- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 185
104th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 104-140
_______________________________________________________________________
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1996
_______
September 13 (legislative day, September 5), 1995.--Ordered to be
printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Bond, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2099]
The Committee on Appropriations to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 2099) 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, reports the same to the Senate with
amendments and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
Amount of new budget (obligational) authority
Amount of bill as recommended in House.................. $79,697,360,000
Amount of change by Committee........................... +1,286,626,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... 80,983,986,000
Amount of appropriations to date, 1995.................. 89,920,161,061
Amount of budget estimates, 1996........................ 89,899,762,093
Under estimates for 1996............................ 8,915,776,093
Under appropriations for 1995....................... 8,936,175,061
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs.......................... 12
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development............ 36
Title III--Independent agencies:
American Battle Monuments Commission......................... 78
Community Development Financial Institutions................. 78
Consumer Product Safety Commission........................... 79
Corporation for National and Community Service............... 80
Office of Inspector General.................................. 81
U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals............................... 81
Cemeterial expenses, Army.................................... 82
Environmental Protection Agency.............................. 82
Executive Office of the President............................ 107
Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of
Environmental Quality...................................... 108
Federal Emergency Management Agency.......................... 109
General Services Administration: Consumer Information Center. 116
Department of Health and Human Services: Office of Consumer
Affairs.................................................... 117
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................ 118
National Credit Union Administration......................... 127
National Science Foundation.................................. 128
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................ 134
Selective Service System..................................... 135
Department of Justice: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.... 135
Department of the Treasury: Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight....................................... 136
Title IV--Corporations:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Resolution Trust
Corporation................................................ 138
Resolution Trust Corporation................................. 139
Title V--General provisions...................................... 140
INTRODUCTION
The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1996 embodies a comprehensive and systematic
restructuring of Federal programs and activities within its
jurisdiction.
--Critical activities are refocused and augmented;
--Initiatives to begin the difficult process of restoring
fiscal reality and improve efficiency are identified
and funded;
--Obsolete and failed activities are terminated;
--The proliferation of small, burdensome, categorical
programs is cleared away and delegated in block grants
to States and local governments; and
--Unsustainable policy mandates are repealed.
There is no longer any dispute over the critical need to
reduce excessive Federal spending and to bring the budget back
into balance. It has been nearly 30 years since the Federal
Government curbed its appetite for spending to match its
income. Since that time, Federal outlays have increased from
$184,000,000,000 to nearly $1,600,000,000,000. The gross
Federal debt has soared from less than $370,000,000,000 to
nearly $5,000,000,000,000. Interest on the Federal debt now
exceeds the $260,000,000,000 annual expenditure for domestic
discretionary programming by over $100,000,000,000.
Unless these alarming budgetary trends are reversed,
resources available for discretionary programs such as those
fund in this appropriations bill will soon shrink to negligible
levels. The Committee accepts measured reductions in
discretionary spending as a necessary component of the
multiyear budgetary plan to balance the Federal budget by the
year 2002, if only because the consequences of failing to make
such prudent reductions will be devastating. In addition, a
balanced Federal budget will fuel new vitality in our Nation's
economy which will provide the revenue necessary to sustain
these governmental programs.
The artificial stimulus of runaway deficit spending has
failed. It is collapsing under the weight of a massive Federal
debt, and is being crowded out by the pressure to meet interest
payments on the debt. The bitter medicine of the congressional
budget resolution is the only antidote to this poisoning of our
Nation's economic health. Moreover, it is our best chance of
sustaining needed Federal assistance through discretionary
programming, and that remedy is reflected in this
appropriations bill.
Finally, the budget crisis has created a rare opportunity
to address long festering problems and examine archaic social
theories underpinning many failing governmental programs. The
broad debate over welfare reform, in part is being conducted,
in part, in the restructuring of low-income housing assistance
programs funded in this appropriations bill. There is
widespread acceptance that high-rise public housing for
families has failed as a housing strategy, and that these drug-
infested, crime-breeding blights must be demolished. This bill
provides a targeted focus on such efforts, but it also examines
the root causes of such horrendously expensive failures, and
recommends comprehensive reform proposals to prevent such
conditions from reoccurring.
Another aspect of the recommendations of the Committee is
to assess the value of services provided through the
appropriations contained in this measure. In some cases,
existing delivery schemes and organizational structures have
been found deficient. For example, while most veterans medical
facilities deliver top quality health care services, many
instances of systemic inefficiencies and a number of cases of
substandard care have been painfully documented. The Committee
is recommending accelerated adoption of industry-wide standards
of health care delivery for the VA system. In addition, the
Committee has targeted budgetary reductions in the Washington
DC, headquarters bureaucracy which impedes rather than
facilitates innovation and initiative at the local hospital and
clinic level.
The Committee has also seized this opportunity to probe
deeply into the structure and management of the Environmental
Protection Agency. The critical mission served by EPA requires
substantial direct funding, and through its regulatory
authorities, imposes an enormous financial burden on all
Americans. The Committee has recommended a new focus in the
Agency on improving the quality of the scientific basis for its
regulatory decisionmaking. In addition, the Committee reviewed
the internal resource allocation management structure of EPA
and is recommending a number of improvements to assure better
cooperation with other levels of government, and to focus
Federal expenditures on activities of greater environmental
benefit.
Budgetary Overview
The appropriations bill for the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies for fiscal year 1996, reflects two principal concerns,
both budgetary in nature. The first is the reversal in trend of
annual increases in budgetary outlays for discretionary
activities.
Over the past decade, discretionary outlays for programs
funded in this bill have increased at an average annual rate
approaching 15 percent per year, primarily driven by the
cumulative growth in low-income housing assistance programs and
inflationary costs related to veterans medical care. The
congressional budget resolution for fiscal year 1996 (H. Con.
Res. 67), however, abruptly reverses this trend, halting
further continued expenditure growth in these programs. To
comply with this dramatic shift in spending policies, the
recently enacted Rescission Act for fiscal year 1995, Public
Law 104-19, canceled a total of $8,500,000,000 in previously
appropriated funds for programs included in this bill.
The second, and perhaps more significant budgetary concern
is the future year constraints reflected in the budget
resolution 7 year projection toward eliminating the Federal
deficit by the year 2002. While overall nondefense
discretionary expenditures are required to drop by 2.9 percent
in fiscal year 1996, the reduction proposed for fiscal year
1997 totals 4.4 percent, and approximately 2 percent per year
thereafter.
The Committee, therefore, is confronting a profound shift
from year-to-year budgetary increases to a multiyear period of
substantial declines in aggregate funding support, in addition
to the erosion in program levels resulting from inflationary
factors. This reversal in funding trends is especially
substantial for activities and programs sustained by funding in
this appropriations bill.
These constraints have forced the Committee to propose
substantial changes in program structure and policies which
traditionally have been the responsibility of the authorizing
committees. It would have been desirable and more appropriate
to enact these major policy changes through the authorizing
process, but delays in the consideration of those measures
leave the appropriations process little choice but to proceed
with needed program reforms so as to minimize program
disruption due to budgetary cuts, and to facilitate changes
necessary to prepare these programs for future year reductions.
housing programs cost growth
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is one of
the largest Federal Departments in terms of domestic
discretionary spending, with an annual outlay total approaching
$30,000,000,000. It expends more discretionary funds than any
other entity in the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
appropriations bill. What is particularly striking, and
surprisingly so, is the fact that HUD is also one of the
Federal Government's fastest growing Departments in terms of
discretionary spending (about 9 percent per year).
In addition, current HUD expenditure levels cannot readily
be reduced because of the magnitude of previously made long-
term contractual commitments and obligations. At the end of
fiscal year 1995, HUD amassed a total of $219,000,000,000 in
unexpended budget authority from appropriations made in prior
years, an amount exceeding the accumulated balance of the
Department of Defense ($188,000,000,000), and one which dwarfs
all other Federal agencies.
Subsidized low-income housing is the largest component of
HUD spending activities, along with community development
activities such as the community development block grant
[CDBG]. Both activities are noteworthy for remarkable growth
over the past decade, but also for the unique characteristic of
being funded with new budget authority which has negligible
outlay impact in the year in which the appropriation was made.
Through this budgetary quirk, substantial increases have been
made in program levels, evading normal budgetary controls which
have had the tendency to focus on limiting outlays on a year-
by-year basis.
Discretionary Federal assisted housing outlays grew
steadily from a modest $165,000,000 in 1962 to $5,500,000,000
in 1980, and soared to an estimated $23,700,000,000 in 1994.
This is a rate of growth more than triple that of overall
domestic discretionary spending since 1980. Fully 10 percent of
all domestic discretionary outlays are now devoted to housing
assistance, compared to the 4 percent it consumed in 1980 or
the less than 1 percent share it occupied in the 1962 budget.
It is surprising that such substantial budgetary growth
could have occurred, especially in recent years, given the
increasing constraints on discretionary spending. Perhaps more
surprising is that this dramatic growth has received little
attention during the annual debates over the size of the
discretionary budget. A number of factors have obscured the
budgetary impact and implications of current housing policies.
The magnitude and growth rate of subsidized housing outlays,
however, can no longer be ignored, especially in light of
previously enacted budget caps which freeze aggregate
discretionary outlays and the prospects for still further
reductions.
There are a number of characteristics of Federal low-income
housing assistance which give rise to very unique budgetary
concerns. Currently, approximately 4,800,000 families benefit
from federally assisted housing programs. Failure to renew
these subsidy arrangements mean eviction. To avoid such
hardships, Congress has been called upon since 1990 to provide
new appropriations for renewal of such expiring contracts. The
funding needs for section 8 contract renewals are anticipated
to soar above $17,000,000,000 annually in the next few years.
In addition, since many of the FHA multifamily
developmental assistance contracts entered into in the late
1960's and early 1970's are also becoming eligible for
termination, a new program entitled ``low-income housing
preservation'' was enacted and is rapidly growing in cost. This
program is designed to provide subsidies as an incentive to
owners to maintain these developments for rental to low- and
moderate-income families, again to avoid hardship for tenants
who would otherwise be displaced.
This commitment to continue assistance for rental units and
families occupying these units has resulted in a housing
subsidy program which is all but permanent in duration. Each
annual increment of additional housing units brought under
subsidy increases the overall size of the inventory since
almost no units ever are eliminated. This means that the annual
outlay subsidy cost increases at a cumulative rate as the
inventory expands. HUD now estimates that it has about
4,800,000 units under subsidy, an increase over the 1980 total
of about 55 percent.
In addition to inventory driven cost growth, annual subsidy
outlay increases exceeded changes in the unit count because of
inflationary pressures on maintenance costs, utilities,
insurance, depreciation and replacement calculations, and real
estate appreciation. Finally, many public housing developments
are incurring substantial additional costs of providing
security improvements and services to prevent further crime and
deterioration in their developments. These cost factors have
forced the average annual per unit HUD subsidy (for all
different forms of housing assistance) from $1,716 in 1980 to
nearly $4,600 in 1994. The average per-unit cost in subsidizing
a new section 8 certificate or voucher contract for fiscal year
1995 is $6,857 per year. Absent major changes in Federal
housing policies, there is no reason to expect this annual
escalation in subsidy rates to abate.
The per-unit cost growth in housing subsidies, when
combined with the growth in the number of units in the
inventory, have yielded an average compounded annual growth
rate of 8.6 percent over the past 5 years for HUD assisted
housing outlays.
Long-term contracts and delays in expending funds for
housing construction and other community development activities
cause an outlay pattern for HUD which is unique. Less than 10
percent of the estimated $30,000,000,000 of HUD outlays,
Departmentwide, in fiscal year 1996 will result from budget
authority appropriated in that year. The other 90 percent will
flow from contracts and budget authority in previous years.
Moveover, these outlays from prior year authority are estimated
to rise by $3,000,000,000 over that in fiscal year 1995. In
other words, the increase in prior year outlays will match the
entire outlays all new budget authority provided for fiscal
year 1996, so even if the entire Department was provided only
close-out funding, outlays would still increase over the
current year level.
Sustaining the existing rate of outlay growth for housing
and community development will be impossible under the overall
reductions imposed on discretionary outlays. Making the
necessary programmatic changes even to moderate the rate of
increase in outlays for HUD will necessarily be dramatic given
the limited impact of new budgetary authority cuts on current
outlays. In addition, the thicket of long-term contractual
obligations, as well as FHA development guarantees, complicate
any attempt to shift significantly existing housing policies.
Failure to confront directly this budgetary and
programmatic problem with a defined strategy and approach will
only permit greater losses in affordable housing stock since
generally applied annual funding reductions will first
devastate public housing, then lead to losses in the section 8
tenant-based and project-based inventory.
growth in veterans medical care costs
In a similar long-term budgetary cost growth trend,
discretionary expenditures for the veterans health care system
have grown by 85 percent over the past decade. This pattern of
annual cost growth cannot be continued in the face of the
budgetary assumptions of the congressional budget resolution
(H. Con. Res. 67) which restrains annual growth to between 1
and 3 percent.
The VA medical care appropriation represents approximately
50 percent of the new outlays in the VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies appropriations bill. In this restrained budgetary
environment, to provide increases of the magnitude of the past
would require massive additional reductions to housing, space,
and the environment.
As previously discussed, the budgetary growth patterns of
programs funded in this appropriations bill are totally at odds
with recently adopted congressional budget policies which
require substantial nominal reductions in discretionary
spending over the next several fiscal years. This shift in
budgetary priorities demands a comprehensive reappraisal of
funding allocations, program structure and design, and
governmental strategies to meet national goals.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
As previously noted, the imbedded cost structure of
federally assisted housing programs simply cannot be continued
during this period of declining discretionary spending. The
Committee is proposing landmark changes in the structure and
nature of housing policies to enable local housing agencies,
community organizations, and the private housing industry to
adjust to declining Federal subsidy levels which have sustained
and expanded this enterprise over the past 30 years. These
program and policy changes cannot be implemented without
significant hardship and dislocations. However, unless this
process is immediately undertaken with focused deliberation and
determination, the potential for devastating loss of affordable
housing stock and homelessness will greatly increase.
In addition to these policy changes, the Committee is
recommending major restructuring of the Department's programs
to eliminate an unwieldy number of proliferating categorical
activities, in favor of broad, multipurpose, financial-
assistance grants to States and local units of government. This
effort is designed to reduce the crushing weight of Federal
administrative and regulatory burdens on local program
managers, and to reduce sharply an agency which widely has been
cited as among the most dysfunctional in the Government.
The Committee concurs with much of the criticism voiced of
this Department, and agrees that this organization must be
completely transformed if it is to survive under the budgetary
pressures and popular demands for greater program
accountability. It is clear, however, that irrespective of
whether this Department continues to exist, there remains a
substantial and growing need for housing and urban development
in the Nation. Previous commitments by Congress to meet these
housing needs make it incumbent on the Federal Government to
continue a major role in this area. Moreover, the magnitude of
previous appropriated budgetary commitments and financial
obligations of the Department demand a substantial and
effective entity to administer. Fiscal prudence alone demands
aggressive efforts to protect these financial interests.
Department of Veterans Affairs
As noted previously, the cost growth in medical services
provided to veterans cannot be continued during this period of
declining discretionary budgetary resources. It is imperative
that the Department of Veterans Affairs aggressively pursue
reforms in service delivery to utilize available funds more
efficiently, to prevent reductions in assistance levels to
eligible veterans.
The veteran population is declining, and its needs are
changing as it ages. While the Veterans Health Administration
historically has been a hospital-based medical system primarily
serving acute care needs, its population is demanding
community-based, outpatient and preventive health care
services. Far less is being demanded in the way of inpatient
services.
It is clear that VA can do more with less--and can become a
more efficient, customer-oriented, high-quality health-care
delivery system. Numerous inefficiencies have been identified
in the VA medical system, including an overreliance on
hospitalization rather than ambulatory care, excessive payments
related to its affiliations with medical schools, poor
management of its pharmaceutical procurement and delivery
systems, its bureaucratic administration of ascertaining
veterans eligibility for care, and its insistence on
maintaining services in underutilized areas.
VA must become a more agile, efficient, and modern health
care delivery system, transitioning away from the hospital-
based medical system of the past. While less than the amount
requested, the Committee recommendation for VA medical care
represents the largest dollar increase over current funding
levels in the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations
bill, and will enable the Department to begin to implement
major, systemic changes to its health care delivery system to
enable it to become a leaner, more efficient system.
In view of the pending reorganization of the Veterans
Health Administration, and potential changes which may result,
the Committee has put a moratorium on new major construction
spending. However, the Department is to ensure that all
critical code deficiencies and accreditation requirements are
met through minor construction spending.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA has been engaged in a comprehensive redirection of
basic operating principles to promote greater efficiency and
flexibility in pursuing major scientific and engineering
development programs. The Committee recommendation leaves
intact the Nation's commitment to deploy the international
space station, while making significant reductions in lower
priority activities of the agency.
Also included in the bill are funds to continue critical
investments in aeronautical technologies which underpin the
future competitiveness of our Nation's commercial aircraft
manufacturing industry. These high value, high technology
products are crucial to maintaining one of our most significant
sources of export sales and domestic manufacturing employment.
The Committee also maintains adequate funding to pursue an
effective global-climate-change research program, and to follow
through on other ongoing scientific mission developments.
Environmental Protection Agency
The commitment of the Nation to securing improvements in
the environment and to protect vital natural resources is
reflected in the Committee's recommendation to continue
substantial funding for this Agency despite the overall
constraints of discretionary budgetary limitations. The future
year reductions in these funding levels however, will erode our
ability to maintain current levels of environmental protection
unless reforms are undertaken now to focus these resources on
the most significant threats to our air, water, and land
resources.
The Committee held a hearing earlier this year on the need
to reform the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], with a
particular focus on a report compiled by the National Academy
of Public Administration [NAPA] at this Committee's request.
NAPA recommended major systemic changes to EPA, and identified
numerous areas in which EPA is unnecessarily duplicating or
micromanaging State and private sector environmental protection
activities. NAPA recommended management and structural changes
which could bring about significant efficiencies and
improvements in the way EPA operates. In addition, NAPA agreed
that EPA is not adequately prioritizing activities and
resources based on risk to human health and the environment.
The Committee believes the NAPA recommendations should
provide the basis for change at EPA. The Committee's
recommendation for EPA is intended to begin to implement the
NAPA's suggestions, streamline EPA activities, and focus its
resources on high-risk areas.
National Science Foundation
The Committee's recommendation continues current funding
levels for the NSF which is responsible for most of the basic
research grant funding provided by the Federal Government.
Basic research, which seeks to improve our understanding of
fundamental scientific principles and processes, provides the
knowledge base which enriches our society and from which spring
the development of applied technologies which drive our
economy. Moreover, the Foundation is responsible for model
educational and human resource developmental activities which
seek to stimulate improvements in science and mathematics
education. These goals of the Agency remain a critical national
priority which hopefully will be sustained despite the
impending reductions in discretionary budgets.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Committee's recommendation for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency ensures an adequate level of resources for
retaining a strong and capable national disaster management
system. While no funds are provided for the disaster-relief
fund, approximately $8,000,000,000 currently is available for
disaster relief owing to the recent supplemental appropriation
in Public Law 104-19.
reprogramming and initiation of new programs
The Committee continues to have a particular interest in
being informed of reprogrammings which, although they may not
change either the total amount available in an account or any
of the purposes for which the appropriation is legally
available, represent a significant departure from budget plans
presented to the Committee in an agency's budget
justifications.
Consequently, the Committee directs the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and the
agencies funded through this bill, to notify the chairman of
the Committee prior to each reprogramming of funds in excess of
$250,000 between programs, activities, or elements unless an
alternate amount for the agency or department in question is
specified elsewhere in this report. The Committee desires to be
notified of reprogramming actions which involve less than the
above-mentioned amounts if such actions would have the effect
of changing an agency's funding requirements in future years or
if programs or projects specifically cited in the Committee's
reports are affected. Finally, the Committee wishes to be
notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, or
activities prior to the planned implementation of such
reorganizations.
The Committee also expects that the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, as well as the
Corporation for National and Community Service, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the
National Science Foundation, will submit operating plans,
signed by the respective Secretary, administrator, or agency
head, for the Committee's approval within 30 days of the bill's
enactment. Other agencies within the bill should continue to
submit them consistent with prior year policy.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Appropriations, 1995
\1\ $37,684,180,061
Budget estimate, 1996
38,606,762,093
House allowance
37,723,399,000
Committee recommendation
37,338,705,000
\1\ Reflects rescission of $50,000,000 in Public Law 104-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Veterans Administration was established as an
independent agency by Executive Order 5398 of July 21, 1930, in
accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 1016). This
act authorized the President to consolidate and coordinate
Federal agencies especially created for or concerned with the
administration of laws providing benefits to veterans,
including the Veterans' Bureau, the Bureau of Pensions, and the
National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers. On March 15,
1989, VA was elevated to Cabinet-level status as the Department
of Veterans Affairs.
The VA's mission is to serve America's veterans and their
families as their principal advocate in ensuring that they
receive the care, support, and recognition they have earned in
service to the Nation. The VA's operating units include the
Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Benefits
Administration, National Cemetery System, and staff offices.
The Veterans Health Administration develops, maintains, and
operates a national health care delivery system for eligible
veterans; carries out a program of education and training of
health care personnel; carries out a program of medical
research and development; and furnishes health services to
members of the Armed Forces during periods of war or national
emergency. A system of 173 medical centers, 376 outpatient
clinics, 136 nursing homes, and 39 domiciliaries is maintained
to meet the VA's medical mission.
The Veterans Benefits Administration provides an integrated
program of nonmedical veteran benefits. This Administration
administers a broad range of benefits to veterans and other
eligible beneficiaries through 58 regional offices and the
records processing center in St. Louis, MO. The benefits
provided include: compensation for service-connected
disabilities; pensions for wartime, needy, and totally disabled
veterans; vocational rehabilitation assistance; educational and
training assistance; home buying assistance; estate protection
services for veterans under legal disability; information and
assistance through personalized contacts; and six life
insurance programs.
The National Cemetery System provides for the interment in
any national cemetery with available grave space the remains of
eligible deceased servicepersons and discharged veterans;
permanently maintains these graves; marks graves of eligible
persons in national and private cemeteries; and administers the
grant program for aid to States in establishing, expanding, or
improving State veterans' cemeteries. The National Cemetery
System includes 148 cemeterial installations and activities.
Other VA offices, including the general counsel, inspector
general, Boards of Contract Appeals and Veterans Appeals, and
the general administration, support the Secretary, Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretary for Health, Under Secretary for
Benefits, and the Director of the National Cemetery System.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has provided $37,338,705,000 for the
Department of Veterans Affairs, including $19,361,762,000 in
mandatory spending and $17,976,943,000 in discretionary
spending. The amount provided for discretionary activities
represents a decrease of $217,926,061 below the current
estimate, $1,268,057,093 below the budget request, and
$384,694,000 below the House amount.
The recommendation includes $16,450,000,000 for veterans
medical care, an increase of $235,000,000 above the current
level. While a decrease below the amount requested, the
Committee believes that the amount provided will enable the
Department to provide high quality medical care to its current
patient population. However, the Committee recommendation is
intended to send a strong message to the VA that change is
necessary to accommodate future budgetary shortfalls, to meet
the changing needs of a declining veteran population, and to
begin to incorporate more modern modes of health care delivery.
With an annual discretionary appropriation of approximately
$18,000,000,000, VA simply cannot be exempted from streamlining
and implementing reforms, as is being required of the rest of
the Federal Government. According to numerous testimonies and
reports issued by VA's inspector general and the General
Accounting Office, mismanagement is leading to a great deal of
wasted spending. It is the Committee's intent that budgetary
savings be brought about through management efficiencies and
the elimination of wasteful spending--not reductions to patient
care. While numerous means of achieving budgetary savings are
noted, the Department is provided with maximum flexibility in
order to encourage innovation.
No funding is provided for major medical construction
projects owing to the pending reorganization of the Veterans
Health Administration, which may bring about significant
changes in facilities needs. In addition, most of the projects
requested by the administration are not authorized.
Finally, the Committee has provided close to full funding
for general operating expenses, to ensure the timely and
efficient processing of veterans benefits claims. Again,
however, the Committee believes major systemic changes are
needed within the Veterans Benefits Administration. A raft of
problems have been identified within VBA--including a
bureaucratic approach to claims processing, excessive
regulations, inadequate automation, and a lack of strategic
planning. The Committee is commissioning the National Academy
of Public Administration to address these issues and to devise
a strategic plan to restructure VBA.
To help offset the increases provided for VA, two
administrative provisions are included, as in the House bill.
The first provision impacts less than 1 percent of the veteran
population, and is intended to prevent a large estate accruing
to a veteran which will be inherited by remote heirs.
Currently there is no Federal restriction on who may
inherit funds in estates maintained by fiduciaries of
incompetent veterans. According to a September 1980 letter to
the Comptroller General from the former chairman of the House
Veterans Affairs Committee, ``Congress intended that distant
relatives should not be enriched through benefits intended for
veterans or their immediate families. However, large estates
consisting of VA benefits are evidently still enriching distant
relatives who may have had very little to do with the veteran
and were not affected by his service to the United States.''
This provision results in $170,000,000 in budget authority
and $157,000,000 in outlays as an offset to the increase
provided for VA medical care.
A second provision authorizes the Department to utilize
excess premiums collected through VA's insurance programs to
fund the administrative expenses of these programs. This
results in savings of $32,000,000 to the general operating
expenses account.
Veterans Benefits Administration
compensation and pensions
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $17,626,892,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 17,649,972,000
House allowance......................................... 17,649,972,000
Committee recommendation
17,649,972,000
program description
Compensation is payable to living veterans who have
suffered impairment of earning power from service-connected
disabilities. The amount of compensation is based upon the
impact of disabilities on earning capacity. Death compensation
or dependency and indemnity compensation is payable to the
surviving spouses and dependents of veterans whose deaths occur
while on active duty or result from service-connected
disabilities. A clothing allowance may also be provided for
service-connected veterans who use a prosthetic or orthopedic
device.
Pensions are an income security benefit payable to needy
wartime veterans who are precluded from gainful employment due
to non-service-connected disabilities which render them
permanently and totally disabled. Under the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990, veterans 65 years of age or older
are no longer considered permanently and totally disabled by
law and are thus subject to a medical evaluation. Death
pensions are payable to needy surviving spouses and children of
deceased wartime veterans. The rate payable for both disability
and death pensions is determined on the basis of the annual
income of the veteran or his survivors.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $17,649,972,000 for compensation
and pensions, as requested by the administration and provided
by the House. This is an increase of $23,080,000 over the
current budget.
The estimated caseload and cost by program follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:
Compensation:
Veterans....................................... 2,226,900 2,246,900 +20,000
Survivors...................................... 305,259 302,778 -2,481
Clothing allowance (nonadd).................... (68,100) (68,700) (+600)
Pensions:
Veterans....................................... 427,900 408,900 -19,000
Survivors...................................... 359,800 334,600 -25,200
Vocational training (nonadd)................... (150) (100) (-50)
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 3,681,000 +1,153,000
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 -137,673,000 -27,367,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation.............................. 17,626,892,000 17,649,972,000 +23,080,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appropriation includes $27,431,000 in payments to the
``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' accounts
for expenses related to implementing provisions of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, the Veterans' Benefits Act
of 1992, and the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994.
The amount represents an increase of $2,251,000 above that
proposed in the budget owing to the Committee's inclusion of a
provision limiting payments to incompetent veterans. The
Department estimates $2,251,000 is needed to administer that
provision.
Also, the bill includes language permitting this
appropriation to reimburse such sums as may be necessary to the
medical facilities revolving fund 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.
readjustment benefits
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $1,286,600,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 1,345,300,000
House allowance......................................... 1,345,300,000
Committee recommendation
1,345,300,000
program description
The readjustment benefits appropriation finances the
education and training of veterans and servicepersons whose
initial entry on active duty took place on or after July 1,
1985. These benefits are included in the All-Volunteer Force
Educational Assistance Program (Montgomery GI bill) authorized
under 38 U.S.C. 30. Eligibility to receive this assistance
began in 1987. Basic benefits are funded through appropriations
made to the readjustment benefits appropriation. Supplemental
benefits are also provided to certain veterans and this funding
is available from transfers from the Department of Defense.
This account also finances vocational rehabilitation, specially
adapted housing grants, automobile grants with the associated
approved adaptive equipment for certain disabled veterans, and
finances educational assistance allowances for eligible
dependents of those veterans who died from service-connected
causes or have a total permanent service-connected disability
as well as dependents of servicepersons who were captured or
missing in action.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $1,345,300,000 for readjustment
benefits, as requested by the administration and provided by
the House. This is an increase of $58,700,000 above the current
budget. The recommended appropriation will provide education
and training benefits for 559,059 veterans, servicepersons,
reservists, or dependents.
The estimated caseload and cost for this account follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of trainees:
Education and training: Dependents....................... 39,700 39,160 -540
All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
Veterans and servicepersons.......................... 339,200 355,600 +16,400
Reservists........................................... 109,341 115,799 +6,458
Vocational rehabilitation................................ 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 educational assistance:
Veterans and servicepersons.......................... 911,853,000 985,512,000 +73,659,000
Reservists........................................... 133,720,000 147,453,000 +13,733,000
Vocational rehabilitation................................ 296,590,000 309,150,000 +12,560,000
Housing grants........................................... 14,839,000 14,839,000 ...............
Automobiles and other conveyances........................ 4,901,000 4,901,000 ...............
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 ...............
Jobs training (Public Law 102-484)....................... 8,416,000 ............... -8,416,000
Unobligated balances and other adjustments............... -248,500,000 -285,734,000 -37,234,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation.................................. 1,286,600,000 1,345,300,000 +58,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
veterans insurance and indemnities
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $24,760,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 24,890,000
House allowance......................................... 24,890,000
Committee recommendation
24,890,000
program description
The veterans insurance and indemnities appropriation is
made up of the former appropriations for military and naval
insurance, applicable to World War I veterans; National Service
Life Insurance, applicable to certain World War II veterans;
Servicemen's indemnities, applicable to Korean conflict
veterans; and veterans mortgage life insurance to individuals
who have received a grant for specially adapted housing.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $24,890,000 for veterans
insurance and indemnities, as requested by the administration
and provided by the House. This is an increase of $130,000
above the current budget. The Department estimates there will
be 5,398,882 policies in force in fiscal year 1996.
guaranty and indemnity program fund
(including transfer of funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995.................... $507,095,000 $65,226,000
Budget estimate, 1996................... 504,122,000 78,085,000
House allowance......................... 504,122,000 65,226,000
Committee recommendation................ 504,122,000 65,226,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
This appropriation provides for the cost of direct and
guaranteed loans, as well as the administrative expenses to
carry out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, which may be
transferred to and merged with the general operating expenses
appropriation.
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.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided such sums as may be necessary,
estimated to be $504,122,000 for funding subsidy payments of
the guaranty and indemnity program fund and $65,226,000 for
administrative expenses. The administrative expenses may be
transferred to the ``General operating expenses'' account.
loan guaranty program
(including transfer of funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995.................... $43,939,000 $59,371,000
Budget estimate, 1996................... 22,950,000 52,138,000
House allowance......................... 22,950,000 52,138,000
Committee recommendation................ 22,950,000 52,138,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The ``Loan guaranty program'' account provides for the cost
of direct and guaranteed loans, pay subsidies, and covers the
administrative expenses to carry out the direct and guaranteed
loan programs.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided such sums as may be necessary,
estimated to be $22,950,000 for funding subsidy payments, and
$52,138,000 to pay administrative expenses. The administrative
expenses may be transferred to the ``General operating
expenses'' account.
direct loan program
(including transfer of funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995.................... $25,000 $1,020,000
Budget estimate, 1996................... 28,000 459,000
House allowance......................... 28,000 459,000
Committee recommendation................ 28,000 459,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The ``Direct loan program'' account provides funds for
subsidies to severely disabled veterans for specially adapted
housing and for administrative expenses to carry out the direct
loan program.
committee recommendation
The bill includes the requested $300,000 limitation on
specially adjusted housing loans; such sums as may be necessary
for subsidy payments, estimated to be $28,000; and $459,000 for
administrative expenses. The administrative expenses may be
transferred to the ``General operating expenses'' account.
education loan fund program
(including transfer of funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995.................... $1,061 $195,000
Budget estimate, 1996................... 1,093 203,000
House allowance......................... 1,000 195,000
Committee recommendation................ 1,000 195,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
This appropriation covers the cost of direct loans for
eligible dependents and, in addition, it includes
administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct loan
program. The administrative funds may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for the general operating
expenses to cover the common overhead expenses.
committee recommendation
The bill includes $1,000 for program costs and $195,000 for
administrative expenses. The administrative expenses may be
transferred to and merged with the ``General operating
expenses'' account. Bill language is included limiting program
direct loans to $4,000.
vocational rehabilitation loan program
(including transfer of funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995.................... $54,000 $767,000
Budget estimate, 1996................... 56,000 377,000
House allowance......................... 54,000 377,000
Committee recommendation................ 54,000 377,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
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 as provided under 38 U.S.C. chapter 31
when the veteran is temporarily in need of additional
assistance. Repayment is made in 10 monthly installments,
without interest, through deductions from future payments of
compensation, pension, subsistence allowance, educational
assistance allowance, or retirement pay.
committee recommendation
The bill includes the requested $54,000 for program costs
and $377,000 for administrative expenses. The administrative
expenses may be transferred to and merged with the ``General
operating expenses'' account. Bill language is included
limiting program direct loans to $1,964,000. 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
(including transfer of funds)
Administrative
expenses
Appropriations, 1995 \1\................................ $218,000
Budget estimate, 1996 \1\............................... 455,000
House allowance......................................... 205,000
Committee recommendation................................ 205,000
\1\ Subsidy amounts necessary to support this program were appropriated
in fiscal year 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
This program will test the feasibility of enabling VA to
make direct home loans to native American veterans who live on
U.S. trust lands. This program is a 5-year pilot program which
began in 1993.
committee recommendation
The bill includes $205,000 for administrative expenses
associated with this program in fiscal year 1996, as in the
House bill. These funds may be transferred to the ``General
operating expenses'' account.
Veterans Health Administration
MEDICAL CARE
Appropriations, 1995 \1\................................ $16,164,684,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 16,961,487,000
House allowance......................................... 16,777,474,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,450,000,000
\1\ Includes rescission of $50,000,000 in Public Law 104-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] operates the
largest Federal medical care delivery system in the country,
with 173 hospitals, 39 domiciliaries, 136 nursing homes, and
376 outpatient clinics which includes independent, satellite,
community-based, and rural outreach clinics.
This appropriation provides for medical care and treatment
of eligible beneficiaries in VA hospitals, nursing homes,
domiciliaries, and outpatient clinic facilities; contract
hospitals; State home facilities on a grant basis; contract
community nursing homes; and through the hometown outpatient
program, on a fee basis. Hospital and outpatient care also are
provided for certain dependents and survivors of veterans under
the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the VA [CHAMPVA].
The medical care appropriation also provides for training of
medical residents and interns and other professional
paramedical and administrative personnel in health science
fields to support the Department's and the Nation's health
manpower demands.
comittee recommendation
The Committee has provided $16,450,000,000 for medical
care. This represents an increase of $285,316,000 over the
current budget, and decreases of $511,487,000 below the budget
request and $327,474,000 below the House amount.
In order to provide the Department with flexibility in
determining where to reduce spending levels below what is
proposed in the budget, the Committee has not taken any
specific reductions. However, the Committee is aware of
numerous initiatives which the Veterans Health Administration
could implement to achieve significant cost savings. Many of
these initiatives have been suggested by the inspector general
or the General Accounting Office.
Following is a list of some options and estimated cost
savings (where available) which have been identified: shift
inpatient treatment to an outpatient basis where clinically
appropriate (up to $2,000,000,000); reduce or eliminate
beneficiary travel ($100,000,000); improve the management of
VHA's drug formularies ($50,000,000); adopt Medicare rates for
outpatient fee-basis care ($25,000,000); streamline means-
testing procedures ($9,000,000); improve support services
($20,000,000); consolidate underutilized services in nearby VA
medical centers; implement multimonth dispensing of
prescription drugs; suspend locality-based pay adjustments
which may be substantially higher than justified; restructure
ambulatory care services to ensure a more even workload;
increase sharing arrangements with the Department of Defense
and discontinue the practice of inappropriately designating
certain patients in acute care categories.
This list demonstrates that the amount provided for VA
medical care is sufficient to provide high quality care to
those veterans currently being cared for in the VA. However,
the Committee is not suggesting that changes are not needed. It
is strongly agreed that VA must begin to undertake major
reforms in order to provide higher quality and more cost-
effective medical care to veterans in view of the declining
discretionary budget over the next 7 years coupled with a
decreasing veteran population.
Transitioning to ambulatory care.--The Committee believes
current eligibility requirements for VA medical care badly are
in need of simplification and reform. The preference for
inpatient care inherent in current law inhibits VA from
providing the most clinically appropriate and cost-effective
care in all instances. To ensure appropriate and cost-effective
clinical care to veterans in the absence of comprehensive
legislative changes, the Committee has included a provision
enabling VA to treat veterans eligible for hospital care or
medical services in the most efficient manner. Private sector
medical care systems are employing managed care to use scarce
medical resources more efficiently while maintaining quality of
patient care. Similarly, the Committee believes VA should use
resources to treat eligible veterans in the most appropriate
and cost-effective medical care settings. Studies have
demonstrated that VA could use some of these same techniques to
provide more cost-effective care to its patients. One study of
VA medical or surgical inpatients' lengths of stay indicated
that VA could substitute less expensive outpatient or long-term
care for 40 percent of its nonacute inpatient admissions. The
Committee supports the Department's efforts to shift as much of
its inpatient workload to ambulatory care settings as possible,
to make better use of its resources.
Veterans integrated service networks.--VHA recently
announced plans to reorganize into veterans integrated service
networks [VISN's], enabling the Department to better manage its
resources and services, which the Committee supports. It is
expected that the reorganization will bring about important
changes to VHA and will encourage innovative, modern approaches
to health care delivery. The Committee strongly supports this
initiative.
Currently VHA's allocation of resources amongst its 172
medical centers is very inequitable, with certain medical
centers receiving double the resources of other medical centers
with the same patient load. The reorganization should help to
correct such inequities, and ensure that the best performing
medical centers are rewarded. The reorganization should ensure
that nationwide, veterans have more equitable access to VA
care, and should encourage innovative, high quality cost-
effective medical care to veterans.
