- 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.
