Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    106-286

======================================================================



 
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000

                                _______
                                

 August 3, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2684]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent 
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other 
purposes.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

_______________________________________________________________________


                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs....................     2
                                                                      4
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development......    17
                                                                     20
Title III--Independent Agencies............................    58
                                                                     38
        American Battle Monuments Commission...............    58
                                                                     38
        Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board....    59
                                                                     39
        Community Development Financial Institutions.......    59
                                                                     39
        Consumer Product Safety Commission.................    60
                                                                     40
        Corporation for National and Community Service.....    61
                                                                     41
        Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims...............    61
                                                                     42
        Cemeterial Expenses, Army..........................    62
                                                                     42
        Environmental Protection Agency....................    62
                                                                     43
        Office of Science and Technology Policy............    71
                                                                     68
        Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
            Environmental Quality..........................    72
                                                                     69
        Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation..............    72
                                                                     69
        Federal Emergency Management Agency................    73
                                                                     69
        Consumer Information Center........................    78
                                                                     78
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration......    78
                                                                     79
        National Credit Union Administration...............    82
                                                                     86
        National Science Foundation........................    82
                                                                     87
        Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation..............    85
                                                                     91
        Selective Service System...........................    85
                                                                     91
Title IV--General Provisions...............................    85
                                                                     92

                          Summary of the Bill

    The Committee recommends $89,890,156,000 in new budget 
(obligational) authority for the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 17 independent 
agencies and offices. This is $2,227,303,000 below the 1999 
appropriations level.
    The following table summarizes the amounts recommended in 
the bill in comparison with the appropriations for fiscal year 
1999 and budget estimates for fiscal year 2000.


                                TITLE I


                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS





Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................   $43,449,241,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    42,625,039,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................    42,538,434,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........      +824,202,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......      +910,807,000


    The Department of Veterans Affairs is the third largest 
Federal agency in terms of employment with an average 
employment of approximately 198,000. It administers benefits 
for more than 25,000,000 veterans, and 44,000,000 family 
members of living veterans and survivors of deceased veterans. 
Thus, close to 70,000,000 people, comprising about 26 percent 
of the total population of the United States, are potential 
recipients of veterans benefits provided by the Federal 
Government.
    A total of $43,449,241 in new budget authority is 
recommended by the Committee for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs programs in fiscal year 2000. The funds recommended 
provide for compensation payments to 2,568,254 veterans and 
survivors of deceased veterans with service-connected 
disabilities; pension payments for 648,940 non-service-
connected disabled veterans, widows and children in need of 
financial assistance; educational training and vocational 
assistance to 404,726 veterans, servicepersons, and reservists, 
and 45,600 eligible dependents of deceased veterans or 
seriously disabled veterans; housing credit assistance in the 
form of 280,000 guaranteed loans provided to veterans and 
servicepersons; administration or supervision of life insurance 
programs with 4,486,887 policies for veterans and active duty 
servicepersons providing coverage of $459,619,000,000; 
inpatient care and treatment of beneficiaries in 172 medical 
centers; 40 domiciliaries, 132 nursing homes and 811 outpatient 
clinics which includes independent, satellite, community-based, 
and rural outreach clinics involving 40,227,000 visits; and the 
administration of the National Cemetery Administration for 
burial of eligible veterans, servicepersons and their 
survivors.

                    Veterans Benefits Administration


                       compensation and pensions

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................   $21,568,364,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    21,857,058,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................    21,568,364,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........      -288,694,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......  ................