The Committee notes that certain VA hospitals or wards of
hospitals have very low occupancy rates, some lower than 50
percent, particularly for surgical services. As part of the
reorganization, VHA should strongly consider eliminating
surgical and other services in such medical centers, and
consolidate high-cost services. This would enable the
Department to use its resources more effectively, and ensure
that quality of care remains high throughout the system.
Finally, in implementing the new decentralized
organizational structure, VHA should ensure that specialized
services for veterans, such as spinal cord injury
rehabilitation, blind rehabilitation, and post-traumatic-stress
disorder treatment, receive adequate resources. The Committee
is concerned that reorganization efforts could endanger the
national mission of VA's specialized programs and services by
ceding management authority, service sizing decisions, and
budget determinations for those national programs to local
managers. The VHA reorganization calls for VHA national
headquarters to adopt an oversight role over health care
facilities in the field to ensure adequate compliance with
standards based on guidelines and parameters of care. The
Committee is concerned that VA is proceeding with
reorganization without first adopting these guidelines and
standards or the oversight plans and mechanisms to enforce
them. Under these circumstances, specialized programs, which
form the core of the VA's mission to disabled veterans, are in
jeopardy. To avoid erosion of specialized programs, VHA is
directed to identify total current funding for specialized
programs listed in the reorganization plan, and is to ensure
that no less than the amounts budgeted and expended for
specialized programs in fiscal year 1995 be allocated for the
maintenance of those programs in fiscal year 1996.
Access points.--The Committee is aware that the Department
has plans to expand access to outpatient care. So-called access
points are being considered in more than 180 locations. While
the Committee fully supports ensuring that eligible veterans
have convenient access to VA facilities, and supports the
concept of community based outpatient care, the Committee is
concerned about associated policy, legal, and budgetary issues
which VA ought to address before proceeding with them.
First, the Committee believes that access points represent
a significant change in the way VA provides health care. A
reliance on community-based managed care through contractual
capitation-based arrangements with private providers
constitutes an important change in VA policy. This change in
policy has never been formally articulated by the Department.
Further, while VHA has directed medical centers to improve
access to care, no criteria have been established for doing so,
leaving it up to the individual medical centers to set their
own policies and standards.
In addition, the Committee is aware of legal questions
surrounding VA's contracting authority which would be required
for certain access points being considered. To provide routine
care for non-service-connected veterans through contracts with
private providers, as is contemplated in some instances, may
require legislation.
The Committee is also concerned about VA's plans to expand
care to veterans currently not being cared for in the VA
system, specifically those who may have access to other means
of health care. At a time of declining resources, the Committee
questions the wisdom and fairness of increasing the population
served by the VA system.
In addition, the Department has not demonstrated how it
will sustain the increased costs associated with access points
and which particular activities may be reduced to offset the
costs of establishing and maintaining access points.
Finally, the Committee is concerned that some access points
are being planned in areas which are within close proximity to
existing VA facilities. The Committee does not intend to
prohibit VA from going forward with access points. Indeed,
access points may represent the future direction for the VA and
may be an integral component of the VISN's. In addition, access
points will help meet the needs of underserved rural veterans.
However, these issues should be addressed before the Department
proceeds with its plans.
Decision support system.--The Committee continues to be
concerned with VA's inability to accurately track costs and
outcomes related to patient care at VA facilities. Such
information is critical in order to compare the performance of
one facility to another, and to appropriately allocate
resources. VA is in the process of implementing the decision
support system, an executive information system that will
provide data on patterns of care and patient outcomes linked to
resource consumption and costs associated with health care
services. The Committee urges VA to move forward expeditiously
with DSS, and wishes to be kept apprised of VA's progress in
this area.
HOST.--The Committee is concerned that the Hybrid Open
Systems Technology [HOST] Program lacks any strategic plan,
including goals and objectives, appropriate selection criteria,
and a migration strategy. HOST is intended to test commercial
off-the-shelf applications in conjunction with VA's
Decentralized Hospital Computer Program. GAO has made
recommendations regarding opportunities to improve HOST,
including the suspension of funding of new HOST projects until
management deficiencies are corrected. The Committee supports
GAO's recommendations, and notes that VA's budget request
includes $15,000,000 for HOST. The Committee wishes to be kept
apprised of VA's plans and progress in implementing GAO's
recommendations.
Given the escalating costs of providing automated data
processing support to the Veterans Health Administration
activities, VA should consider alternatives to the current
processes for the design, development, and maintenance of
application software. Serious consideration should be given to
commercial procurements, outsourcing of certain functions,
reengineering processes, and other cost-effective measures. The
current policies relating to in-house development and the
limited use of the HOST program are not likely to provide the
cost effectiveness required when the demand for ADP support is
increasing. VA is directed to provide a report to the Committee
on its ADP cost-containment strategy, with particular reference
to the issues raised above, by March 1, 1996.
The Committee is aware of the need for a veterans community
primary care clinic in Liberal, KS. Veterans in southwest
Kansas currently face a 3- to 4-hour drive to the nearest VA
medical center, which is unacceptable. VA should expediously
establish a clinic to meet the needs of southwest Kansas'
veteran population, as has been proposed by the Amarillo, TX,
VA hospital. Resources to establish this clinic are to be
provided from the allocation to the Amarillo facility.
The Committee is aware there is a need for outpatient care
services for veterans in many areas, including Grafton, ND, and
Wood and Tucker Counties, WV. VA is urged to make every effort
to meet those needs within available resources.
The Committee fully supports the administration's budget
request for lease costs for the relocation and expansion of the
satellite outpatient clinic near Fort Myers, FL.
The Committee is aware that the Center for Minority
Veterans and the Center for Women Veterans may be understaffed.
Given the importance of evaluating the appropriateness of VA
services and benefits for women and minorities, the Department
should consider providing additional staff to these centers.
The Committee is aware of the difficulty in staffing
several VA facilities in the southwest, particularly in El
Paso, TX. This situation is compounded by budgetary constraints
the VA faces in allocating FTEE's among its facilities. The
Committee urges that the VA, through the veterans integrated
service networks engage in intra-VISN FTEE transfers during the
fiscal year for purposes of staffing as warranted by changing
circumstances in VA medical facilities. The Committee urges the
VA to review the staffing situation in El Paso and to move
personnel as necessary to meet the new service demands that
will exist if veterans are not required to travel to other VA
facilities for treatment.
The Committee urges the Department to continue the
demonstration involving the Clarksburg VAMC and Ruby Memorial
Hospital at current levels.
The Committee strongly urges VA to develop a center to
coordinate academic training programs for physical therapists
at the Brooklyn VA hospital. The Committee is aware there is a
shortage of physical therapists nationwide. A training center
would provide the opportunity for students to complete research
projects in physical therapy and rehabilitation. In view of the
critical shortage of clinical training sites in the New York
City area, the Brooklyn VA would provide an excellent location
for such a training program.
The Committee commends the Department for its participation
in an advanced coal technology project at the Lebanon, PA,
Medical Center in which a fluidized bed boiler will cofire coal
and medical wastes to provide steam for the hospital. Given the
potential cost savings for energy and hospital waste disposal,
the Committee directs the Department to study the potential for
using this technology at other VA facilities.
Bill language is included, as in the House, delaying the
obligation of $789,000,000 for equipment and land and
structures object classifications until August 1, 1996. Similar
language has been included in previous appropriation bills.
committee recommendation
medical and prosthetic research
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $251,743,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 257,000,000
House allowance......................................... 251,743,000
Committee recommendation
257,000,000
program description
The ``Medical and prosthetic research'' account provides
funds for medical, rehabilitative, and health services
research. Medical research supports basic and clinical studies
that advance knowledge leading to improvements in the
prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases and
disabilities. Rehabilitation research focuses on rehabilitation
engineering problems in the fields of prosthetics, orthotics,
adaptive equipment for vehicles, sensory aids and related
areas. Health services research focuses on improving the
effectiveness and economy of delivery of health services.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $257,000,000 for medical and
prosthetic research, as requested by the administration. This
is an increase of $5,257,000 over the current budget and the
House amount. The Committee has provided an increase for this
program because it is a critical component of the VA health
care system. The VA research program attracts outstanding
physicians to the VA system, and helps to ensure high quality
cost-effective care to veterans. No funds are earmarked in view
of the importance of merit-review.
The Committee recommends that health services research
funding be used by VHA to develop clinical practice guidelines
and outcome measures to assess the quality and quantity of
spinal cord injury medicine. To assure the quality of these
guidelines and measures, VHA should coordinate its development
process with other Federal agencies with guidelines development
expertise including the Agency for Health Care Policy Research.
To ensure the independence and acceptance of these guidelines
within the practitioner community, VA should coordinate all
development activity with consortia of provider and consumer
groups acquainted with the field of SCI medicine.
The Committee commends VA for establishing a 5-year public-
private partnership to support research on diabetes, a major
health concern facing our Nation's veterans, and supports its
continuation.
health professional scholarship program
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $10,386,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 10,386,000
House allowance......................................... 10,386,000
Committee recommendation
...........................
program description
The Health Professional Scholarship Program provides for
tuition, stipend and other educational expenses to eligible
full-time students leading to degrees in nursing and other
allied health disciplines. Scholarship recipients incur a
service obligation to VA for a period of 1 year for each year
of scholarship support. A minimum 2-year obligation is incurred
by all recipients. The scholarship program, originally
established by Public Law 96-330, was implemented in 1982.
committee recommendation
The Committee has not funded this program owing to
budgetary constraints. This program was created to enhance the
Department's ability to attract and retain nurses at a time
when there were significant shortages. The program is no longer
essential because VA does not have shortages of nurses or other
health professionals. Individuals currently enrolled in the
scholarship program will not be impacted by the elimination of
funding; full funding for current participants was provided in
earlier appropriations.
medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $69,789,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 72,262,000
House allowance......................................... 63,602,000
Committee recommendation................................ 63,602,000
program description
This appropriation provides funds for central office
executive direction (Under Secretary for Health and staff),
administration and supervision of all VA medical and
construction programs, including development and implementation
of policies, plans, and program objectives.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $63,602,000 for medical
administration and miscellaneous operating expenses, a decrease
of $8,660,000 below the budget request, $6,187,000 below the
current budget, and the same as the House amount. This
reduction is being taken in view of the Veterans Health
Administration's reorganization, which is to be implemented in
fiscal year 1996. The reorganization will decentralize
decisionmaking to the 22 service areas, and will decrease the
need for central office oversight. Therefore, the Committee
does not believe the current FTE level of approximately 800
Washington-based staff is necessary to oversee the VA medical
system.
The Committee has made the following changes to the budget
request:
-$5,000,000 from construction management. Consistent with the
Committee's decision to eliminate all construction
funding in fiscal year 1996, central office
construction management is being reduced. Construction
management workload at headquarters will be limited to
overseeing ongoing projects.
-$2,000,000 from the transition office. The Committee notes
that the transition office replaced the Health Care
Reform Office which was responsible for coordinating
VA's efforts toward implementing health care reform as
envisioned by the President's proposed legislation.
This function is not needed at this time given that
comprehensive health care reform legislation is
unlikely to be enacted this year.
-$1,000,000 from administration.
-$660,000 from academic affairs.
These reductions will result in a staffing level comparable
to the fiscal year 1986 level, excluding the construction
management staff who were moved to the field in fiscal year
1992.
grants to the republic of the philippines
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $500,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
program description
Public Law 102-389, authorized an annual $500,000 grant for
treatment of U.S. veterans at the Veterans Memorial Medical
Center [VMMC]. The grant is for the replacement and upgrading
of equipment and the rehabilitation of the VMMC's physical
plant and facilities.
committee recommendation
The Committee has not provided any funding for grants to
the Republic of the Philippines, consistent with the
President's request and the House mark.
transitional housing loan program
(including transfer of funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995.................... $7,000 $54,000
Budget estimate, 1996................... 7,000 56,000
House allowance......................... 7,000 54,000
Committee recommendation................ 7,000 54,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
This account provides for the cost of direct loans and the
associated administrative expenses, for the transitional
housing loan program to nonprofit organizations.
VA is authorized under Public Law 102-54 to make
transitional housing loans to nonprofit organizations
exclusively for use as transitional group residences for
veterans who are in a program for the treatment of substance
abuse. The amount of a loan cannot exceed $4,500 for any single
residential unit and each loan must be repaid within 2 years
through monthly installments.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $7,000 for the estimated cost of
providing loans for this new program which shall be transferred
from the general post fund, associated administrative expenses
of $54,000 which shall be transferred from the general post
fund, and a limitation on direct loans of $70,000.
Departmental Administration
general operating expenses
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $890,193,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 915,643,000
House allowance......................................... 821,487,000
Committee recommendation................................ 880,000,000
program description
This appropriation provides for the administration of
nonmedical veterans benefits through the Veterans Benefits
Administration [VBA], the executive direction of the
Department, several top level supporting offices, of the Board
of Contract Appeals, and the Board of Veterans Appeals.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $880,000,000 for general
operating expenses, an increase of $58,513,000 over the House
amount, and a decrease of $10,193,000 below the current budget
and $35,643,000 below the budget request.
The Committee has made the following changes to the budget
request:
-$32,000,000 from the administrative costs of the insurance
programs. As in the House, the Committee has included
an administrative provision enabling the Department to
utilize surplus earnings in the insurance programs for
administrative expenses associated with those programs,
estimated to be $32,000,000.
-$1,000,000 from general administration travel costs. The
Committee is concerned about reports of excessive
travel by several high ranking VA officials. The amount
provided represents an increase of $500,000 over the
fiscal year 1994 level.
+$1,000,000 for a National Academy of Public Administration
study of the Veterans Benefits Administration and the
claims processing system, described below.
-$3,643,000 as a general reduction, subject to normal
reprogramming guidelines.
The Committee continues to be concerned about the backlog
of claims in the Veterans Benefits Administration. It is simply
unacceptable that veterans wait, on average more than 5 months
for decisions about original compensation claims. Despite some
improvements in reducing the backlog through the use of
overtime, the backlog is expected to include some 400,000
compensation and pension claims awaiting action at the end of
this fiscal year. Additional staff and overtime will not solve
the backlog problem, but will provide only short-term
improvements. Systemic problems must be addressed, including a
bureaucratic, staff-intensive method of processing claims,
completely inadequate automation of the process, and a plethora
of cumbersome regulations.
While the Committee has provided an increase of $58,513,000
over the House amount for general operating expenses, this is
not intended to demonstrate support for the status quo. Rather,
it is intended to ensure timely processing of claims pending
major VBA reforms, so veterans do not suffer due to the
Department's problems.
The Committee continues to be troubled by reports of
significant shortcomings associated with VBA's modernization
effort. The modernization effort is intended to improve
efficiency and timeliness of claims processing, but according
to the General Accounting Office, reinforced by concerns
expressed by the General Services Administration and CNA
Corporation, there are serious problems. According to GAO
testimony, there has been a complete lack of strategic analysis
of how the new system will improve service, no examination of
the costs and benefits, no integration of the various
initiatives, and no one point of central authority for the
project. Modernization of VBA is a critical component to
improving claims processing. This issue must be a top priority
and must involve more than simply the acquisition of expensive
hardware. Bill language has been included preventing VBA from
going forward with stage III of the modernization effort in
fiscal year 1996. In addition, bill language has been included,
as in the House, permitting the $25,500,000 earmarked in the
fiscal year 1995 appropriations act for the VBA modernization
program to be available for any expense authorized under
general operating expenses.
The Committee has provided $1,000,000 to the National
Academy of Public Administration for a comprehensive assessment
of the Veterans Benefits Administration with particular
emphasis on specific steps necessary to make claims processing
more efficient and less time consuming. NAPA will evaluate the
modernization initiative and its link to strategic goals and
priorities, efforts to reengineer the claims processing
methodology, efforts to simplify rules and regulations,
performance measures for critical program areas and systems
modernization efforts, the regional office structure, and the
roles of the Board of Veterans Appeals and the Court of
Veterans Appeals. The NAPA review is intended to build on, not
duplicate, existing efforts to review and make recommendations
on these issues.
Bill language has been included, as in the House, providing
VA with the authority to pay administrative costs of the
Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act.
national cemetery system
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $72,604,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 75,308,000
House allowance......................................... 72,604,000
Committee recommendation
72,604,000
program description
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
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.
There are a total of 147 cemeterial installations in 39
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $72,604,000 for the National
Cemetery System, as provided by the House.
office of the inspector general
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $31,815,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 33,500,000
House allowance......................................... 30,900,000
Committee recommendation
30,900,000
program description
The Office of Inspector General was established by the
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for the audit
and investigation and inspections of all Department of Veterans
Affairs programs and operations.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $30,900,000 for the inspector
general as in the House. This is a decrease of $2,600,000 below
the request and a decrease of $915,000 below the current
budget.
construction, major projects
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $354,294,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 513,755,000
House allowance......................................... 183,455,000
Committee recommendation
35,785,000
program description
The construction, major projects appropriation provides for
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of VA,
including planning, architectural and engineering services, and
site acquisition where the estimated cost of a project is
$3,000,000 or more.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $35,785,000 for the ``Major
construction'' account. This amount provides for no new major
medical construction projects. The amount funds the
administration's request for asbestos abatement for ongoing
projects ($17,625,000); hazardous substance abatement for
ongoing projects ($500,000); national cemetery system projects
($6,860,000); the judgment fund ($10,300,000); and claims
analyses ($500,000).
The Committee has not funded any new construction projects
for several reasons. First, the Committee is concerned about
the outyear budget implications associated with building new
facilities, and the Department has not demonstrated how it will
accommodate activation costs for new facilities with a
declining budget. In addition, legislation has not been
reported out of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee
authorizing construction projects for fiscal year 1996 which
are not currently authorized; no funds may be expended by the
Department for unauthorized projects. Finally, until the
reorganization of VHA is implemented, the Committee believes it
is premature to begin new construction projects.
The Committee notes that its recommendation is consistent
with the opinion of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee,
which stated in its report on the fiscal year 1996 budget
(Senate Report 104-82): ``* * * VA's emphasis on its inpatient
care and acute care infrastructure--expressed both by its plans
to build new medical centers and to rehabilitate old ones--is
cause for concern. The Committee is greatly concerned that this
may reflect a misallocation of scarce Federal resources to
health care delivery methods which are relatively inefficient,
and which have been deemphasized by private sector providers'
emphasis on ambulatory care facilities.'' The Veterans Affairs
Committee goes on to ``urge VA to reorient its thinking to the
enhanced provision of ambulatory care and nonacute care
services.'' Finally, the Veterans Affairs Committee stated
that: ``it does not anticipate, absent some extraordinary
circumstances, authorizing the construction of any new
inpatient facilities.''
According to GAO, average daily inpatient workload in VA
hospitals declined 56 percent between 1969-94 with further
declines likely. The Committee urges the Department to
carefully consider how the Department's reorganization efforts,
and possible realignments which occur as part of
reorganization, will impact its future facility construction
and renovation needs. It is expected that the fiscal year 1997
budget request will be predicated on a careful analysis of, and
strategic plan to meet, future systemwide needs, recognizing a
declining and aging veteran population and a shift toward
outpatient care.
The Committee notes the compelling needs of veterans in
east central Florida for medical care, and regrets that current
and future budget constraints have prevented the funding of the
proposed Brevard County Medical Center. The Department is to
make every effort to ensure that the medical needs of all
eligible veterans in east central Florida who seek VA medical
care are provided for. 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, as in the House.
The Committee notes that the renovation projects requested
in the budget would address signficant space, functional, and
technical deficiencies; privacy standards; and handicapped
accessibility requirements. In particular, the Committee notes
that the proposed renovation of the Reno VAMC would address
inadequate fire protection, oxygen systems, air-conditioning,
handicapped accessibility, and various space deficiencies.
Similarly, the Perry Point renovation project would address
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations
[JCAHO] criteria and code requirements, and improve safety and
ward management. However, as stated earlier, until authorized,
the VA cannot proceed with these projects; five of the seven
requested projects are not autorized. Moreover, the VA must
ensure that each of these facilities will be needed in the
future to address the needs of a changing veteran population.
To address critical deficiencies of an immediate nature,
particularly items required for JCAHO accreditation, the
appropriation for minor construction has been increased above
the current funding level.
The Committee is concerned that VA has not expended funds
previously appropriated for the Reno project to move the
project along in a timely manner, and strongly encourages VA to
utilize currently available funds in an appropriate and
expeditious manner.
Several important projects have come to the Committee's
attention. The Committee notes the high priority associated
with constructing an ambulatory care addition and patient
environmental improvements at the Wilkes-Barre, PA, VA Medical
Center. The Committee also continues to support the central
air-conditioning project at the Fargo, ND, VA Medical Center.
And finally, the Committee notes the importance of the
Providence, RI, regional office relocation. These projects are
to receive priority consideration for inclusion in the
President's fiscal year 1997 budget.
Bill language has been included, as in the House,
transferring $7,000,000 from this account to the parking
revolving fund for the San Juan VA Medical Center parking
facility. This is a technical correction to the fiscal year
1995 appropriation for that project.
CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $152,934,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 229,145,000
House allowance......................................... 152,934,000
Committee recommendation................................ 190,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The construction, minor projects appropriation provides for
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of VA,
including planning, architectural and engineering services, and
site acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is less
than $3,000,000.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $190,000,000, an increase of
$37,066,000 over the current budget and the House amount, and a
decrease of $39,145,000 below the amount requested. The
increase is provided owing to the importance of meeting basic
infrastructure improvements such as correction of code
deficiencies and correcting environmental deficiencies that
affect patient care areas such as air-conditioning and
ventilation, handicap accessibility, life safety code, and
compliance with accreditation standards. The amount provided
will also ensure that revised technical facility requirements
to control the potential spread of infectious diseases are met.
This appropriation account should be used to meet any
critical requirements, such as safety and fire code
deficiencies, at facilities which were denied major
construction funding by the Committee in fiscal year 1996. The
Committee wishes to ensure such deficiencies are addressed in a
timely fashion.
parking revolving fund
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $16,300,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
program description
The revolving fund provides funds for the construction,
alteration, and acquisition (by purchase or lease) of parking
garages at VA medical facilities authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8109.
The Secretary is required under certain circumstances to
establish and collect fees for the use of such garages and
parking facilities. Receipts from the parking fees are to be
deposited in the revolving fund and would be used to fund
future parking garage initiatives.
committee recommendation
No new budget authority is requested by the administration
or provided for fiscal year 1996.
grants for construction of state extended care facilities
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $47,397,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 43,740,000
House allowance......................................... 47,397,000
Committee recommendation
47,397,000
program description
This account is used to provide grants to assist States in
acquiring or constructing State home facilities for furnishing
domiciliary or nursing home care to veterans, and to expand,
remodel or alter existing buildings for furnishing domiciliary,
nursing home, or hospital care to veterans in State homes. The
grant may not exceed 65 percent of the total cost of the
project, and grants to any one State may not exceed one-third
of the amount appropriated in any fiscal year.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $47,397,000 for grants for the
construction of State extended care facilities. The amount
provided is the same as the House amount and the current
budget, and represents an increase of $3,657,000 above the
budget request. This amount should enable the Department to
come close to fully funding priority I project requests. The
Committee recognizes that this program is a cost-effective
means of meeting the long-term health care needs of veterans.
grants for the construction of state veterans' cemeteries
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $5,378,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 1,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,000,000
Committee recommendation
1,000,000
program description
Public Law 95-476, as codified in title 38 U.S.C. 2408,
established authority to provide aid to States for
establishment, expansion, and improvement of State veterans'
cemeteries which are operated and permanently maintained by the
States. A grant may not exceed 50 percent of the total value of
the land and the cost of improvements.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for grants for
construction of State veterans' cemeteries in fiscal year 1996,
as requested by the administration and provided by the House.
administrative provisions
The Committee has included six administrative provisions
carried in earlier bills. In addition, a provision is included
limiting compensation payments to certain mentally incompetent
veterans with no dependent family members. This provision
results in $170,000,000 in budget authority and $157,000,000 in
outlays, which is used to offset the increase provided for
medical care.
Another provision is included enabling VA to use surplus
earnings from the life insurance programs for administrative
expenses associated with those programs, totaling approximately
$32,000,000. This provision offsets the reduction to general
operating expenses.
The Committee has included an administrative provision
authorizing VA to convey property to the Federal Highway
Administration which is necessary for the modernization of U.S.
Highway 54 in Wichita, KS. The project requires the acquisition
of approximately 6.3 acres of land, across the south edge of
the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional Office
Center [VAM&ROC], Wichita, KS. The city of Wichita will be
responsible for providing the appropriate space necessary to
house the services and equipment currently occupying buildings
8 and 30, documenting the historical aspects of building 8, and
relocating the medal of honor memorial. All costs and
responsibilities, and compliance with all existing statutes and
regulations associated with transferred land and improvements
thereon, shall be the sole responsibility of the Secretary of
Transportation.
Finally, the Committee has included bill language
authorizing VA to use supply fund resources for an acquisition
computer network, as requested by the Department. This will
enable VA to streamline the procurement process and optimize
the use of scarce medical resources.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $25,453,518,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 24,340,032,000
House allowance......................................... 19,391,383,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,329,167,000
general description
The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was
established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public
Law 89-174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the
principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned
with the Nation's housing needs, fair housing opportunities,
and improving and developing the Nation's communities.
In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and
interests of the Nation's communities and of the people who
live and work in them, HUD administers mortgage and loan
insurance programs that help families become homeowners and
facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and
homeownership subsidy programs for low-income families who
otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat
discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair
housing opportunity; programs aimed at insuring an adequate
supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid neighborhood
rehabilitation and the preservation of our urban centers from
blight and decay.
HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the
marketplace and fosters programs and research that stimulate
and guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but
a suitable living environment.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$20,329,167,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. This is a reduction of $5,064,351,000 from the
1995 enacted level, $4,010,865,000 below the budget estimate,
and $937,874,000 above the House allowance.
Introduction
In January of this year the Committee held a series of
special hearings on the Department of Housing and Urban
Development management and budgetary crisis. During the course
of those hearings the Committee reviewed testimony from a
variety of witnesses and examined a number of recent reports
addressing these serious shortcomings of the Department. Among
the studies analyzed were:
1. The National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA]
July 1994 study, ``Renewing HUD: A Long-Term Agenda for
Effective Performance.'' This study, ordered by this Committee
in September 1992 found that over the past 15 years the number
of HUD programs have grown, its program flexibility has been
sharply curtailed, and its financial exposure has increased. It
urged expeditious, comprehensive consolidation and
reauthorization of HUD programs and called for broad waiver and
demonstration authority to foster innovation and respond to
community initiatives.
Finally the academy report stated that ``[i]f, after 5
years, HUD is not operating under a clear legislative mandate
and in an effective, accountable manner, the President and
Congress should seriously consider dismantling the Department
and moving its core programs elsewhere.''
2. The HUD reinvention blueprint which declared that
``[c]onsolidation and devolution will change the way HUD
interacts with families and communities, and, consequently,
decrease the number of staff and dramatically change the types
of skills required to maintain productive relationships.'' The
HUD document proposed to reduce administrative and processing
requirements for both localities and the Department and improve
service through less onerous requirements, greater local
responsibility and flexibility, and less direct HUD
involvement.
3. The HUD inspector general's December 1994 report on
``Opportunities for Terminating, Consolidating, and
Restructuring HUD Programs'' which identified and evaluated 240
separate HUD programs. The report proposed eliminating small
categorical programs with limited impact and high
administrative burdens; social service activities beyond HUD's
capacity to administer; heavily regulated, inflexible programs;
and multiple overlapping programs.
In her testimony before the Committee, the HUD inspector
general noted the absence of strong leadership and consistent
followthrough as a factor in delays in correcting HUD
management problems, and cautioned that reform efforts would be
an immensely difficult task.
4. The General Accounting Office also presented testimony
which delineated the HUD deficiencies of weak internal
controls, an ineffective organizational structure, an
insufficient mix of staff with the proper skills, and
inadequate information and financial management systems. The
GAO statement then observed that:
[s]olving the problems that exist at HUD will not be
easy and will require a full reexamination of housing
policy and HUD's mission. Budget needs for HUD's
programs are growing and, given current housing policy,
will remain at high levels for the foreseeable future,
in part because of HUD's long-term financial
commitments. Also correcting management deficiencies at
HUD will take years and will require an infrastructure
that provides information on which to base policy
decisions. Reforms--be they mild or drastic--could have
serious budget and social implications * * *.
This series of hearings and accompanying reports reinforced
the developing consensus that the Department of Housing and
Urban Development indeed is confronting a budgetary and
management crisis of unprecedented proportions. Moreover, there
was wide agreement on the desperate need to undertake
fundamental reversal of Federal housing and community
development policy which yielded the past several decades'
record of proliferating programs and administrative burdens.
Finally, there was a clear call for a structural, disciplined,
and long-term effort to improve HUD management and
informational capabilities.
Every witness emphasized the need for fundamental change,
requiring a concerted effort by the administration and the
Congress. It is, therefore, very disconcerting to note that in
the 9 months which have elapsed since that series of hearings,
no comprehensive HUD reform measure has been introduced nor has
any authorizing committee conducted followup hearings in
delineating the specific legislative steps necessary to address
these critical issues.
This Committee pointedly expressed the urgency for
comprehensive legislation to address the widespread management
and budgetary problems confronting the Department during the
consideration of the recently enacted rescission bill for
fiscal year 1995 (Public Law 104-19). In the Senate report
accompanying that measure, the Committee stated that:
[This] recommendation is to provide limited program
reform of excessive administrative and bureaucratic
burdens on efficient housing management and operations.
Although the Committee cannot recommend the
comprehensive reform legislation needed by the
Department in the context of this emergency
supplemental appropriations bill, the need for reform
is as desperately urgent in this administrative and
budgetary disaster, as in any natural disaster.
Hopefully, these initial efforts will set the stage for
enactment of a larger and more comprehensive
restructuring of departmental activities and
responsibilities prior to the consideration of the
fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill later in this
session of the Congress.--Senate Report 104-17, at page
107, March 24, 1995.
Despite this plea for prompt action, the Committee must now
confront the responsibility of recommending specific funding
levels for the Department, and its estimated $1,000,000,000,000
in programmatic commitments, without the benefit of
comprehensive legislative formulations by the authorizing
committees of jurisdiction. The appropriation of another
$20,000,000,000 for this Department without such comprehensive
reforms cannot be tolerated. Therefore, the Committee has no
alternative but to propose an extensive legislative package of
administrative and management changes which redirect the
programs and authorities, and which provide a more reasonable
and justifiable basis for the expenditure of these massive
sums.
In addition, within the context of individual program
funding recommendations, the Committee proposes the
simplification and consolidation of many individual categorical
programs as suggested by recent studies of the Department. The
Committee notes that this is a transitionary period in which
only a first round of such consolidations are proposed. In
future years, the Committee anticipates continued progress in
eliminating many of these remaining separate categories of
funding as States, localities, and other housing and community
development organizations adjust and transition their
activities to this restructuring of the Department and the
Federal responsibilities.
HUD Management and Organizational Reforms
Public and Indian housing
The Committee considered, but has deferred recommending
statutory provisions to require the implementation of a
reorganization of the Office of Public and Indian Housing to
redirect staff resources toward addressing the critical needs
of troubled public housing authorities, and the need to
accelerate the demolition of obsolete developments and
facilitate the development of mixed-use, mixed-income
replacement housing.
It is the Committee's view that such reorganization can be
effectively implemented only through concerted efforts by the
Department if it shares the concern over the inadequacy of
meeting these pressing needs. Unfortunately, to date, the
Committee has seen little evidence of a meaningful commitment
by the Department to refocus its staffing and management
resources toward these serious priorities.
For example, recently the Department assumed control of the
long-troubled Chicago Public Housing Authority. It is not clear
whether HUD made a deliberate decision to displace local
management, but upon the resignation of the authority's
governing board, the Department decided to replace local
officials with personnel from HUD headquarters, other HUD
offices, and with volunteers from other public housing
authorities. This step, while clearly needed to break a
downward spiral of housing conditions in the Chicago authority,
have strained the Department's ability to carry out its ongoing
responsibilities to assist other distressed public housing
authorities.
Such dramatic steps as a Federal takeover simply do not
represent a sustainable solution to similar problems afflicting
other troubled authorities across the country in cities such as
New Orleans, Philadelphia, and Detroit. Rather than engaging in
such extraordinary crisis management efforts to salvage such
dysfunctional authorities, the Department must develop a
strategy to anticipate and prevent such desperate conditions.
The Committee is convinced that the Department must abandon
its attempt to administratively control the operations of all
public housing authorities. Those localities that have
demonstrated the management ability and desire to independently
redirect their low-income housing assistance programs should be
allowed to chart their own course without HUD bureaucratic
interference. The Department must instead focus its attentions
toward those housing authorities that are experiencing
management shortcomings, or are in need of greater assistance
from HUD in developing more effective programs.
In addition, the Committee is proposing a concentration of
resources focused on the urgent task of demolishing failed
public housing developments. The affected housing authorities
must replace these obsolete, unworkable, inefficient, and
excessively costly to maintain projects with mixed income
developments that have lower concentrations of poverty. An
alternative to replacement housing includes greater reliance on
vouchers where such forms of housing assistance will better
utilize local market resources at lower subsidy cost. Related
to the demolition of these failed housing projects, HUD also
needs to dramatically expand its capacity to assist cities and
local housing authorities in expanding relationships with
private housing developers and others in utilizing more
innovative means of developing affordable housing for low-
income families which include tax credits, State debt
financing, and other capital sources.
It is clear that these new methods require a very different
skill mix than is currently represented in the HUD field office
structure which has been preoccupied with regulatory and
administrative compliance rather than on economic feasibility
and analyzing complex financial proposals. Similarly, cities
and local housing authorities have long forgotten the lessons
and limitations of creative dealmaking associated with programs
such as the urban development action grants [UDAG], which
encouraged leveraging public resources with private capital to
make possible development projects. Assuring the financial
viability of such projects and maximizing the return on the
contribution of public participation requires specialized
training and skills which are not well represented in the
current administrative ranks of the Department or the cities.
FHA and multifamily housing management
In many respects, the deficiencies and mismanagement that
plague HUD's public housing programs are even worse with
respect to the Department's portfolio of FHA-insured and
federally subsidized multifamily project-based assistance
programs. During hearings earlier this year the HUD inspector
general cited the alarming condition of portions of HUD's
multifamily housing program and said that a disturbing number
of projects are neglected by their owners. Tenants, with their
rent subsidies tied to these projects, are essentially trapped
in deplorable conditions and HUD's risk for significant loss is
enormous.
Perhaps most alarming was the HUD inspector general's
assessment of the Department's management and data systems. She
said that HUD lacks the resources needed, in terms of both
numbers and expertise, to adequately service loans and section
8 contracts. She went on to report that HUD's management
controls in the insured/assisted multifamily housing area are
also weak. Field office physical property inspections,
financial statement reviews, and onsite management reviews have
not been performed in a way that consistently identifies and
resolves problems.
Testimony presented by the GAO reaffirmed the findings of
the HUD inspector general, and stated that HUD's automated data
systems cannot be relied on to provide relevant, timely,
accurate, or complete information and do not adequately support
the early detection of problem loans. Also not having enough
loan servicers with the proper skills has hampered the
performance of fundamental FHA activities, such as monitoring
the insured loan portfolio and servicing loans on properties
whose owners have defaulted on their mortgages.
Both were commenting on an insured loan portfolio exceeding
$30,000,000,000 in contingent taxpayer liability, and on which
FHA has already established a $10,300,000,000 loan loss
reserve. Moreover, these subsidized apartment buildings
currently cost about $8,000,000,000 in annual rental subsidies,
often at rates which substantially exceed prevailing market
rents.
As discussed later in this report, the Department has
proposed a mark-to-market initiative to address the cost of
these housing assistance programs. Unfortunately, HUD is
constrained by its own administrative and data management
limitations in assessing the impact of its own proposals, and
has been forced to undertake a special survey to provide more
accurate information on its multifamily housing inventory.
In addition, the Department was constrained in proposing
strategies for reducing the cost of maintaining and subsidizing
this portfolio of apartment projects by it own acknowledged
shortcomings in handling the administrative burden of
undertaking a project-by-project renegotiation of subsidies and
property management. Instead of recommending individualized
project assessments and workout arrangements, the Department
decided to turn over these holdings to a modified liquidation
process in which private contractual parties would conduct
property valuations and implement disposition measures based on
simple financial real estate assessments and FHA loss avoidance
concerns.
Naturally, this is of great concern to property owners who
view such a process as an abrogation of the original low-income
housing development commitment under which these properties
were initially developed, very upsetting to affected residents
of these apartment buildings who face potential displacement,
and potentially catastrophic to the neighborhoods in which
these developments sometimes represent the only hope for
retaining secure and decent affordable housing, and which
otherwise face continued decline.
While it is critical that the Department proceed in a
manner which limits further losses to the FHA fund in handling
this inventory, its strategies must be sensitive to housing
policy and community development concerns. These investments
are more than just financial liabilities on the Federal balance
sheet, they are sometimes the only affordable housing
opportunities available to millions of families and represent
the last hope for holding back the decay and decline afflicting
many inner-city areas.
The Committee has proposed alternatives to permit HUD to
utilize flexible solutions to reduce the heavy subsidy levels
necessary to maintain some of these developments.
Implementation of these tools, however, will require the
expansion of HUD's management capabilities and staffing,
augmented by resources available from State housing finance
agencies and community development organizations. HUD must
abandon its current mindset of liquidating this portfolio in
the manner utilized by the Resolution Trust Corporation in
disposing of failed savings and loan assets. The Department has
the additional responsibilities of preserving affordable
housing opportunities and preventing low-income resident
dislocation which require a broader approach to reducing its
costs.
As noted later in this report, the Committee is
recommending increases in FHA administrative limitations to
permit expansion of the Department's ability to undertake this
task. The Committee expects the Department to act promptly in
utilizing these new authorities and resources in correcting its
serious deficiencies in this significant area of management
responsibility.
Public housing and tenant-based section 8
Currently the Federal Government supports the operation of
about 1.4 million units of public housing administered though
3,400 local housing authorities. In addition, approximately 1.5
million units of tenant-based section 8 vouchers and
certificates are provided directly to low-income families to
subsidize the rent of privately owned housing.
