, VA, and HUD.
    Results: Rejected 18 to 30.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bevill                          Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Coleman                         Mr. Bunn
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Callahan
Mr. Durbin                          Mr. Chapman
Mr. Foglietta                       Mr. DeLay
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Dickey
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Forbes
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Murtha                          Mr. Hobson
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Istook
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Skaggs                          Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Stokes                          Mr. Lewis
Mr. Thornton                        Mr. Livingston
Mr. Torres                          Mr. McDade
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Miller
Mr. Wilson                          Mr. Mollohan
Mr. Yates                           Mr. Nethercutt
                                    Mr. Neumann
                                    Mr. Packard
                                    Mr. Porter
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Riggs
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mrs. Vucanovich
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the result of each rollcall 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                           rollcall number: 3

    Date: July 18, 1995.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations, 
fiscal year 1996.
    Motion by: Mr. Stokes.
    Description of Motion: To delete administrative provisions 
for public housing and section 8 programs requiring rent 
increases.
    Results: Rejected 17 to 26.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bevill                          Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Chapman                         Mr. Bunn
Mr. Coleman                         Mr. Callahan
Mr. Durbin                          Mr. Dickey
Mr. Hefner                          Mr. Forbes
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Hobson
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Istook
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Knollenberg
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Lewis
Mr. Skaggs                          Mr. Livingston
Mr. Stokes                          Mr. McDade
Mr. Thornton                        Mr. Miller
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Wilson                          Mr. Neumann
Mr. Yates                           Mr. Packard
                                    Mr. Porter
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Riggs
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mrs. Vucanovich
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                           rollcall number: 4

    Date: July 18, 1995.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations, 
fiscal year 1996.
    Motion by: Mr. Stokes.
    Description of Motion: To delete a funding limitation 
prohibiting EPA from making facilities submit certain data 
pursuant to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 
Act or Toxic Substance Control Act.
    Results: Rejected 13 to 25.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bevill                          Mr. Bunn
Mr. Chapman                         Mr. Callahan
Mr. Coleman                         Mr. Dickey
Mr. Durbin                          Mr. Forbes
Mr. Hefner                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Hobson
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Istook
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Lewis
Mr. Skaggs                          Mr. Livingston
Mr. Stokes                          Mr. McDade
Mr. Yates                           Mr. Miller
                                    Mr. Nethercutt
                                    Mr. Neumann
                                    Mr. Packard
                                    Mr. Porter
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Riggs
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mrs. Vucanovich
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                           rollcall number: 5

    Date: July 18, 1995.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations, 
fiscal year 1996.
    Motion by: Mr. Skaggs.
    Description of Motion: To delete a funding limitation 
prohibiting implementation or enforcement by EPA of section 404 
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
    Result: Rejected 14 to 24.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bevill                          Mr. Bunn
Mr. Coleman                         Mr. Chapman
Mr. Durbin                          Mr. DeLay
Mr. Hefner                          Mr. Dickey
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Forbes
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Hobson
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Istook
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Skaggs                          Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Stokes                          Mr. Lewis
Mr. Thornton                        Mr. Livingston
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Wilson                          Mr. Neumann
                                    Mr. Packard
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Riggs
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mrs. Vucanovich
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                           rollcall number: 6

    Date: July 18, 1995.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations, 
fiscal year 1996.
    Motion by: Mr. Wilson.
    Description of Motion: To delete two funding limitations 
prohibiting enforcement of regulations dealing with combustion 
of hazardous waste in cement kilns.
    Result: Rejected 12 to 27.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bevill                          Mr. Callahan
Mr. Bunn                            Mr. Chapman
Mr. Coleman                         Mr. Dickey
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Forbes
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Hobson
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Istook
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Kingston
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Stokes                          Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Lewis
Mr. Wilson                          Mr. Livingston
                                    Mr. McDade
                                    Mr. Mollohan
                                    Mr. Murtha
                                    Mr. Nethercutt
                                    Mr. Nuemann
                                    Mr. Packard
                                    Mr. Porter
                                    Mr. Riggs
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mrs. Vucanovich
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                           rollcall number: 7

    Date: July 18, 1995.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations, 
fiscal year 1996.
    Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.
    Description of Motion: To increase funding for drug 
elimination grants for low-income housing and to reduce funding 
for NASA's human space flight program.
    Result: Rejected 17 to 22.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bevill                          Mr. Bunn
Mr. Chapman                         Mr. Callahan
Mr. Coleman                         Mr. Dickey
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Forbes
Mr. Durbin                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Istook
Mr. Kingston                        Mr. Knollenberg
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Lewis
Mr. Murtha                          Mr. Livingston
Mr. Obey                            Mr. McDade
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Riggs                           Mr. Neumann
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Packard
Mr. Stokes                          Mr. Porter
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Rogers
Mr. Wilson                          Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mrs. Vucanovich
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Young
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    
                     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF DAVID OBEY