    This appropriation provides funds for service-connected 
compensation payments to an estimated 2,568,254 beneficiaries 
and pension payments to another 648,940 beneficiaries with non-
service-connected disabilities. The average cost per 
compensation case in 2000 is estimated at $7,296, and pension 
payments are projected at a unit cost of $4,808. The estimated 
caseload and cost by program for 1999 and 2000 are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                1999               2000            Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:
    Compensation:
        Veterans.......................................         2,273,901          2,267,620              -6,281
        Survivors......................................           302,748            300,001              -2,747
        Children.......................................               633                633                   0
        Clothing allowance (non-add)...................           (76,627)           (76,416)               +211
    Pensions:
        Veterans.......................................           387,952            380,995              -6,957
        Survivors......................................           282,715            267,945             -14,770
        Minimum income for widows (non-add)............              (675)              (670)                 +5
        Vocational training (non-add)..................               (15)                (8)                 +7
        Burial allowances..............................            92,310             91,380                -930
                                                        ========================================================
Funds:
    Compensation:
        Veterans.......................................   $14,796,699,000    $15,119,868,000       +$323,169,000
        Survivors......................................     3,470,343,000      3,570,531,000        +100,188,000
        Children.......................................         7,463,000          7,684,000            +221,000
        Clothing allowance.............................        40,494,000         40,382,000            -112,000
        Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508 and 102-            1,419,000          1,388,000             -31,000
         568)..........................................
        Medical exams pilot program (Public Law 104-           17,152,000         20,147,000          +2,995,000
         275)..........................................
    Pensions:
        Veterans.......................................     2,366,613,000      2,419,078,000         +52,465,000
        Survivors......................................       717,596,000        697,470,000         -20,126,000
        Minimum income for widows......................         3,429,000          3,479,000             +50,000
    Vocational training................................            42,000             23,000             -19,000
    Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508, 102-568, and           9,552,000          9,344,000            -208,000
     103-446)..........................................
    Payment to medical care (Public Laws 101-508 and            6,793,000          7,200,000            +407,000
     102-568)..........................................
    Payment to medical facilities......................         4,676,000          2,436,000          -2,240,000
    Burial benefits....................................       126,793,000        120,077,000          -6,716,000
    Other assistance...................................         2,466,000          2,466,000   .................
    Contingency........................................  .................  .................  .................
    Unobligated balance and transfers..................       285,527,000       -453,208,000        -738,735,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation \1\..........................    21,857,058,000     21,568,365,000        -288,694,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals do not add down due to rounding.

    The Administration has again proposed dividing the 
compensation and pensions appropriation into three separate 
accounts: compensation, pensions, and burial benefits and 
miscellaneous assistance. The Committee has again disapproved 
this proposal and recommends a single compensation and pensions 
appropriation in fiscal year 2000.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee is recommending the 
budget estimate of $21,568,364,000 for compensation and 
pensions. The bill also includes requested language reimbursing 
$17,932,000 to the general operating expenses account 
($10,732,000) and the medical care account ($7,200,000) for 
administrative expenses of implementing cost saving provisions 
required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, 
Public Law 101-508, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992, Public 
Law 102-568, and the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 
1994, Public Law 103-446. These cost savings provisions include 
verifying pension income against Internal Revenue Service and 
Social Security Administration (SSA) data; establishing a match 
with the SSA to obtain verification of Social Security numbers; 
and the $90 monthly VA pension cap for Medicaid-eligible single 
veterans and surviving spouses alone in Medicaid-covered 
nursing homes. Also, the bill includes requested language 
permitting this appropriation to reimburse such sums as may be 
necessary to the medical facilities revolving fund to help 
defray the operating expenses of individual medical facilities 
for nursing home care provided to pensioners.
    The Administration has proposed language that would provide 
indefinite 2000 supplemental appropriations for compensation 
and pension payments. The Committee believes the current 
funding procedures are adequate and has not included the 
requested language in the bill. The Committee recognizes that 
additional funding may be necessary when the final disposition 
of proposed legislation is known.