The cost of these assisted housing programs have annually
increased with the addition, each year, of new incremental
units to the subsidized inventory, and also because housing
costs are driven by inflationary factors outside the control of
the administering agency. Utility costs, market demand, local
development constraints, and building codes, labor wage rates,
and insurance premiums all contribute to the increased cost of
housing. In addition, new tenant selection rules which have the
effect of targeting assistance only to the poorest of the poor,
have meant declining resident payments toward their housing
costs, and forced increases in Federal subsidies, while
creating concentrations of very deep poverty in assisted
housing developments.
It is abundantly clear to the Committee that the
congressionally adopted goal of balancing the Federal budget by
the year 2002 will make impossible the funding necessary to
meet the increasing cost of maintaining these housing
assistance programs. In this context, only one course holds any
hope to prevent massive dislocation of low-income families, the
elderly, and the disabled that currently depend on this
assistance: a dramatic redirection and restructuring of costly
housing policies and sweeping elimination of administrative
burdens on local housing providers. Anything short of such a
major overhaul only will prolong the deterioration and ultimate
demise of these programs due to declining budgetary support.
The Committee recommendation, therefore, includes
legislation to dramatically reduce the rules and federally
imposed administrative burdens of providing these forms of
housing assistance. These changes include a repeal of Federal
preference rules governing the local selection of new
participants in these programs; modifications of the Brooke
amendment which set an inflexible standard of a 30 percent of
income contribution by recipient families toward the rental
cost of their housing; and the take one-take all and the
endless lease rules which make private landlords very leery of
accepting any subsidized residents.
In addition, the Committee is recommending the creation of
a new demonstration block grant. Public housing operation
subsidies, formula-based modernization assistance, and section
8 tenant-based assistance would be merged into a single unified
account, with limited performance standards to govern the
parameters of how local governments craft solutions to their
own local low-income housing assistance needs.
The allocation formula for these performance grants would
be based on current law. The grant would be conditioned on each
PHA meeting a minimum performance standard: number of occupied
units maintained for families below 80 percent of median
income, and a minimum percentage of such units occupied by
families below 30 percent of median income. Failure to meet the
low-income family threshold would also reduce assistance.
The Federal Government provides funding to meet a simple,
clearly defined need: help lower-income families afford decent
housing. No detailed requirements on who is served (other than
minimums on income), no Federal preferences on who is admitted
into the program, no Federal rules on what has to be charged
for rent (allowing residents to decide if they are willing, or
able to pay it), again with the minimum very low-income
performance standard acting as a market discipline to prevent
any PHA from attempting to drive out poor families with
unrealistically high rents.
Within the context of this broad appropriations construct,
individual PHA's would be responsible for implementing rent and
tenant management policies which would be responsive to local
social service and welfare policies, and to local rental market
and economic conditions. For example, a jurisdiction which
implemented a 5-year cap on welfare payments could restructure
its public or assisted housing contracts to reinforce the
phaseout of assistance for a family refusing to work. Or if a
family member took a job, at whatever pay scale, such
employment would not automatically trigger higher rents as is
the case with the current Brooke amendment which requires a 30
percent of income rental payment. This simplified Federal
housing model would provide much greater flexibility on the
part of PHA's to tailor housing assistance to complement local
welfare initiatives.
An important additional aspect of such program reform would
be to redefine the role of Federal housing activities to that
of an asset providing supplementary assistance on a temporary
basis, and one within reach of all low-income families facing
the financial pressures of dealing with the high cost of decent
housing. Currently, only about 30 percent of eligible low-
income families receive housing assistance. The other 70
percent pay too much, languish on long, barely moving waiting
lists, and usually receive no help at all. Federally funded
public and assisted housing should be viewed as a communitywide
resource, to be allocated in a more equitable manner and
available for all families seeking to break the bonds of
poverty and dependence. Not only should it be extended for only
a limited period, but by limiting tenancy, it would also mean
that a larger fraction of the eligible population would have a
greater opportunity to utilize this resource.
By combining tenant-based section 8 subsidies and public
housing operating support, local jurisdictions will have the
flexibility to make decisions regarding their capital assets in
the context of rental market conditions. Individual public
housing developments which are costly to operate with low
market appeal could be disposed of in favor of vouchers. In
tight markets, more resources could be applied to assure
continued viability of such valuable assets. Eligibility for
Federal grants would be based on families assisted, not on the
size of the inventory of a housing authority.
This demonstration rental housing assistance grant, with
very minimal performance criteria, constitutes an entirely new
housing program wholly separate from the United States Housing
Act of 1937. Those authorities not participating in the
demonstration would remain under the legislative and
administrative constraints of that act.
Other than the impact of reduced funding, it may take some
time before any changes are made under the new public housing
demonstration grant given the ponderous nature of real estate
tenancy and management. Moreover, previously appropriated
funding in the pipeline and under contract will continue to be
administered under existing law. This inherent transition
period will provide ample opportunity for consideration of
authorizing legislation to flesh out and address issues
associated with the dramatic shift in funding orientation. An
important matter for consideration in the authorizing
legislation would be the remedial enforcement of PHA
performance standards along with alterations to the performance
criteria in anticipation of further funding declines in the
future.
In the recently enacted rescission bill (Public Law 104-
19), the Committee provided for the repeal of $6,300,000,000 in
previously appropriated funding to increase the number of
subsidized housing units in the Nation. The Committee was
motivated by a desire to prevent the looming budgetary
shortfall in continuing funding necessary to sustain these
assisted housing units, and to avoid the massive dislocation of
low-income families that would result. In this appropriations
bill, the Committee is taking the next several steps toward
empowering local jurisdictions and their residents with the
authority of redesigning their assisted housing programs to
survive to difficult years ahead.
This may be the last opportunity for the Congress to
affirmatively propose reforms which hold the promise of
avoiding large-scale resident dislocations and loss of
affordable housing stock. If this narrow window is missed,
Congress may have little option but to address the consequences
of its inaction through increased homeless assistance.
HUD multifamily issues (mark-to-market and preservation)
HUD provides project-based rental subsidies on about 1.6
million apartment units in 21,000 private developments. By
contrast, there are about 1,4 million units in the public
housing inventory and about 1.5 million tenant-based section 8
certificates and vouchers. Another 500,000 rental units are
insured by FHA, but do not receive project-based rental
subsidies. Unfortunately, some portions of the multifamily
inventory suffer the same deterioration afflicting some public
housing, and most are jeopardized by the same looming budgetary
shortfall which threatens continuing rental subsidies.
In very rough outlay terms, public housing costs about
$6,000,000,000 to support, including about $3,000,000,000 for
capital improvements. Tenant-based certificates and vouchers
outlays total approximately $9,000,000,000 each year in rental
subsidies. The multifamily inventory, by contrast, costs HUD
about $8,000,000,000 annually for rental and interest subsidies
and loan losses, however, it is far more diverse in terms of
forms of assistance, and the depth of subsidy.
The parallel between the public housing inventory and the
subsidized multifamily housing portfolio can be extended to
include strategies to address perceived deficiencies. First,
the need to cull out and demolish failed developments which
cannot be efficiently operated. Second, changes in resident
selection and income mix to reduce concentrations of poverty
and dependence on deep subsidies. Third, capital improvements
to catch up with deferred maintenance and make these properties
more competitive. Finally, with respect to the private
multifamily portfolio, debt restructuring to reflect market
values.
Mark-to-market.--Of the 1.6 million HUD multifamily
inventory, mark-to-market would apply to 900,000 units in
developments which are both insured by FHA and receive at least
some section 8 project-based assistance. The core concern,
however, focuses on about 600,000 of these units which
currently receive section 8 contract subsidies based on rents
well over prevailing market rates. These are primarily the
newer-assisted section 8 new construction/substantial
rehabilitation portfolio with average contract rents about 30
percent over fair market rent. Budget constraints will not
permit renewal of these subsidy arrangements at these rates,
and if rental income is reduced, much of this inventory will be
driven into default.
The majority of this inventory also carries FHA guaranteed
mortgage balances exceeding market values. FHA, therefore, is
at risk of suffering significant net losses should these
projects default. In addition, while FHA has shown some recent
improvement in handling projects in default, it still is a
cumbersome, prolonged, and costly process, to be avoided if at
all possible.
The HUD mark-to-market proposal is predicated on reductions
in discretionary appropriation by replacing expiring project-
based assistance only with market rate tenant-based vouchers.
To avoid defaults and foreclosures, HUD is seeking authority to
engage third-party intermediaries, joint ventures, or other
preassignment arrangements to facilitate writedown of the
mortgage balances to a level sustainable at the reduced rental
income level.
Theoretically, this will bring to bear market pricing and
private sector efficiencies to limit FHA claims and carrying
costs. This is the heart of the mark-to-market proposal. It is
also the focus of most of the debate and controversy since the
details of the process in which subsidies are cut, debt
restructured, and the steps taken in the disposition of
properties can have broad implications for potential tax
recognition problems, excessive losses by FHA, displacement of
residents, loss of affordable housing stock, injury to existing
project owners and managers, and further deterioration in
marginal urban neighborhoods.
Even the current debate over the formulation of a mark-to-
market property work-out program has consequences. Credit
markets have been placed on notice that these federally
subsidized and guaranteed mortgages are a less stable, long-
term capital investment and are increasing discount margins.
Owners who are confronting an expiration in the subsidy
contracts in the next few years, and anticipating likely
mortgage default, may cut their potential losses by immediately
disinvesting in these properties. This could range from simply
decreasing management attention and effort, to an aggressive
effort to remove any funds from the project, leaving only
enough for a final bankruptcy litigation payment. In either
case, FHA losses will mount.
It is important to note that the HUD proposal does not
apply to 75 percent of the State HFA inventory which are not
FHA insured (about 300,000 units) as well as a few older
section 236 and section 221(d)(3) developments which don't have
any rental subsidies, along with perhaps 300,000 units in
elderly and disabled housing developments financed under
section 202 and section 811.
Irrespective of the process selected, marking down the
outstanding mortgage amounts on these properties entails
recognition of substantial losses to the FHA fund. Over the
first 7 years of mark-to-market, HUD estimates about
$10,300,000,000 in FHA claims and costs, close to one-half of
which will be recovered in note and property sales (in addition
to the $10,000,000,000 loss reserve already set aside for
losses under current law). These FHA losses are about five
times the current baseline. Because of the magnitude of these
losses, only after the seventh year will the proposal begin to
show net savings, even with the reduction in section 8 subsidy
payments. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO], which uses
more pessimistic assumptions on program costs and potential
recoveries, scores the proposal as a net budget cost increase,
not a savings, from current law.
Mark-to-market, however, does represent a profound housing
policy issue, despite its marginal impact in gross budgetary
terms. Existing section 8 project-based contracts cannot be
renewed at these excessive rates of subsidy, and absent some
legislative remedy, defaults and displacement will occur.
Revision of the budgetary baseline, reflecting a higher default
rate, will substantially increase anticipated FHA losses. At
that point, legislation such as mark-to-market, which is
designed to avoid or reduce such losses, will be more feasible
under the Budget Act rules. To the extent that such legislation
is carefully drawn, it may also achieve reductions in resident
displacement, prevent loss of affordable housing stock, and
restore long-term economic viability.
Failure to affirmatively move legislation will likely
result in efforts to simply liquidate the defaulting mortgages
and properties as quickly as possible. Should this be done
without any form of continuing project-based assistance, or
without FHA guarantees, net losses of the FHA fund will mount.
Moreover, only a fraction of these rental units will survive as
low-income housing, and displaced resident voucher costs will
be a very heavy new burden on discretionary appropriations, to
the extent that such assistance is continued.
Preservation (LIHPRHA reform).--There are parts of this
inventory that can be maintained at lower net cost than
incurred under the mark-to-market approach. For example, the
segment of the FHA-insured portfolio eligible for prepayment
have HUD regulated rents which average 15 percent below market
rates. These older assisted section 236 and section 221(d)(3)
projects were developed with options that allowed owners, after
20 years, to prepay their FHA-insured mortgages which would
have removed low-income use restrictions and dividend and rent
limits, along with interest subsidies.
If the mortgage is prepaid, residents are confronted by
likely displacement from rent increases or because the property
is being converted to another use such as condominiums or
upscale rental housing. Currently, low-income families (up to
80 percent of median income) so displaced are eligible for
vouchers which represents a significant additional and
continuing expense.
In 1987 and again in 1990, legislation was enacted to limit
the ability of owners to exercise their contractual options,
with financial incentives as compensation. Unfortunately, the
current preservation program [LIHPRHA] has proven to be very
costly, and dependent on heavy use of continuing section 8
rental subsidies, frequently at above market rates. For these
segments of the inventory, alternatives such as a capital loan/
capital grant has been proposed in order to maximize the
residual public policy goals served by Federal housing
programs, while achieving long-term cost savings.
Effective reform here can be achieved by targeting program
benefits to projects which can be maintained at reasonable cost
and avoiding financial windfalls for both owners and residents.
Committee Recommendations
Demonstration for mark-to-market.--The Committee
recommendation includes an administrative provision which will
permit the Department to proceed with a demonstration of a
variety of mark-to-market approaches during fiscal year 1996.
There are two principal concerns, however, which will limit the
scope of this demonstration: First, the section 8 contracts
which are coming up for renewal in this fiscal year are
primarily below FMR older assisted projects (sections 236 and
221(d)(3) projects with loan management set-aside subsidies),
which in large number are also eligible for preservation
[LIHPRHA] coverage. As such, these are not ideal candidates to
address the over FMR subsidy concerns which is more prevalent
in the case of the later expiring section 8 new construction/
substantial rehabilitation portfolio. A different approach has
been provided for these properties to address the separate sets
of characteristics and needs.
The second concern is the inherent mistrust of the
Department by owners, residents, and others in the industry.
The Department is being given wide latitude to proceed with a
demonstration, albeit limited in duration and with some
safeguards to prevent wholesale disposition of properties,
without regard to potential adverse impacts on owners,
residents, or neighborhoods. Within the context of this
appropriations bill, and given the uncertainties of the precise
characteristics of the properties involved, it is not possible
to delineate more specific parameters for the demonstration.
Indeed, the debate over these issues is the reason for a
demonstration in the first place. This broad discretion vested
in the Department, however, does highlight the requirement for
very close monitoring and oversight.
Finally, the Department has taken a strong position against
continuing project-based subsidies and FHA mortgage guarantees
in its mark-to-market proposal. As with public housing, many
owners of project-based assisted developments worry that
vouchering out their residents may lead to vacancies and
destabilize even well run apartment buildings since they
weren't originally designed to compete against commercial
developments.
The Committee recommendation broadens the Department's
proposal to authorize a more diverse number of approaches in
the multifamily workout demonstration. Beyond permitting an
evaluation of several alternatives, it holds the promise of
encouraging voluntary participation of property owners, in
advance of immediately impending contract expirations. The
current HUD proposal is viewed as basically hostile to the
interests of owners because it involves a reduction in
subsidies and may subject them to substantial tax penalties.
Without more benign alternatives, voluntary participation in
proactive workouts probably will not occur, and inclusion of
the later expiring, more heavily subsidized section 8 projects
will be missed.
Preservation reform (capital loan/capital grant).--The
House bill earmarks $200,000,000 from unobligated carryover
balances in the ``Annual contributions'' account for a new
preservation program to address the potential prepayment of
sections 236 and 221(d)(3) projects. Unfortunately, HUD
anticipates no such funds becoming available, and consideration
of such program reform has only begun in the authorization
committees.
There are approximately 75,000 to 100,000 units in the
LIHPRHA pipeline which are viable candidates for preservation
funding. These projects have been in processing for some time,
often years, and represent a mix between equity take-out deals
for owners seeking financial incentives to maintain this form
of low-income housing, and financing of purchases by tenant
groups and nonprofits. Replacing the existing LIHPRHA program,
which essentially converts these developments into project-
based section 8, with a capital loan (or a capital grant in the
case of purchasers) avoids dependence on continuing rental
subsidies and is cheaper in the long run. The Committee
recommendation includes legislation that has been prepared to
accomplish this reform.
This legislative proposal is designed to provide financial
incentives to compensate property owners for not exercising
their contractual right to prepay these use restricted
mortgages. As such, if a revised program is not enacted, the
Government is obligated to restoring the right of these owners
to leave the program, notwithstanding the loss of affordable
housing stock and the added cost of providing vouchers to
current eligible residents.
The Committee recommendation which will convert the current
section 8 dependent program into a capital loan/capital grant
program. Also included in the bill under the ``Annual
contributions'' account is $550,000,000 for this new program
along with $74,000,000 to pay for vouchers for families in
developments in which the owner elects to prepay.
Section 8 renewal policy changes.--The administration
requested bill language which would limit rents in units
covered by expiring project-based section 8 contracts. This
legislation is intended to cause an upward revision in the
current projections of FHA losses by triggering budgetary
recognition of a change from the current policy assumption of
renewal of all expiring rental contracts, at existing subsidy
levels.
Pending enactment of such legislation, and their proposed
mark-to-market proposal, the Department indicated to the
Congress their intent to replace all expiring project-based
assistance with vouchers and to proceed with debt
restructuring, under existing authority. Vouchers will be
limited to fair market rent [FMR], with some exception for
higher street rents at up to 120 percent of FMR for residents
who do not want to move, especially the elderly and disabled.
This new departmental position threatens owners and residents
of these projects who have urged temporary extensions, pending
enactment of further reforms.
The budget baseline used by both CBO and OMB assumes low
rates of FHA defaults because of the expected continuation of
high subsidy payments. This is an impediment to the
consideration of any proposal to restructure portfolio costs
because of the resulting increase in writeoffs of outstanding
principal balances, and losses to the FHA fund. Unless the
current budgetary baseline is changed to reflect a more
pessimistic scenario of such losses, new legislation will be
scored as a net added cost, not a savings.
In addition, HUD and OMB would like to replace current
project-based rental assistance with tenant-based vouchers.
This causes owners and resident groups much concern, as does
the notion of mandating a reduction in subsidy levels.
Legislation is included in the Committee recommendation which
permits 1 year extensions of expiring project-based section 8
assistance contracts which are less than 110 percent of fair
market rent.
Continuing FHA multifamily guarantee program.--The
Committee recommendation increases the House-passed allowance
for FHA multifamily credit subsidies from $70,000,000 to
$100,000,000. HUD had requested $188,000,000 for this purpose.
The recommended level should be adequate to maintain a
reasonable FHA multifamily mortgage guarantee program,
especially if FHA underwriting standards are tightened up. In
addition to the gross appropriation for FHA credit subsidies,
language is recommended to extend the multifamily risk-sharing
demonstration with State housing finance agencies, as well as
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. This latter provision was included
in the House-passed bill.
Participation by States and nonprofits.--Both State housing
finance agencies and community development corporations (like
LISC and Enterprise) are concerned over the potential impact of
the Department's single-minded focus on FHA budgetary exposure
in pursuing multifamily inventory workout arrangements. The
HFA's are concerned that HUD will squeeze them financially, and
the CDC's are concerned that HUD policies will ignore potential
neighborhood impacts and losses in affordable housing stock. In
addition, both would like to participate in the management of
property work outs. HUD is developing a pilot arrangement which
will transfer notes or property to several State HFA's to
evaluate the capacity of these organizations to facilitate this
process. In addition, the Committee recommendation includes
language to provide CDC's and other nonprofits a greater chance
to participate in the mark-to-market demonstration discussed
above.
FHA property disposition reform.--HUD has requested
language which will exempt FHA from a number of cumbersome, and
expensive, legal requirements associated with the sale of
assigned notes or properties in the FHA inventory. This can be
contrasted to mark-to-market which seeks to deal with this
inventory before it comes into Government possession. The
Committee recommendation includes these provisions, with
limitations, however, on the application of these waivers to
address concerns from tenant organizations and owners that HUD
would simply opt for an expedited default, assignment, and sale
process as an alternative to mark-to-market.
Section 8 reform.--The Committee recommendation includes a
number of legislative provisions designed to lower the cost of
section 8 subsidies, and to make this program behave in a
manner reflecting prevailing standards of the private rental
market. These provisions repeal statutory Federal preferences
for new tenant selection; the take-one/take-all requirement
which forces HUD assisted project owners to accept an unlimited
number of section 8 tenants if one is accepted; and the endless
lease provision which requires a property owner to get a court
order to terminate tenancy, even after expiration of the
initial lease term.
HOME and CDBG
The Department proposed the creation of six major block
grants to replace the 240 existing categorical programs. Two of
these proposed grant programs subsume the Community Development
Block Grant [CDBG] Program and the HOME Investment Partnerships
Program. The Committee recommendation proposes continuation of
both of these broadly based and popular block grant programs,
with adjustments to permit the incorporation for activities
formerly funded separately in the bill. These specific
modifications to these programs are discussed in greater detail
later in the report.
Housing Programs
The administration proposed inclusion of the HOME program
in a new affordable housing fund block grant which also
included sections 202 and 811 housing programs for the elderly
and disabled, HOPWA, lead-based paint abatement activities,
homeownership programs, and homeless housing programs. As
discussed later in this report, the Committee concurs with the
House-passed recommendation that several of these programs
retain their independent identity, including continuing a
separate appropriation for the HOME program. HOME has received
widespread support among cities and local housing providers as
a flexible and innovative tool with which housing opportunities
for low-income families can be provided in partnership with
non-Federal entities, and utilizing resources other than that
provided by HUD.
This departure from the highly structured, administratively
burdensome, and fully Federal funded approach to housing
assistance is clearly one which parallels the Committee's
recommendations for existing public housing activities and
section 8 assistance. Constraints on discretionary spending
require more innovative and efficient mechanisms in providing
housing assistance which are not predicated on singular
dependence on direct Federal appropriated funds on a continuing
basis.
ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ASSISTED HOUSING
(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $11,083,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance......................................... 10,182,359,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,594,358,000
\1\ Reflects a rescission of $---------- in Public Law 103-211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Currently, the Department's assisted housing efforts
principally consist of public and Indian housing development,
the section 202/811 programs for the elderly and persons with
disabilities, and the section 8 lower income rental housing
assistance program.
Public housing development was designed to meet the needs
of low-income families, particularly for large families and in
areas where the supply of existing units is inadequate or as
replacement housing for units lost to demolition or
disposition. Indian housing development funds are used to
provide new housing for Indian families. In addition to
development needs, funding is provided to amend contracts for
pipeline projects which require additional funds to: (1) reach
construction start, (2) correct design and/or construction
deficiencies, or (3) provide for subsequent adjustments in
funding requirements. Lease adjustments also are funded in
order to provide annual adjustments to contracts approved under
the old section 23 leased housing program. These payments
represent additional subsidies to offset increases in the cost
of project operations and to provide interim transition
assistance for projects that are being converted to the section
8 housing assistance payments program.
Public and Indian housing modernization is performed
pursuant to section 14 of the United States Housing Act of
1937, as amended. Public and Indian housing modernization funds
enable public housing authorities [PHA's] and Indian housing
authorities [IHA's] to correct the physical condition and
upgrade the management and operation of public and Indian
housing developments, to assure that such developments continue
to be available to serve lower income families. This may
involve alterations, additions, or rehabilitation of existing
structures; replacement of equipment; and improving the
management and operation of such projects. In addition,
modernization funds are used to provide technical assistance to
resident management corporations [RMC's] and to resident
councils, and for lead-based paint abatement activities. The
1995 budget request for modernization contains a legislative
proposal to make modernization funds available for replacement
housing.
In 1995, public and Indian housing authorities with 250 or
more dwelling units will receive funding under the
Comprehensive Grant Program authorized in the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1987. PHA's and IHA's with fewer
than 250 units will receive funding under the Comprehensive
Improvement Assistance Program.
The Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act
authorized a capital grants program to replace the section 202
direct loan program. In addition, a rental housing assistance
component was authorized to be used in conjunction with the
capital grants program to replace the section 8 rental
assistance associated with the direct loan program. Since new
projects are financed with a grant, the rental assistance need
only cover operating expenses. Tenants will pay the higher of
30 percent of adjusted income, 10 percent of gross income, or
welfare rent.
The section 8 program includes a variety of tenant- and
project-based rental subsidies. This rental assistance may be
used for existing housing and rehabilitated units. Under the
section 8 programs, the Department pays the difference between
what an eligible lower income household can afford (30 percent
for most programs) and the fair market rent [FMR] for an
adequate housing unit. However, under the section 8 housing
voucher programs, the Department provides a fixed amount for
eligible lower income households based on a payment standard--
regardless of the actual rent.
Among the other set-asides proposed under the ``Annual
contributions'' account are funds for: relocation; housing
opportunities for persons with AIDS; aid to tenants affected by
public housing demolition and disposition; loan management;
conversion of section 23 units to section 8 assistance; lead-
based paint hazard reduction; choice in residency; and property
disposition and preservation activities aimed at maintaining
the supply of affordable housing for low-income tenants.
The property disposition set-aside is being proposed as a
separate mandatory account for 1995. This program provides for
the use of housing assistance in connection with the sale of
HUD-owned properties and sale of HUD-held mortgages at
foreclosure in order to increase and maintain the amount of
housing affordable by lower income families, to minimize
displacement of tenants, to preserve and revitalize residential
neighborhoods, and to dispose of projects in a manner
consistent with HUD's disposition objectives. The preservation
program will be funded from carryover balances in 1995. This
program provides assistance to State or local units of
government, tenant, and nonprofit organizations to purchase
projects where owners have indicated an intent to prepay
mortgages.
The fiscal year 1996 request for amendments to section 8
subsidy contracts includes funding to amend existing housing
(certificates) contracts, moderate rehabilitation contracts,
project reserves, and property disposition contracts.
Certificate and moderate rehabilitation contracts are
amended to support increases in section 8 payments due to rent
increases and/or decreases in tenant income, and to extend
contract authority amendments provided in prior years with
limited budget authority.
Section 8 project reserve amendments are provided for
contract and budget authority increases to projects under
management which have new construction, substantial
rehabilitation, or loan management section 8 contracts, or have
property disposition section 8. Housing Finance Development
Agency and Farmers Home Administration section 8 contracts are
included.
The project reserve amendments are made available as
needed: to fund depleted project reserves where increases in
section 8 rents have outpaced increases in tenant incomes or
where tenant incomes are decreasing; to extend contract
authority amendments provided in prior years with limited
budget authority (budget authority only amendments); to support
increases in current contract amounts where eligible owners
have been granted rent increases to prevent voluntary
terminations (opt-outs); and, to support debt service on
section 241(f) loans made in order to prevent prepayment of
eligible subsidized mortgages.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,594,358,000
for the ``Annual contributions for assisted housing'' account.
This amount is $5,488,642,000 the appropriations for fiscal
year 1995, and $4,588,001,000 below the House allowance.
The Committee's recommendations for fiscal year 1996 for
the ``Annual contributions'' account are outlined in the
following table:
ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ASSISTED HOUSING FISCAL YEAR 1996--GROSS RESERVATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units Cost Term Budget authority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New authority................................................ ......... $ ......... $
==================================================
Public housing:
Indian housing........................................... 2,004 99,791 NA 200,000,000
Modernization............................................ NA NA NA 2,510,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, public housing............................... 2,004 ......... ......... 2,710,000,000
==================================================
Section 8 and other:
Elderly:
Capital grants/rental assistance..................... 9,654 NA NA 780,190,000
Disabled: Capital grants/rental assistance............... 2,915 NA NA 233,168,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, elderly/disabled................................ 12,569 ......... ......... 1,013,358,000
==================================================
Incremental rental assistance................................ 21,239 5,650 2 240,000,000
Preservation................................................. NA NA NA 624,000,000
Property disposition......................................... NA NA NA 261,000,000
Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS.................. 6,400 NA NA 171,000,000
Lead-based paint............................................. NA NA NA 75,000,000
Amendments................................................... NA NA NA 500,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, section 8 and other.......................... 40,208 ......... ......... 2,884,358,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, annual contributions............................ 42,212 ......... ......... 5,594,358,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA: Not applicable.
In 1994, nine empowerment zones and 95 enterprise
communities were awarded grants, tax incentives, and other
benefits to address economic and infrastructure decay in their
communities. One year later, those communities still do not
have a comprehensive list of the benefits to which they are
entitled under the enterprise zone provisions of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
The Committee directs the Secretary, in cooperation with
other Federal agencies and departments, to compile a report
that lists all competitive grants, tax incentives, and other
Federal benefits with specific advantages or privileges for
empowerment zones and enterprise communities. The report should
include details on those benefits and the applicable deadlines
empowerment zones and enterprise communities must meet to
qualify for them. This report should be submitted to the
Committee no later than January 1, 1996.
assistance for the renewal of expiring section 8 contracts
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $2,536,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance........................................\1\ 4,641,589,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,350,862,000
\1\ Funded in the ``Annual contributions for assisted housing'' account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
This program provides continued funding for units affected
by contract expirations. These contracts are loan management
contracts, moderate rehabilitation contracts, certificates, and
vouchers. To ensure that there will be no interruption in
subsidy payments, the budget proposes language which will allow
transfer of funds from the annual contributions appropriation
to this appropriation. The proposed language does not contain a
mandatory length of time for which contracts must be renewed.
Consequently, if necessary, contract terms can be adjusted to
ensure sufficient funds are available to cover all expiring
contracts. Beginning in fiscal year 1995, the Department
expects to renew contracts for 2-year terms.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,350,862,000
for section 8 contract renewals in fiscal year 1996. This
amount is $1,814,862,000 above the 1995 enacted level and
$290,727,000 below the House allowance which provided funding
for this purpose in the annual contributions account. The
administration proposed shifting responsibility and funding for
this purpose to the States and cities under the housing
certificates fund.
rental housing assistance program
(rescission)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... -$38,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... -35,119,000
House allowance......................................... -35,119,000
Committee recommendation
-35,119,000
program description
Under the Rental Housing Assistance Program authorized by
section 236 of the National Housing Act, subsidies provided by
HUD on behalf of project owners, reduce mortgage interest to as
low as 1 percent. Some very low-income section 236 project
tenants receive additional rental subsidies under the Rental
Assistance Payments Program [RAP].
committee recommendation
The Committee concurs with the House in recommending the
requested bill language to rescind $35,119,000 for the Rental
Housing Assistance Program in fiscal year 1996. Of this amount,
not more than $2,000,000 in 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.
payments for operation of low-income housing projects
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $2,900,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance......................................... 2,500,000,000
Committee recommendation
2,800,000,000
program description
Operating subsidies are provided to public housing agencies
[PHA's] and Indian housing authorities [IHA's] to assist in
financing the operation of PHA/IHA-owned dwellings in
accordance with section 9 of the United States Housing Act of
1937, as amended. Operating subsidies are required to help
maintain operating and maintenance services and provide for
minimum operating reserves. The performance funding system
[PFS] formula is used to calculate the level of operating
subsidy to be provided to each PHA/IHA to operate its owned
units.
The calculated subsidy amount under PFS is the difference
between the estimate of operating costs minus an estimate of
income from rents and other sources.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $2,800,000,000 for public housing
operating subsidies in fiscal year 1996. This amount is
$100,000,000 less than the fiscal year 1995 level and
$300,000,000 above the the House allowance.
public housing demolition, site revitalization, and replacement housing
grants
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $500,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
500,000,000
program description
Planning grants may be used for technical and
organizational support for resident involvement in
revitalization, neighborhood workshops and impact studies,
planning for economic development, as well as preliminary
architectural and engineering work. Funds also may be used for
job training, self-sufficiency activities, design of
replacement housing, and management improvements.
Implementation grants may be used for a wide variety of
activities, including but not limited to, architectural and
engineering work, redesign, reconstruction or redevelopment of
the project, administrative costs, temporary relocation, legal
fees, economic development activities, management improvements,
transitional security activities, and support services.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $500,000,000
for grants for the demolition, site revitalization of severely
distressed public housing and replacement units. This amount is
the same as the 1995 level. No funding for this purpose was
requested by the administration and none was included in the
bill as passed by the House.
The Committee directs that consideration be given for
funding to complete already approved HOPE VI distressed public
housing replacement efforts which involve the redevelopment of
larger mixed income, public-private leveraged communities, that
total at least 800 units, and where extraordinary costs such as
infrastructure improvements are required.
drug elimination grants for low-income housing
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $290,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
290,000,000
program description
Drug elimination grants provide grants to public housing
agencies and Indian housing authorities to eliminate drug-
related crime in public and Indian housing by employing
security personnel and investigators, providing physical
project improvements to enhance security, supporting tenant
patrols in cooperation with local law enforcement agencies,
developing innovative programs to reduce drug, and providing
resident groups with funds to develop security and drug abuse
prevention programs.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $290,000,000 for drug elimination
grants. This amount is the same level as the 1995
appropriation.
home investment partnerships program
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $1,400,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance......................................... 1,400,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,400,000,000
program description
Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as
amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.
This program provides assistance to States, units of local
government, and Indian tribes for the purpose of expanding the
supply and affordability of housing. Eligible activities
include tenant-based rental assistance, acquisition, and
rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing and,
also, construction of housing. To participate in the HOME
Program, State and local governments must develop a
comprehensive housing affordability strategy [CHAS]. There is a
matching requirement for participating jurisdictions which can
be reduced or eliminated if they are experiencing fiscal
distress.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,400,000,000
for the HOME Investment Partnership Program. This amount is the
same level as the 1995 appropriation and the House allowance.
indian housing loan guarantee program account
(limitation on direct loans)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Limitation on
account direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995....................... $3,000,000 ($22,388,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................... 3,000,000 (36,900,000)
House allowance............................ 3,000,000 (36,900,000)
Committee recommendation................... 3,000,000 (36,900,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992 authorizes the creation of an Indian Housing Loan
Guarantee Program. The program would provide a 10-to-1 ratio of
leverage and seed money to finance new construction of homes on
Indian reservations. The program would allow Indian families
who can afford housing to remain on their native land and act
as positive role models for other families aspiring to
homeownership.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee has included the budget request of $3,000,000
in program subsidies to support a loan guarantee level of
$36,900,000. This is the same as the House allowance.
federal housing administration
fha--mutual mortgage insurance program account
(including transfer of funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995................................... $180,000,000 $100,000,000,000 $308,846,000
Budget estimate, 1996.................................. 200,000,000 110,000,000,000 341,595,000
House allowance........................................ 200,000,000 110,000,000,000 308,846,000
Committee recommendation............................... 200,000,000 110,000,000,000 341,595,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fha--general and special risk program account
(including transfer of funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995........................ $220,000,000 $20,885,072,000 $197,470,000 $188,395,000
Budget estimate, 1996....................... 120,000,000 17,400,000,000 197,470,000 188,395,000
House allowance............................. 120,000,000 15,000,000,000 197,470,000 69,620,000
Committee recommendation.................... 120,000,000 17,400,000,000 202,470,000 100,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the
mortgage and loan insurance activity of about 40 HUD mortgage/
loan insurance programs which are grouped into the mutual
mortgage insurance [MMI] fund, cooperative management housing
insurance [CMHI] fund, general insurance fund [GI] fund, and
the special risk insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and
accounting control purposes, these are divided into two sets of
accounts based on shared characteristics. The unsubsidized
insurance programs of the mutual mortgage insurance fund and
the cooperative management housing insurance fund constitute
one set; and the general risk insurance and special risk
insurance funds, which are partially composed of subsidized
programs, make up the other.
Pursuant to the requirements for direct and guaranteed loan
programs established in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1990 [OBRA], the administration is requesting a direct
appropriation for administrative expenses in the ``MMI/CMHI
program'' account of $341,595,000. Amounts to fund this direct
appropriation are to be derived from offsetting receipts
transferred to a ``CMHI receipt'' account. For the ``GI/SRI
program'' account a direct appropriation of $197,470,000 is
requested for administrative expenses, and $188,395,000 is
requested for a credit subsidy to cover the value of expected
long-run costs associated with fiscal year 1995 insurance
commitments.
The amounts for administrative expenses are to be
transferred from the FHA program accounts to the HUD ``Salaries
and expenses'' accounts.
Language is proposed to provide a commitment limitation
amounting to $110,000,000,000 in the ``MMI/CMHI'' account and
$17,400,000,000 in the ``GI/SRI'' account.
In addition, HUD proposes direct loan programs in 1995 for
multifamily bridge loans and single family purchase money
mortgages to finance the sale of certain properties owned by
the Department. Temporary financing would be provided for the
acquisition and rehabilitation of multifamily projects by
purchasers who have obtained commitments for permanent
financing from another lender. Purchase money mortgages would
enable governmental and nonprofit intermediaries to acquire
properties for resale to owner-occupants in areas undergoing
revitalization. For the MMI Program, a loan limitation of
$200,000,000 is requested. For the GI/SRI Program, $120,000,000
is requested as a loan limitation.
committee recommendation
The Committee has included the requested amounts for the
``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program'' account: a limitation on
guaranteed loans of $110,000,000,000, a limitation on direct
loans of $200,000,000, and an appropriation of $341,595,000 for
administrative expenses. The administrative expenses
appropriation will be transferred and merged with the sums in
the Department's ``Salaries and expenses'' account.
Single-family risk-sharing.--The Department has had under
consideration a single-family risk-sharing program which would
be undertaken in conjunction with Government-sponsored
enterprises, housing finance agencies, and private mortgage
insurers. This would be a significant alteration of FHA loan
guarantee current policies, with potentially major
repercussions on the fund. Although the Department has
indicated it may have existing statutory authority for such a
step, the Committee questions such a finding. Moreover, in view
of the policy implications of such an expansion of activity,
the Committee directs the Department to withhold a rulemaking
action pending further congressional review.
Government National Mortgage Association
guarantees of mortgage-backed securities
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1995:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
$142,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
8,824,000
Budget estimate, 1996:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
110,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
9,101,000
House allowance:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
110,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
8,824,000
Committee recommendation:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
110,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
9,101,000
program description
The Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA],
through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees
privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. GNMA
is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United
States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed
generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as amended.
GNMA is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to guarantee
the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that
are based on and backed by a trust or pool composed of
mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the Federal
Housing Administration, the Farmers Home Administration, or the
Department of Veterans Affairs. GNMA's guarantee of mortgage-
backed securities is backed by the full faith and credit of the
United States.