    Much of the scientific spending in this bill and an even 
larger portion of science funded in the Labor Health and Human 
Services bill is allocated on the basis of a system we call 
Investigator Initiated Research. What that means is that 
scientists which wish to do research describe in detail what 
experiments they would perform and other scientists evaluate 
the proposed experiments. Only the most highly rated proposals 
are ever funded. What this system produces is a distribution of 
our funds to research which presents the best opportunity to 
expand man's knowledge based on a cross section of the best 
scientific expertise in the country.
    By contrast, with NASA's Space Station program we are 
talking about Politician Initiated Research. I am not one to 
denigrate politicians. This is not just an honorable profession 
but it is a critical one. But we are most useful when we 
restrain ourselves to matters within our realm of expertise and 
what we are being asked to do today is approve a project that 
was concocted by politicians, like ourselves who have no real 
ability to identify the kind of experimentation that is likely 
to push forward the horizons of science.
    Essentially what we are talking about is a public works 
demonstration project which involves very little in the way of 
true experimentation but which carries an enormous price tag. 
It will cost, according to GAO, $94 billion before it is 
completed in 2012--about $75 billion of which we have yet to 
Appropriate. That will average nearly $4 billion a year--more 
than this years entire budget for NSF, nearly the amount of the 
entire space sciences budget of NASA and about twice what we 
will spend on Cancer Research this year.
    If we are going to direct that resources of that magnitude 
be directed at a scientific project that we rather than the 
scientific community choose, we had better get it right. But if 
you look at the plans what you find is that we are spending 
tremendous sums to repeatedly perform functions which we are 
already fully capable of performing. For instance, station will 
require 73 shuttle flights simply to carry the tons of 
materials into space and the workers who will assemble those 
materials. What we are talking about a thousand hours of the 
extraordinarily expensive extra vehicular activities which is 
not likely to produce information very different from the space 
walks we have already conducted.
    What we will be proceeding with if these funds are 
appropriated is basically nothing more than a large scale 
construction project. It would represent an extraordinary 
engineering feat. It would generate a large number of jobs. But 
what would we learn? And even more importantly--what 
opportunities for other knowledge would we be forced to give 
up?
    As every member of this committee should be painfully 
aware, we cannot fund very much activity of this type in the 
coming years. A large portion of the research opportunities 
that would have been funded in less austere period are going to 
be crowded out in this budget and even more good research will 
fall victim next year. We cannot afford to let an effort which 
contains so little scientific merit and costs such an enormous 
sum of money move forward given the eventual tradeoffs such a 
decision will force us to make with respect to other scientific 
and human needs.

                                                         Dave Obey.
  DISSENTING VIEWS OF HON. LOUIS STOKES, HON. DAVID OBEY, HON. NORMAN 
 DICKS, HON. MARTIN SABO, HON. JULIAN DIXON, HON. VIC FAZIO, HON. W.G. 
(BILL) HEFNER, HON. MARCY KAPTUR, HON. DAVID SKAGGS, HON. NANCY PELOSI, 
     HON. PETER VISCLOSKY, HON. ESTEBAN TORRES, AND HON. NITA LOWEY