                         READJUSTMENT BENEFITS




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................    $1,469,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     1,175,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,469,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........      +294,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......                 0


    This appropriation finances the education and training of 
veterans and servicepersons whose initial entry on active duty 
took place on or after July 1, 1985. These benefits are 
included in the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance 
Program. Eligibility to receive this assistance began in 1987. 
Basic benefits are funded through appropriations made to the 
readjustment benefits appropriation and transfers from the 
Department of Defense. Supplemental benefits are also provided 
to certain veterans through transfers from the Department of 
Defense. This law also provides education assistance to certain 
members of the Selected Reserve and is funded through transfers 
from the Departments of Defense and Transportation. In 
addition, certain disabled veterans are provided with 
vocational rehabilitation, specially adapted housing grants, 
and automobile grants with approved adaptive equipment. This 
account also finances educational assistance allowances for 
eligible dependents of those veterans who died from service-
connected causes or have a total and permanent service-
connected disability as well as dependents of servicepersons 
who were captured or missing-in-action.
    The Committee recommends the budget estimate of 
$1,469,000,000 for readjustment benefits in fiscal year 2000. 
The estimated number of trainees and costs by program for 1999 
and 2000 are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1999              2000           Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of trainees:
    Education and training: dependents....................            44,100            45,600            +1,500
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
        Veterans and servicepersons.......................           289,000           281,000            -8,000
        Reservists........................................            74,200            73,000            -1,200
    Vocational rehabilitation.............................            51,440            50,726              -714
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................           458,740           450,326            -8,414
                                                           =====================================================
Funds:
    Education and training: dependents....................      $132,182,000      $136,574,000       +$4,392,000
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
        Veterans and servicepersons.......................       904,665,000       896,804,000        -7,861,000
        Reservists........................................       105,876,000       107,986,000        +2,110,000
    Vocational rehabilitation.............................       403,206,000       405,855,000        +2,649,000
    Housing grants........................................        19,373,000        19,373,000                 0
    Automobiles and other conveyances.....................         6,494,000         6,494,000                 0
    Adaptive equipment....................................        26,600,000        31,700,000        -5,100,000
    Work-study............................................        34,500,000        39,900,000        +5,400,000
    Payment to States.....................................        13,000,000        13,000,000                 0
    Reporting fees........................................                 0         3,600,000        +3,600,000
    Unobligated balance and other adjustments.............      -470,896,000      -192,286,000      +278,610,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation.................................     1,175,000,000     1,469,000,000      +294,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   VETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $28,670,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        46,450,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        28,670,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -17,780,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......                 0


    The veterans insurance and indemnities appropriation is 
made up of the former appropriations for military and naval 
insurance, applicable to World War I veterans; national service 
life insurance (NSLI), applicable to certain World War II 
veterans; servicemen's indemnities, applicable to Korean 
conflict veterans; and the veterans mortgage life insurance, 
applicable to individuals who have received a grant for 
specially adapted housing.
    The budget estimate of $28,670,000 for veterans insurance 
and indemnities in fiscal year 2000 is included in the bill. 
The amount provided will enable VA to transfer more than 
$20,415,000 to the service-disabled veterans insurance fund and 
transfer $8,360,000 in payments for the 3,472 policies under 
the veterans mortgage life insurance program. These policies 
are identified under the veterans insurance and indemnity 
appropriation since they provide insurance to service-disabled 
veterans unable to qualify under basic NSLI.

                 VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on    Administrative
                                                             Program account    direct loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation...........................      $282,342,000          $300,000      $156,958,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation............................       300,266,000           300,000       159,121,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request...........................       282,342,000           300,000       156,958,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation............       -17,924,000                 0        -2,163,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request...........                 0                 0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the VA home loan guaranty program is to 
facilitate the extension of mortgage credit on favorable terms 
by private lenders to eligible veterans. This appropriation 
provides for all costs, with the exception of the native 
American veteran housing loan program, of VA's direct and 
guaranteed loans programs. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 
1990 requires budgetary resources to be available prior to 
incurring a direct loan obligation or a loan guarantee 
commitment. In addition, the Act requires all administrative 
expenses of a direct or guaranteed loan program to be funded 
through a program account.
    VA loan guaranties are made to servicemembers, veterans, 
reservists and unremarried surviving spouses for the purchase 
of homes, condominiums, manufactured homes and for refinancing 
loans. VA guarantees part of the total loan, permitting the 
purchaser to obtain a mortgage with a competitive interest 
rate, even without a downpayment if the lender agrees. VA 
requires that a downpayment be made for a manufactured home. 
With a VA guaranty, the lender is protected against loss up to 
the amount of the guaranty if the borrower fails to repay the 
loan.
    The Committee recommends the budget requests of such sums 
as may be necessary (estimated to be $282,342,000) for funding 
subsidy payments, $300,000 for the limitation on direct loans, 
and $156,958,000 to pay administrative expenses. The 
appropriation for administrative expenses may be transferred to 
and merged with the general operating expenses account.