In accord with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990 [OBRA] requirements for direct and guaranteed loan
programs, the administration is requesting $9,101,000 for
administrative expenses in the mortgage-backed securities
program. Amounts to fund this direct appropriation to the ``MBS
program'' account are to be derived from offsetting receipts
transferred from the ``Mortgage-backed securities financing''
account to a Treasury receipt account.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments of
mortgage-backed securities of $110,000,000,000. This amount is
the same level as proposed by the budget request and
recommended by the House. The Committee has also included
$9,101,000 for administrative expenses, the same as the budget
request and $277,000 more than the level proposed by the House.
homeless assistance
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $1,120,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996..................................\1\ 1,120,000,000
House allowance......................................... 676,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 760,000,000
\1\ Requested under new authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The proposed Homeless Assistance Grants Program is a
restructuring of existing McKinney Act programs and would be
authorized under an amendment to title IV of the McKinney Act.
The existing programs and requirements would be replaced by a
comprehensive continuum of care approach to homeless
assistance. Under the new program, support would be provided to
States, local governments, nonprofit organizations, and Indian
tribes. A wide range of activities would be funded which are
components of an innovative approach to assist homeless persons
and to prevent future homelessness. The budget proposes
$1,120,000,000 for the restructured program activities in 1996
in a new authorization proposal.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee concurs with the House in recommending
funding for homeless assistance grants in the existing account.
The amount recommended, $760,000,000, represents a reduction of
$360,000,000 from the 1995 level for all HUD homeless programs
and the budget estimate.
The rescission bill (Public Law 104-19) deferred
$297,000,000 from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1996. The
Committee recommendation, therefore, will permit an increase in
homeless activities in the new fiscal year. The Committee also
recommends language to permit the allocation of these funds by
the existing emergency shelter grant formula which will reduce
administrative burdens and facilitate the utilization of these
funds to assist needy families.
To the extent the Department intends to establish a block
grant program with funds under the ``Homeless assistance
grants'' heading, the Committee intends the Department to use
the existing formula under the Emergency Shelter Grants Program
as the method of allocating funds. Nevertheless, the Committee
is worried that the block grant approach with funds less than
$1,000,000,000 may disadvantage some areas with significant
homeless problems and some homeless providers. Therefore, HUD
is expected to promulgate rules through negotiated rulemaking,
and include recommendations made by States and localities, as
well as homeless assistance providers.
HUD is also directed to provide the Committee on
recommendations for the possible merger of McKinney homeless
assistance programs into the Home Program for purposes of more
consolidated and effective decisionmaking.
Community Planning and Development
community development grants
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $4,600,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996..................................\1\ 4,850,000,000
House allowance......................................... 4,600,000,000
Committee recommendation
4,600,000,000
\1\ Requested under new community opportunity block grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award
block grants to units of general local government and States
for the funding of local community development programs. A wide
range of physical, economic, and social development activities
are eligible with spending priorities determined at the local
level, but the law enumerates general objectives which the
block grants are designed to fulfill, including adequate
housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic
opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate
income. Grant recipients are required to use at least 70
percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit
low- and moderate-income persons.
Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community
development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective
formulas, one of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age
of housing stock. Seventy percent of appropriated funds are
distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are
distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting
designated amounts for special purpose grants and Indian
tribes. Pursuant to the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act, Indian tribes are eligible to receive 1 percent of
the total CDBG appropriation, on a competitive basis.
The budget also proposed funding, within the community
development grants appropriation, to continue the Early
Childhood Development Program in 1995 but does not include a
set-aside for the Neighborhood Development Program. Instead,
the latter program would be eligible for funding under the
proposed community viability fund for which an appropriation is
requested within the ``Annual contributions'' account. The
community development grants request also includes $900,000 to
fund management and administrative costs to be transferred to
salaries and expenses.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,600,000,000
for the Community Development Block Grant Program in fiscal
year 1996. This amount is the same as the 1995 enacted level
for the regular CDBG Program and the House allowance.
The amounts for various activities within the CDBG
appropriation in fiscal year 1996 are outlined in the following
table:
Committee
Category recommendation
Entitlement cities and counties......................... $3,022,250,000
Nonentitlement (States and small cities)................ 1,295,250,000
Indian tribes........................................... 60,000,000
Special purpose grants (sec. 107)....................... 22,500,000
Public housing supportive services...................... 80,000,000
Youthbuild Program...................................... 40,000,000
Economic development initiative......................... 80,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 4,600,000,000
\1\ Requested within proposed community viability fund in annual
contributions for assisted housing.
The Committee recommends continuation of two specific
grants for the Housing Assistance Council and for the Nation
American Indian Housing Counsel which are development
organizations which provide assistance to local housing
entities on a nationwide basis. The Committee also recommends
that the set-aside for Indian tribes be increased to
$60,000,000 to reflect the serious and compelling needs of
these areas. In addition, the Committee recommends an increase
in the House allowance for grants authorized under section 107
of the act to permit the continuation of the Community Outreach
Partnership program.
The Committee recommendation includes a set-aside of
$80,000,000 for a new supportive services grant program to
provide residents of public and assisted housing with necessary
services to expand opportunities to become gainfully employed
and self-sufficient, and to assist elderly and disabled
residents to achieve maximum flexibility in obtaining living
arrangements which provide independence and minimal
institutional care.
This new grant program provides wide latitude in
structuring effective and innovative approaches by recipient
agencies, which are to be selected on the basis of merit
competition. The Committee anticipates that applicants for
services formerly provided through the congregate housing
services and housing counseling assistance programs will
participate in this consolidated supportive services grant
program. These programs, formerly separately funded and
administered are discussed below.
In addition the Committee notes the remarkable success of
several individually sponsored activities within the categories
of the tenant opportunity program, the service coordinators
program, and the self-sufficiency program in meeting residents'
needs and providing valuable opportunities for advancement and
independence from Government assistance. These activities are
similarly eligible for competitive award under the supportive
services grant program.
The congregate housing services demonstration was
authorized by the Housing and Community Development Amendments
of 1978 to provide 3- to 5-year contracts to fund services for
eligible residents of public housing and section 202 housing
for the elderly or handicapped projects. The intent was to
avoid costly and premature or unnecessary institutionalization
of individuals and to reduce Government outlays for
institutional care.
Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968, as amended, authorizes the Department to contract with
public and private agencies to provide counseling and advice to
tenants and homeowners with respect to property maintenance,
financial management, and such other matters as may be
appropriate to assist them in improving their housing
conditions and in meeting the responsibilities of tenancy or
homeownership.
The Youthbuild Program is authorized by title IV of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, as amended
by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. This
program provides resources to educate, train, and provide
stipends for economically disadvantaged young adults to
construct and rehabilitate housing for low-income and homeless
persons. An earmark of $40,000,000 is provided to continue this
activity.
The Committee also recommends the set-aside of $80,000,000
for the economic development initiatives [EDI] program which
provides grant assistance to communities also eligible for
section 108 loan guarantees. The combination of limited grant
assistance along with the loan assistance provides maximum
leverage capital assistance to communities with pressing
economic development needs. There has been some questions over
the process in which EDI grant awards have been made in the
past, the Committee recommendation, therefore, includes a
requirement that these funds be provided on a competitive basis
only to assure that these funds are applied in the most
effective manner possible.
Policy Development and Research
research and technology
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $42,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 42,000,000
House allowance......................................... 34,000,000
Committee recommendation
34,000,000
program description
Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970,
as amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to undertake programs of research,
studies, testing, and demonstrations relating to the
Department's mission and programs. These functions are carried
out internally and through grants and contracts with industry,
nonprofit research organizations, educational institutions, and
through agreements with State and local governments and other
Federal agencies. The research programs focus on ways to
improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of HUD
programs and to identify methods to achieve cost reductions.
Additionally, this appropriation is used to support HUD
evaluation and monitoring activities and to conduct housing
surveys.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $34,000,000 for research and
technology activities in fiscal year 1996. This amount is
$8,000,000 less than the 1995 level and the budget request and
the same as the House allowance.
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
fair housing activities
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $33,375,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 45,000,000
House allowance......................................... 30,000,000
Committee recommendation
...........................
program description
The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding
for both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the
Fair Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP].
The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local
agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968, as amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale,
rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of
brokerage services. The major objective of the program is to
assure prompt and effective processing of title VIII complaints
with appropriate remedies for complaints by State and local
fair housing agencies.
The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by
section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1987, as amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed
to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to
public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating
or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair
housing opportunities.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends transfer of this item to the
Department of Justice which is discussed later in this report.
Management and Administration
salaries and expenses
(including transfers of funds)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHA funds by GNMA funds by CGDB funds by
Appropriation transfer transfer transfer Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995............................................... $451,219,000 $495,355,000 $8,824,000 ............... $955,398,000
Budget estimate, 1996.............................................. 479,479,000 527,782,000 9,101,000 $900,000 1,017,262,000
House allowance.................................................... 437,194,000 505,745,000 8,824,000 225,000 951,988,000
Committee recommendation........................................... 438,219,000 532,782,000 9,101,000 675,000 980,777,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The budget proposes a single ``Salaries and expenses''
account in 1996 to finance all salaries and related expenses
associated with administering the programs of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. These include the following
activities:
Housing and mortgage credit programs.--This activity
includes staff salaries and related expenses associated with
administering housing programs, the implementation of consumer
protection activities in the areas of interstate land sales,
mobile home construction and safety, and real estate settlement
procedures.
Community planning and development programs.--Funds in this
activity are for staff salaries and expenses necessary to
administer community planning and development programs.
Equal opportunity and research programs.--This activity
includes salaries and related expenses associated with
implementing equal opportunity programs in housing and
employment as required by law and executive orders and the
administration of research programs and demonstrations.
Departmental management, legal, and audit services.--This
activity includes a variety of general functions required for
the Department's overall administration and management. These
include the Office of the Secretary, Office of General Counsel,
Office of Chief Financial Officer, as well as administrative
support in such areas as accounting, personnel management,
contracting and procurement, and office services.
Field direction and administration.--This activity includes
salaries and expenses for the regional administrators, area
office managers, and their staff who are responsible for the
direction, supervision, and performance of the Department's
field offices, as well as administration support in areas such
as accounting, personnel management, contracting and
procurement, and office services.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $438,219,000
for salaries and expenses. This amount is $13,000,000 below the
1995 level, $41,260,000 less than the budget request, and
$1,025,000 more than the House allowance. The appropriation
includes the requested amount of $532,782,000 transferred from
various funds from the Federal Housing Administration,
$9,101,000 transferred from the Government National Mortgage
Association, and $675,000 from the ``Community development''
appropriation.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request:
Office of Inspector General
(including transfer of funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHA funds by
Appropriation transfer Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995......................................... $36,427,000 $10,961,000 $47,388,000
Budget estimate, 1996........................................ 36,968,000 11,283,000 48,251,000
House allowance.............................................. 36,427,000 10,961,000 47,388,000
Committee recommendation..................................... 36,968,000 11,283,000 48,251,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
This appropriation would finance all salaries and related
expenses associated with the operation of the Office of the
Inspector General.
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a funding level of $48,251,000 for
the Office of Inspector General. This amount is $863,000 above
the 1995 level, the same as the budget request, and $863,000
more than the House allowance. This funding level includes
$11,283,000 by transfer from various FHA funds, the same level
as proposed in the budget request.
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $15,451,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 14,895,000
House allowance......................................... 14,895,000
Committee recommendation
...........................
program description
This appropriation funds the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight [OFHEO], which was established in 1992 to
regulate the financial safety and soundness of the two housing
Government sponsored enterprises [GSE's], the Federal National
Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation. The Office was authorized in the Federal Housing
Enterprise Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also
instituted a three-part capital standard for the GSE's, and
gave the regulator enhanced authority to enforce those
standards.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends transfer of this function to the
Department of the Treasury as discussed later in this report.
General Provisions
EXTENDING PROVISIONS OF THE RESCISSIONS ACT
Section 201(a)(1) would permit a public housing authority
[PHA] to use modernization assistance provided under section 14
for any eligible activity related to public housing which is
currently authorized by the Housing Act of 1937 or applicable
appropriations acts, including demolition, replacement,
modernization, or development activities related to the public
housing portion of housing developments held in partnership, or
cooperation with nonpublic entities, and temporary relocation
assistance, provided that the assistance provided under section
14 is principally used for the physical improvement or
replacement of public housing and for associated management
improvements, except as otherwise approved by the Secretary and
provided the PHA consults with the appropriate local government
officials (or Indian tribal officials) and with tenants of the
public housing developments.
This authorization does not extend to use of funds for
operating assistance. These are the same spending rules for
modernization as were contained in the rescissions act with
minor clarifications.
Section 201(a)(1) also would authorize PHA's to provide
assistance in the form of a grant, loan, or other form of
investment to a mixed income development, defined as a
development that includes units for other than low-income
families. Such assistance could be provided to the PHA or an
affiliate controlled by it; a partnership, limited liability
company or other legal entity in which the public housing
agency or its affiliate is a general partner, managing member,
or otherwise significantly directs the activities of such
entity; or any entity which grants to the public housing agency
the option to purchase the development within 20 years after
initial occupancy in accordance with section 42(l)(7) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Such assistance could be provided only if units will be
made available in the development for periods of not less than
20 years, by master contract or by individual lease, for
occupancy by low-income families referred from time to time by
the public housing agency. Public housing subsidy would
continue for the usual time period (40 years) however, if the
units are administered in compliance with the public housing
program throughout that time period. The number of such units
would be required to be either in the same proportion to the
total number of units in the development that the financial
assistance provided by the public housing agency bears to the
total equity investment in the development or not be less than
the number of units that could have been developed under the
conventional public housing program with the assistance
involved, or as may otherwise be approved by the Secretary.
Section 201(a)(1) would also authorize a mixed income
development to elect to have all units subject only to the
applicable local real estate taxes, notwithstanding that the
low-income units assisted by public housing funds would
otherwise be subject to section 6(d) of the Housing Act of
1937, which provides that public housing developments must be
exempt from local and State taxes and PHA's must provide for
payments in lieu of such taxes.
Section 201(a)(3) would make all the provisions of section
201(a) applicable to Indian housing authorities [IHA's].
Section 201(b) would amend section 1002(d) of the
rescissions act so that its provisions regarding repeal of the
1-for-1 replacement requirement for public housing demolition
and disposition and other related provisions would be
applicable to applications for the demolition, disposition, or
conversion to homeownership of public housing approved by the
Secretary and other consolidation and relocation activities of
public housing agencies undertaken on, before, or after
September 30, 1995 and before September 30, 1996.
Section 201(b)(2) would provide that no one may rely on the
provision in the rescissions act amending section 18(f) of the
Housing Act of 1937 as the basis for reconsidering a final
order of a court. The provision permits replacement of public
housing units on the original site or in the same neighborhood
if the number of such replacement units is significantly fewer
than the number of units demolished.
Section 201(b)(3) would make the amendments made by this
section and by the replacement provisions of the Rescissions
Act applicable to Indian housing.
PUBLIC HOUSING RENTS AND INCOME TARGETING
Section 202(a) would require the Secretary to permit a PHA
to charge a minimum rent of up to $25.
Section 202(b) would permit PHA's to adopt ceiling rents
that reflect the reasonable market value of the housing, but
that are not less than the monthly costs to operate the housing
of the agency, and to make a deposit to a replacement reserve
(in the sole discretion of the PHA). This section would allow
families to pay ceiling rents only when the ceiling rent
established would exceed the amount payable as rent under the
definition of rental payments in section 3(a)(1) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937.
Section 202(c) would permit PHA's to utilize any other
adjustments to earned income not otherwise authorized in the
determination of the adjusted income of public housing
families. If a PHA adopts other adjustments to income, the
Secretary shall not take such adjustments into account when
calculating operating subsidy.
Section 202(d) would repeal the Federal preference criteria
for selection of tenants in public and Indian housing, section
8 existing and moderate rehabilitation, section 8 vouchers,
section 8 new construction and substantial rehabilitation, the
202 program and the rent supplement program. For public
housing, section 8 existing and moderate rehabilitation, and
the section 8 voucher program, the PHA would be required to
establish any system of preferences after public notice and an
opportunity for public comment. The criteria would not be
permitted to be inconsistent with the comprehensive housing
affordability strategy under title I of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act.
CONVERSION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC HOUSING TO VOUCHERS
Section 203(a) would require the public housing authorities
to identify developments of more than 600 units, or, in the
case of high-rise family buildings or substantially vacant
buildings, 300 units. For purposes of this identification, the
developments would have at least a 10-percent vacancy rate
among the units not in funded on-schedule modernization
programs, would be identified as distressed housing that the
PHA cannot assure the long-term viability as public housing
through density reduction, achievement of a broader range of
household income, or other measures, and for which the
estimated cost of continued operation and modernization of the
developments as public housing exceeds the cost of providing
tenant-based assistance for all families in occupancy.
Section 203(b) would require the public housing agency to
consult with public housing tenants and the unit of general
local government.
Section 203(c) would require that developments identified
under 203(a) be removed from the public housing inventory and
the annual contributions contract within 5 years, except that
the Secretary would be permitted to extend the deadline up to 5
more years if the initial deadline is impracticable. The plan
must be approved by the relevant local official as consistent
with the comprehensive housing affordability strategy,
including a description of any disposition and demolition plan
for the public housing units. To the extent approved in
appropriations, the Secretary may establish requirements and
provide funding under the Urban Revitalization Demonstration
Program for demolition and disposition of public housing under
this section.
Section 203(d) would require the Secretary to make
authority available to a public housing agency to provide
tenant-based assistance to families residing in any development
that is removed from the inventory of the public housing agency
and the annual contributions contract. Each conversion plan
would require the agency to notify families residing in the
development, consistent with any guidelines issued by the
Secretary governing such notifications, that the development
would be removed from the inventory of the public housing
agency and the families would receive tenant-based or project-
based assistance, and the agency would provide any necessary
counseling for families. Each conversion plan would ensure that
all tenants affected by the removal of a development from the
inventory of the public housing agency would be offered tenant-
based or project-based assistance and would be relocated to
other decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing which
would be, to the maximum extent practicable, housing of their
choice.
Section 203(e) would require a public housing agency to
provide such information as the Secretary considers necessary
for the administration of this section, would define
development to refer to a project or projects, or to portions
of a project or projects, as appropriate, and would not apply
section 18 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to the
demolition of developments removed from the inventory of the
public housing agency under this section.
Provisions are included to clarify HUD's role generally and
in the event that a housing authority does not complete the
required evaluation of its large, distressed, costly
developments. These provisions allow HUD to establish standards
to permit implementation of this initiative in fiscal 1996, and
provide that where HUD determines that a PHA has failed to
complete the required identification in a timely manner, failed
to identify development for conversion which should have been
identified, identified developments which should not have been
identified or is not expeditiously implementing the conversion
plan, HUD can take any necessary action to designate the
developments to be converted to certificates or assure the
expeditious implementation of the conversion plan.
STREAMLINING SECTION 8 TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE
Section 204(a) would repeal section 8(t) of the Housing Act
of 1937, the so-called take-one, take-all provision, which
prohibits an owner who has leased to one section 8 tenant from
refusing to lease to additional tenants because of their status
as certificate or voucher holders.
Section 204(b) would prohibit an owner who has received
Federal housing assistance within the past 2 years (except for
mortgage insurance), from refusing to lease a reasonable number
of units to families participating in a program of section 8
tenant-based assistance unless the refusal is based on
reasonable tenant selection criteria. Twenty percent would
constitute a safe harbor in establishing a reasonable number.
Section 204(c) would revise section 8(c)(8) and (9) to
eliminate the requirement that owners participating in the
certificate or voucher programs provide 90 days notification of
any rent increase or contract termination.
Section 204(d) would modify section 8(d)(1)(B) of the
Housing Act of 1937, the so-called endless lease provision, to
remove any limitations on termination of tenancy, other than
during the term of the lease.
FAIR MARKET RENTALS
Section 205(a) would require the Secretary to establish
fair market rentals for the section 8 certificate program at
the 40th percentile rent of the rental distribution of standard
quality rental housing units, considering only the rents for
recent movers and excluding public housing units and newly
constructed units.
Section 205(b) would limit annual rental adjustments in
fiscal year 1995 in the section 8 new construction, substantial
rehabilitation and moderate rehabilitation programs where the
maximum monthly rent would exceed the rent for an existing
dwelling unit in the market area. In such cases the rent would
be limited to the amount demonstrated by the owner to be the
rent of a comparable unassisted unit. The subsection would also
limit the adjustment of rents for units occupied by the same
family at the time of the last annual rental adjustment.
Section 205(c) would set the administrative fees for the
certificate, voucher, and moderate rehabilitation programs not
to exceed 7 percent of the fair market rental established for a
2-bedroom existing rental dwelling unit in the market area of
the public housing agency.
Section 205(d) would delay reissuance of vouchers and
certificates until October 1, 1996, and for 6 months, the use
of any amounts of such assistance made available for the
termination during fiscal year 1996 of such assistance on
behalf of any family for any reason, but not later than October
1, 1996, with the exception of any certificates assigned or
committed to project-based assistance as permitted otherwise by
the act, accomplished prior to the effective date of this act.
PUBLIC HOUSING/SECTION 8 MOVING TO WORK DEMONSTRATION
Section 206 would establish a demonstration to give PHA's
and the Secretary the flexibility to design and test various
approaches for providing and administering housing assistance
that give incentives to families with children whose heads are
working and to families seeking work or preparing for work by
participating in job training, educational programs, or
programs that help people obtain employment. Up to 30 PHA's
could be selected for participation, with training and
technical assistance during the demonstration. The agencies
would be permitted to combine operating subsidy, modernization
funds, and assistance provided under section 8 on such terms
and conditions as the agency may propose and the Secretary may
approve.
Participating agencies would be required to hold a public
hearing, prepare an agency plan, serve an income mix at least
75 percent very-low income and 50 percent under 30 percent of
median, set reasonable rents designed to encourage employment
and self-sufficiency, continue to assist the same total number
of families and a comparable mix by size, and assure that the
housing meets housing quality standards. The amount of
assistance received by the agencies under sections 8, 9, and 14
would not be affected by their participation in the
demonstration.
Section 207 is intended to clarify the effect of hortatory
language contained in a recent housing act regarding the
implementation of income-disregard provisions of existing law.
This provisions simply reaffirms current legislative intent
that such income-disregard provision should remain permissible
subject to the prior enactment of specifically directed
appropriations to permit implementation.
Section 208 extends authority to continue the highly
successful multifamily housing demonstration through fiscal
year 1996.
Section 209 provides the authority necessary to allow
demonstrations utilizing a variety of types of participants
involving insurance or reinsurance and the economic interests
thereto.
Section 210 provides that, when HUD sells or transfers HUD
held mortgages to State housing finance agencies during fiscal
year 1996, the agencies can provide insurance on that portfolio
under the risk-sharing program without counting against the
unit limitations of the multifamily mortgage credit
demonstrations for which authorization is extended in section
202.
Section 211. Transfer of section 8 authority
This provision adds a new subsection (bb) to section 8 of
the 1937 act authorizing HUD to transfer budget authority from
expired or terminated section 8 project-based assistance
contracts to another housing assistance contract. This would
enable the transferred authority to be used to provide
continued assistance to eligible families, including eligible
families who were receiving the benefit of the project-base
assistance at the time the contract ended. The budget authority
could be used for tenant-based or project-based assistance.
The Department currently has the authority to terminate HAP
contracts for section 8 units that are: not decent, safe, and
sanitary, for the admission of ineligible families, and for
other contract violations. However, when HUD terminates the HAP
contract, the budget authority is recaptured and must be
treated in accordance with appropriation acts.
The objective of this proposal is to make it possible for
HUD to terminate units for uncorrected violations, or to allow
contracts to expire without renewal, without causing a net loss
in assisted housing by permitting the Department to reuse the
authority to assist tenants affected by contract terminations
and expirations.
Section 212. Documentation of multifamily refinancing
This section would make permanent the 1995 amendment to
section 223(a)(7) of the National Housing Act, which provides
that refinancing under section 223(a)(7) will be documented
through an amendment to the original mortgage and not
structured as a new insurance contract.
Section 213. Demonstration authority
This section authorizes the Secretary, beginning in fiscal
year 1996, to carry out one or more demonstration programs
designed to test the feasibility of the mark to market
proposal. Projects with mortgages insured under the National
Housing Act and which are assisted under section 8 of the 1937
act would be eligible for the demonstration programs, which
would evaluate the success of converting those properties to
uninsured, unsubsidized status while providing continuing
assistance in the form of tenant-based subsidies to the
families currently benefiting from project-based assistance. In
carrying out this authority, the Secretary may delegate,
contract, or otherwise arrange to transfer some or all of the
functions, obligations, and benefits of the Secretary to third
parties.
Section 214. Contract renewals
Subsection (a) establishes the contract renewal term of 1
year.
The second subsection authorizes the Secretary to use
amounts appropriated for section 8 renewals to provide tenant-
based section 8 assistance to eligible families who are
residing in affected properties when a project-based section 8
contract is terminated or expires. As project-based section 8
contracts expire or are terminated, the contracts will not be
renewed. This proviso includes authority for the Secretary to
allow section 8 loan management set-aside contracts to expire
without being renewed, notwithstanding the current statutory
requirement for renewal. The proviso limits the amount of
tenant-based assistance to be provided at contract expiration
to the number of eligible families currently assisted under the
project-based contract.
The second proviso allows the Secretary discretion to renew
section 8 loan management set-aside contracts where
appropriate, but permits such renewals for one time only and
limits the term of the contract to 1 year. In addition, the
rents under such contracts can not exceed 120 percent of the
fair-market rent for section 8 existing housing. Upon
termination of the 1-year contract, eligible families would
receive tenant-based assistance.
Under the third proviso, assistance reserved under the
section 8 renewal account, as provided in the first proviso,
would be available for use in connection with any Federal law
subsequently enacted to authorize use of rental assistance
amounts in connection with terminated or expired contracts.
The fourth proviso authorizes the Secretary during fiscal
year 1996 to manage and dispose of HUD-owned multifamily
properties and HUD-held multifamily mortgages without regard to
other provisions of law.
The fifth proviso sets forth the Committee's intent to
provide tenant-based assistance in order to protect the
existing assisted families in a manner that is consistent with
the objectives and priorities of various programs and
authorities of the Department. These include the National
Housing Act, the Housing Act of 1949, section 203 of the
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, the
Multifamily Mortgage Foreclosure Act, and the United States
Housing Act of 1937. Section 211 permits delegation, by the
Secretary, of mortgage foreclosure activities to a third party.
Preservation reform
The Committee recommends a new section 215 which amendments
the existing LIHPRHA (preservation) statute by (i) permitting
prepayment of the insured mortgage and (ii) establishing new
capital grant/loan incentives. The basic structure of LIHPRHA
is changed as little as possible so that LIHPRHA processing now
in place can be easily converted for the capital grant/loan.
All section references herein are to those in the existing
LIHPRHA statute.
The basic elements of the legislation are as follows:
Restoration of the right of the owner to prepay. (sec. 211)
Addition of two new incentives, a capital loan for owners
who wish to extend low-income restrictions, and a capital grant
to enable owners to sell their property to a qualified
purchaser. As under LIHPRHA, the capital loan would be for a
maximum of 70 percent of preservation equity, and the capital
grant for 100 percent of preservation equity. Both the loan and
the grant would also cover necessary rehabilitation expenses
for the project. The loan would be repaid after the first
mortgage has been paid off. An owner receiving incentives to
retain ownership would also receive a return equal to 8 percent
of the remaining 30 percent of equity in the property, or in
the case of a purchaser, 8 percent on the actual cash
investment made to acquire the project. (secs. 219(b)(8) and
220(d)(2)
Except where a Federal cost limit was approved under
LIHPRHA processing, the loan or grant would be limited to 60
times the applicable monthly fair market rent for the project.
(sec. 215)
Tenant-based assistance will be provided to very low-income
tenants when an owner prepays the mortgage. Also, HUD will pay
relocation assistance up to $1,500 for certain low-income
tenants who do not receive tenant-based assistance. (sec. 223)
The definition of eligible housing is changed to include
only those properties which were time-eligible on December 31,
1994, and filed a notice of intent prior to February 28, 1995,
and properties not time-eligible on December 31, 1994, but file
a notice of intent no later than March 1, 1996. A minimum
preservation equity threshold is established at the lesser of
$5,000 per unit or $500,000 per property or eight times fair
market rents. (sec. 229)
To ensure an expeditious start of the new program, HUD is
directed to process capital grants and loans without issuing
regulations and without reprocessing approvals or LIHPRHA
milestones such as form 9607, Federal cost limits, et cetera.
The capital grant would be paid in full in the case of an
acquisition. However, to ease the financial burden on the
Federal Government the capital loan would be paid in five equal
installments. The owner shall receive interest at the
applicable Federal rate at plan approval on the unpaid
installments. (sec. 236) However, if the Government fails to
meet its installment obligations, the owner may prepay and
retain past installment payments.
section-by-section analysis
New section 202. The new provisions will be applicable to
those projects which have not received funding for a plan of
action under LIHPRHA before October 1, 1995.
Section 211. These amendments permit an owner to prepay at
any time or in the alternative, file a plan of action for a
capital loan or grant.
Section 212. This section is amended to remove the
reference to section 218, setting forth criteria for
prepayment, which will be deleted in its entirety.
Section 214. This section dealing with the annual
authorized return is deleted in its entirety, as this concept
would not be relevant to capital grants.
Section 215. A new Federal cost limit is inserted providing
that a permissible capital loan or grant should not exceed 60
times the applicable fair market rent for the unit involved.
The Secretary is granted the discretion to approve capital
grants or loans in excess of the new cost limit.
Section 216. This section deletes information from the
Secretary that would not be applicable under the capital grant
procedures, as well as references to section 221, the mandatory
sales section.
Section 217. This section is amended to delete references
to criteria for voluntary termination in section 218 as the
reference is no longer applicable.
Section 218. This section dealing with prepayment or
voluntary termination is deleted in its entirety as it is no
longer applicable.
Section 219. Obsolete language is deleted and a new
incentive, the direct loan (70 percent of preservation equity)
is inserted in lieu thereof. Repayment of the loan shall
commence when the first mortgage loan on the project is paid in
full; the owner shall then utilize the same amount of the first
mortgage payments to make payments on the equity loan. This
section also provides for an annual return to an owner equal to
8 percent of the remaining 30 percent of equity in the
property. Also, 236 excess income is no longer required to be
remitted to HUD.
Section 220. This section is amended to omit reference to
the present Federal cost limits provision and authorizes a
capital grant of 100 percent of preservation equity. The
section also establishes various classes of priority
purchasers. The section also provides that the purchaser may
choose to receive a loan rather than a grant because of tax
considerations. The incentives provision for priority
purchasers is deleted as it does not conform to the new grant
program. Qualified purchasers are entitled to an 8 percent
return on actual cash invested. This section is also amended to
make clear that the residual receipts account is released to
the owner but the replacement reserves stay with the project in
a sale and a priority purchaser will receive section 236 excess
income.
Section 221. This section dealing with mandatory sales is
deleted in its entirety.
Section 222. This section is changed to remove references
to the phase-in of section 8 rent contributions and the
requirement that new tenants be at the same proportion of very
low, low, and moderate incomes as existing tenants, although to
the extent subsidies are available, the current income mix
between very low, low, and moderate income will be maintained.
These provisions would not be applicable or practical in the
absence of section 8.
In addition, the LIHPRHA methodology of rent adjustment,
the operating cost adjustment factor, would be deleted and
replaced by the current rent adjustment mechanism generally in
effect for section 221(d)(3) and 236 projects. HUD is required
to process rent adjustments during LIHPRHA processing.
References are also deleted to annual authorized return.
Further, the sanction enabling the Secretary to declare a rehab
loan in default is deleted as there is no rehab loan per se.
Section 223. This section is amended to provide that HUD
will provide tenant-based assistance to all very low-income
tenants when the owner prepays. Further, HUD will provide
relocation assistance not to exceed $1,500 for rent-burdened
low income tenants.
Section 224. This section setting forth permissible
prepayment events is deleted as it is no longer needed in view
of the unfettered prepayment right.
Section 225. This section is amended to require HUD to pay
an owner 8 percent interest on preservation equity if it fails
to meet its processing timetables, a penalty similar to that in
current law.
Also there is a technical change removing the word,
``district'' so as to give an aggrieved party the right to sue
in the court of Federal claims.
Section 229. This section changes the requirements for
eligibility to limit participation to any project which was
time-eligible as of December 31, 1994, and filed a notice of
intent prior to February 28, 1995, or was not time-eligible on
December 31, 1994, but files a notice no later than March 1,
1996. Also, a minimum preservation equity threshold is set at
the lesser of $5,000 per unit or $500,000 per project or eight
times fair market rents. Conforming changes are made in the
definition of preservation equity to conform to the new capital
grant language. Also, new definitions are added for the terms
``community-based nonprofit organization'' and ``mutual housing
association.''
Section 231. This section is amended to expand the class of
priority purchasers to include a resident council, community-
based nonprofit, mutual housing association or affiliates that
act as a general partner in a limited partnership.
Section 232. This section dealing with Federal preemption
is amended to remove the language on annual authorized return
and to state that local laws cannot preempt any benefit
provided under the new act.
New section 236. This section is added to provide that the
capital grant and loan provisions are self-executing without
need for regulations, or reprocessing LIHPRHA approvals or
including but not limited to form 9607, calculation of Federal
cost limits, bona fide offers and the like. The capital grant
to a qualified purchaser shall be funded in full. In addition,
HUD may pay the capital loan over five installments, with
interest at the applicable Federal rate. If HUD defaults on any
of the installments, the owner may keep the installment and
prepay. An owner processing under the Emergency Low Income
Housing Preservation Act of 1987 [ELIHPA] may choose to apply
for a capital grant/loan or prepay under the new provisions.
Section 216 provides for a 1-year extension of the home
equity conversion mortgage program which is growing in
popularity as a mean for older Americans to use reverse
mortgages to secure funds from accumulated equity in their
homes.
Section 217 changes the timing in which assessments are
collected by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight.
Section 218 of the bill prohibits the use of any funds by
HUD for any activity pertaining to property insurance. Such
activities are unwarranted and unnecessary. Every State and the
District of Columbia have laws and regulations addressing
unfair discrimination in property insurance and are actively
investigating and addressing discrimination where it is found
to occur. HUD's insurance-related activities do no more than
add an unnecessary layer of Federal bureaucracy.
Moreover, the Fair Housing Act makes no mention of
discrimination in property insurance. The act expressly governs
home sales and rentals and the services that home sellers,
landlords, mortgage lenders, and real estate brokers provide.
Neither it nor its legislative history suggests that Congress
intended it also to apply to the provision of property
insurance. Indeed, Congress' intention, as expressly stated in
the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 and repeatedly reaffirmed
thereafter, is that, unless a Federal law specifically relates
to the business of insurance, the law shall not apply where it
would interfere with State insurance regulation. HUD's
assertion of authority regarding property insurance contradicts
this statutory mandate.
The language recommended by the Committee will permit the
Department to complete ongoing studies and analyses regarding
the availability of property insurance and its relationship to
housing opportunities.
Section 219 caps the number of noncareer Senior Executive
Service employees in the Department. This is similar to a
restriction contained in this bill 3 years ago.
Section 220 modifies the designation of an earmark
contained in the appropriations bill for fiscal year 1992. This
modification is necessary to permit the utilization of
previously obligated funds.
PERMISSIBLE ADJUSTMENT TO MODERNIZATION FORMULA
Section 221 would allow the Secretary to provide additional
weighting to backlog needs in the public housing modernization
formula subject to applicable rulemaking procedures.
The Committee recommends a new section 222 which clarifies
the provision governing the use of lead-based paint abatement
funding. Recently, the Federal task force on lead-based paint
abatement recommended model strategies and protocols to
maximize the effectiveness of abatement activities. The
Committee believes that these consensus recommendations should
be broadly tested and considered in addressing this serious
human health concern in a manner which targets limited
available resources toward the most efficient mechanisms in
reducing hazardous lead exposure.
COST SAVINGS WITH PHA's
Section 223 would make the current cost-sharing provision
between HUD and PHA's where the PHA's initiative has saved
money, permanent rather than limited to 6 years.
Section 224 extends current law which permits the
Department to dispose of performing mortgages which bear below-
market interest rates without receiving these notes into FHA
inventory. This provision is effective only for fiscal year
1996.
TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $20,265,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 20,265,000
House allowance......................................... 20,265,000
Committee recommendation
20,265,000
program description
The American Battle Monuments Commission [ABMC] is
responsible for the maintenance and construction of U.S.
monuments and memorials commemorating the achievements in
battle of our Armed Forces since April 1917; for controlling
the erection of monuments and markers by U.S. citizens and
organizations in foreign countries; and for the design,
construction, and maintenance of permanent military cemetery
memorials in foreign countries. The Commission maintains 24
military cemetery memorials on foreign soil; 17 monuments and
memorials not a part of the cemeteries; and 4 bronze tablets.
In addition, the Commission administers four large memorials on
U.S. soil. It is presently charged with erecting a Korean and a
World War II war veterans memorial in the Washington, DC, area.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,265,000
for the American Battle Monuments Commission, as requested by
the administration and provided by the House.
Community Development Financial Institutions
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Program Account
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $125,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 123,650,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
Program Description
The community development financial institutions [CDFI]
fund would provide 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 microloan funds.
Recipient institutions would be required to support mortgage,
small business, and economic development lending in currently
underserved, distressed neighborhoods.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends no funding for the community
development financial institutions fund program account. No
funds were included in the House-passed bill for this purpose.
The administration requested $123,650,000 for this agency, in
addition to $20,000,000 for loan subsidies and $350,000 to
establish an inspector general.
Public Law 104-19, the Rescission Act for Fiscal Year 1995,
reduced previously appropriated funding for this purpose to
$50,000,000, and directed that this amount be administered by
the Department of the Treasury rather than in a new independent
agency. The Committee supports the laudatory goal of assisting
neighborhood development banks with additional capital, as was
envisioned under the Bank Enterprise Act portion of this
account. The utilization of these funds during fiscal year 1996
will be monitored by the Committee, and consideration will be
given to a budget request for fiscal year 1997, for
continuation of this activity in that Department.
Consumer Product Safety Commission
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $42,509,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 44,000,000
House allowance......................................... 40,000,000
Committee recommendation
40,000,000
program description
The Commission is an independent regulatory agency that was
established on May 14, 1973, and is responsible for protecting
the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer
products; assisting consumers to evaluate the comparative
safety of consumer products; developing uniform safety
standards for consumer products and minimizing conflicting
State and local regulations; and promoting research and
investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related
deaths, illnesses, and injuries.