    We, the undersigned, vehemently and unequivocally dissent 
from the proposed Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations Bill for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development and Independent Agencies. This bill as 
proposed is a callous and dangerous action, for it launches a 
wholesale assault on critical veterans, housing and 
environmental programs. The reductions in the bill are severe 
and reason enough by themselves for not supporting this 
legislation. What is even worse is that the cuts are being made 
in part to finance a tax break for the most wealthy.
    The programs in this bill provide assistance and benefits 
helping millions of Americans achieve a better life. Included 
are medical care and benefits for our nation's veterans, 
affordable and decent housing for families and individuals of 
all incomes and circumstances, stable and viable communities, a 
safe and clean environment, and investments in technology and 
science. The impact of the proposed Fiscal Year 1996 
Appropriations Bill would clearly erode our efforts in these 
areas. As was the case in an earlier rescission bill, the 
Committee goes too far against those with the very least--the 
poorest, the most vulnerable, the most needy.
    The bill makes a mockery of the legislative process by 
including extensive and damaging legislation that completely 
transforms the way in which our nation addresses veterans, 
housing and environmental policy. The legislation and 
limitations in this bill have far reaching implications. These 
provisions have no place in an appropriations bill as they are 
under the purview of the legislative committees which have 
proper jurisdiction and expertise. We should allow that process 
to go forward and not use this ill-advised back door process to 
make dramatic and consequential policy changes.
    While there is agreement about the need for some level of 
well-thought out reform of various federal programs, the 
appropriations bill is not the place to enact major policy 
without the benefit of extensive hearings or public debate by 
the authorizing committee. Chairmen and Ranking Members of 
numerous authorizing committees and subcommittees have 
expressed opposition to the legislation in this bill. Clearly, 
these actions could have a chilling impact on the legislative 
process.
    With regard to veterans, this bill reduces by nearly $1 
billion the level of spending that the President has requested 
for veterans including medical care, general expenses, and 
construction projects. These cuts seem especially callous. 
Certainly, individuals who have given the ultimate sacrifice 
and risked their lives for our collective safety and well being 
deserve to have the full level of security for themselves and 
their families to live out the rest of their lives.
    The bill cuts by nearly $250 million veterans medical care. 
This is the equivalent of losing over 3,000 full time employees 
and would result in treating the equivalent of 55,000 fewer 
unique patients. This cut is the equivalent of the budgets of 
two 300 bed VA medical centers. The VA medical program has only 
increased by a fraction of the growth experienced in the 
private sector and health entitlement programs in recent years. 
It is unreasonable to further constrain the VA's ability to 
meet the increasing demand for health care services, 
particularly with an aging veterans population. The Committee's 
recommendations also propose to eliminate funding for the 
health professions scholarship program that helps VA hire and 
keep high quality health care professionals. The additional 
reductions to construction projects would jeopardize the 
building of critical new hospital facilities. These cuts are 
senseless and contemptuous.
    Reductions to the general operating expenses account for 
the Department of Veterans Affairs fall primarily upon the 
vocational rehabilitation counselling division and the veterans 
services division. These offices are the first line of support 
veterans receive when they approach the VA by phone or 
personally. Reductions will undoubtedly result in the slow 
strangulation of services veterans will get. At a time when the 
Department has begun to improve the problem of benefit delays, 
the Republicans cut personnel. Thus, veterans can expect to 
have phone calls go unanswered and be unable to inquire about 
benefits.
    Inclusion of authorizing legislation in this bill cuts 
benefits to certain veterans, who have been deemed incompetent 
and unable to handle their own matters. This proposal would cut 
off compensation for veterans with an estate of more than 
$25,000 until he or she has spent-down the estate to $10,000. 
Once that estate has built back up to $25,000, the veteran 
would again have benefits decreased. This is a cold disregard 
to single out our nation's veterans merely because they are 
found to be incompetent. Benefits could be suspended for as 
long as three to four years. Such actions degrade all 
principles of fairness.
    As with the rescissions bill, housing programs are targeted 
for massive reductions in funding. This bill cuts HUD's budget 
by $5.5 billion. Hardest hit are those programs that provide 
affordable and decent housing for the elderly and poor. The 
severity of the reductions and of the extensive legislation 
recommended is tantamount to repealing the statutory goal of 
decent, safe and sanitary housing for all Americans.
    Among the programs severely cut are public housing 
operating subsidies by $400 million and modernization funds by 
$1.2 billion. Close to 40% of the public housing units in the 
country are occupied by the elderly--often single and disabled 
women. More than one million children also live in public 
housing units. These cuts will mean that housing authorities 
will have unmet maintenance needs, lessened security, fewer 
supportive services, personnel layoffs, and more.
    Unfortunately, the reductions to HUD do not stop here. 
Funding for severely distressed public housing and development 
are completely eliminated, as well as new housing vouchers and 
certificates for the poor. Beyond the reductions to public 
housing are the 50% cuts to the homeless assistance grants 
program, and the new combined special needs account of Section 
202 housing for the elderly, Section 811 housing for the 
disabled and housing for persons with HIV/AIDS. The homeless 
are also targeted by the cuts in the FEMA Emergency Food and 
Shelter Program.
    While these funding reductions have adverse consequences in 
and of themselves, this bill contains some very troubling and 
cruel legislation. Rents are raised for the poorest individuals 
in this country. All Section 8 certificate and voucher holders, 
and most public housing residents, will be forced to pay more 
for rent. These provisions make up the inevitable deficits 
resulting from the cuts to operating subsidies. Minimum rents 
are set, causing at least 600,000 families in public and 
section 8 assisted housing to experience rent increases. This 
includes 250,000 families with children, 22,500 elderly 
families, and 14,500 disabled families. The combination of rent 
increases, cuts to public housing, and incremental assistance 
pose serious hardships to the most vulnerable and poorest 
tenants.
    The Committee's assault on the Environmental Protection 
Agency would set back this nation's efforts to ensure that each 
American shall breathe clean air, drink clean water and be safe 
from hazardous waste dangers. This measure not only slashes 
EPA's implementation and enforcement budgets but adds 
legislative riders which further these pernicious actions.
    Special exemptions are among the most egregious of the 
riders. Concerning clean air, EPA is prohibited from issuing or 
enforcing a toxic emissions standard for the refinery industry. 
Another exemption is for EPA's rules on the prevention of 
accidental releases of hazardous substances. EPA is also 
prevented from holding cement kilns that burn hazardous waste 
to the same emissions standards as other hazardous waste 
incinerators. The Agency is barred from promulgating, 
implementing or enforcing a Title V operating permit program 
which is vital for implementing other parts of the Clean Air 
Act such as the air toxics, acid rain and nonattainment 
programs. The Committee suspends EPA's ability to give a state 
less than full credit for an inspection and maintenance program 
that does not meet the ``enhanced'' criteria, thus allowing 
states to implement substandard programs and still receive the 
same emissions credit as states that have passed more rigorous 
programs.
    Public health is jeopardized further by limitations imposed 
on the use of funds regarding the Clean Water Act. EPA is 
prohibited from stopping raw sewage overflows of combined 
sewers even though these overflows cause beach closures and 
prevent the harvesting and consumption of shellfish. EPA cannot 
address the serious issue of stormwater pollution, both 
municipal and industrial, even though it often represents a 
major pollution problem in urban areas. The Agency is 
prohibited from taking action to implement or enforce the 
wetlands program, which would allow illegal activities to 
proceed unabated, regardless of the impacts on adjoining 
property owners. States will incur enormous costs attempting to 
fill the void imposed by prohibitions on revising or issuing 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards, pretreatment 
standards or new source performance standards notwithstanding 
the need of industry, states and localities for updates of 
existing standards.
    The Superfund budget cuts will harm the thousands of 
citizens living near Superfund sites as well as the hundreds of 
companies who are cleaning up sites and who are seeking to 
benefit from EPA's fairness initiatives and from resolving 
expeditiously their cleanup liabilities. The elimination of the 
Council on Environmental Quality is another extreme action to 
halt our efforts to protect the public health.
    The Committee's assault is not limited to VA, HUD and EPA. 
The Corporation for National and Community Service and the 
Community Development Financial Institutions programs are also 
eliminated. These are just other examples of the misguided and 
detrimental recommendations in this bill.
    We believe many of the funding reductions and limitations 
recommended by the Committee, especially those that are 
targeted to our veterans, our elderly, our children and the 
most needy and poor among us--are ill-advised and mean 
spirited. We will not accept these penny wise and pound foolish 
actions by the Committee and will work to rectify the extreme 
positions taken in this bill.