                  EDUCATION LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on    Administrative
                                                             Program account    direct loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation...........................            $1,000            $3,000          $214,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation............................             1,000             3,000           206,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request...........................             1,000             3,000           214,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation............                 0                 0            +8,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request...........                 0                 0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This appropriation covers the cost of direct loans for 
eligible dependents and, in addition, it includes 
administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct loan 
program. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires 
budgetary resources to be available prior to incurring a direct 
loan obligation. In addition, the Act requires all 
administrative expenses of a direct loan program to be funded 
through a program account.
    The bill includes the budget requests of $1,000 for funding 
subsidy program costs, $3,000 as the limitation on direct 
loans, and $214,000 for administrative expenses. The 
appropriation for administrative expenses may be transferred to 
and merged with the general operating expenses account.

            VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on    Administrative
                                                             Program account    direct loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation...........................           $57,000        $2,531,000          $415,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation............................            55,000         2,401,000           400,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request...........................            57,000         2,531,000           415,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation............            +2,000          +130,000           +15,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request...........                 0                 0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 $827 (based 
on indexed chapter 31 subsistence allowance rate) are available 
to service-connected disabled veterans enrolled in vocational 
rehabilitation programs when the veteran is temporarily in need 
of additional assistance. Repayment is made in 10 monthly 
installments, without interest, through deductions from future 
payments of compensation, pension, subsistence allowance, 
educational assistance allowance, or retirement pay. The 
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires budgetary resources 
to be available prior to incurring a direct loan obligation. In 
addition, the Act requires all administrative expenses of a 
direct loan program to be funded through a program account.
    The bill includes the budget requests of $57,000 for 
funding subsidy program costs and $415,000 for administrative 
expenses. The administrative expenses may be transferred to and 
merged with the general operating expenses account. In 
addition, the bill includes requested language limiting program 
direct loans to $2,531,000. It is estimated that VA will make 
4,600 loans in fiscal year 2000, with an average amount of 
$550.

          NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Administrative expenses:
    Fiscal year 2000 recommendation...................          $520,000
    Fiscal year 1999 appropriation....................           515,000
    Fiscal year 2000 budget request...................           520,000
    Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation....            +5,000
    Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request...                 0


    This program is testing the feasibility of authorizing VA 
to make direct home loans to native American veterans who live 
on U.S. trust land. This is a pilot program which began in 1993 
and expires on December 31, 2001. The bill includes the budget 
request of $520,000 for administrative expenses, which may be 
transferred to and merged with the general operating expenses 
account.

                     Veterans Health Administration


                              MEDICAL CARE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................   $19,006,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    17,306,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................    17,306,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........    +1,700,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......    +1,700,000,000