In carrying out its mandate, the Commission establishes
mandatory product safety standards, where appropriate, to
reduce the unreasonable risk of injury to consumers from
consumer products; helps industry develop voluntary safety
standards; bans unsafe products if it finds that a safety
standard is not feasible; monitors recalls of defective
products; informs and educates consumers about product hazards;
conducts research and develops test methods; collects and
publishes injury and hazard data, and promotes uniform product
regulations by governmental units.
committee recommendation
The Committee concurs with the House in providing
$40,000,000 for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a
reduction of $4,000,000 below the budget estimate and
$2,509,000 below the current level. The reduction is to be
taken at the discretion of the Commission, subject to normal
reprogramming procedures.
The fiscal year 1995 budget provided $1,200,000 for the
Fire Safe Cigarette Act upon authorization. The legislation was
not enacted, therefore, these funds were not used in fiscal
year 1995 and will be returned to the Treasury. Consequently,
the fiscal year 1995 budget was in effect $41,309,000 and the
amount provided represents a real decrease of only $1,309,000
below fiscal year 1995.
It is noted that agency management currently comprises 19
percent of the budget and could absorb budget reductions
without impacting agency programs. Such a reduction would be in
keeping with the CPSC Chairman's organizational restructuring
which was recently initiated. According to the agency, the
restructuring will reduce management layers and reduce
administrative costs associated with personnel, procurement,
space, and other support services. If accelerated, the
Committee believes the restructuring could effectuate budgetary
savings in fiscal year 1996. The Committee wishes to be kept
apprised of all restructuring activities on a regular basis.
The Committee notes that the Commission's budget request
includes a 60-percent increase in travel costs. The Commission
is directed to maintain travel costs at or below the fiscal
year 1995 level.
Corporation for National and Community Service
national and community service programs
operating expenses
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $575,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 817,476,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
program description
The Corporation for National and Community Service, a
Corporation owned by the Federal Government, was established by
the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 (Public
Law 103-82) to enhance opportunities for national and community
service and provide national service educational awards. The
Corporation makes grants to States, institutions of higher
education, public and private nonprofit organizations, and
others to create service opportunities for a wide variety of
individuals such as students, out-of-school youth, and adults
through innovative, full-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.
The Corporation is governed by a board of directors and
headed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation. Board
members and the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation are
appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed
by the Senate.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends no appropriation for the
Corporation for National and Community Service. The House-
passed bill also provides for termination of this entity.
In concurring with the House recommendation that no funding
be provided for the Corporation for National Service, the
Committee notes that the Government Accounting Office has
concluded that the cost per participant in the Americorps
Program exceeds $26,000 per year, a level which cannot be
sustained in the current budget environment.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $2,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 2,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
Program Description
The Office of Inspector within the Corporation for National
and Community Service is authorized by the Inspector General
Act of 1978, as amended. The goals of the Office are to
increase organizational efficiency and effectiveness and to
prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. The Office of Inspector
General within the Corporation for National and Community
Service was transferred to the Corporation from the former
ACTION agency when ACTION was abolished and merged into the
Corporation in April 1994.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends termination of the Office of the
Inspector General, along with discontinuation of the
Corporation as a whole.
U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $9,429,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 9,820,000
House allowance......................................... 9,000,000
Committee recommendation
9,000,000
program description
The Court of Veterans Appeals was established by the
Veterans' Judicial Review Act. The court has exclusive
jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans'
Appeals. It has the authority to decide all relevant questions
of law, interpret constitutional, statutory, and regulatory
provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the
terms of an action by the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is
authorized to compel action by the Department unlawfully
withheld or unreasonably delayed. It is authorized to hold
unlawful and set-aside decisions, findings, conclusions, rules
and regulations issued or adopted by the Department of Veterans
Affairs or the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
committee recommendation
The Committee concurs with the House in providing
$9,000,000 for the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals. This amount
represents a decrease of $820,000 below the budget request and
$429,000 below the current levels. As requested by COVA, the
full $678,000 has been included for the pro bono representation
program.
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $12,017,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 14,124,000
House allowance......................................... 11,296,000
Committee recommendation
11,946,000
program description
Responsibility for the operation of Arlington National
Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery is
vested in the Secretary of the Army. As of September 30, 1992,
Arlington and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries
contained the remains of 246,023 persons and comprised a total
of approximately 628 acres. There were 3,056 interments and
1,583 inurnments in fiscal year 1993; 3,500 interments and
1,500 inurnments are estimated for the current fiscal year; and
3,500 interments and 1,500 inurnments are estimated for fiscal
year 1995.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,946,000
for the Army's cemeterial expenses. This amount is $2,188,000
less than the budget request and $650,000 more than the House
allowance and will allow the Army to initiate construction of
phase III of the Columbarium expected to cost $4,260,000. The
Army may apply $2,188,000 of the potential savings associated
with the memorial amphitheater restoration project to offset
the reductions in the program.
Environmental Protection Agency
Appropriations, 1995..................................\1\ $6,641,445,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 7,359,409,000
House allowance......................................... 4,892,430,000
Committee recommendation
5,661,927,000
\1\ Reflects rescission of $599,442,000 in Public Law 104-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
general description
The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] was created
through Executive Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 designed to
consolidate certain Federal Government environmental activities
into a single agency. The plan was submitted by the President
to the Congress on July 8, 1970, and the Agency was established
as an independent agency in the executive branch on December 2,
1970, by consolidating 15 components from 5 departments and
independent agencies.
A description of EPA's pollution control programs by media
follows:
Air.--The Clean Air Act Amendments [CAA] of 1990 authorize
a national program of air pollution research, regulation,
prevention, and enforcement activities.
Water quality.--The Clean Water Act [CWA], as amended in
1977, 1981, and 1987, provides the framework for protection of
the Nation's surface waters. The law recognizes that it is the
primary responsibility of the States to prevent, reduce, and
eliminate water pollution. The States determine the desired
uses for their waters, set standards, identify current uses
and, where uses are being impaired or threatened, develop plans
for the protection or restoration of the designated use. They
implement the plans through control programs such as permitting
and enforcement, construction of municipal waste water
treatment works, and nonpoint source control practices. The CWA
also regulates discharge of dredge or fill material into waters
of the United States, including wetlands.
Drinking water.--The Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] of 1974
charged EPA with the responsibility of implementing a program
to assure that the Nation's public drinking water supplies are
free of contamination that may pose a human health risk, and to
protect and prevent the endangerment of ground water resources
which serve as drinking water supplies.
Hazardous waste.--The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 [RCRA] mandated EPA to develop a regulatory program
to protect human health and the environment from improper
hazardous waste disposal practices. The RCRA Program manages
hazardous wastes from generation through disposal.
EPA's responsibilities and authorities to manage hazardous
waste were greatly expanded under the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984. Not only did the regulated universe of
wastes and facilities dealing with hazardous waste increase
significantly, but past mismanagement practices, in particular
prior releases at inactive hazardous and solid waste management
units, were to be identified and corrective action taken. The
1984 amendments also authorized a regulatory and implementation
program directed to owners and operators of underground storage
tanks.
Pesticides.--The objective of the Pesticide Program is to
protect the public health and the environment from unreasonable
risks while permitting the use of necessary pest control
approaches. This objective is pursued by EPA under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA] and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [FFDCA] through three
principal means: (1) review of existing and new pesticide
products; (2) enforcement of pesticide use rules; and (3)
research and development to reinforce the ability to evaluate
the risks and benefits of pesticides.
Radiation.--The radiation program's major emphasis is to
minimize the exposure of persons to ionizing radiation, whether
from naturally occurring sources, from medical or industrial
applications, nuclear power sources, or weapons development.
Toxic substances.--The Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA]
establishes a program to stimulate the development of adequate
data on the effects of chemical substances on health and the
environment, and institute control action for those chemicals
which present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment. The act's coverage affects more than 60,000
chemicals currently in commerce, and all new chemicals.
Multimedia.--Multimedia activities are designed to support
programs where the problems, tools, and results are cross media
and must be integrated to effect results. This integrated
program encompasses the Agency's research, enforcement, and
abatement activities.
Superfund.--The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 [CERCLA] established a
national program to protect public health and the environment
from the threats posed by inactive hazardous waste sites and
uncontrolled spills of hazardous substances. The original
statute was amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 [SARA]. Under these authorities,
EPA manages a hazardous waste site cleanup program including
emergency response and long-term remediation.
Leaking underground storage tanks.--The Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 [SARA] established
the leaking underground storage tank [LUST] trust fund to
conduct corrective actions for releases from leaking
underground storage tanks that contain petroleum or other
hazardous substances. EPA implements the LUST response program
primarily through cooperative agreements with the States.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided a total of $5,661,927,000 for
EPA. This is a decrease of $1,697,482,000 below the budget
request, an increase of $769,497,000 above the House, and a
decrease of $979,518,000 below the current budget.
While the Committee has provided a significant increase
over the House amount, its action is not intended to suggest
that the status quo is acceptable. Rather, the Committee's
recommendation is intended to bring about systemic changes to
EPA, including streamlining its operations; eliminating
duplication of other agencies, State and local efforts;
providing full support and flexibility to States to comply with
environmental mandates; and adopting a flexible and cooperative
approach to working with industry to achieve environmental
standards.
The Committee's appropriation for EPA closely parallels
recommendations made by the National Academy of Public
Administration in a report to this Committee entitled:
``Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New Direction for
EPA,'' released in April of this year. At a May 17, 1995,
hearing conducted by the Committee on EPA reform issues, a
variety of witnesses from State and local government and the
private sector concurred in the NAPA recommendations.
In particular, NAPA recommended: ``EPA needs to hand more
responsibility and decisionmaking authority over to the States
and localities * * * [A] new partnership needs to be formed,
one based on `accountable devolution' of national programs and
on a reduction in EPA oversight when it is not needed.''
Reductions to EPA operating programs are to be achieved in part
by reductions to EPA oversight of states.
In addition, NAPA recommended that flexibility be provided
to local government and the private sector to meet
environmental standards. Again, the Committee strongly supports
this recommendation, and directs the Agency to develop and
submit legislation to address the need for statutory authority
to provide such flexibility if required.
NAPA also recommended important management changes to EPA,
including the need to establish specific environmental goals
and develop strategies to attain them; using comparative risk
analyses to inform the selection of priorities and the
development of specific program strategies; using the budget
process to allocate resources to the Agency's priorities;
establishing accountability by setting and tracking benchmarks;
and evaluating performance.
The Committee has identified for budgetary reduction a
number of initiatives which reflect low priorities based on
comparative risk analysis, such as the environmental technology
initiative. The Committee believes risk-based analysis must
provide the basis for budgetary decisionmaking. Any general
reductions should be accommodated by the elimination of low-
risk activities, and the Committee expects the fiscal year 1997
budget submission to be based on a thorough comparative risk
assessment of EPA activities.
The Committee is directing EPA's Science Advisory Board to
update its 1990 comparative risk analysis to help guide future
agency decisionmaking.
NAPA also recommended that: ``the Agency should begin work
on a reorganization plan that would break down the internal
walls between the Agency's major media program offices for air,
water, waste, and toxic substances.'' Such a reorganization
would result in management efficiencies and a more coordinated
approach to environmental protection. Given budgetary
reductions anticipated over the next several years as we move
toward a balanced budget, the time is ripe for reorganizing the
Agency to make better use of its resources. The Committee
expects the Agency to prepare a reorganization proposal and
submit its plans to the Committee by January 1, 1996.
Major reductions to EPA come primarily from the Superfund
Program, which is reduced by approximately $300,000,000 below
current levels, and the elimination of earmarks for sewer
treatment construction. Superfund activities are limited to
ongoing projects and meeting immediate human health risks,
pending enactment of comprehensive reauthorization legislation.
Superfund is a program in need of major reform; to continue
funding the current program at the requested level is a waste
of trust fund and taxpayer dollars.
Other significant reductions are taken to lower priority
programs which duplicate private sector activities or are not
critical to the Agency's core mission. These include the
climate change action plan program, primarily including the
green programs; the environmental technology initiative; and
the Montreal Protocol Facilitation Fund.
The Committee recommendation includes a restructuring of
EPA's appropriation accounts. This is intended to accomplish
several objectives: first, to ensure that State grants are
protected from budget cuts, a separate account has been created
entitled: ``Program and infrastructure assistance.'' This
account includes all categorical grants as well as State
revolving funds. The account totals $2,034,000,000, and
represents more than 40 percent of the entire EPA
appropriation. The amount provided for the States represents an
increase of approximately $300,000,000 over current funding
levels.
Second, to provide flexibility to the Agency in meeting
budgetary reductions, the former ``Program and research
operations'' account is merged with the other operating
accounts which fund primarily contractual support activities.
Two new accounts are created in lieu of research and
development and abatement, control and compliance: the
``Science and technology'' account funds all science
activities, and the ``Program administration and management''
account provides for regulatory, technical assistance,
education, and enforcement activities.
The new ``Science and technology'' account includes funding
for all EPA laboratories, except the regional laboratories
which conduct routine monitoring and testing activities as well
as technical assistance and support. The new ``Science and
technology'' account is intended to ensure a coordinated,
disciplined, consistent approach to EPA research. Sound science
must play a critical role in EPA decisionmaking. Therefore,
high quality, peer-reviewed research in support of Agency
activities should be among the highest priorities for EPA.
Currently research activities are not adequately coordinated
and peer review procedures are inconsistent. The Committee
supports ongoing reorganization efforts within the Office of
Research and Development, and anticipates that those efforts
will correct current shortfalls in the research program.
research and development
Appropriations, 1995 \1\................................ $335,365,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 426,661,000
House allowance......................................... 384,052,000
Committee recommendation................................
\1\ Includes rescission of $14,635,000 in Public Law 104-19.
The Committee has not provided funds for the ``Research and
development'' account. Instead, the Committee has created a new
account, detailed below.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
$500,000,000
program description
EPA's ``Science and technology'' account provides funding
for the scientific knowledge and tools necessary to support
decisions on preventing, regulating, and abating environmental
pollution and to advance the base of understanding on
environmental sciences. These efforts are conducted through
contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with
universities, industries, other private commercial firms,
nonprofit organizations, State and local government, and
Federal agencies, as well as through work performed at EPA's
laboratories and various field stations and field offices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has provided $500,000,000 for science and
technology. The Committee has replaced the ``Research and
development'' account with a new ``Science and technology''
account which will fund all EPA science and technology
activities, including personnel costs, laboratory costs (except
the Environmental Service Division laboratories), and all
activities formerly funded in the ``Research and development''
account. Therefore, this account provides funding for the
National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory in
Montgomery, AL; the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
Laboratory in Las Vegas, NV; Office of Groundwater and Drinking
Water Technical Support Division in Cincinnati, OH; the
National Enforcement Investigations Center in Denver, CO; the
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor,
MI; the Environmental Chemistry Laboratory in Bay St. Louis,
MS; and the Analytical Chemistry Laboratory and Microbiology
Laboratory in Beltsville, MD, in addition to the laboratories
currently under the Office of Research and Development.
The ``Science and technology'' account is intended to bring
together most science-related activities in the agency into one
appropriation account. Due to questions over the function of
the Environmental Service Division [ESD] labs, the costs
associated with those labs were excluded from the new account.
However, the Committee directs the agency to submit an analysis
of whether the ESD labs should also be included under this
account when it submits the fiscal year 1997 budget.
The new account structure also will provide the Agency with
more flexibility in determining where and how to make budgetary
reductions. The Committee's normal reprogramming guidelines,
however, will continue to apply.
The Committee believes that sound science should provide
the basis for all EPA policies, priority setting, and
decisionmaking. EPA has begun to make progress to improve the
quality of its research products in several key areas, such as
implementing an agencywide peer review policy and reorganizing
its Office of Research and Development. However, many of these
efforts are in the very early stages and much more needs to be
done. The Committee will be following closely these
initiatives.
EPA recently announced a reorganization of its research and
development laboratories along risk-based lines in an effort to
improve the management, coordination, quality, and
prioritization of EPA research activities. The Committee
supports that effort, and believes that all EPA science and
technology activities should be included in this initiative.
The Committee is concerned that the reorganization excludes the
program office laboratories and the Environmental Service
Division labs. These labs operate independently of the Office
of Research and Development, leading to possible overlap,
duplication, and quality control problems.
Furthermore, the Committee is disappointed that the
agency's reorganization plans do not involve eliminating any of
the current laboratory facilities, and encourages the agency to
study whether any of the laboratories, including ESD labs,
could be combined or eliminated. In view of declining
resources, along with the deteriorating infrastructure of many
of the labs, the Committee believes consolidations could result
in a more prudent use of limited resources.
Along with reorganization efforts, ORD has been developing
a long-range strategic plan. The Committee directs the Science
Advisory Board to assess both of these efforts and to report to
the Committee its findings within 6 months of enactment of this
act.
Last year, the Committee directed the National Research
Council to undertake a review of EPA's research program and its
peer review procedures in particular. The Committee is keenly
interested in receiving the results of this study, expected
late this year, and anticipates ORD will incorporate the
findings and recommendations into its strategic planning
efforts.
The Committee has made the following changes to the budget
request for research and development:
+$150,000,000 for personnel and travel costs, transferred
from the former ``Program and research operations''
account. This amount includes personnel for all
laboratories specified above, and represents a
reduction of approximately $24,000,000 below the budget
request. The Committee would be willing to consider a
reprogramming request as part of the operating plan
should this amount prove to be insufficient.
+$35,000,000 for the program office laboratories
(nonpersonnel costs), transferred from the former
``Abatement, control, and compliance'' account. This
represents a reduction of approximately $12,000,000
below the request, and is $3,000,000 above the 1995
level. The Committee would be willing to consider a
reprogramming request as part of the operating plan
should this amount prove to be insufficient.
-$31,645,700 from the working capital fund. This fund has not
been approved.
-$59,200,000 from the environmental technology initiative, in
order to fund higher priority activities. Remaining
funds should be targeted to technology verification
activities and other critical efforts which do not
duplicate private sector initiatives.
+$1,000,000 for the experimental program to stimulate
competitive research [EPSCoR]. EPA is urged to make
EPSCoR a permanent part of the science to achieve
results [STAR] initiative.
+$1,000,000 for the Water Environment Research Foundation.
+$1,700,000 for drinking water research through the American
Water Works Association Research Foundation.
+$1,000,000 for research into the health effects of arsenic.
+$1,000,000 for the Center for Air Toxics Metals.
-$26,515,300 as a general reduction, subject to normal
reprogramming guidelines.
The Committee directs EPA to submit the disinfectants/
disinfection byproducts proposed rule, plus all substantive
scientific and technical comments the agency has received on
the proposed rule, to its Science Advisory Board. SAB is to
review and comment on the scientific and technical basis for
the proposed rule, identify important data gaps that
substantially limit the characterizations of the microbial
versus chemical byproducts risks, and identify research
activities that will be needed to fill identified data gaps.
EPA is to respond in writing to the SAB and this Committee
regarding its comments and findings at least 90 days prior to
issuing the final rule.
In 1990 EPA's Science Advisory Board produced a report
entitled ``Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection.'' This report provided a relative
risk analysis of environmental issues, and requires updating.
Therefore, the Committee directs SAB to provide a revised
analysis of environmental issues based on relative risk and
opportunities for risk reduction. SAB should solicit and
incorporate the views of nonscientific organizations wherever
appropriate, such as the National Academy of Public
Administration, in view of the fact that a risk ranking cannot
be based on scientific data alone. This report should be
subject to a thorough peer review process, and when complete,
should provide the basis for EPA activities. Its findings also
should be incorporated into the Office of Research and
Development strategic planning efforts.
The Committee understands it is widely held in the
scientific community that EPA's draft dioxin risk
characterization document (chapter 9) 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
community in writing chapter 9.
EPA is directed to ensure that the concerns and
recommendations of the SAB are properly accounted for in
rewriting chapters 8 and 9, and involve as appropriate the
participation of scientists from other relevant agencies and
those scientists who originally authored the other reassessment
chapters in rewriting chapter 9 in the aforementioned draft.
The Committee supports the scientific analysis that is
accomplished at the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory in Ada, OK, and encourages their continued research
in ground water quality and remediation procedures.
The Committee directs the Agency to cease any further
hiring under the contractor conversion program and provide a
report to the Committee by January 1, 1996, on staffing plans
including the use of Federal and contract employees.
abatement, control, and compliance
Appropriations, 1995 \1\................................ $1,407,193,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 1,748,823,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
\1\ Includes rescission of $9,807,000 in Public Law 104-19.
The Committee has deleted this account. Activities formerly
funded in this account are funded in the ``Program
administration and management,'' ``Science and technology,''
and ``Program and infrastructure assistance'' accounts.
program and research operations
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $922,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 1,017,298,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
The Committee has deleted this account. Activities formerly
funded in this account are funded in the ``Program
administration and management'' and ``Science and technology''
accounts.
environmental programs and compliance
The House created a new account, ``Environmental programs
and compliance,'' consisting of the former ``Program and
research operations'' and ``Abatement, control, and
compliance'' accounts. The Committee has not agreed to this
account structure.
program administration and management
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
$1,670,000,000
program description
The Agency's program administration and management includes
the development of environmental standards; monitoring and
surveillance of pollution conditions; direct Federal pollution
control planning; technical assistance to pollution control
agencies and organizations; preparation of environmental impact
statements; compliance assurance; and assistance to Federal
agencies in complying with environmental standards and insuring
that their activities have minimal environmental impact.
committee recommendation
The Committee created a new account, which includes
activities formerly funded in the ``Abatement, control, and
compliance'' and ``Program and research operations'' accounts,
with the following exceptions: resources associated with the
program office laboratories and resources associated with the
Office of Research and Development personnel are funded in the
``Science and technology'' account, and all State grants are
shifted to the ``Program and infrastructure assistance''
account.
The Committee has provided $1,670,000,000 for program
administration and management, and has made the following
changes to the budget request for abatement, control, and
compliance and program and research operations:
-$81,474,300 for program office laboratory costs (funded in
the ``Science and technology'' account).
-$140,080,200 for ORD personnel costs (funded in the
``Science and technology'' account).
-$683,466,200 from State and tribal capacity grants (these
grants are funded in the ``Program and infrastructure
assistance'' account).
-$40,600,000 from the environmental technology initiative.
-$90,000,000 from the climate change action plan programs.
The amount provided is approximately the same as the
fiscal year 1994 level of $40,000,000. Funds for the
green programs have been eliminated. The Committee
notes that these programs overlap and conflict with
statutory authority provided to the Department of
Energy in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. For example,
the Secretary of Energy was given a mandate to develop
labeling and advertising rules for lighting, equipment,
and appliances. Therefore, EPA should transfer to DOE
those energy efficiency and energy supply programs
which DOE, not EPA, is authorized to carry out. Future
appropriations for these programs should be requested
as part of the DOE budget submission.
-$24,000,000 from the Montreal Protocol facilitation fund.
The Committee notes that a total of $116,000,000 has
been provided to date (EPA and State Department
appropriations) for the Montreal Protocol.
+$31,645,700 for the working capital fund, transferred from
the ``Research and development'' account. This new fund
has not been approved.
-$1,800,000 from lower priority environmental education
activities. This is the same as fiscal year 1995.
-$3,000,000 from lower priority activities in the Office of
International Activities. This is the same level as
fiscal year 1995.
-$405,000 from the Building Air Quality Alliance.
-$350,000 from activities related to electromagnetic fields.
Section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
established a Federal program to investigate and report
on human health effects from electromagnetic fields
[EMF]. Congress mandated that this program of research
and public communication be managed jointly by the
Department of Health and Human Services and the
Department of Energy. No programmatic role was assigned
to EPA, yet EPA has pursued a number of unintegrated
activities on EMF that are of questionable value.
Therefore, the Committee believes EPA should not engage
in EMF activities.
-$2,000,000 from the national service initiative.
-$1,000,000 from the GLOBE Program.
-$20,000,000 from enforcement activities.
-$25,000,000 from regional and State oversight. The Committee
concurs with the National Academy of Public
Administration's recommendation that regional offices
should focus on building States' capacity to manage
environmental problems, and reduce their oversight of
States that demonstrate their ability and willingness
to meet Federal standards. Emphasis should be placed on
results rather than process. The Committee believes
that regional offices may be overstaffed, and that EPA
should complete an analysis of the activities of
regional office staff to provide a firm basis for
determining the proper size and composition of those
offices, as NAPA recommended. This reduction is
intended to eliminate duplicative efforts and
overfiling. The Committee supports all efforts to
create a positive partnership with States and the
regulated community.
+$8,500,000 for rural water training and technical assistance
activities through the National Rural Water
Association, the Rural Community Assistance Program,
the Small Flows Clearinghouse, and the National
Underground Injection Council.
+$2,000,000 for the Southwest Center for Environmental
Research and Policy.
+$1,700,000 for waste water operator training grants under
section 104(g) of the Clean Water Act.
+$350,000 for Long Island Sound.
+$900,000 to remediate the consequences of former and
abandoned lead/zinc mining in southern and southeastern
Missouri. This will focus remediation efforts on the
area where much of the lead/zinc mining historically
occurred.
+$250,000 for an evaluation of ground water quality in
Missouri, where evidence is mounting that ground water
quality is being threatened by anthropological
activities. The evaluation will include the
vulnerability of wells to microbiological contaminants,
pollution prevention alternatives, and treatment
alternatives available to assure safe drinking water
supplies.
+$400,000 for the Small Public Water Systems Technology
Assistance Center.
+$200,000 for a feasibility study for the delivery of water
from the Tiber Reservoir to Rocky Boy Reservation.
+$75,000 for the Rocky Mountain Regional Water Center's model
watershed planning effort.
+$1,000,000 for the National Environmental Training Center
for Small Communities.
+$150,000 for the National Groundwater Foundation to continue
the ground water guardian program and develop
electronic ground water educational services.
+$500,000 to continue the methane energy and agricultural
development demonstration project.
+$185,000 for the Columbia River Gorge Commission for
monitoring implementation pursuant to Public Law 99-
663.
+$1,000,000 for environmental review and basin planning for a
sewer separation demonstration project for Tanner
Creek.
+$300,000 to continue the Small Business Pollution Prevention
Center managed by the Iowa Waste Reduction Center.
+$1,500,000 for the final year of the Alternative Fuel
Vehicle Training Program.
+$1,000,000 for the Adirondack Destruction Assessment
Program, as authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments,
to assess the effects of acid deposition on ecosystems.
+$750,000 for the Lake Pontchartrain management conference.
+$750,000 for the Lake Champlain basin plan. The Committee
rejects the House report language regarding Lake
Champlain.
+$750,000 to continue the solar aquatic waste water
demonstration program in Vermont.
+$1,000,000 to continue the onsite waste water treatment
demonstration through the small flows clearinghouse.
+$235,000 for a model program in the Cheney Reservoir to
assess water quality improvement practices related to
agricultural runoff. The Cheney Reservoir is a major
and critical part of the water supply of Wichita, KS.
Agricultural runoff, particularly phosphates, and
sedimentation from soil erosion threaten the water
quality and longevity of the reservoir. Wichita has
committed $1,200,000 to begin implementation of soil
conservation and other water quality improvement
practices at identified pollution sites in the
watershed above the reservoir.
+$500,000 to continue the coordinated model tribal water
quality program initiative in Washington State. The
Committee directs the agency to work with affected
tribes to incorporate these funds into the tribes' base
programs and urges adequate support for this activity.
+$250,000 for the Ala Wai Canal watershed improvement
project.
+$200,000 for the Sokaogon Cheppewa Community to continue to
assess the environmental impacts of a proposed
underground sulfide mine near the reservation.
+$2,000,000 for a demonstration program to remediate leaking
above ground storage tanks in the State of Alaska.
-$41,036,000 as a general reduction, subject to normal
reprogramming guidelines.
The Committee supports the full budget request for the
Chesapeake Bay Program, the Everglades restoration activities,
the National Estuary Program, and the Great Lakes Program.
These amounts are not subject to any general reduction. The
National Estuary Program funding shall include a grant for
Sarasota County, FL, to support the implementation of its
conservation and management plan for Sarasota Bay, as
authorized by section 320(g)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended.
The Committee supports the full budget request for small
business compliance assistance centers.
The Committee supports EPA's Environmental Finance Center
network whose goal is to find ways to achieve more efficient
and effective environmental infrastructure at less cost. The
EFC's provide technical assistance, expertise, and information
to public officials and small business about environmental
financing opportunities. EPA is urged to provide $2,500,000 for
the environmental finance centers.
The Committee strongly disagrees with report language
contained in House Report 104-201 with respect to EPA's
reformulated gasoline oxygenate standard.
A recent study conducted by EPA and the four Lake Michigan
States found that significant portions of ozone-causing air
pollution are entering the Lake Michigan region from other
regions, but the study did not address the sources of the
pollution or the national air transport patterns exacerbating
the problem. Therefore, the Committee urges EPA to conduct a
study of the transport of ozone and ozone precursors on a
national scale, as long as such a study would build upon and
not duplicate existing studies.
The Committee strongly supports recommendations made by the
National Academy of Public Administration in its April 1995
report to the Committee entitled ``Setting Priorities, Getting
Results: A New Direction for EPA.'' In particular, NAPA
recommended that EPA turn more decisionmaking and provide more
flexibility to State and local governments and the private
sector; EPA should refine its use of risk and cost-benefit
analyses in making decisions; and EPA should undertake major
management reforms including a reorganization to eliminate the
media-specific fragmentation--all recommendations with which
the Committee strongly concurs. EPA has convened a task force
to devise an implementation plan for the recommendations and
the Committee expects to be kept apprised of the progress in
this area. In addition to management and organizational
reforms, the Committee expects EPA to submit a legislative
proposal to implement needed statutory changes.
The Committee continues to be concerned with the imbalance
of costs and benefits to be derived from EPA's proposed cluster
rule for the pulp and paper industry. As directed in last
year's Committee report, the Committee is expecting that prior
to issuance of a final rule, the agency will review all data
and information provided by industry, reassess the costs and
benefits which will be obtained, and demonstrate that the
regulations will produce benefits which will not be exceeded by
the costs. EPA's assessment should include all industry data on
bleach and unbleached pulp and paper mills, including the
advisability of establishing separate air subcategories such as
the unbleached semi-chemical and sulfite subcategories.
The Committee encourages EPA to continue to fund the
Potomac North Branch acid mine drainage remediation project in
fiscal year 1996 at current levels.
The Committee concurs with language included in House
Report 104-201 with respect to the Tellus Institute study of
costs and benefits of bottle bills. Considering that so many
States have adopted bottle legislation, additional studies were
not warranted. This type of study should be declined in the
future.
The Committee supports House report language regarding air
pollution in the United States-Mexico border region,
particularly in El Paso, TX. Because of its proximity to Ciudad
Juarez, Mexico, El Paso has little control over its air quality
and needs full cooperation from EPA to comply with the Clean
Air Act as applied to border communities by section 179B of the
Clean Air Act.
In May of this year, EPA issued a rule to control ozone and
carbon monoxide related emissions from a broad range of small
nonroad engines of 25 horsepower or less that power such
consumer products as lawn mowers, snow blowers, and chain saws,
beginning in 1997. While the rule was being prepared, EPA
initiated a regulatory negotiation process for a second rule to
be promulgated in April 1997, just when the first rule will
come into force. The May rule expressly found that it reflects
the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable with
available technology, considering costs and the degree of
emission reduction achievable with available technology,
considering costs and other statutory factors.
In light of this, the Committee believes EPA should move to
modify the consent decree, to at a minimum defer the second
rule, unless the regulatory negotiation achieves a cost-
effective consensus rule that provides adequate lead time, does
not include automobile-like measures such as in-use testing and
recall, and preserves the availability of lower cost lawn
equipment and the associated manufacturing jobs.
EPA is to report by February 1, 1996, on whether there is
an air quality need to impose a second rule establishing
requirements beyond what could be reached by a consensus of the
interested parties before the costs and benefits of the first
rule are apparent.
The Committee has concerns that EPA has pursued activities
which exceed the Agency's legal authority in the regulation of
lead by seeking to regulate lead uses that pose no significant
risks to human health or the environment.
Specific examples include: (1) proposed rulemaking on the
regulation of lead and zinc fishing sinkers, notwithstanding a
May 24, 1994, sense of the Senate resolution on the matter and
notwithstanding EPA's admission in the proposed rule that an
accurate number of waterbirds lethally exposed to lead and zinc
cannot be estimated; (2) an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking regarding significant new uses of lead which
includes racing car fuel and lead shot for ammunition, which is
exempt from TSCA regulation (15 U.S.C. S. 2602 (2)(B)(v)); (3)
engaging in activities to promote a council act on lead risk
reduction through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, which encourages regulation beyond the authority
provided EPA by Congress.
In keeping with the Committee's direction to maximize
public health and environmental benefits, EPA should focus on
true and significant risks of lead, such as lead paint
abatement, and refrain from misallocating Agency resources on
issues of secondary importance and/or activities which are not
authorized under law.
The Committee believes that sound science should provide
the basis for all EPA policies and that all regulations should
be based on accurate and up-to-date information on the
activities to be regulated. EPA should not implement programs
or exercise Agency discretion in a manner inconsistent with the
intent of Congress. In this regard, the Committee is concerned
with EPA's establishment of standards for maximum achievable
control technology [MACT] required by the Clean Air Act
amendments.
The Committee does not believe EPA is in all instances
using accurate and current data in setting MACT standards. In
particular, the Committee is aware that in the MACT standard
for the refinery industry, key emissions data are based on 1980
data that do not reflect controls which facilities have adopted
in the past 15 years. The Committee understands that while EPA
was aware that this methodology overstates emissions, the
Agency made no attempt to adjust or modify their estimates.
Therefore, the standard may convey a misleading impression
as to the level of health risks associated with refinery
emissions and the value of the proposed regulations. The
Committee strongly encourages EPA to reevaluate the refinery
MACT and other MACT standards which are not based on sound
science.
The Committee has serious concerns over the Agency's
treatment of volatile organic compounds [VOC's] under Clean Air
Act section 183(e), which addresses the role in ozone
nonattainment of VOC's emitted from consumer and commercial
products. The law required EPA to consider reactivity and the
potential to contribute to ozone nonattainment in assessing
various VOC's emitted from consumer and commercial products.
According to a March 15, 1995, study released by EPA, this was
not done.
In addition, EPA has stated that small paint manufacturers
could experience significant adverse economic impacts. The
Committee urges EPA to follow the requirements of section
183(e) by conducting a study to determine the potential of
VOC's from each category of consumer and commercial products to
contribute to ozone levels which violate the national ambient
air quality standard for ozone.
The Committee is concerned that silver, used in a variety
of services and industries including, but not limited to,
photographic materials and electrical and electronic
manufacturing, is still listed as a toxic characteristic
hazardous waste under RCRA. The Committee believes that the
economic consequences associated with this listing do not
justify the benefits. The Agency has deleted the primary
drinking water standard for silver in 1991 and studies have
concluded that silver discharge pose no significant threat to
human health or the environment. Therefore, the Committee urges
the EPA to remove this outdated, burdensome toxic
characteristic listing on silver.
The Committee is dismayed that EPA is not taking final
action on its proposed lamp management regulation which would
conditionally exempt spent mercury-containing lamps from the
existing hazardous waste requirements. EPA's failure to act on
the lamp management rule will impose additional costs that
create a disincentive for implementation of energy efficient
lighting upgrades.
This has the perverse effect of delaying reductions in
emissions of mercury and greenhouse gases from electric power
generation that would far outweigh any potential emissions from
mismanagement of spent lamps. In the absence of guidance from
EPA, States are adopting conflicting regulations which is
leading to significant confusion among generators. The
Committee urges EPA to finalize this rule by the end of
calendar year 1995, taking into consideration the costs and
benefits of mercury waste management and importance of State
flexibility in setting environmental priorities. This is not
intended in any way to prohibit EPA from approving the
authorization of State programs consistent with the Federal
universal waste rule.
The Committee is aware that the State of Washington has
raised concerns regarding EPA's proposed designation of the
Eastern Columbia Plateau as a sole source aquifer. The State's
concerns are based on the science being used and the potential
economic impacts. EPA is urged to work with the State to
address these concerns.
The Lower Columbia River, in Oregon and Washington, was
designated as part of the National Estuary Program in July. The
Committee understands that since 1990, the two States have had
in place the Columbia River Bi-State Program to study water
quality issues in the Lower Columbia. The Bi-State Program is
made up of a diverse coalition of local officials, river users,
local business and industry, environmentalists, and port
officials. The Committee urges the EPA to closely follow the
makeup of the Bi-State Program in the process of establishing
the planning committee to develop the implementation plan for
the Lower Columbia estuary.
The Committee notes EPA was more than 15 months late in
meeting a statutory deadline for issuing proposed criteria for
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM, despite the
fact that the deadline was formulated in consultation with the
agency. EPA still has not issued final criteria which were due
almost 1 year ago. No funds should be taken from the $6,800,000
requested for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant compliance
criteria.
Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 was
intended to create a permitting system for gathering together
all of the applicable Federal requirements for air pollution
sources into one document. In concept, such a system could
provide more clarity and certainty to an area of regulation
that is currently complicated and vague. EPA has promulgated a
rule to implement title V as well as two subsequent proposed
rules which were intended to clarify the original rule. EPA
also has issued guidance documents and policy statements
recently to further explain its implementation scheme. However,
instead of clarifying requirements and helping States and
businesses comply with the law, EPA has created confusion and
chaos. While the Committee supports the goals of EPA's recent
efforts to streamline this program, the Committee is very
concerned about the level of confusion and uncertainty
surrounding it. Therefore, the Committee urges EPA to delay
enforcement of title V for 1 year. Such a delay would be
consistent with the original intent of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 which provided 2 years before States were
required to submit permit programs to EPA, and would shield
States and employers from sanctions for actions pursuant to an
EPA program which is still evolving.