                                   Louis Stokes.
                                   David E. Skaggs.
                                   Peter J. Visclosky.
                                   Marcy Kaptur.
                                   Martin O. Sabo.
                                   Julian C. Dixon.
                                   Nita Lowey.
                                   Dave Obey.
                                   W.G. (Bill) Hefner.
                                   Norm Dicks.
                                   Vic Fazio.
                                   Esteban E. Torres.
                                   Nancy Pelosi.
            SEPARATE VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE DAVID E. SKAGGS

    As reported, this bill represents an abuse of the 
legislative process, including the rule against legislating on 
appropriations bills. If enacted in its present form it will 
threaten the quality of America's air and water, the safety of 
America's food supply, and the health of all Americans.
    During the Committee's consideration of the bill, I joined 
in an effort to remove the numerous provisions intended to 
cripple the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
perform its duties. Unfortunately, that effort was 
unsuccessful, as was my own effort to amend the bill by 
removing language that prohibits protection of wetlands.
    I recognize that there is considerable controversy and 
debate about wetlands protection--which lands should be counted 
as wetlands, and what level of protection they should receive. 
But I don't think there is any serious support for the idea 
that no wetlands should receive any protection. Yet that is 
what will happen if the language I sought to strike remains in 
the bill and becomes law.
    When I sought an explanation for this inclusion of this 
restriction, I was told that the language is intended to send a 
signal to the Senate about this subject and about legislation 
to amend the Clean Water Act.
    But inclusion of the language also sends a message to the 
American people. By including this language, the Committee's 
majority is saying that it is ready to sacrifice all protection 
of wetlands just to try to score some political point, and 
ready to abuse the legislative process in an attempt to 
influence debate on authorizing legislation.
    Unless this and other offensive and improper provisions are 
removed, and the bill is otherwise improved, I cannot support 
its passage by the House.

                                                   David E. Skaggs.