    The Department of Veterans Affairs operates the largest 
Federal medical care delivery system in the country, with 172 
medical centers, 40 domiciliaries, 132 nursing homes, and 811 
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 facilities; contract hospitals; 
State domiciliaries, nursing homes and hospitals; contract 
community nursing homes; and outpatient programs on a fee 
basis. Hospital and outpatient care are also provided by the 
private sector for certain dependents and survivors of veterans 
under the civilian health and medical programs for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. Funds are also used to train 
medical residents, interns, and other professional, paramedical 
and administrative personnel in health-science fields to 
support VA's medical programs.
    The VA is requesting an appropriation of $17,306,000,000 
for medical care in fiscal year 2000, the same as the enacted 
level. In addition, the Administration's budget assumes 
$749,141,000 will be available from the Medical Care 
Collections Fund (MCCF).
    The Committee notes that the Congressional Budget Office 
estimates $608,000,000 from the MCCF in fiscal year 2000. The 
VA believes that increased collections will occur in fiscal 
year 2000 through efforts such as implementing billing rates 
based on reasonable charges and the incentive of allowing 
medical centers to retain the funds collected. The Committee 
expects the VA to take all actions possible to increase the 
amount of funds collected and thus available for the medical 
treatment of veterans. The VA should reduce the amount of funds 
necessary for the administrative costs of collecting these 
funds including consolidation of billing operations.
    The bill provides $19,006,000,000 for medical care in 
fiscal year 2000. The total of these amounts is $1,700,000,000 
over the President's budget and the FY 1999 level. The bill 
also includes language as proposed by the President delaying 
the availability of $635,000,000 requested for the equipment 
and land and structures object classifications until August 1, 
2000.
    The bill includes requested language in the ``Compensation 
and pension'' appropriation reimbursing $7,200,000 for 
administrative expenses of implementing cost saving provisions 
required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992. The bill also includes 
requested language providing reimbursement authority for 
services rendered of up to $27,907,000-$26,111,000 for ORM and 
up to $1,796,000 for OEDCA.
    The budget proposes bill language permitting two-year 
spending availability for $833,550,000 of the medical care 
appropriation. The bill does not include the requested 
language. The Committee notes that more limited flexibility is 
provided with the extended availability of equipment and land 
and structures funds, and that medical care collection funds 
are available until expended.
    The Committee directs the VA to provide a report, by VISN, 
uniformly describing how each VISN allocated the funds 
available by facility and health care network for FY 1999 and 
FY 2000. This report is due to the Committee by March 31, 2000.
    No specific dollar amount is provided for the treatment of 
hepatitis C (HCV). The Committee reiterates its concern 
regarding the high prevalence of HCV among veterans. The HCV 
infection rate among veterans is substantially higher than 
among the general population, and this will lead to 
significantly greater VA health care program costs unless the 
VA pursues a vigorous program of testing and treatment. 
Therefore, the Committee urges the VA to make testing for HCV 
broadly available to veterans, and to use all available 
therapies in the most clinically appropriate and cost effective 
manner. The Committee also advises the VA to be aware of the 
article in the New England Journal of Medicine (January 29, 
1998) regarding hepatitis A and hepatitis B.
    Legislation to establish a pilot program permitting 
Medicare reimbursements to VA hospitals for care provided to 
certain Medicare-eligible veterans over the age of 65 is still 
under consideration. This concept, often referred to as 
Medicare subvention, would increase alternative revenue sources 
as the VA medical system enrolls more Medicare-eligible 
veterans who are seeking services for non-service connected 
conditions. The VA has repeatedly demonstrated a capacity to 
treat patients at a lower cost than most Medicare providers 
while producing better health outcomes. The Committee urges the 
committees of jurisdiction to act expeditiously to provide this 
authority, especially in light of recent commitments by the 
President and Congress to ensure affordable health care for all 
older Americans.
    The budget estimates that 3,644,624 unique patients will 
receive health care treatment in 2000, an increase of 213,231 
above the number treated in 1998 and 53,588 above the number 
estimated for 1999. However, the Department estimates 
eliminating between 7,000 to 8,000 full time equivalent 
positions in VHA in fiscal year 2000. The Committee is 
concerned that under the budget proposed by the President, the 
VA would have to reduce the numbers of health care providers to 
a level where patient care is in danger. The Committee directs 
the VA in the future to submit a budget that will provide 
adequate funding for patient care.
    In addition to the increase in the medical care 