Unless stated otherwise, the Committee does not concur with
language in House Report 104-201 affecting a variety of
regulatory issues.
office of inspector general
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $44,595,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 47,838,000
House allowance......................................... 33,968,000
Committee recommendation
40,000,000
program description
The Office of Inspector General provides EPA audit and
investigative functions to identify and recommend corrective
actions of management, program, and administrative deficiencies
which create conditions for existing or potential instances of
fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
Trust fund resources are transferred to this account
directly from the hazardous substance Superfund and leaking
underground storage tank trust funds.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $40,000,000 for the Office of
Inspector General, a reduction of $7,838,000 below the budget
request and an increase of $6,032,000 above the House. The
reduction is a general reduction, subject to normal
reprogramming guidelines. The appropriation includes
$27,700,000 from the general fund in this account, $11,700,000
from the Superfund trust fund, and $600,000 from the LUST trust
fund. The trust fund resources will be transferred to the
inspector general ``General fund'' account with an expenditure
transfer.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $43,870,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 112,820,000
House allowance......................................... 28,820,000
Committee recommendation
60,000,000
program description
The appropriation for buildings and facilities at EPA
covers the necessary major repairs and improvements to existing
installations which are used by the Agency. This appropriation
also covers new construction projects when appropriate.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $60,000,000 for buildings and
facilities. This includes $33,000,000 to complete the Fort
Meade Science Center (region III laboratory), as requested by
the administration. The balance is provided for the new
headquarters project and repairs and improvements, reflecting a
general reduction of $2,820,000 below the request.
hazardous substance superfund
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1995 \1\................................ $1,335,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 1,507,937,000
House allowance......................................... 1,003,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,003,400,000
\1\ Includes rescission of $100,000,000 in Public Law 104-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
On October 17, 1986, Congress amended the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
[CERCLA] through the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 [SARA]. SARA reauthorized and expanded the
hazardous substance Superfund to address the problems of
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and spills. Specifically,
the legislation mandates that EPA: (1) provide emergency
response to hazardous waste spills; (2) take emergency action
at hazardous waste sites that pose an imminent hazard to public
health or environmentally sensitive ecosystems; (3) engage in
long-term planning, remedial design, and construction to clean
up hazardous waste sites where no financially viable
responsible party can be found; (4) take enforcement actions to
require responsible private and Federal parties to clean up
hazardous waste sites; and (5) take enforcement actions to
recover costs where the fund has been used for cleanup.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $1,003,400,000 for Superfund, as
in the House. This represents a decrease of $331,600,000 below
the current budget and $504,537,000 below the budget request.
The amount provided includes $250,000,000 from general
revenues, as authorized, and the balance from the trust fund.
It is widely agreed that the Superfund Program needs to be
overhauled substantially. Fiscal year 1996 will be a transition
year for the Superfund Program, pending enactment and full-
scale implementation of reauthorization legislation. Rather
than continuing to fund the program at current levels, the
Committee believes it prudent to limit funding to cleanup
activities that address immediate risks and risks based on
current land uses until changes which will be authorized can be
implemented.
The Committee has made the following changes to the budget
request:
-$309,659,000 from response actions, to be derived from
planned new starts for site cleanups which pose health
risks under future land use only. The Committee directs
that all removal actions, which address immediate risks
to human health, be fully funded. EPA anticipates this
will require approximately $200,000,000.
-$40,000,000 from new research contracts.
-$65,000,000 from enforcement.
-$50,000,000 from management and support.
-$2,378,000 from the inspector general.
-$6,000,000 from the Department of Justice interagency
transfer.
-$18,000,000 from the National Institutes for Environmental
Health Sciences research, leaving $16,000,000. This
amount is consistent with the amount provided for the
EPA Superfund research program.
-$2,000,000 from NIEHS worker training grants.
-$14,000,000 from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. ATSDR will have fewer requirements in fiscal
year 1996 since the Superfund Program is being slowed
significantly. Within the amount provided, ATSDR is
urged to fund the minority health professions schools
[AMHPS] cooperative agreement at the requested level of
$4,000,000.
+$2,500,000 for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research
Center.
Administrative expenses should be limited to $290,000,000,
subject to normal reprogramming guidelines.
In light of the transitional nature of fiscal year 1996 and
the decrease in available funds, the Committee directs that the
Agency prioritize its limited resources on the most serious
sites. In the past, EPA has completely failed to prioritize
Superfund remedical action resources to address the worst sites
first. This lack of risk-based prioritization can no longer be
tolerated.
A recent General Accounting Office report examined EPA data
from 225 records of decision signed between 1991 and mid-1993,
and found that over one-half of the sites did not pose human
health risks requiring cleanup today, but might pose risks in
the future if land use patterns change. EPA is to afford the
highest priority to protecting against immediate health risks
and health risks posed at sites under current land uses, as
described in the GAO report, and target funds accordingly. This
direction in no way impacts the removal program, or limits EPA
from conducting preliminary assessments and site
investigations.
Finally, EPA is directed to modify its use of risk
assessment practices to reflect accurately the condition of the
site factoring in any actions taken under removal authorities
and any voluntary measures. The decision to move forward to the
signing of the ROD and the RD/RA phase should be undertaken
based on all relevant data including EPA's risk assessment of
the site, ATSDR's determination of whether a completed pathway
of exposure exists and whether the site is classified as a
health hazard or urgent hazard site, and any impact of removal
or other voluntary actions.
The Committee is aware that EPA in anticipation of funding
limitations is developing contingent action plans to issue stop
work orders under existing Superfund cleanup contracts; to
delay issuance of new work orders; to delay negotiation and
award of new response action contracts [RAC's]; and to possibly
terminate existing RAC's for convenience of the Government. The
Committee is concerned about the potential for disruption and
urges EPA to do everything it can to minimize restrictions on
current and future work orders and disruption.
Recognizing that funding for Superfund activities will be
constrained by decreasing budget resources, the Committee is
disappointed that EPA has not taken greater initiative to
develop and implement internal reforms associated with the
administration and management of Superfund to assure more
effective resource application and greater productivity. Among
these reforms are development of a clear priority-based process
for allocating funds to site-specific cleanup activities;
development of results-oriented statements of work and
performance-based criteria and measures for use in all
contracts; increased use of fixed-price contracts; and
indemnification of response action contractors in those
instance when adequate insurance at fair and reasonable prices
is not available. The Committee directs EPA to conduct a study
of these and other internal reform initiatives which may be
appropriate for the Superfund Program, and report back to the
Committee by March 1, 1996. In conducting this study, EPA is
encouraged to consult with the Departments of Defense and
Energy with regard to environmental restoration and management
program and contract reform initiatives underway in those
Departments, as well as with industry.
The Committee directs EPA to continue supporting the Mine
Waste Technology Program, an existing research program
conducted through the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation Program with $3,000,000 in fiscal year 1996.
The Committee is aware that the 29th and Mead Superfund
site in Wichita, KS, is to be deleted from the national
priorities list [NPL]. The Committee is concerned with the
amount of time it is taking to delist the site, leading to
frustration and uncertainty in the community. The delisting is
to occur by the end of the calendar year.
The Committee is greatly concerned over the actions of EPA
at the Tulalip landfill site in Marysville, WA, listed on the
Superfund NPL. The site was placed on the NPL immediately prior
to the enactment of the prohibition on further listings
included in the Fiscal Year 1995 Rescission Act. The Committee
is concerned that a comprehensive baseline risk assessment was
not used as the basis for the remedy selection at the site.
The Committee understands that the remedy selection
proposed for the site is estimated to cost site potentially
responsible parties [PRP's] a total of nearly $40,000,000.
Given the exorbitant cost of the proposed remedy selection, and
the lack of a comprehensive baseline risk assessment to support
the remedy selection, the Committee directs the EPA to
reevaluate all proposed remedial action options.
The Committee directs the Agency to conduct a comprehensive
baseline risk assessment and an alternative dispute resolution
procedure prior to adopting a final remedial action plan. The
alternative dispute resolution procedure should utilize a
neutral third-party mediator, agreeable to both the PRP's and
the Agency.
The Committee supports the continuation of the Superfund
innovative technology evaluation [SITE] and the Hazardous
Substance Research Center programs. The Committee directs EPA
to determine, after ensuring that priority is afforded to
funding cleanup activities to meet immediate health risks and
health risks posed under current land uses, whether additional
funds can be reprogrammed to SITE and the hazardous substance
research centers. EPA should propose such a reprogramming, if
possible, as part of its fiscal year 1996 operating plan.
Bill language has been included prohibiting EPA from
spending funds to add sites to the national priorities list or
propose sites for listing, unless requested by the Governor or
appropriate tribal leader of the State in which the site is
located. EPA faces significant obstacles in completing cleanups
at facilities already listed on the NPL. In view of the
reduction in funding and ongoing reauthorization effort, EPA
should concentrate its efforts on existing NPL facilities. The
Committee notes that neither the delisting of facilities nor
removal actions are affected by this legislation and should
continue wherever warranted.
Language contained in the House bill prohibiting the
expenditure of funds for the Superfund Program after December
31, 1995, unless CERCLA is reauthorized, has been deleted.
leaking underground storage tank trust fund
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $70,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 77,723,000
House allowance......................................... 45,827,000
Committee recommendation
45,827,000
program description
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizations Act of 1986
[SARA] established the leaking underground storage tank [LUST]
trust fund to conduct corrective actions for releases from
leaking underground storage tanks containing petroleum and
other hazardous substances. EPA implements the LUST program
through State cooperative agreement grants which enable States
to conduct corrective actions to protect human health and the
environment. The trust fund is also used to enforce responsible
parties to finance corrective actions and to recover expended
funds used to clean up abandoned tanks.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends a budget of $45,827,000 for the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, as provided by the
House. This is a decrease of $24,173,000 below the current
estimate and $31,446,000 below the request. Bill language
limits administrative expenses to $8,000,000.
oilspill response
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 23,047,000
House allowance......................................... 20,000,000
Committee recommendation
15,000,000
program description
This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1987 and amended by the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, provides funds for preventing and responding to
releases of oil and other petroleum products in navigable
waterways. EPA is responsible for: directing all cleanup and
removal activities posing a threat to public health and the
environment; conducting inspections, including compelling
responsible parties to undertake cleanup actions; reviewing
containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency
plans; pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed cleanups; and
conducting research of oil cleanup techniques. Funds are
provided through the oilspill liability trust fund established
by the Oil Pollution Act and managed by the Coast Guard.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $15,000,000 for the oilspill
response trust fund a reduction of $8,047,000 below the request
and $5,000,000 below the current level and the House amount.
The Committee included bill language limiting administrative
expenses to $8,000,000.
water infrastructure/state revolving funds
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $2,262,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 2,365,000,000
House allowance......................................... 1,500,175,000
Committee recommendation
...........................
This account has been eliminated. The Committee has
provided funding for water infrastructure/State revolving funds
in a new account, ``Program and infrastructure assistance.''
program and infrastructure ASSISTANCE
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
$2,340,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The ``Program and infrastructure'' account funds grants to
support the State revolving fund programs; State, tribal,
regional, and local environmental programs; and special
projects to address critical waste water treatment needs. This
account couples the former ``Water infrastructure/SRF'' account
with 16 categorical grant programs previously funded in the
``Abatement, control, and compliance'' account. In addition,
the funds provided in this account, exclusive of the funds for
the SRF and the special waste water treatment projects, may be
used by the Agency to enter into performance partnerships with
States and tribes rather than media-specific categorical
program grants, if requested by the States and tribes.
This account funds the following infrastructure grant
programs: State revolving funds; United States-Mexico Border
Program; colonias projects; and Alaska Native villages.
It also contains the following environmental grants, State/
tribal program grants, and assistance and capacity building
grants: (1) Nonpoint source (sec. 319 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act); (2) water quality cooperative
agreements (sec. 104(b)(3) of FWPCA; (3) public water system
supervision; (4) air resource assistance to State, local, and
tribal governments (sec. 105 of the Clean Air Act); (5) radon
State grants; (6) control agency resource supplementation (sec.
106 of the FWPCA); (7) wetlands program implementation; (8)
underground injection control; (9) Pesticides Program
implementation; (10) lead grants; (11) hazardous waste
financial assistance; (12) pesticides enforcement grants; (13)
pollution prevention; (14) toxic substances enforcement grants;
(15) Indians general assistance grants; and, (16) underground
storage tanks.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has created a new account for grants to State
and tribal governments for the implementation of environmental
programs. Providing appropriations for State and tribal
capacity grants in one account will enhance the agency's
ability to provide performance partnerships, or block grants,
to the States. Current agency plans do not call for the
inclusion of State revolving funds in the performance
partnerships; however, the agency, with the advice and
consultation of the States and the committees of jurisdiction,
should consider whether State revolving funds should be
included in block grants in the future.
The Committee has provided $2,340,000,000 for program and
infrastructure assistance. Therefore, the amount provided for
State and tribal assistance represents more than 40 percent of
the entire EPA appropriation. The appropriation includes
$1,500,000,000 for State revolving funds; $675,000,000 for
State grants (an increase of $10,000,000 over fiscal year 1995)
of which $15,000,000 is for general assistance to tribes;
$100,000,000 for Mexico border water and waste water treatment
construction activities; $50,000,000 for grants to the Texas
colonias; and $15,000,000 for waste water treatment
construction in native Alaskan villages. The Committee's
recommendation includes grants for Mexico border/colonias
projects and the Alaskan native villages owing to the unique
regional needs in these areas, and to address the significant
health problems which result from extremely rudimentary
sanitary systems in these areas.
Of the amount provided for State revolving funds,
$500,000,000 shall be held in reserve for drinking water State
revolving funds until legislation authorizing drinking water
SRF's is enacted, but no later than December 31, 1995. Should
authorization not occur by that date, these funds shall
immediately become available for waste water SRFs, along with
the $225,000,000 previously appropriated for drinking water
SRF's.
The amount provided for State revolving funds represents an
increase of $500,000,000 over the House amount. The following
table compares the State allotment for State revolving funds
under the Committee's recommendation, compared with the fiscal
year 1995 amount, the budget request, and the House allowance:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's
State Fiscal year 1995 fiscal year 1996 House allowance Committee
allotment budget recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. $13,911,900 $17,874,200 $11,262,900 $16,894,400
Alaska.................................. 7,446,200, 9,567,000 6,028,300 9,042,500
Arizona................................. 8,403,300 10,796,600 6,803,200 10,204,700
Arkansas................................ 8,138,800 10,456,800 6,589,000 9,883,600
California.............................. 88,981,600 114,324,600 72,038,200 108,057,300
Colorado................................ 9,952,000 12,786,500 8,057,000 12,085,500
Connecticut............................. 15,241,800 19,582,800 12,339,500 18,509,300
Delaware................................ 6,107,800 7,847,300 4,944,800 7,417,100
District of Columbia.................... 6,107,800 7,847,300 4,944,800 7,417,100
Florida................................. 41,996,600 53,957,800 33,999,900 50,999,800
Georgia................................. 21,035,800 27,027,100 17,030,300 25,545,500
Hawaii.................................. 9,635,900 12,380,300 7,801,100 11,701,600
Idaho................................... 6,107,800 7,847,300 4,944,800 7,417,100
Illinois................................ 56,269,000 72,295,100 45,554,600 68,331,900
Indiana................................. 29,984,100 38,523,900 24,274,700 36,412,000
Iowa.................................... 16,838,500 21,634,300 13,632,200 20,448,300
Kansas.................................. 11,230,200 14,428,700 9,091,800 13,637,700
Kentucky................................ 15,834,700 20,344,600 12,819,500 19,229,300
Louisiana............................... 13,677,000 17,572,400 11,072,700 16,609,000
Maine................................... 9,631,000 12,374,000 7,797,100 11,695,600
Maryland................................ 30,091,100 38,661,400 24,361,300 36,542,000
Massachusetts........................... 42,241,400 54,272,300 34,198,000 51,297,100
Michigan................................ 53,496,200 68,732,600 43,309,800 64,964,600
Minnesota............................... 22,867,500 29,380,500 18,513,200 27,769,900
Mississippi............................. 11,209,300 14,401,800 9,074,900 13,612,300
Missouri................................ 34,490,200 44,313,400 27,922,700 41,884,100
Montana................................. 6,107,800 7,847,300 4,944,800 7,417,100
Nebraska................................ 6,363,600 8,176,100 5,151,900 7,727,900
Nevada.................................. 6,107,800 7,847,300 4,944,800 7,417,100
New Hampshire........................... 12,433,300 15,974,400 10,065,800 15,098,700
New Jersey.............................. 50,841,500 65,321,800 41,160,600 61,740,800
New Mexico.............................. 6,107,800 7,847,300 4,944,800 7,417,100
New York................................ 137,325,400 176,438,000 111,176,700 166,765,600
North Carolina.......................... 22,454,200 28,849,400 18,178,600 27,267,900
North Dakota............................ 6,107,800 7,847,300 4,944,800 7,417,100
Ohio.................................... 70,040,700 89,989,200 56,703,900 85,055,900
Oklahoma................................ 10,051,700 12,914,500 8,137,700 12,206,500
Oregon.................................. 14,054,600 18,057,600 11,378,400 17,067,700
Pennsylvania............................ 49,282,900 63,319,300 39,898,700 59,848,100
Rhode Island............................ 8,354,100 10,733,400 6,763,300 10,145,000
South Carolina.......................... 12,745,700 16,375,900 10,318,800 16,478,200
South Dakota............................ 6,107,800 7,847,300 4,944,800 7,417,100
Tennessee............................... 18,073,600 23,221,200 14,632,100 21,948,200
Texas................................... 56,855,600 73,061,700 46,037,600 69,056,400
Utah.................................... 6,555,600 8,422,700 5,307,300 7,960,900
Vermont................................. 6,107,800 7,847,300 4,944,800 7,417,100
Virginia................................ 25,462,000 32,713,800 20,613,600 30,920,500
Washington.............................. 21,636,200 27,798,400 17,515,300 26,274,500
West Virginia........................... 19,394,800 24,918,700 15,701,700 23,552,600
Wisconsin............................... 33,635,200 43,214,900 27,230,600 40,845,800
Wyoming................................. 6,107,800 7,847,300 4,944,800 7,417,100
American Samoa.......................... 1,117,000 1,435,100 904,300 1,356,400
Guam.................................... 808,200 1,038,400 654,300 981,500
Northern Marianas....................... 519,100 667,000 420,300 630,400
Puerto Rico............................. 16,227,100 20,848,800 13,137,200 19,705,900
Trust Territory of Palau................ 451,500 580,100 365,500 548,300
Virgin Islands.......................... 648,300 832,900 524,900 787,300
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 1,229,024,000 1,579,065,000 995,000,000 1,492,500,000
Indian tribes........................... 6,176,000 7,935,000 5,000,000 7,500,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 1,235,200,000 1,587,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,500,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's performance partnership agreement with the States
calls for curtailing EPA's oversight of well-established,
effective State environmental programs; the expanded use of
environmental goals and indicators; greater reliance on self-
assessment by the States; and the development of new
environmental performance agreements. The Committee strongly
supports this agreement and all efforts to eliminate
unnecessary, redundant oversight of the States. The Committee
has provided $665,000,000 for State grants, the same as the
current level of funding for EPA's categorical grant programs.
The Committee has provided bill language enabling EPA to enter
into performance partnership agreements with States, replacing
the individual media grants with a single multimedia grant. EPA
is to provide maximum flexibility to the States through these
performance partnerships.
Administrative Provisions
A provision has been included which prevents EPA from
requiring that States adopt a centralized inspection and
maintenance program as part of their State implementation plan
under the Clean Air Act, although the States retain the
flexibility to adopt such a program should they desire. EPA is
to review each State's SIP and should not automatically assign
a discount for test-and-repair programs. Similar language has
been included in earlier legislation.
A provision has been included, as in the House bill and in
previous legislation, preventing EPA from requiring States to
implement trip reduction plans as part of their State
implementation plan.
The Committee has included a provision which prevents EPA
from establishing any new standards under the Safe Drinking
Water Act for arsenic, sulfate, radon, ground water
disinfection, and a variety of contaminants referred to as
phase VI-B, except for the disinfection/disinfection byproducts
rulemaking which includes cryptosporidium, until the drinking
water act is reauthorized. This provision shall not preclude
work on, or finalization of, the information collection rule
which is necessary to collect information to possibly regulate
cryptosporidium. The provision does not preclude the Agency
from carrying out research into the health effects from low-
level exposure to arsenic, and the Committee has provided
$1,000,000 for that purpose. This action focuses EPA resources
on the contaminant of most immediate concern to public health,
cryptosporidium, while recognizing that scarce resources will
not be well spent by establishing standards for contaminants
for which there is little scientific data on health risks or
for which the health risk is considered to be relatively low.
The Committee's provision is consistent with EPA's own action
to seek relief from the court-ordered deadlines for
establishing these standards.
As in the Fiscal Year 1995 VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, a provision has been included
prohibiting EPA from implementing a proposed rulemaking issued
last April concerning foreign refinery baseline requirements
for reformulated gasoline.
A provision has been included prohibiting EPA from
administering subsection 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, which
provides EPA veto authority over proposed Corps of Engineers
wetlands permits. The Committee's intent is to eliminate
duplicative activities and streamline the wetlands permitting
process. The Corps has the authority and expertise to
administer the wetlands program. That the same law be
administered by two separate Federal agencies cannot be
justified, particularly in view of budgetary constraints. The
Committee notes that this provision does not impact EPA's role
in granting States authority to administer their own wetlands
program or its enforcement authority under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
A provision has been included exempting an industrial
discharger to the Kalamazoo, MI, Water Reclamation Plant from
categorical pretreatment standards under section 307(b) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act if certain criteria are
met. The provision ensures that water quality standards are met
without requiring duplicative and costly wastewater treatment
plant construction.
An administrative provision has been included prohibiting
the use of funds by EPA to regulate fuel additives in certain
instances. This provision was included in the fiscal year 1994
VA-HUD appropriation bill. The purpose of this limitation is to
deal with a possible health problem in Alaska said to be caused
by the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether [MTBE] in
nonattainment areas of Alaska. The limitation precludes
enforcement of section 211(m)(2) of the Clean Air Act to
require the use of MTBE. The Committee urges EPA to complete
any ongoing studies on the health effects of MTBE in cold
climates as expeditiously as possible.
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $4,981,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 4,981,000
House allowance......................................... 4,981,000
Committee recommendation
4,981,000
program description
The Office of Science and Technology Policy [OSTP] was
created by the National Science and Technology Policy,
Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-238)
and coordinates science and technology policy for the White
House. OSTP provides authoritative scientific and technological
information, analysis, and advice for the President, for the
executive branch, and for Congress; participates in
formulation, coordination, and implementation of national and
international policies and programs that involve science and
technology; maintains and promotes the health and vitality of
the U.S. science and technology infrastructure; and coordinates
research and development efforts of the Federal Government to
maximize the return on the public's investment in science and
technology and to ensure Federal resources are used efficiently
and appropriately.
OSTP provides support for the National Science and
Technology Council [NSTC].
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,981,000 for
the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This amount is the
same as the 1995 enacted level, the budget request, and the
House allowance.
The Committee is deeply concerned about lack of effective
interagency management and integration of the U.S. Global
Change Research Program. The success of this program depends on
the coherent utilization of the unique scientific and technical
capabilities that each of the participating agencies brings to
the program in observations, process research, modeling,
prediction, information management and assessment. The
Committee strongly urges OSTP to take the necessary action to
strengthen the collaboration and cooperation required among the
Federal agencies especially as budgetary reductions and
competing priorities force agencies to reduce their
contributions. This action should reflect the concerns raised
in the recent program review conducted by the National Academy
of Sciences. A response by OSTP should accompany the OSTP
fiscal year 1997 budget request.
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $997,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 2,188,000
House allowance......................................... 1,000,000
Committee recommendation
1,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Council on Environmental Quality/Office of
Environmental Quality was established by the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental Quality
Improvement Act of 1970. The Council serves as a source of
environmental expertise and policy analysis for the White
House, Executive Office of the President agencies, and other
Federal agencies. CEQ promulgates regulations binding on all
Federal agencies to implement the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act and resolves interagency
environmental disputes informally and through issuance of
findings and recommendations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Council on
Environmental Quality, a reduction of $1,188,000 below the
request and an increase of $3,000 above the current level.
While the amount provided will not enable CEQ to employ the
number of FTE's requested in the budget, the Committee believes
the amount provided will permit CEQ to carry out its primary
statutory functions, without duplicating other agencies
efforts.
The Committee has deleted House bill language terminating
CEQ. The Committee believes that CEQ performs a useful role and
should continue to exist, but all activities which duplicate or
more efficiently could be performed by other agencies should be
eliminated.
According to the Code of Federal Regulations (section
1515.2), the Council's responsibilities include: (1) reviewing
and evaluating the programs and activities of the Federal
Government to determine how they are contributing to the
attainment of the national environmental policy; (2) assisting
Federal agencies and departments in appraising the
effectiveness of their existing and proposed facilities,
programs, policies, and activities affecting environmental
quality; (3) developing and recommending to the President
policies to improve environmental quality; (4) advising and
assisting the President in achieving international cooperation
for dealing with environmental problems; (5) assisting in
coordinating among Federal agencies and departments those
programs which affect, protect, and improve environmental
quality; (6) fostering research relating to environmental
quality and the impacts of new or changing technologies; and
(7) analyzing environmental problems and trends and assisting
in preparing an annual environmental quality report.
The Committee finds that many of CEQ's activities duplicate
those of EPA and other agencies, a luxury which can no longer
be afforded. Moreover, the Committee believes most if not all
of the activities detailed above could be carried out, if they
are not already, by EPA or other agencies.
The administration is urged to consider the value and
utility of CEQ's annual environmental trends report, and
determine whether the report should be continued.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Appropriations, 1995 \1\................................ $828,907,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 806,119,000
House allowance......................................... 694,937,000
Committee recommendation................................ 463,437,000
\1\ Does not include $6,550,000,000 in emergency funding. Includes
supplemental of $7,000,000 in Public Law 104-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
general description
FEMA is responsible for coordinating Federal efforts to
reduce the loss of life and property through a comprehensive
risk-based, all hazards emergency management program of
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided a total of $463,437,000 for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. The amount provided is a
reduction of $342,682,000 below the budget request.
The Committee's recommendation for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency provides funding to continue most programs
and activities at current levels, to ensure a capable and
efficient Federal emergency preparedness and response system.
No funds are provided to the disaster relief fund because
current balances, including the recent supplemental
appropriation of $6,550,000,000, are approximately
$8,000,000,000. This amount far surpasses average annual
disaster relief fund requirements, and will enable the Agency
to continue meeting disaster assistance needs arising from
previous disasters. Owing to budgetary constraints, the
Committee was forced to reduce funding for the emergency food
and shelter program.
disaster relief
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $320,000,000
Emergency funding, 1995................................. 6,550,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 320,000,000
House allowance......................................... 235,500,000
Committee recommendation................................................
program description
Federal disaster assistance is a nationwide program
operated pursuant to the Stafford Act. FEMA is authorized to
provide Federal assistance to supplement the efforts and
resources of State and local governments in response to major
disasters and emergencies. Funds may be made available directly
to a State or to other Federal agencies as reimbursement of
expenditures in disaster relief work performed under this
authority. Funds and other assistance may also be made
available to individuals, families, and businesses for disaster
related needs and expenses. In addition, a variety of other
Federal assistance is coordinated under this program.
committee recommendation
The Committee has not provided any funds for disaster
relief, nor has the Committee approved the administration's
request for a disaster relief contingency fund, owing to the
fact that there is currently a balance of approximately
$8,000,000,000 in the disaster relief fund. This amount
includes the recent appropriation of $6,550,000,000 in fiscal
year 1995 supplemental appropriations and previous year
appropriations.
A recent audit conducted by FEMA's inspector general of the
disaster relief fund revealed some disturbing information. The
inspector general found that in fiscal year 1995, charges to
the disaster relief funding totaling approximately $87,000,000
were not for specific disasters and may not be appropriate
charges to the fund. The problem stems in part from FEMA's lack
of explicit guidelines defining activities which are
appropriately charged to the fund. At a time when budgets are
constrained throughout the rest of the Agency, there is a
significant temptation to define more and more activities as
appropriately funded by the ``Disaster relief'' account.
The inspector general also found that disaster relief fund
financial data are often unreliable; grants and loans
management is inadequate; and FEMA's policies do not always
appear to encourage the prudent use of disaster dollars. The
Committee expects the Director to exercise discipline and
financial controls in the use of disaster relief funds, and
anticipates that the findings and recommendations of the
inspector general will be adopted by the Agency. In particular,
FEMA should act quickly in developing appropriate and explict
guidelines for the use of disaster relief funds, and such
guidelines should be reviewed by the inspector general. FEMA is
to notify the Committee of the actions it is taking to respond
to concerns raised by the inspector general, and its timeframe
for implementing the recommendations, within 30 days of
enactment of this act.
A similar review is underway by the General Accounting
Office. When complete, FEMA is to respond to the Committee
within 30 days of receipt outlining its plans for implementing
GAO's recommendations.
The Committee also notes the recent inspector general
report detailing options for reducing public assistance program
costs. FEMA is to respond to the Committee within 30 days of
enactment of this act on its plans and proposals for reducing
disaster relief costs such as limiting eligibility for public
assistance for certain categories of recipients or terminating
certain programs which may not be effectively meeting the needs
of disaster victims.
disaster assistance direct loan program account
(limitation on direct loans)
STATE SHARE LOAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Administrative
direct loans expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995.................... $175,000,000 $95,000
Budget estimate, 1996................... 25,000,000 95,000
House allowance......................... 25,000,000 95,000
Committee recommendation................ 25,000,000 95,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Under the State Share Loan Program, FEMA may lend or
advance to an eligible applicant or State the portion of
assistance for which the applicant is responsible under cost-
sharing provisions of the Stafford Act. To be deemed eligible,
the Governor must demonstrate, where damage is overwhelming and
severe, that the State is unable to assume its financial
responsibility to meet the cost share.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
For the State Share Loan Program, the Committee has
provided $25,000,000 in loan authority and $95,000 in
administrative expenses. For the cost of subsidizing the
appropriation, the bill includes $2,155,000.
The Committee notes that the city of Miami requested
additional disaster loan funds in 1994 due to the widespread
damage inflicted by Hurricane Andrew and the revenue shortfalls
which have resulted. FEMA should reconsider its denial of the
city's request for additional loan funding in view of the
city's continuing needs.
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 1995 \1\................................ $165,523,000
Budget estimate, 1996 \2\............................... 172,331,000
House allowance......................................... 162,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 166,000,000
\1\ Includes supplemental of $3,523,000 in Public Law 104-19.
\2\ Reflects budget amendment of $2,922,000, proposed July 17, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The salaries and expenses appropriation comprises two
activities:
1. Program support.--This activity provides for staff and
supporting resources to administer the Agency's various
programs at the headquarters, field, and regional levels. The
salaries and expenses for flood plain management under
mitigation programs and flood insurance operations are provided
by transfer from the national flood insurance fund.
2. Executive direction.--This activity provides staff and
supporting resources for the general management and
administration of the Agency in legal affairs, congressional
and public affairs, personnel, and financial management.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $166,000,000 for FEMA salaries
and expenses. This represents an increase of $4,000,000 above
the House, $477,000 above the current budget, and a decrease of
$6,331,000 below the budget request.
The Committee notes a budget amendment of $2,922,000 was
submitted on July 17, 1995, for security personnel and
activities related to responding to terrorist attacks. The
Committee supports these activities and urges FEMA to reprogram
funds for them in its operating plan.
The Committee believes budgetary savings could be made
through reductions to the regional offices. The Committee
understands that as part of the ``National Performance
Review,'' FEMA is evaluating the purpose, roles, authorities,
risk areas, customer needs, and mission of field offices and
regions. FEMA should accelerate this review in view of future
anticipated budgetary reductions, and closely examine whether
cost savings and efficiencies could be achieved, without
compromising effectiveness of disaster response and recovery,
through the closure or downsizing of regional offices. In a
February 1993 report to this Committee, the National Academy of
Public Administration found: ``* * * the four-region
organization used by the Continental U.S. Army more closely
approximates the incidence of disasters and may represent a
better way to restructure FEMA with minimum disruption.''
The Committee has provided the full amount requested
($1,000,000) for the financial management system enhancements.
The Committee has not provided bill language requested by
the administration providing an advance appropriation for
fiscal year 1997.
office of the inspector general
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $4,400,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 4,673,000
House allowance......................................... 4,400,000
Committee recommendation
4,400,000
program description
The Office of the Inspector General [OIG] conducts,
supervises, and coordinates all audits, inspections, and
investigations. The OIG supervises and coordinates other
activities in the Agency and between the Agency and other
Federal, State, and local government agencies whose purposes
are to: (a) promote economy and efficiency; (b) prevent and
detect fraud and mismanagement; and (c) identify and prosecute
people involved in fraud or mismanagement.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $4,400,000 for the Office of the
Inspector General, the same amount as provided by the House and
the same as the current budget.
emergency management planning and assistance
Appropriations, 1995 \1\................................ $219,437,000
Budget estimate, 1996 \2\............................... 210,122,000
House allowance......................................... 203,044,000
Committee recommendation................................ 203,044,000
\1\ Includes supplemental of $3,477,000 in Public Law 104-19.
\2\ Reflects budget amendment of $7,078,000, proposed July 17, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The emergency management planning and assistance
appropriation provides resources for the following activities
which were described previously: Response and recovery;
preparedness, training, and exercises; fire prevention and
training; operations support; mitigation programs; and
executive direction. Flood plain management activity and flood
insurance operations are funded by transfer from the national
flood insurance fund in fiscal year 1994.
committee recommendation
The Committee concurs with the House in providing
$203,044,000 for FEMA emergency management planning and
assistance. This is $7,078,000 below the amount requested.
The Committee notes the administration submitted on July
17, 1995, a budget amendment of $7,078,000 for emergency
management planning and assistance to enable FEMA to develop
plans and procedures for an efficient Federal response to
terrorism, and to increase the preparedness capability of State
and local responders. The Committee supports these activities,
and suggests that FEMA reprogram funds from within the amount
provided, subject to normal reprogramming procedures, for
critical terrorism response-related activities. In general,
however, terrorism response-related activities should be part
of the Agency's all-hazards approach to disasters and should
not require separate funding.
The Committee notes that as part of the ``National
Performance Review,'' FEMA has proposed several initiatives
which, if implemented, would result in $2,400,000 in savings to
this account in fiscal year 1996 and 5 year savings of
$13,400,000. These initiatives include consolidating the mobile
emergency response system [MERS] unit, which would save
$1,500,000. The Committee supports these cost-savings
initiatives and suggest they be implemented to help offset the
general reduction to this account.
The Committee supports the Agency's plans for performance
partnerships agreements with the States, which would integrate
FEMA's categorical grant programs into block grants, and make
funding available based on the State's risk of hazards and the
State's performance. The Committee wishes to be kept apprised
of the Agency's efforts to develop these agreements and the
specific performance measures.
The Committee understands FEMA is currently evaluating the
capabilities of federally sponsored civilian urban search and
rescue task forces to determine their readiness for response to
earthquakes and other disasters, and may decide to award new
task forces.
The Committee directs FEMA to include in the study an
analysis of the current status of personnel, equipment, and
training; to compare and contrast current status with task
force status when designated for Federal sponsorship; and to
measure progress of personnel, resource and training toward
Agency-recommended levels. The study also should include an
analysis of the geographic distribution of task force locations
and a history of activation to date. The study shall be
provided to the Committee by January 1, 1996.
The Committee urges FEMA to give strong consideration to
adding USAR task forces in Columbia, MO, and Portland, OR, as
vacancies occur.
To support the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Program, FEMA's budget includes $16,180,000. The Committee
supports the full request for this program.
FEMA is directed to provide funds from within this program
to continue at current levels the earthquake hazard mitigation
program with the city of Portland and the Oregon Department of
Geology and Mineral Industries, to develop earthquake hazard
maps and information to assist local emergency planners, land
use planners, public officials, utilities, and businesses in
reducing potential loss of life and property in the event of a
major earthquake.
The Committee encourages FEMA to work with the Department
of the Army to further the Federal emergency management
information system developed by the Army and FEMA for the
Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program [CSEPP/
FEMIS].
The Committee urges FEMA to support the Pittsford, VT, Fire
Academy to enable it to expand training to rail and toxic
material accidents. FEMA should also consider funding a
regional dispatch for Chittenden County, VT.
FEMA is urged to reimburse Cameron Parish, LA, for eligible
costs incurred as a result of their request for a revision of
flood insurance rate maps.
The Committee has not provided bill language requested by
the administration providing an advance appropriation for
fiscal year 1997.
emergency food and shelter
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $130,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 130,000,000
House allowance......................................... 100,000,000
Committee recommendation
100,000,000
program description
The Emergency Food and Shelter Program originated as a one-
time emergency appropriation to combat the effects of high
unemployment in the emergency jobs bill (Public Law 98-8) which
was enacted in March 1983. It was authorized under title III of
the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, Public
Law 100-177.
The program has been administered by a national board and
the majority of the funding has been spent for providing
temporary food and shelter for the homeless, participating
organizations being restricted by legislation from spending
more than 2 percent of the funding received for administrative
costs. The administrative ceiling was increased to 5 percent
under the McKinney Act. However, subsequent appropriation acts
limited administrative expenses to 3.5 percent.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the Emergency
Food and Shelter Program, the same level proposed by the House.
This is $30,000,000 less than the budget request and the fiscal
year 1995 level.
national flood insurance fund
(transfers of funds)
program description
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
authorizes the Federal Government to provide flood insurance on
a national basis. Flood insurance may be sold or continued in
force only in communities which enact and enforce appropriate
flood plain management measures. Communities must participate
in the program within 1 year of the time they are identified as
flood-prone in order to be eligible for flood insurance and
some forms of Federal financial assistance for acquisition or
construction purposes. In 1994, the budget assumes collection
of all the administrative and program costs associated with
flood insurance activities from policyholders.
Under the Emergency Program, structures in identified
flood-prone areas are eligible for limited amounts of coverage
at subsidized insurance rates. Under the regular program,
studies must be made of different flood risks in flood prone
areas to establish actuarial premium rates. These rates are
charged for insurance on new construction. Coverage is
available on virtually all types of buildings and their
contents.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided bill language enabling the
Agency to transfer $20,562,000 for administrative costs from
the Flood Insurance Program to the salaries and expenses
appropriation. The Committee has also included bill language
enabling the transfer of $70,464,000 to the emergency
management planning and assistance appropriation for flood
mitigation activities including up to $12,000,000 for expenses
under section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act.
The Committee has not included House bill language related
to flood insurance rate maps for the city of Stockton, CA.
The Committee has not included bill language requested by
the administration with respect to flood insurance rate
premiums.
The Committee believes FEMA should not suspend, revoke, or
in any way limit the participation of St. Charles County, MO,
in the National Flood Insurance Program solely due to that
county, or communities in that county, permitting levee
improvements to a public-sponsored levee district as permitted
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
administrative provisions
The Committee has included an administrative provision, as
in the past, authorizing FEMA to collect fees in support of the
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program, which are treated
as offsetting collections to the appropriation for this
activity.
The Committee has not approved FEMA's proposal to establish
a working capital fund in fiscal year 1996. FEMA is to pilot
such a program in fiscal year 1996, and report to the Committee
on its progress.
General Services Administration
consumer information center
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $2,004,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 2,061,000
House allowance......................................... 2,061,000
Committee recommendation
2,061,000
program description
The Consumer Information Center [CIC] was established
within the General Services Administration [GSA] by Executive
order on October 26, 1970, to help Federal departments and
agencies promote and distribute consumer information collected
as a byproduct of the Government's program activities.
The CIC promotes greater public awareness of existing
Federal publications through wide dissemination to the general
public of the Consumer Information Catalog. The catalog lists
both sales and free publications available from the Government
Printing Office [GPO] distribution facility in Pueblo, CO. In
fiscal year 1993, the CIC distributed a total of 11.7 million
publications. Distribution costs of the free publications are
financed by reimbursements from the Federal agencies to the
Consumer Information Center.
Public Law 98-63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a
revolving fund for the CIC. Under this fund, CIC activities are
financed from the following: annual appropriations from the
general funds of the Treasury, reimbursements from agencies for
distribution of publications, user fees collected from the
public, and any other income incident to CIC activities. All
are available as authorized in appropriation acts without
regard to fiscal year limitations.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $2,061,000 for the Consumer
Information Center, as requested by the administration and
provided by the House an administrative expense limitation of
$2,602,000.
The Committee notes that it has transferred to the Consumer
Information Center certain functions currently performed by the
Office of Consumer Affairs, which is to be terminated. These
functions include production of the Consumer Resource Handbook
and organizing the Consumer Resource Exposition. The Committee
believes CIC will be able to undertake these activities within
the amount appropriated.
The Committee has provided CIC with an increase of $100,000
in its administrative expense limitation over the budget
request to enable CIC to cover the costs of updating the
Consumer Resource Handbook.
More than one-half of the appropriated amount that the
Committee has provided to CIC is for personnel compensation and
benefits. Maintenance of a high-quality staff is critical to
the continued success of the Center. Therefore, CIC is
encouraged to utilize all sources to recruit and fill positions
funded by this Committee.
Department of Health and Human Services
u.s. office of consumer affairs
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $2,166,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 1,811,000
House allowance......................................... 1,811,000
Committee recommendation
...........................
program description
In accordance with Executive Order 11583 of February 24,
1971, the U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs assures that consumer
needs and viewpoints are presented in the Federal Government;
fosters consideration of consumer viewpoints by other
Government agencies, voluntary groups, and business; and seeks
to inform and educate individual citizens to deal more
effectively in the marketplace.
The Office also provides administrative support to the
Consumer Affairs Council. The functions of the Council are to
provide leadership and coordination to insure that agency
consumer programs are implemented effectively, promote
efficiency and interagency cooperation, and to eliminate
duplication and inconsistency among agency consumer programs.
committee recommendation
The Committee has eliminated funding for the Office of
Consumer Affairs, owing to budgetary constraints. The Committee
has transferred OCA's functions of producing the Consumer
Resource Handbook and organizing the Constituent Resource
Exposition to the Consumer Information Center.
The Committee notes that OCA has not been a priority within
the administration. Its proposed fiscal year 1996 budget
represents a reduction of 27 percent in staff, and the
administration has yet to appoint a new director almost 1 year
after the former Director's departure.
As part of the Department of Health and Human Services, OCA
career staff may be transferred to other positions within HHS.
The Committee recommends inclusion of bill language to
facilitate this transfer of personnel and responsibilities
associated with closure of this Office.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Appropriations, 1995
$14,376,684,000
Budget estimate, 1996
14,260,000,000
House allowance
13,671,800,000
Committee recommendation
13,798,500,000
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was
established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958
to conduct space and aeronautical research, development, and
flight activities for peaceful purposes designed to maintain
U.S. preeminence in aeronautics and space. These activities are
designed to continue the Nation's premier program of space
exploration and to invest in the development of new
technologies to improve the competitive position of the United
States. The NASA program provides for a vigorous national
program ensuring leadership in world aviation and as the
preeminent spacefaring nation.
The fiscal year 1996 budget for NASA reflects the budget
accounting restructuring that was adopted in fiscal year 1995.
The three restructured accounts are: Human space flight;
science, aeronautics, and technology; and mission support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $13,798,500,000 for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 1996. This
amount is $461,500,000 below the budget request and
$126,700,000 above the House allowance. When adjusting the 1995
enacted level for the $92,000,000 rescission and the
$365,000,000 deferral contained in Public Laws 104-19 and 104-
6, respectively, the recommended budget for NASA for fiscal
year 1996 is $121,184,000 or 1 percent below the adjusted 1995
level.
NASA DOWNSIZING
NASA has recently completed a comprehensive zero-base
review which aims to achieve $4,000,000,000 in savings over 4
years in order to comply with the administration's fiscal year
1997-2000 out-year budget plans. NASA has focused the
downsizing on operations and infrastructure while seeking to
maintain its essential ground research and flight programs. The
Committee is pleased that NASA is taking these steps to
downsize and increase the efficiency of its operations. The
Committee emphasizes, however, that the very survival of NASA's
major programs may depend upon the successful implementation of
this effort.
The recommended fiscal year 1996 budget builds on the
recommendations of the zero-base review, namely, it identifies
savings in operational and institutional activities while
avoiding reductions to major programs. The recommended agency
budget fully funds the request for aeronautics, space science,
space station development, and the Mission to Planet Earth
Flight Program. Over 70 percent of the recommended savings are
from operational and institutional activities with the
remainder taken from lower priority activities.
The Committee shares the House concern that the difficult
budget outlook for fiscal year 1997 and beyond could require
that NASA examine major changes to NASA programs and the
further restructuring of its field center activities. However,
recognizing the 30 percent reduction in its multiyear plan NASA
has already absorbed over the past 3 years, the Committee
believes that NASA's successful achievement of the
$4,000,000,000 in savings identified through the zero-base
review requires a period of stability for institutional self
assessment and program revision. Consequently, the Committee
does not concur with the House direction that NASA undertake
yet another study of additional restructuring or closing of
field centers at this time and recommends deletion of the bill
language proposed by the House. The Committee instead directs
NASA to submit to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by May 15, 1996, a report on the agency's
progress in implementing the recommendations of the zero-base
review for use by the Committee in consideration of the fiscal
year 1997 budget request.
HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $5,514,897,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 5,509,600,000
House allowance......................................... 5,449,600,000
Committee recommendation
5,337,600,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The objective of the human space flight appropriation is to
provide the on-orbit infrastructure and transportation
capability to enable people to live and work in the space
environment. The appropriations request would provide funding
for the continued development of the space station and
activities which support utilization of the space station, the
flight activities in support of the joint missions involving
the space shuttle and the Russian Mir space station, all the
activities required for the continuing safe operation of the
space shuttle, and funding for the support of payloads flying
on the shuttle and spacelab as well as advanced technology
projects and engineering technical base support for the field
centers supporting human space flight activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,337,600,000
for human space flight activities. This amount is $172,000,000
below the budget request, and $112,000,000 below the House
allowance.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request:
-$53,000,000 from the closure of the Yellow Creek facility at
Iuka, MS. The Committee concurs with bill language
included by the House that allows for the transfer of
the Yellow Creek facility to the State of Mississippi.
-$97,000,000 from space shuttle activities to be taken as a
general reduction subject to normal reprogramming
guidelines. The Committee urges implementation of
program reforms that maximize budget savings while
continuing to place safety first. These reforms as
recommended by the independent review led by
Christopher Kraft include freezing the shuttle
configuration, reducing personnel support, scrubbing
requirements, streamlining payload integration, and
instituting a prime contractor management structure.
The zero-base review projects up to $1,300,000,000 in
savings from these reforms over 4 years. The Committee
urges the expeditious implementation of a comprehensive
space shuttle contract approach which maintains system
safety, achieves program requirements at lower cost,
and supports a robust and competitive supplier base.
NASA should consider modifications in flight activity
scheduling if the budgetary reductions recommended by
the Committee cannot be achieved through greater
efficiencies alone.
-$17,000,000 from the engineering and technical base, to be
taken as a general reduction subject to normal
reprogramming guidelines.
-$5,000,000 from advanced projects.
SPACE STATION
The Committee has provided the full amount requested,
$1,833,600,000, in the ``Human space flight'' account for space
station development, operations, and utilization support. The
Committee strongly endorses a robust and vigorous human space
flight program with space station as the most critical element.
The space station promises to be a world-class orbital
laboratory that will enable exciting new research that can only
be conducted in space. Benefits in medical research, materials
and life sciences, technology, engineering, and robotics will
improve life here on Earth. With the first launch in only 26
months, the space station will ensure a new era of peaceful
international cooperation and U.S. preeminence in space.
The Committee has transferred bill language that delays
$390,000,000 from obligation from space station until August 1,
1996. Delay of obligations has been enacted in previous acts as
an effective means for exerting budgetary discipline and
oversight. With assurances that the delay will have no adverse
program consequences, the Committee recommends this language be
included for fiscal year 1996 as a new administrative
provision. The Committee expects the program to remain on
schedule for initiation of on-orbit assembly in November 1997,
and to remain within the program budget cap of $17,400,000,000
for assembly complete by June 2002.
The Committee fully supports deployment of the space
station but recognizes that funds appropriated by this act for
the development of the space station may not be adequate to
cover all potential contractual commitments should the program
be terminated for the convenience of the Government.
Accordingly, if the space station is terminated for the
convenience of the Government, additional appropriated funds
may be necessary to cover such contractual commitments. In the
event of such termination, it would be the intent of the
Committee to provide such additional appropriations as may be
necessary to provide fully for termination payments in a manner
which avoids impacting the conduct of other ongoing NASA
programs.
SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, and TECHNOLOGY
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $5,891,200,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 6,006,900,000
House allowance......................................... 5,588,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,960,700,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The objectives of the NASA program of research and
development are to extend knowledge of the Earth, its space
environment, and the universe; to expand the practical
applications of space technology; to provide technology for
improving the performance of aeronautical vehicles while
minimizing their environmental effects and energy consumption;
and to assure continued development of the aeronautics and
space technology and education of future generations necessary
to accomplish national goals.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,960,700,000
for science, aeronautics, and technology activities. This
amount is $46,200,000 below the budget request, and
$372,700,000 above the House allowance.
SPACE SCIENCE
The Committee recommends $2,054,400,000 for fiscal year
1996, an increase of $95,500,000 to the budget request. The
Committee recommends the following changes to the budget
request:
-$5,000,000 from the space infrared telescope facility
[SIRTF]. The remaining $10,000,000 in funding should be
sufficient for NASA to conduct phase A/B definition
studies. The Committee is concerned about the large
total program cost given anticipated future budget
constraints. A decision by the Committee whether to
approve phase C/D development will be considered based
on future NASA requests and funding availability.
+$51,500,000 for gravity probe-B [GP-B]. In October 1994,
NASA requested that the National Academy of Sciences
validate the technical feasibility and scientific merit
of GP-B relative to other science priorities within the
NASA budget. NASA has spent $220,000,000 on the program
thus far with another $340,000,000 needed for
completion. The academy found, the GP-B project well
worth its remaining cost to completion. Consequently,
the Committee recommends the program proceed as
planned.
+$46,000,000 for initiation of the Solar-Terrestrial Probes
[STP] Program. Consistent with the NASA Office of Space
Science strategic plan and Senate Report 103-311, the
Committee again directs that NASA proceed with the STP
Program of which TIMED is the first mission. The
Committee recommends $41,000,000 to initiate this
mission which is capped at $100,000,000 (in fiscal year
1994 dollars) for spacecraft development. The Committee
also recommends $5,000,000 for design studies toward
full development of the inner magnetospheric imager,
the second in the STP series of missions recommended by
the science community.
+$3,000,000 for university explorer [UNEX], a university-led
program to develop small inexpensive spacecraft for
astronomy and space physics missions.
NEW MILLENNIUM INITIATIVE
The Committee commends NASA for the new millennium
initiative that could revolutionize the way the agency designs,
builds, launches, and operates small spacecraft. The initiative
includes 495,000,000 dollars' worth of programs such as
discovery, Mars surveyor, explorer, small spacecraft technology
initiative, new millennium spacecraft, et cetera, and is
managed by various NASA offices. The Committee is concerned,
however, that the various programs be properly coordinated and
that the management method reflect a focus of reducing life-
cycle costs. As a result, NASA is directed to undertake
development of a comprehensive program plan that at a minimum
describes how programs are selected, managed, and coordinated
within NASA and with industry and other Government agencies;
what are the priorities, procurement processes, and budget
plans; and what performance measures will be used to insure
that the programs are succeeding and the technologies are being
effectively transferred into commercial and other Government
programs.
The plan should also identify technical and programmatic
strategies that promise the highest payoff in reducing life-
cycle costs including development, launch, operations, and data
analysis. The Committee urges NASA to utilize the Critical
Technologies Institute to conduct a comparative analysis of
programs at NASA, the Department of Defense, other Government
agencies, and the commercial sector that are pursuing methods
that reduce life-cycle costs.
LIFE AND MICROGRAVITY SCIENCES
The Committee recommends $467,000,000 for fiscal year 1996,
a decrease of $37,000,000 to the budget request. The Committee
recommends the reduction be made to space station payload
facilities. NASA should seek to replace development of one or
two of these facilities through in-kind contributions from the
space station international partners. NASA should continue the
development of the space station furnace facility given its
level of development maturity.
The Committee directs NASA to conduct an investigation in
cooperation with the National Center for Sleep Disorders
Research of the National Institutes of Health [NIH] into the
effect of sleep disorders, circadian rhythm disruptions, and
physiological fatigue on human health and performance in the
operation of vehicles. NASA and NIH should also review studies
ongoing and completed by the Federal Highway Administration on
driver fatigue to assess the study methodology and conclusions,
and compare these results with the other NASA and NIH research.
NASA and NIH should jointly report back to the Committee by
September 30, 1996.
MISSION TO PLANET EARTH
The Committee recommends $1,280,100,000 for fiscal year
1996, a decrease of $61,000,000 to the budget request. The
National Academy of Sciences recently reviewed the Earth
observing system [EOS] Program and reaffirmed the program goal
and overall approach of providing scientific understanding of
Earth as an integrated system. The National Academy, however,
suggested significant potential reforms to the EOS data
information system [EOSDIS].
As a result, the Committee recommends a $60,000,000
reduction to EOSDIS which would freeze it at the fiscal year
1995 budget level. It is the Committee's understanding that
this reduction will not have a significant adverse effect on
the objectives of the EOS Program. As NASA reexamines the
EOSDIS, the Committee expects that the distributed active
archive centers at Goddard Space Flight Center and the Earth
Resources Observation System Data Center will remain core
elements of a revamped EOSDIS. NASA should submit a report to
the Committee with its fiscal year 1997 budget request, on its
plans to implement the National Academy recommendations.
The Committee also strongly urges that NASA seek greater
commercial, international, and Government participation in the
program with the goal of reducing program costs. Examples
include closer cooperation with the Department of Defense and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, data buys
from the commercial sector, and in-kind contributions from
space station international partners for flight of opportunity
missions. The Committee encourages NASA to seek additional out-
year budget savings through the introduction of smaller
spacecraft and advanced ground and space technologies.
Accordingly, the Committee views the planned Earth System
Science Pathfinder Program as an important component of such a
strategy and urges NASA to demonstrate missions that could
dramatically lower costs. To initiate the program in fiscal
year 1996, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 toward full
development of a windsat mission.
The Committee concurs with the House recommendation
deleting the $6,000,000 request from the consortium for
international Earth science information network. The Committee
urges NASA to integrate CIESIN activities within its EOS plan
for fiscal year 1996.
AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
The Committee recommends the budget request of $917,300,000
for fiscal year 1996. Aeronautics is a vital factor in the
economic well being of the United States and in assuring a
strong national defense. This sector is associated with more
than 8.5 million American jobs and provides $25,000,000,000 in
exports annually, exceeding that of any other manufacturing
sector. The current position that the United States enjoys as a
world leader is a direct consequence of past investments made
by NASA, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. commercial
aeronautics industry. Continued Federal investments will be
required to sustain U.S. leadership given increasing
competition in the international marketplace. The Committee
strongly believes that aeronautics research is one of NASA's
highest priority activities. Hence, the Committee fully funds
the budget request including the critical programs in high
speed research and advanced subsonic technology and two
important initiatives in affordable design and manufacturing
and advanced air traffic technology.
SPACE ACCESS AND TECHNOLOGY
The Committee recommends $678,400,000 for fiscal year 1996,
a decrease of $27,200,000 to the budget request. The Committee
recommends the following changes to the budget request:
-$7,000,000 from partnership for next generation vehicle.
-$7,200,000 from advanced space transportation to be taken as
a general reduction subject to normal reprogramming
guidelines. None of the reduction should be taken from
the Reusable Launch Vehicle Program.
-$20,000,000 from flight programs to be taken as a general
reduction subject to normal reprogramming guidelines.
None of the reduction should be taken from the
Commercial Mid-deck Augmentation Module Program and IN-
STEP projects in phase C/D development.
-$13,000,000 from commercial technology programs to be taken
as a general reduction subject to normal reprogramming
guidelines. The recommended budget will maintain the
program at the fiscal year 1994 funding level. The
Committee notes the successful progress being achieved
by the National Technology Transfer Center and Adanet.
The Committee recommends a review be undertaken by the
National Academy of Public Administration to determine
the overall effectiveness of NASA's technology transfer
program and recommendations to improve it. The review
should also examine the effectiveness of NASA's Small
Business Innovative Research Program. A final report
should be submitted to the Committee in April 1996.
The Committee strongly supports the Medlite procurement by
NASA which reflects a commercial approach to the procurement of
launch services which hold significant promise in reducing
Government cost and stimulating private investment in
economically viable space-based enterprises.
REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE
The Committee strongly supports the goal of the Reusable
Launch Vehicle [RLV] Program to develop new technologies in
partnership with industry that are targeted to dramatically
reduce development and operational launch costs. The Committee
recommends an additional $20,000,000 for the X-33 Program. The
additional funding proposed will help ensure meeting the
schedule for the first flight by providing for requirements
such as long lead items.
ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
The Committee recommends $102,200,000 for fiscal year 1996,
a decrease of $16,500,000 to the budget request and no change
from the fiscal year 1995 appropriation level. The education
programs in the aggregate should be at a minimum at the fiscal
year 1995 level. The Committee urges NASA to consider funding
the Discovery Center project in Sioux Falls, SD, pending
authorization. This proposed center is aimed at significantly
enhancing science, educational, and outreach services for an
undeserved region of the country. From within the available
funds, $1,000,000 shall be made available to support a Rural
Teacher Resource Center and an additional $1,000,000 to support
the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
[EPSCoR]. Given projected fiscal constraints, the Committee
believes that future annual funding for agencywide education
programs should not exceed its proportion of the overall NASA
appropriated budget for fiscal year 1996.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICAL FACILITIES
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $400,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The objective of the national aeronautical facilities
appropriation is to support a decision whether to construct a
national wind tunnel complex [NWTC] that consists of two new
wind tunnels for testing future commercial jet transports and
military aircraft. These tunnels, one subsonic and one
transonic, would provide a combination of flight condition
simulation and testing efficiency unmatched in the world. These
tunnels should be available by the turn of the century to
provide the United States with the competitive edge needed for
future generations of wide-body commercial transport
competition.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has provided no additional funds for the NWTC
in anticipation of a proposal from the administration for its
construction, and a request for fiscal year 1997.
The Committee continues to support strongly the NWTC as a
strategic investment and a critical element of an integrated
national aeronautics research and test plan. Although NASA and
the industry team have made substantial progress, it is
apparent that active Department of Defense financial
participation is required if the NWTC is to be developed.
Toward that end, the Committee urges NASA, the industry
partners, and the administration to enlist DOD financial
support in the development and utilization of the NWTC and to
submit a proposal with this included for consideration by the
Congress as part of the fiscal year 1997 budget request.
The Committee is well aware of the fiscal constraints that
face both NASA and DOD. However, the Committee believes that a
phased NASA/DOD/industry financing plan could address some of
these concerns. The Committee also believes that development of
the NWTC would permit greater economy and efficiency in
aeronautical research and test activities which should produce
budget savings in the out-years.
The Committee urges the expeditious completion of the
administration program plan and financing proposal for a NWTC,
to permit timely release of available fiscal year 1995 NASA
NWTC funds and the initiation of siting activities.
MISSION SUPPORT
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $2,554,587,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 2,726,200,000
House allowance......................................... 2,618,200,000
Committee recommendation
2,484,200,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides for mission support including
safety, reliability, and mission 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
operations activities supporting conduct of agency programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $2,484,200,000 for mission
support. This amount is $242,000,000 below the budget request,
and $134,000,000 below the House allowance. The Committee
recommends the following changes to the budget request:
-$108,000,000 in salaries and related expenses resulting from
the voluntary retirements during the current year which
had not been anticipated when the fiscal year 1996
budget was submitted.
-$47,000,000 from research and operations support, subject to
reprogramming guidelines.
-$56,000,000 from space communications, to be applied at the
agency's discretion subject to reprogramming
guidelines. The NASA zero-base review estimates savings
up to $600,000,000 over 4 years from services similar
to the tracking and data relay satellite [TDRS] system.
The Committee requests a review be undertaken by NASA
that compares the technical, schedule, and budget of
the current plan for a firm buy of three TDRS
replenishment spacecraft against an alternative
strategy. The alternative would include a firm buy of
only one replenishment spacecraft to meet near-term
needs and defer a decision on long-term needs whether
to buy additional replenishment spacecrafts or utilize
advanced technologies and planned commercial systems.
The study should be submitted to the Committee by
December 1, 1995.
-$31,000,000 from construction of facilities, to be taken as
a general reduction subject to normal reprogramming
guidelines. The recommended funding level is the same
as the fiscal year 1995 appropriation level.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $16,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 17,300,000
House allowance......................................... 16,000,000
Committee recommendation
16,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Inspector General was established by the
Inspector General Act of 1978. The Office is responsible for
providing agencywide audit and investigative functions to
identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies
which create conditions for existing or potential instances of
fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for fiscal year 1996,
a decrease of $1,300,000 to the budget request and no change
from the fiscal year 1995 appropriation level.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
(including transfer of funds)
The Committee recommendation includes a series of
provisions, proposed by the administration and included by the
House, which are largely technical in nature, concerning the
availability of funds, and the restructured appropriation
account structure proposed for NASA in fiscal year 1995. These
provisions have been carried in prior-year appropriation acts.
As noted earlier in this report, the Committee recommends
bill language, included in the House-passed bill, to ensure
clear conveyance of title to the property known as the Yellow
Creek facility to the State of Mississippi.
The Committee recommends deletion of House bill language
regarding use of appropriated funds for the lease or
construction of a new contractor-funded facility. Nonetheless,
the Committee expects NASA will continue to adhere to the
policy intent of avoiding excessive future-year funding
commitments.
The Committee recommends a new administrative provision
delaying the availability of $390,000,000 for development of
the international space station. This provision is discussed
earlier in this report.
National Credit Union Administration
central liquidity facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct loan Administrative
limitation expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995.............. ($600,000,000) ($901,000)
Budget estimate, 1996............. (600,000,000) (560,000)
House allowance................... (600,000,000) (560,000)
Committee recommendation.......... (600,000,000) (560,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The National Credit Union Administration [NCUA] Central
Liquidity Facility [CLF] was created by the National Credit
Union Central Liquidity Facility Act (Public Law 95-630) as a
mixed-ownership Government corporation within the National
Credit Union Administration. It is managed by the National
Credit Union Administration Board and is owned by its member
credit unions.
The purpose of the facility is to improve the general
financial stability of credit unions by meeting their seasonal
and emergency liquidity needs and thereby encourage savings,
support consumer and mortgage lending, and provide basic
financial resources to all segments of the economy. To become
eligible for facility services, credit unions invest in the
capital stock of the facility, and the facility uses the
proceeds of such investments and the proceeds of borrowed funds
to meet the liquidity needs of credit unions. The primary
sources of funds for the facility are the stock subscriptions
from credit unions and borrowings.
The facility may borrow funds from any source, with the
amount of borrowing limited by Public Law 95-630 to 12 times
the amount of subscribed capital stock and surplus.
Loans are available to meet short-term requirements for
funds attributable to emergency outflows from managerial
difficulties or local economic downturns. Seasonal credit is
also provided to accommodate fluctuations caused by cyclical
changes in such areas as agriculture, education, and retail
business. Loans can also be made to offset protracted credit
problems caused by factors such as regional economic decline.
committee recommendation
The Committee concurs with the House in recommending the
administration's proposed limitation of $600,000,000 in loans
from the central liquidity facility for fiscal year 1996. In
addition, the Committee recommends the budget request of
limiting administrative expenses for the CLF to $560,000 in
fiscal year 1996, the same as proposed in the House.
National Science Foundation
Appropriations, 1995..................................\1\ $3,228,653,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 3,360,000,000
House allowance......................................... 3,160,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,200,000,000
\1\ Reflects rescission of $131,867,000 in Public Law 104-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The National Science Foundation was established as an
independent agency by the National Science Foundation Act of
1950 (Public Law 81-507) and is authorized to support basic and
applied research, science and technology policy research, and
science and engineering education programs to promote the
progress of science and engineering in the United States.
The Foundation supports fundamental and applied research in
all major scientific and engineering disciplines, through
grants, contracts, and other forms of assistance, such as
cooperative agreements, awarded to more than 2,000 colleges and
universities, and to nonprofit organizations and other research
organizations in all parts of the United States. The Foundation
also supports major national and international programs and
research facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $3,200,000,000 for the National
Science Foundation for fiscal year 1996. This amount is
$28,653,000 below the 1995 level, $160,000,000 below the budget
request, and $40,000,000 above the House allowance.
RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $2,245,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 2,454,000,000
House allowance......................................... 2,254,000,000
Committee recommendation
2,294,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The research and related activities appropriation addresses
Foundation goals to enable the United States to uphold world
leadership in all aspects of science and engineering, and to
promote the discovery, integration, dissemination, and
employment of new knowledge in service to society. Research
activities will contribute to the achievement of these goals
through expansion of the knowledge base; integration of
research and education; stimulation of knowledge transfer among
academia and the public and private sectors; and bringing the
perspectives of many disciplines to bear on complex problems
important to the Nation.
The Foundation's discipline-oriented research programs are:
biological sciences; computer and information science and
engineering; engineering; geosciences; mathematical and
physical sciences; and social, behavioral and economic
sciences. Also included are U.S. polar research programs, U.S.
antarctic logistical support activities, and the Critical
Technologies Institute.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,294,000,000
for research and related activities. This amount is $49,000,000
above the fiscal year 1995 level, $160,000,000 below the budget
request, and $40,000,000 above the House allowance. The
reduction recommended by the Committee is a general reduction
to be applied at the Foundation's discretion, subject to normal
reprogramming guidelines. The Committee urges NSF to consider
actions it might take to enhance the linkages between research
and education at both the graduate and undergraduate level.
NSF-supported centers.--NSF currently manages a multitude
of centers including the science and technology centers,
engineering research centers, materials research centers, and
so on. The Committee recommends an independent review to
determine NSF's effectiveness in managing these various center
programs. The review should build on the review completed by
the National Academy of Public Administration and examine
methods used for evaluating performance, discontinuing weak
centers, and encouraging centers to seek financial independence
where appropriate. The review should also recommend ways to
strengthen coordination between programs and opportunities for
restructuring or consolidating programs.
Optical and infrared astronomy.--The report from National
Academy of Sciences on ground-based optical and infrared
astronomy recommends that a modest level of Federal funds for
facilities instrumentation be allocated only to independent
observatories that agree to provide national access to their
facilities in proportion to the funds provided. Although
current budget restraints make funding this activity difficult,
the Committee believes that the Foundation should explore other
sources to initiate this innovative concept. One possibility is
the ``Academic research infrastructure'' account. In that
connection, the Committee strongly urges that the NSF modify
current programmatic guidelines as necessary to enable
astronomy facility proposals to compete for an increased share
of the academic research infrastructure funds.
Opportunity fund.--Last year the Committee provided the
Foundation with encouragement to create an opportunity fund to
assist the Foundation in responding quickly to emerging or
unique opportunities in science and engineering. The Committee
also supported the Foundation's proposal to create an office of
multidisciplinary activities within the mathematical and
physical sciences activity. This office was created, in part,
as a way to more strategically leverage the directorate's
resources. The Committee reiterates its support for the use of
these management tools and expects the Foundation to provide an
update as part of its current plan submission, and include a
description of the use of these authorities in the
justification accompanying the NSF budget request.
Arctic research vessel.--The Committee understands that the
National Academy of Sciences is currently preparing a report on
arctic research issues due out shortly. The General Accounting
Office recently released a report questioning the need for an
additional arctic research vessel. The Committee requests that
the Foundation provide a response to the Academy and the GAO
reports and determine the need for an arctic research vessel
given scientific and budgetary considerations. Preprocurement
activities may proceed as necessary to support the Foundation's
response and could include examination of purchase options. The
response should be submitted along with the Foundation's
response to the results of the Antarctic review discussed
below.
U.S. ANTARCTIC PROGRAM
Presidential Memorandum 6646 issued in 1982 calls on NSF to
be the lead agency for the U.S. Antarctic Program. That policy
directive calls for this Nation to maintain a year-round active
presence on the continent and to maintain three stations:
McMurdo, Palmer, and South Pole. The cost to maintain a U.S.
presence in Antarctic is expensive due to the remote location
and severe weather conditions. The NSF required $166,770,000 in
logistics and operations support in fiscal year 1995 to support
$29,060,000 in scientific research activities.
The Committee is very concerned about the ability for NSF
to continue to fund a U.S. permanent presence on the continent
given severe budget constraints. This situation is exacerbated
by the need for NSF to upgrade or replace its aging facilities
such as $200,000,000 estimated to replace the deteriorating
South Pole station. The Committee questions whether the 1982
policy to maintain a presence in the Antarctic is still valid.
As a result, the Committee directs the National Science and
Technology Council to undertake a Governmentwide policy review
of the U.S. presence in the Antarctic. The review should
examine the validity of the policy contained in Memorandum
6646, namely, the need for a year-round presence, the need for
three stations, and the roles of the NSF, Department of
Defense, and other Government agencies. The review should
examine the policy in the context of the value of the science
performed in Antarctica and other U.S. interests. Finally, the
review should address the affordability of continued U.S.
presence in Antarctica in light of the severe budget
environment and examine options for reducing annual logistical
and operational budget needs. At a minimum, budget saving
options should include greater international cooperation, less
than a year-round human presence, and closing of one or more of
the stations. The results of the review should be submitted to
the Committee by March 31, 1996.
MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $126,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 70,000,000
House allowance......................................... 70,000,000
Committee recommendation
70,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The major research equipment activity will support the
construction and procurement of unique national research
platforms and major research equipment. Projects supported by
this appropriation will push the boundaries of technological
design and will offer significant expansion of opportunities,
often in new directions, for the science and engineering
community.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $70,000,000
for major research equipment. This amount is $56,000,000 below
the fiscal year 1995 level, the same as the House allowance,
and will provide for the total amount requested in the
President's budget for construction of the Laser Interferometer
Gravitational Wave Observatory [LIGO].
ACADEMIC RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE
Appropriations, 1995....................................\1\ $118,133,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 100,000,000
House allowance......................................... 100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 100,000,000
\1\ Reflects rescission of $131,867,000 in Public Law 104-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The goal of the Academic Research Infrastructure Program is
to improve the research infrastructure by funding, on a cost-
sharing basis, the development and acquisition of major
instruments, and the repair and renovation of academic research
facilities. The program will support the acquisition of the
major modern scientific instruments for our Nation's
laboratories and advance the Nation's research and research
training efforts. This also provides competitively awarded
grants for the repair, renovation, or, in exceptional cases,
replacement of facilities used for research and research
training at academic and other nonprofit institutions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000
for academic research infrastructure. This amount is
$18,133,000 below the fiscal year 1995 level, and the same as
the House allowance and the President's budget request. The
Committee expects these funds to continue to apply to both
facilities and instrumentation modernization.
EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $605,974,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 599,000,000
House allowance......................................... 599,000,000
Committee recommendation
599,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Education and human resources activities provide a
comprehensive set of programs across all levels of education in
science, mathematics, and technology. At the precollege level,
the appropriation provides for new instructional material and
techniques, and enrichment activities for teachers and
students. Undergraduate initiatives support curriculum
improvement, facility enhancement, and advanced technological
education. Graduate level support is directed primarily to
research fellowships and traineeships. Emphasis is given to
systemic reform through components that address urban, rural,
and statewide efforts in precollege education, and programs
which seek to broaden the participation of States and regions
in science and engineering.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $599,000,000
for education and human resources. This amount is $6,974,000
below the fiscal year 1995 level, and equal to the House
allowance and President's budget request.
The Committee has provided the budget request for the
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
[EPSCoR]. This competitive-based program allows for smaller
universities to conduct research and provide better educational
opportunities for students. The EPSCoR is vital in providing
research dollars to a broad array of capable institutions in a
more equitable geographical distribution. In order to ensure
that NSF continue to support nationally competitive academic
research, maintaining funding for EPSCoR is critical.
The Committee strongly urges the National Science
Foundation to continue the competitive, merit-based program to
support the efforts of States to develop electronic libraries.
These libraries shall provide delivery of and access to a
variety of data bases, computer programs, and interactive
multimedia presentations, including educational materials,
research information, statistics, and reports developed by
Federal, State and local governments, and other information and
information services which can be carried over computer
networks.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $123,966,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 127,310,000
House allowance......................................... 127,310,000
Committee recommendation
127,310,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The salaries and expenses appropriation provides for the
operation, management, and direction of all Foundation programs
and activities and includes necessary funds to develop and
coordinate NSF programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $127,310,000
for salaries and expenses. This amount is $3,344,000 above the
fiscal year 1995 level, and is the same as the House allowance
and the total amount requested in the President's budget.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $4,380,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 4,490,000
House allowance......................................... 4,490,000
Committee recommendation
4,490,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Inspector General appropriation provides
audit and investigation functions to identify and correct
deficiencies which could create potential instances of fraud,
waste, or mismanagement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,490,000 for
the Office of Inspector General in fiscal year 1996. This
amount is $110,000 above the fiscal year 1995 level, and is the
same as the House allowance and the amount requested in the
President's budget.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION HEADQUARTERS RELOCATION
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $5,200,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 5,200,000
House allowance......................................... 5,200,000
Committee recommendation
5,200,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The NSF headquarters relocation appropriation provides
reimbursement to the General Services Administration for
expenses incurred by GSA pursuant to the relocation of NSF.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,200,000 for
NSF headquarters relocation. This amount is the same as the
fiscal year 1995 level, House allowance, and the amount in the
President's budget request.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $38,667,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 55,000,000
House allowance......................................... 38,667,000
Committee recommendation
38,667,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by
the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public
Law 95-557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood reinvestment helps
local communities establish working partnerships between
residents and representatives of the public and private
sectors. The partnership-based organizations are independent,
tax-exempt, nonprofit entities: Neighborhood housing services
[NHS], mutual housing associations, and apartment improvement
programs. Collectively, these organizations are known as the
NeighborWorks network.
Nationally, the 177 NeighborWorks organizations
form a solid network in approximately 150 cities effectively
revitalizing over 348 neighborhoods. Of the neighborhoods, 71
percent of the people served are in the very low and low-income
brackets.
The NeighborWorks network improves the quality of
life in distressed neighborhoods for current residents,
increases homeownership through targeted lending efforts,
exerts a long-term, stabilizing influence on the neighborhood
business environment, and reverses neighborhood decline.
NeighborWorks organizations have been positively
impacting urban communities for over two decades, and more
recent experience is demonstrating the success of this approach
in rural communities when adequate resources are available.
Neighborhood reinvestment will continue to provide grants
to Neighborhood Housing Services of America [NHSA], the
NeighborWorks network's national secondary market.
The mission of NHSA is to utilize private sector support to
replenish local NeighborWorks organizations'
revolving loan funds. These loans are used to back securities
which are placed with private sector social investors.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee proposes $38,667,000 for the Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation. This amount is the same as the 1995
enacted level and the House allowance. The recommended level is
$16,333,000 less than the budget request. Funds should be
allocated consistent with the plans submitted as part of the
budget request.
The Committee remains highly supportive of this agency's
programs and activities. Budgetary constraints prevent granting
the requested increase, and this action is taken without
prejudice.
Selective Service System
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $22,930,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 23,304,000
House allowance......................................... 22,930,000
Committee recommendation
22,930,000
Program Description
The Selective Service System [SSS] was reestablished by the
Selective Service Act of 1948. The basic mission of the System
is to be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces
adequate to ensure the security of the United States during a
time of national emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have
relied on volunteers to fill military manpower requirements.
However, the Selective Service System remains the primary
vehicle by which men will be brought into the military if
Congress and the President should authorize a return to the
draft.
In December 1987, Selective Service was tasked by law
(Public Law 100-180, sec. 715) to develop plans for a
postmobilization health care personnel delivery system capable
of providing the necessary critically skilled health care
personnel to the Armed Forces in time of emergency. An
automated system capable of handling mass registration and
inductions is now complete, together with necessary draft
legislation, a draft Presidential proclamation, prototype forms
and letters, et cetera. These products will be available should
the need arise. The development of supplemental standby
products, such as a compliance system for health care
personnel, continues using very limited existing resources.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,930,000
for the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as
the House allowance and the fiscal year 1995 appropriation.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
fair housing activities
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $33,375,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 45,000,000
House allowance......................................... 30,000,000
Committee recommendation
30,000,000
program description
The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding
for both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the
Fair Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP].
The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local
agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968, as amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale,
rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of
brokerage services. The major objective of the program is to
assure prompt and effective processing of title VIII complaints
with appropriate remedies for complaints by State and local
fair housing agencies.
The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by
section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1987, as amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed
to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to
public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating
or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair
housing opportunities.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,000,000
for fair housing activities. This amount is $3,375,000 below
the 1995 level and the same as the House allowance. The
Committee recommendation is $15,000,000 less than the budget
request.
The Committee recommendation relocates all responsibilities
for fair housing issues currently housed in the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, including the Fair Housing
Assistance Program and the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, to
the Department of Justice. There has been substantial testimony
relating to the Department's inability to effectively
administer many of its core programs, and the Committee
emphasizes that the Department needs to focus on ensuring the
effective administration of its many programs.
Moreover, the intent of this provision is not to minimize
the importance of addressing housing discrimination in this
Nation; instead, the Department of Justice with its own
significant responsibilities to address all forms of
discrimination represents a good place to consolidate and to
provide consistency for the Federal Government to combat
discrimination, including discrimination relating to fair
housing. This type of consolidation is critical to effective
government. It is expected that HUD will provide the necessary
assistance to ensure the orderly transfer of authority. Nothing
in this provision is intended to provide Justice with authority
to promulgate property insurance regulations.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $15,451,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 14,895,000
House allowance......................................... 14,895,000
Committee recommendation
14,895,000
program description
This appropriation funds the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight [OFHEO], which was established in 1992 to
regulate the financial safety and soundness of the two housing
Government sponsored enterprises [GSE's], the Federal National
Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation. The Office was authorized in the Federal Housing
Enterprise Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also
instituted a three-part capital standard for the GSE's, and
gave the regulator enhanced authority to enforce those
standards.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,895,000
for the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. This
amount is $556,000 below the 1995 enacted level and the same as
the budget request and the House allowance. These costs will be
offset through assessments of the relevant Government-sponsored
enterprises.
The Committee recommendation appropriates funds to the
Department of the Treasury for the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight [OFHEO] which was authorized in the
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act
of 1992 to provide meaningful financial regulation to
substantially reduce for the public any potential risk of
exposure to the over $1,000,000,000,000 of GSE liabilities.
Heretofore, OFHEO was close aligned with the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
The Federal Government is in the process of reassessing its
responsibilities and consolidating many of its functions and
responsibilities. As part of this process, it is appropriate
that OFHEO as a financial regulator be made an office in the
Department of the Treasury and that all powers, rights, and
authority of the Director of OFHEO be transferred to the
Secretary of the Treasury. It is the belief of the Committee
that the expertise and experience of the Treasury will assist
OFHEO in carrying out its responsibilities and increase the
ability of OFHEO to establish in a timely manner a risk-based
capital test, as required under the Federal Housing Enterprises
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, to ensure the
financial well-being of the GSE's.
TITLE IV
CORPORATION
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
fslic resolution fund
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $827,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
program description
Section 215 of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery
and Enforcement Act [FIRREA] of 1989 (Public Law 101-73)
establishes the FSLIC resolution fund as a separate fund under
the management of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
[FDIC]. It assumes all assets and liabilities of the Federal
Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation [FSLIC] except those
expressly assumed by the Resolution Trust Corporation [RTC]
under FIRREA.
To meet its obligations arising from past transactions of
the FSLIC and other administrative expenses, the FSLIC
resolution fund may use funds available to it from: income
earned on its assets, or from the proceeds of their sale and
subsequent returns from receiverships. To the extent such funds
are insufficient to meet the obligations of the FSLIC
resolution fund, FIRREA authorizes to be appropriated to the
Secretary of the Treasury such funds as may be necessary to
cover the shortfall.
committee recommendation
No additional capitalization is necessary at this time for
activities of the fund. Amounts made available in prior years
remain available to cover all anticipated financial
requirements.
fdic affordable housing program
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 15,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
program description
Section 241 of the FDIC Improvement Act of 1991 authorized
an FDIC affordable housing program. The proposed program is
designed to provide homeownership and rental housing
opportunities for very low-income, low-income, and moderate-
income families by allowing the FDIC to acquire a title to, and
dispose of, single-family and multifamily housing properties.
Program funding would be provided through two Federal
appropriations for administrative and loss funds.
committee recommendation
The Committee has deleted funds for the FDIC affordable
housing program. The Committee commends the proponents of this
program for their commitment to the expansion of affordable
housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income families.
Given the plethora of housing programs already in existance
through HUD and other Federal agencies, however, the Committee
questions the value of yet another program, no matter the merit
of its intent.
Resolution Trust Corporation
office of inspector general
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $32,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 11,400,000
House allowance......................................... 11,400,000
Committee recommendation
11,400,000
program description
The Office of Inspector General provides independent
oversight of the savings and loan cleanup efforts of the
Resolution Trust Corporation. The Office primarily conducts
audits and investigations of RTC operations and contractors in
order to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and mismanagement in
the disposition of insolvent savings and loan institutions and
their assets by the RTC. The Office of Inspector General was
established in April 1990 in accordance with the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, and the Financial Institutions
Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,400,000
for the Office of Inspector General. This amount is the same as
the administration's request and the House allowance and a
decrease of $20,600,000 below the fiscal year 1995
appropriation.
The Office of Inspector General of the RTC will be merged
with the FDIC OIG when the RTC terminates operations at the end
of this calendar year.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee has included 18 of the 19 general provisions
proposed by the House. They are standard limitations which have
been carried for many years in the VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies appropriations bill.
The Committee has deleted a general provision included by
the House regarding EPA contractor conversion. This issue has
been addressed by the Committee in the report under the EPA
``Science and technology'' account.
The Committee has added a general provision providing for
the termination of the Office of Consumer Affairs. Any
termination costs are to be absorbed within the Department of
Health and Human Services fiscal year 1996 appropriation.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of Rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Annual contributions for assisted housing: $5,594,358,000.
HOME Investment Partnerships Program: $1,400,000,000.
Section 8 contract renewals: $4,350,862,000.
Public housing operating subsidies: $2,800,000,000.
Severely distressed public housing: $500,000,000.
Drug elimination grants: $290,000,000.
Indian housing loan guarantee fund: $3,000,000.
Government National Mortgage Association (credit
limitation): $110,000,000,000.
Homeless assistance grants: $760,000,000.
Community development block grants: $4,600,000,000.
Research and technology: $34,000,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Program administration and management: $1,670,000,000.
Science and technology: $500,000,000.
Buildings and facilities: $60,000,000.
Program and infrastructure assistance: $2,340,000,000.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Salaries and expenses: $166,000,000.
Emergency management planning and assistance: $203,044,000.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Human space flight: $5,337,000,000.
Science, aeronautics, and technology: $5,960,700,000.
Mission support: $2,484,200,000.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Research and related activities: $2,294,000,000.
Major research equipment: $70,000,000.
Academic research infrastructure: $100,000,000.
Salaries and expenses: $127,300,000.
Education and human resources: $599,000,000.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Fair housing activities: $30,000,000.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight:
$14,895,000.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the accompanying
bill was ordered reported from the Committee, subject to
amendment and subject to the subcommittee allocation, by
recorded vote of 17-11.
Yeas Nays
Chairman Hatfield Mr. Byrd
Mr. Stevens Mr. Inouye
Mr. Cochran Mr. Hollings
Mr. Specter Mr. Leahy
Mr. Domenici Mr. Bumpers
Mr. Gramm Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Bond Mr. Harkin
Mr. Gorton Ms. Mikulski
Mr. McConnell Mr. Reid
Mr. Mack Mr. Kohl
Mr. Burns Mrs. Murray
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Jeffords
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Johnston
Mr. Kerrey
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
As discussed earlier in this report, the dramatic and
unprecedented constraints on domestic discretionary spending
has made necessary inclusion of a considerable volume of
legislative reforms and other changes in existing statutes in
the Committee recommendation. This is particularly in evidence
in title II, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
portion of this bill, in which cost-saving and cost-avoidance
measures for discretionary housing and community development
activities require modification of programs governed a large
body of detailed and complex statutory provisions.
The Committee has included extensive explanatory material
in this report which attempts to fully detail both the intent
and practical effect of these statutory provisions. In view of
extensive nature of these changes, however, preparation of a
comparative print detailing each of these statutory amendments
would delay prompt availability of this report. In the opinion
of the Committee, it is necessary to dispense with the
requirements of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI to expedite the
business of the Senate.
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
Resolution for 1996: Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies:
Discretionary........................................... 190 153 189 \1\ 169
Nondefense discretionary................................ 61,500 61,464 74,642 \1\ 74,625
Violent crime reduction fund............................ ........... ........... ........... ...........
Mandatory............................................... 19,138 19,362 17,688 \1\ 17,347
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
1996.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 46,268
1997.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 19,552
1998.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 7,226
1999.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 2,880
2000 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,852
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 1996
in bill.................................................... NA 18,583 NA 2,799
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
-
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or -)
Item 1995 Budget estimate House allowance Committee ----------------------------------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 1995 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
Compensation and pensions................................ $17,626,892,000 $17,649,972,000 $17,649,972,000 $17,649,972,000 +$23,080,000 .................. .................
Readjustment benefits.................................... 1,286,600,000 1,345,300,000 1,345,300,000 1,345,300,000 +58,700,000 .................. .................
Veterans insurance and indemnities....................... 24,760,000 24,890,000 24,890,000 24,890,000 +130,000 .................. .................
Guaranty and indemnity program account (indefinite)...... 507,095,000 504,122,000 504,122,000 504,122,000 -2,973,000 .................. .................
Negative subsidy for guaranteed loans................ ................. -185,500,000 -185,500,000 -185,500,000 -185,500,000 .................. .................
Administrative expenses.............................. 65,226,000 78,085,000 65,226,000 65,226,000 .................. -$12,859,000 .................
Loan guaranty program account (indefinite)............... 43,939,000 22,950,000 22,950,000 22,950,000 -20,989,000 .................. .................
Administrative expenses.............................. 59,371,000 52,138,000 52,138,000 52,138,000 -7,233,000 .................. .................
Direct loan program account (indefinite)................. 25,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 +3,000 .................. .................
(Limitation on direct loans)......................... (1,000,000) (300,000) (300,000) (300,000) (-700,000) .................. .................
Administrative expenses.............................. 1,020,000 459,000 459,000 459,000 -561,000 .................. .................
(Loan level)......................................... (97,000) (99,000) (99,000) (99,000) (+2,000) .................. .................
Education loan fund program account...................... 1,061 1,093 1,000 1,000 -61 -93 .................
(Limitation on direct loans)......................... (4,034) (4,120) (4,000) (4,000) (-34) (-120) .................
Administrative expenses.............................. 195,000 203,000 195,000 195,000 .................. -8,000 .................
Vocational rehabilitation loans program account.......... 54,000 56,000 54,000 54,000 .................. -2,000 .................
(Limitation on direct loans)......................... (1,964,000) (2,022,000) (1,964,000) (1,964,000) .................. (-58,000) .................
Administrative expenses.............................. 767,000 377,000 377,000 377,000 -390,000 .................. .................
Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account..... 218,000 455,000 205,000 205,000 -13,000 -250,000 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Veterans Benefits Administration............ 19,616,163,061 19,493,536,093 19,480,417,000 19,480,417,000 -135,746,061 -13,119,093 .................
Veterans Health Administration
Medical care............................................. 16,214,684,000 16,961,487,000 16,777,474,000 16,450,000,000 +235,316,000 -511,487,000 -$327,474,000
Legislative offsets.................................. ................. ................. -170,000,000 -170,000,000 -170,000,000 -170,000,000 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 16,214,684,000 16,961,487,000 16,607,474,000 16,280,000,000 +65,316,000 -681,487,000 -327,474,000
Medical and prosthetic research.......................... 251,743,000 257,000,000 251,743,000 257,000,000 +5,257,000 .................. +5,257,000
Health professional scholarship program.................. 10,386,000 10,386,000 10,386,000 ................. -10,386,000 -10,386,000 -10,386,000
Medical administration and miscellaneous operating
expenses................................................ 69,789,000 72,262,000 63,602,000 63,602,000 -6,187,000 -8,660,000 .................
Grants to the Republic of the Philippines................ 500,000 ................. ................. ................. -500,000 .................. .................
Transitional housing loan program:
Loan program account (by transfer)................... (7,000) (7,000) (7,000) (7,000) .................. .................. .................
Administrative expenses (by transfer)................ (54,000) (56,000) (54,000) (54,000) .................. (-2,000) .................
(Limitation on direct loans)......................... (70,000) (70,000) (70,000) (70,000) .................. .................. .................
General post fund (transfer out)......................... (-61,000) (-63,000) (-61,000) (-61,000) .................. (+2,000) .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Veterans Health Administration.............. 16,547,102,000 17,301,135,000 16,933,205,000 16,600,602,000 +53,500,000 -700,533,000 -332,603,000
Departmental Administration
General operating expenses............................... 890,193,000 915,643,000 821,487,000 880,000,000 -10,193,000 -35,643,000 +58,513,000
Offsetting receipts.................................. ................. ................. (32,000,000) (32,000,000) (+32,000,000) (+32,000,000) .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Program Level............................... (890,193,000) (915,643,000) (853,487,000) (912,000,000) (+21,807,000) (-3,643,000) (+58,513,000)
National Cemetery System................................. 72,604,000 75,308,000 72,604,000 72,604,000 .................. -2,704,000 .................
Office of Inspector General.............................. 31,815,000 33,500,000 30,900,000 30,900,000 -915,000 -2,600,000 .................
Construction, major projects............................. 354,294,000 513,755,000 183,455,000 35,785,000 -318,509,000 -477,970,000 -147,670,000
(Transfer out)....................................... ................. ................. (-7,000,000) (-7,000,000) (-7,000,000) (-7,000,000) .................
Construction, minor projects............................. 152,934,000 229,145,000 152,934,000 190,000,000 +37,066,000 -39,145,000 +37,066,000
Parking revolving fund................................... 16,300,000 ................. ................. ................. -16,300,000 .................. .................
(By transfer)........................................ ................. ................. (7,000,000) (7,000,000) (+7,000,000) (+7,000,000) .................
Grants for construction of state extended care facilities 47,397,000 43,740,000 47,397,000 47,397,000 .................. +3,657,000 .................
Grants for the construction of state veterans cemeteries. 5,378,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 -4,378,000 .................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental Administration................. 1,570,915,000 1,812,091,000 1,309,777,000 1,257,686,000 -313,229,000 -554,405,000 -52,091,000
======================================================================================================================================
Total, title I, Department of Veterans Affairs..... 37,734,180,061 38,606,762,093 37,723,399,000 37,338,705,000 -395,475,061 -1,268,057,093 -384,694,000
(By transfer).................................. (61,000) (63,000) (7,061,000) (7,061,000) (+7,000,000) (+6,998,000) .................
(Limitation on direct loans)................... (3,135,034) (2,495,120) (2,437,000) (2,437,000) (-698,034) (-58,120) .................
======================================================================================================================================
Consisting of:
Mandatory.................................. (19,489,311,000) (19,361,762,000) (19,361,762,000) (19,361,762,000) (-127,549,000) .................. .................
Discretionary.............................. (18,244,869,061) (19,245,000,093) (18,361,637,000) (17,976,943,000) (-267,926,061) (-1,268,057,093) (-384,694,000)
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Selected Housing Programs
Housing certificates for families and individuals
performance funds....................................... ................. 6,509,955,000 ................. ................. .................. -6,509,955,000 .................
Public and Indian housing capital performance funds...... ................. 4,884,000,000 ................. ................. .................. -4,884,000,000 .................
Annual contributions for assisted housing................ 11,083,000,000 ................. 10,182,359,000 5,594,358,000 -5,488,642,000 +5,594,358,000 -4,588,001,000
Transfer from UDAG................................... (100,000,000) ................. ................. ................. (-100,000,000) .................. .................
Severely distressed public housing....................... 500,000,000 ................. ................. 500,000,000 .................. +500,000,000 +500,000,000
Assistance for the renewal of expiring section 8 subsidy
contracts............................................... 2,536,000,000 ................. ................. 4,350,862,000 +1,814,862,000 +4,350,862,000 +4,350,862,000
Flexible subsidy fund.................................... 50,000,000 ................. ................. ................. -50,000,000 .................. .................
Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS.............. ................. 186,000,000 ................. ................. .................. -186,000,000 .................
Congregate services...................................... 25,000,000 ................. ................. ................. -25,000,000 .................. .................
Rental housing assistance:
Rescission of budget authority, indefinite........... -38,000,000 -35,119,000 -35,119,000 -35,119,000 +2,881,000 .................. .................
(Limitation on annual contract authority, indefinite) (-2,000,000) (-2,000,000) (-2,000,000) (-2,000,000) .................. .................. .................
Rescission of prepayment recaptures.................. -66,000,000 -163,000,000 -163,000,000 -163,000,000 -97,000,000 .................. .................
Homeownership assistance................................. 6,875,000 ................. ................. ................. -6,875,000 .................. .................
Rescission of budget authority, indefinite........... -184,000,000 ................. ................. ................. +184,000,000 .................. .................
Public and Indian housing operation performance funds.... ................. 3,220,000,000 ................. ................. .................. -3,220,000,000 .................
Payments for operation of low-income housing projects.... 2,900,000,000 ................. 2,500,000,000 2,800,000,000 -100,000,000 +2,800,000,000 +300,000,000
Drug elimination grants for low-income housing........... 290,000,000 ................. ................. 290,000,000 .................. +290,000,000 +290,000,000
Affordable housing performance funds..................... ................. 3,339,000,000 ................. ................. .................. -3,339,000,000 .................
HOME investment partnerships program..................... 1,400,000,000 ................. 1,400,000,000 1,400,000,000 .................. +1,400,000,000 .................
Homeownership and opportunity for people everywhere
grants (HOPE grants).................................... 50,000,000 ................. ................. ................. -50,000,000 .................. .................
National homeownership trust demonstration program....... 50,000,000 ................. ................. ................. -50,000,000 .................. .................
Youthbuild program....................................... 50,000,000 ................. ................. ................. -50,000,000 .................. .................
Housing counseling assistance............................ 50,000,000 ................. 12,000,000 ................. -50,000,000 .................. -12,000,000
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account....... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 .................. .................. .................
(Limitation on guarantee loans)...................... (22,388,000) (36,900,000) (36,900,000) (36,900,000) (+14,512,000) .................. .................
Violent crime reduction program.......................... ................. 3,000,000 ................. ................. .................. -3,000,000 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Selected housing programs (net)............. 18,705,875,000 17,946,836,000 13,899,240,000 14,740,101,000 -3,965,774,000 -3,206,735,000 +840,861,000
Homeless Assistance
Homeless assistance fund................................. ................. 1,120,000,000 ................. ................. .................. -1,120,000,000 .................
Homeless assistance grants............................... 1,120,000,000 ................. 676,000,000 760,000,000 -360,000,000 +760,000,000 +84,000,000
Community Planning and Development
Community opportunity fund............................... ................. 4,850,000,000 ................. ................. .................. -4,850,000,000 .................
Community opportunity performance program account........ ................. 21,000,000 ................. ................. .................. -21,000,000 .................
Administrative expenses.............................. ................. 900,000 ................. ................. .................. -900,000 .................
Community development grants............................. 4,600,000,000 ................. 4,600,000,000 4,600,000,000 .................. +4,600,000,000 .................
Section 108 loan guarantees:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)..................... (2,054,000,000) ................. (1,000,000,000) (1,500,000,000) (-554,000,000) (+1,500,000,000) (+500,000,000)
Credit subsidy....................................... ................. ................. 10,500,000 15,750,000 +15,750,000 +15,750,000 +5,250,000
Administrative expenses.............................. ................. ................. 225,000 675,000 +675,000 +675,000 +450,000
Policy Development and Research
Research and technology.................................. 42,000,000 42,000,000 34,000,000 34,000,000 -8,000,000 -8,000,000 .................
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Fair housing activities.................................. 33,375,000 45,000,000 30,000,000 ................. -33,375,000 -45,000,000 -30,000,000
Management and Administration
Salaries and expenses.................................... 451,219,000 479,479,000 437,194,000 438,219,000 -13,000,000 -41,260,000 +1,025,000
(By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds)..... (495,355,000) (527,782,000) (505,745,000) (532,782,000) (+37,427,000) (+5,000,000) (+27,037,000)
(By transfer, GNMA).................................. (8,824,000) (9,101,000) (8,824,000) (9,101,000) (+277,000) .................. (+277,000)
(By transfer, Community Planning and Development).... ................. (900,000) (225,000) (675,000) (+675,000) (-225,000) (+450,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses....................... (955,398,000) (1,017,262,000) (951,988,000) (980,777,000) (+25,379,000) (-36,485,000) (+28,789,000)
Office of Inspector General.............................. 36,427,000 36,968,000 36,427,000 36,968,000 +541,000 .................. +541,000
(By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds)..... (10,961,000) (11,283,000) (10,961,000) (11,283,000) (+322,000) .................. (+322,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of Inspector General................. (47,388,000) (48,251,000) (47,388,000) (48,251,000) (+863,000) .................. (+863,000)
Office of federal housing enterprise oversight........... 15,451,000 14,895,000 14,895,000 ................. -15,451,000 -14,895,000 -14,895,000
Offsetting receipts.................................. -15,451,000 -14,895,000 -14,895,000 ................. +15,451,000 +14,895,000 +14,895,000
Federal Housing Administration
FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)..................... (100,000,000,000) (110,000,000,000) (110,000,000,000) (110,000,000,000) (+10,000,000,000) .................. .................
(Limitation on direct loans)......................... (180,000,000) (200,000,000) (200,000,000) (200,000,000) (+20,000,000) .................. .................
Administrative expenses.............................. 308,846,000 341,595,000 308,846,000 341,595,000 +32,749,000 .................. +32,749,000
Offsetting receipts.................................. -308,846,000 -341,595,000 -308,846,000 -341,595,000 -32,749,000 .................. -32,749,000
FHA--General and special risk program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)..................... (20,885,072,000) (17,400,000,000) (15,000,000,000) (17,400,000,000) (-3,485,072,000) .................. (+2,400,000,000)
(Limitation on direct loans)......................... (220,000,000) (120,000,000) (120,000,000) (120,000,000) (-100,000,000) .................. .................
Administrative expenses.............................. 197,470,000 197,470,000 197,470,000 202,470,000 +5,000,000 +5,000,000 +5,000,000
Program costs........................................ 188,395,000 188,395,000 69,620,000 100,000,000 -88,395,000 -88,395,000 +30,380,000
Subsidy:
Multifamily...................................... -134,096,000 -37,996,000 -37,996,000 -37,996,000 +96,100,000 .................. .................
Single family.................................... -81,673,000 -27,044,000 -27,044,000 -27,044,000 +54,629,000 .................. .................
Title I.......................................... -24,460,000 -23,777,000 -23,777,000 -23,777,000 +683,000 .................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Housing Administration.......... 145,636,000 297,048,000 178,273,000 213,653,000 +68,017,000 -83,395,000 +35,380,000
Government National Mortgage Association
Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee
program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)..................... (142,000,000,000) (110,000,000,000) (110,000,000,000) (110,000,000,000) (-32,000,000,000) .................. .................
Administrative expenses.............................. 8,824,000 9,101,000 8,824,000 9,101,000 +277,000 .................. +277,000
Offsetting receipts.................................. -262,700,000 -508,300,000 -508,300,000 -508,300,000 -245,600,000 .................. .................
Administrative Provisions
Procurement savings...................................... -3,538,000 ................. ................. ................. +3,538,000 .................. .................
FHA mortgage insurance limits............................ -3,000,000 ................. ................. ................. +3,000,000 .................. .................
GNMA REMICs.............................................. -180,000,000 ................. ................. ................. +180,000,000 .................. .................
GNMA REMICs II........................................... -30,600,000 ................. ................. ................. +30,600,000 .................. .................
1-year extension of HECM's demonstration................. ................. ................. -11,000,000 -11,000,000 -11,000,000 -11,000,000 .................
Non-judicial foreclosure................................. -10,000,000 ................. ................. ................. +10,000,000 .................. .................
======================================================================================================================================
Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban
Development (net)................................. 24,653,518,000 24,340,032,000 19,391,383,000 20,329,167,000 -4,324,351,000 -4,010,865,000 +937,784,000
Appropriations............................. (24,941,518,000) (24,538,151,000) (19,589,502,000) (20,527,286,000) (-4,414,232,000) (-4,010,865,000) (+937,784,000)
Rescissions................................ (-288,000,000) (-198,119,000) (-198,119,000) (-198,119,000) (+89,881,000) .................. .................
(Limitation on annual contract authority,
indefinite)................................... (-2,000,000) (-2,000,000) (-2,000,000) (-2,000,000) .................. .................. .................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............... (264,939,072,000) (237,400,000,000) (236,000,000,000) (238,900,000,000) (-26,039,072,000) (+1,500,000,000) (+2,900,000,000)
(Limitation on corporate funds)................ (515,140,000) (549,066,000) (525,755,000) (553,841,000) (+38,701,000) (+4,775,000) (+28,086,000)
Consisting of:
Advance appropriation available............ 800,000,000 ................. ................. ................. -800,000,000 .................. .................
Appropriations available from this bill.... 24,653,518,000 24,340,032,000 19,391,383,000 20,329,167,000 -4,324,351,000 -4,010,865,000 +937,784,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, title II.......................... 25,453,518,000 24,340,032,000 19,391,383,000 20,329,167,000 -5,124,351,000 -4,010,865,000 +937,784,000
TITLE III
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission
Salaries and expenses.................................... 20,265,000 20,265,000 20,265,000 20,265,000 .................. .................. .................
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Salaries and expenses.................................... 500,000 ................. ................. ................. -500,000 .................. .................
Community Development Financial Institutions
Community development financial institutions fund program
account................................................. 125,000,000 123,650,000 ................. ................. -125,000,000 -123,650,000 .................
Loan subsidy......................................... ................. 20,000,000 ................. ................. .................. -20,000,000 .................
Office of Inspector General.............................. ................. 350,000 ................. ................. .................. -350,000 .................
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Salaries and expenses.................................... 42,509,000 44,000,000 40,000,000 40,000,000 -2,509,000 -4,000,000 .................
Corporation for National and Community Service
National and community service programs operating
expenses................................................ 575,000,000 817,476,000 ................. ................. -575,000,000 -817,476,000 .................
Delay of obligation.................................. ................. ................. ................. ................. .................. .................. .................
Office of Inspector General.............................. 2,000,000 2,000,000 ................. ................. -2,000,000 -2,000,000 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 577,000,000 819,476,000 ................. ................. -577,000,000 -819,476,000 .................
Court of Veterans Appeals
Salaries and expenses.................................... 9,429,000 9,820,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 -429,000 -820,000 .................
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
Salaries and expenses.................................... 12,017,000 14,134,000 11,296,000 11,946,000 -71,000 -2,188,000 +650,000
Environmental Protection Agency
Research and development................................. 350,000,000 426,661,000 384,052,000 ................. -350,000,000 -426,661,000 -384,052,000
Science and Technology................................... ................. ................. ................. 500,000,000 +500,000,000 +500,000,000 +500,000,000
Environmental programs and compliance.................... ................. ................. 1,881,614,000 ................. .................. .................. -1,881,614,000
Abatement, control, and compliance....................... 1,417,000,000 1,748,823,000 ................. ................. -1,417,000,000 -1,748,823,000 .................
(Limitation on administrative expenses).............. (296,722,500) ................. ................. ................. (-296,722,500) .................. .................
Program and research operations.......................... 922,000,000 1,017,298,000 ................. ................. -922,000,000 -1,017,298,000 .................
Program Administration and Management.................... ................. ................. ................. 1,670,000,000 +1,670,000,000 +1,670,000,000 +1,670,000,000
Office of Inspector General.............................. 28,542,000 33,050,000 28,542,000 27,700,000 -842,000 -5,350,000 -842,000
Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund.......... 15,384,000 14,078,000 5,000,000 11,700,000 -3,684,000 -2,378,000 +6,700,000
Transfer from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks...... 669,000 710,000 426,000 600,000 -69,000 -110,000 +174,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, OIG...................................... 44,595,000 47,838,000 33,968,000 40,000,000 -4,595,000 -7,838,000 +6,032,000
Buildings and facilities................................. 43,870,000 112,820,000 28,820,000 60,000,000 +16,130,000 -52,820,000 +31,180,000
Hazardous substance superfund............................ 1,435,000,000 1,507,937,000 1,003,400,000 1,003,400,000 -431,600,000 -504,537,000 .................
Legislative proposals--reforms....................... ................. 55,000,000 ................. ................. .................. -55,000,000 .................
Transfer to OIG...................................... -15,384,000 -14,078,000 -5,000,000 -11,700,000 +3,684,000 +2,378,000 -6,700,000
(Limitation on administrative expenses).............. (308,000,000) ................. ................. ................. (-308,000,000) .................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Hazardous substance superfund............ 1,419,616,000 1,548,859,000 998,400,000 991,700,000 -427,916,000 -557,159,000 -6,700,000
Leaking underground storage tank trust fund.............. 70,000,000 77,273,000 45,827,000 45,827,000 -24,173,000 -31,446,000 .................
Transfer to OIG...................................... -669,000 -710,000 -426,000 -600,000 +69,000 +110,000 -174,000
(Limitation on administrative expenses).............. (8,150,000) ................. (5,285,000) (8,000,000) (-150,000) (+8,000,000) (+2,715,000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, LUST..................................... 69,331,000 76,563,000 45,401,000 45,227,000 -24,104,000 -31,336,000 -174,000
Oil spill response....................................... 20,000,000 23,047,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 -5,000,000 -8,047,000 -5,000,000
(Limitation on administrative expenses).............. (8,420,000) ................. (8,420,000) (8,000,000) (-420,000) (+8,000,000) (-420,000)
Water infrastructure/State revolving fund................ 2,262,000,000 1,865,000,000 1,500,175,000 ................. -2,262,000,000 -1,865,000,000 -1,500,175,000
Safe drinking water State revolving fund................. 700,000,000 500,000,000 ................. ................. -700,000,000 -500,000,000 .................
Program and infrastructure assistance.................... ................. ................. ................. 2,340,000,000 +2,340,000,000 +2,340,000,000 +2,340,000,000
Environmental services--user fees........................ ................. -7,500,000 ................. ................. .................. +7,500,000 .................
Procurement savings...................................... -7,525,000 ................. ................. ................. +7,525,000 .................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, EPA......................................... 7,240,887,000 7,359,409,000 4,892,430,000 5,661,927,000 -1,578,960,000 -1,697,482,000 +769,497,000
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy.................. 4,981,000 4,981,000 4,981,000 4,981,000 .................. .................. .................
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality................................... 997,000 2,188,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 +3,000 -1,188,000 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 5,978,000 7,169,000 5,981,000 5,981,000 +3,000 -1,188,000 .................
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Disaster relief.......................................... 320,000,000 320,000,000 235,500,000 ................. -320,000,000 -320,000,000 -235,500,000
Disaster assistance direct loan program account:
State share loan..................................... 2,418,000 2,155,000 2,155,000 2,155,000 -263,000 .................. .................
(Limitation on direct loans)......................... (175,000,000) (25,000,000) (25,000,000) (25,000,000) (-150,000,000) .................. .................
Administrative expenses.............................. 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 .................. .................. .................
Salaries and expenses.................................... 162,000,000 172,331,000 162,000,000 166,000,000 +4,000,000 -6,331,000 +4,000,000
Office of Inspector General.............................. 4,400,000 4,673,000 4,400,000 4,400,000 .................. -273,000 .................
Emergency management planning and assistance............. 215,960,000 210,122,000 203,044,000 203,044,000 -12,916,000 -7,078,000 .................
Emergency food and shelter program....................... 130,000,000 130,000,000 100,000,000 100,000,000 -30,000,000 -30,000,000 .................
Administrative provision REP savings..................... -11,525,000 -12,257,000 -12,257,000 -12,257,000 -732,000 .................. .................
Procurement savings...................................... -1,441,000 ................. ................. ................. +1,441,000 .................. .................
National Flood Insurance:
Salaries and expenses................................ ................. (20,562,000) (20,562,000) (20,562,000) (+20,562,000) .................. .................
Flood mitigation..................................... ................. (70,464,000) (70,464,000) (70,464,000) (+70,464,000) .................. .................
Premium increase..................................... ................. -21,000,000 ................. ................. .................. +21,000,000 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Emergency Management Agency......... 821,907,000 806,119,000 694,937,000 463,437,000 -358,470,000 -342,682,000 -231,500,000
General Services Administration
Consumer Information Center.............................. 2,004,000 2,061,000 2,061,000 2,061,000 +57,000 .................. .................
(Limitation on administrative expenses).............. (2,454,000) (2,502,000) (2,502,000) (2,606,000) (+152,000) (+104,000) (+104,000)
Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Consumer Affairs............................... 2,166,000 1,811,000 1,811,000 ................. -2,166,000 -1,811,000 -1,811,000
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Human space flight....................................... 5,514,897,000 5,509,600,000 5,449,600,000 5,337,600,000 -177,297,000 -172,000,000 -112,000,000
Science, aeronautics and technology...................... 5,901,200,000 6,006,900,000 5,588,000,000 5,960,700,000 +59,500,000 -46,200,000 +372,700,000
Rescission........................................... -10,000,000 ................. ................. ................. +10,000,000 .................. .................
National aeronautical facilities......................... 400,000,000 ................. ................. ................. -400,000,000 .................. .................
Mission support.......................................... 2,554,587,000 2,726,200,000 2,618,200,000 2,484,200,000 -70,387,000 -242,000,000 -134,000,000
Office of Inspector General.............................. 16,000,000 17,300,000 16,000,000 16,000,000 .................. -1,300,000 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NASA (net).................................. 14,376,684,000 14,260,000,000 13,671,800,000 13,798,500,000 -578,184,000 -461,500,000 +126,700,000
National Credit Union Administration
Central liquidity facility:
(Limitation on direct loans)......................... (600,000,000) (600,000,000) (600,000,000) (600,000,000) .................. .................. .................
(Limitation on administrative expenses, corporate
funds).............................................. (901,000) (560,000) (560,000) (560,000) (-341,000) .................. .................
National Science Foundation
Research and related activities.......................... 2,280,000,000 2,454,000,000 2,254,000,000 2,294,000,000 +14,000,000 -160,000,000 +40,000,000
Rescission........................................... -35,000,000 ................. ................. ................. +35,000,000 .................. .................
Major research equipment................................. 126,000,000 70,000,000 70,000,000 70,000,000 -56,000,000 .................. .................
Academic research infrastructure......................... 250,000,000 100,000,000 100,000,000 100,000,000 -150,000,000 .................. .................
Education and human resources............................ 605,974,000 599,000,000 599,000,000 599,000,000 -6,974,000 .................. .................
Salaries and expenses.................................... 123,966,000 127,310,000 127,310,000 127,310,000 +3,344,000 .................. .................
Office of Inspector General.............................. 4,380,000 4,490,000 4,490,000 4,490,000 +110,000 .................. .................
National Science Foundation headquarters relocation...... 5,200,000 5,200,000 5,200,000 5,200,000 .................. .................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NSF (net)................................... 3,360,520,000 3,360,000,000 3,160,000,000 3,200,000,000 -160,520,000 -160,000,000 +40,000,000
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation..... 38,667,000 55,000,000 38,667,000 38,667,000 .................. -16,333,000 .................
Selective Service System
Salaries and expenses.................................... 22,930,000 23,304,000 22,930,000 22,930,000 .................. -374,000 .................
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Fair Housing activities.................................. ................. ................. ................. 30,000,000 +30,000,000 +30,000,000 +30,000,000
Department of the Treasury
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise oversight........... ................. ................. ................. 14,895,000 +14,895,000 +14,895,000 +14,895,000
Offsetting receipts.................................. ................. ................. ................. -14,895,000 -14,895,000 -14,895,000 -14,895,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of the Treasury.................. ................. ................. ................. ................. .................. .................. .................
======================================================================================================================================
Total, title III, Independent agencies (net)....... 26,658,463,000 26,926,568,000 22,571,178,000 23,304,714,000 -3,353,749,000 -3,621,854,000 +733,536,000
Appropriations............................. (26,710,988,000) (26,926,568,000) (22,571,178,000) (23,304,714,000) (-3,406,274,000) (-3,621,854,000) (+733,536,000)
Rescissions................................ (-45,000,000) ................. ................. ................. (+45,000,000) .................. .................
(Limitation on administrative expenses)........ (623,746,500) (2,502,000) (16,207,000) (18,606,000) (-605,140,500) (+16,104,000) (+2,399,000)
(Limitation on direct loans)................... (775,000,000) (716,026,000) (716,026,000) (716,026,000) (-58,974,000) .................. .................
(Limitation on corporate funds)................ (901,000) (560,000) (560,000) (560,000) (-341,000) .................. .................
======================================================================================================================================
TITLE IV
CORPORATIONS
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation:
FSLIC Resolution Fund................................ 827,000,000 ................. ................. ................. -827,000,000 .................. .................
FDIC affordable housing program...................... 15,000,000 15,000,000 ................. ................. -15,000,000 -15,000,000 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 842,000,000 15,000,000 ................. ................. -842,000,000 -15,000,000 .................
Resolution Trust Corporation: Office of Inspector General 32,000,000 11,400,000 11,400,000 11,400,000 -20,600,000 .................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, title IV, Corporations...................... 874,000,000 26,400,000 11,400,000 11,400,000 -862,600,000 -15,000,000 .................
======================================================================================================================================
Grand total (net).................................. 89,920,161,061 89,899,762,093 79,697,360,000 80,983,986,000 -8,936,175,061 -8,915,776,093 +1,286,626,000
Appropriations............................. (90,260,686,061) (90,097,881,093) (79,895,479,000) (81,182,105,000) (-9,078,581,061) (-8,915,776,093) (+1,286,626,000)
Rescissions................................ (-333,000,000) (-198,119,000) (-198,119,000) (-198,119,000) (+134,881,000) .................. .................
(By transfer).................................. (100,061,000) (63,000) (7,061,000) (7,061,000) (-93,000,000) (+6,998,000) .................
(Limitation on administrative expenses)........ (623,746,500) (2,502,000) (16,207,000) (18,606,000) (-605,140,500) (+16,104,000) (+2,399,000)
(Limitation on annual contract authority,
indefinite)................................... (-2,000,000) (-2,000,000) (-2,000,000) (-2,000,000) .................. .................. .................
(Limitation on direct loans)................... (1,200,523,034) (1,075,421,120) (1,075,363,000) (1,075,363,000) (-125,160,034) (-58,120) .................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............... (264,939,072,000) (237,400,000,000) (236,000,000,000) (238,900,000,000) (-26,039,072,000) (+1,500,000,000) (+2,900,000,000)
(Limitation on corporate funds)................ (516,041,000) (549,626,000) (526,315,000) (554,401,000) (+38,360,000) (+4,775,000) (+28,086,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