appropriation, the VA should continue its various reengineering 
and reorganization efforts to increase efficiency and 
effectiveness and continue its transition from an acute-care, 
hospital-based system to one that focuses on primary care in an 
outpatient setting. Consolidating and closing underutilized 
services will permit a more effective and efficient use of 
resources.
    The Committee has learned that the VA sent letters to 
thousands of veterans nationally (primarily category 7 
veterans) stating that they may be ineligible to receive care 
in VA facilities after September 30, 1999. Many of these 
veterans have been receiving care at VA facilities for years. 
The Committee is concerned that in light of constrained budgets 
and the lack of legislative authorization for Medicare 
subvention, which would increase funds to the Medical care 
collections fund, the VA is not able to fulfill the goal of 30-
20-10. The VA's inability to increase third party collections 
added to an increased patient population, primarily category 7 
veterans, is straining the resources available for medical 
services. So that the VA can better meet the general goal of 
improving overall health care to veterans, the Committee 
directs the VA re-examine its objective to increase the number 
of unique patients by 20% and any activities underway to 
increase unique patient visits. The Committee directs VA to 
continue providing medical care for all upper category veterans 
and those veterans already enrolled with the VA health care 
system.
    Community based outpatient clinics have been established 
across the country. These clinics bring primary and mental 
health care providers closer to where veterans live. The 
Committee encourages the VA to provide the networks with the 
necessary support to further expand the number of community 
based outpatient clinics. The Committee urges the VA to 
consider establishing community based outpatient clinics in 
Morris County, New Jersey, Louisville, Kentucky, Sioux City, 
Iowa, and Fort Dodge, Iowa.
    Last year's report contained language directing the VA to 
contract with the National Institute of Medicine to study the 
costs of the National Drug Formulary and to compare the VA's 
formulary to formularies in other private and governmental 
plans. The Committee learned, to its great dismay, that the 
directed six month study was not begun until six months after 
the VA-HUD bill was signed into law. The Committee directs the 
VA to stop any formulary classification or evaluation 
activities until the above mentioned report is submitted to the 
Committee.
    The Committee is concerned that mental health services for 
chronically mentally ill veterans are not being adequately 
provided. The Committee is encouraged by Directive 99-030 
signed by the Undersecretary for Health on June 30, 1999, which 
provides guidelines for the VA to examine and ensure the 
availability of mental health services at VA medical 
facilities. The Committee suggests the VA expand case 
management programs (such as the VA's Intensive Psychiatric 
Community Care Programs) to provide services with similar scope 
and intensity equivalent to case management services available 
to patients with similar diagnoses in state public mental 
health systems.
    The Committee directs the VA to submit a comprehensive 
report no later than March 31, 2000, uniformly by each VISN, 
addressing how dollars saved from reduced resources in 
inpatient psychiatric facilities since fiscal year 1996 have 
been, and will be reinvested in alternative community-based 
mental health services, including prescription drugs.
    The Committee encourages the VA to consider extending the 
Secretary's moratorium on medical staff RIFs in Montana until 
2002, or until a contract provider network is in place in 
eastern Montana, whichever is soonest.
    The Committee recommends that the VA extend for no more 
than 18 months the lease arrangement with California State 
University, Monterey Bay for space at the VA clinic in Marina, 
California.
    The Committee directs the VA to submit a report by January 
1, 2000 addressing mental health services at the Louisville 
VAMC and the Lexington VAMC. The report must provide the number 
of patients receiving treatment for mental illnesses at each 
medical center, the proximity of each medical center to the 
population it serves, and the number of staff providing mental 
health services at each medical center. The Committee expects 
the VA to keep mental health services in proximity to those 
patients seeking treatment.
    In each of the past two fiscal years the Congress has 
provided funding from within the VISN 8 allocation for a 
demonstration program to study the cost-effectiveness of 
contracting inpatient health care services with local East 
Central Florida hospitals. Based on the success of the program, 
the Committee would expect its continuation in fiscal year 
2000. The Committee directs the VA to submit a report by April 
1, 2000 addressing the costs and benefits of this program and 
the applicability of expanding this program to other parts of 
the country.
    The Committee encourages the VA and VISN 7 to examine a 
proposal developing telemedicine technologies linking the 
Birmingham VA Medical Center, UAH School of Medicine, Tut Fann 
State Veterans Nursing Home, and VA community-based outpatient 
clinics in Florence, Alabama and Huntsville, Alabama via the 
Internet. The VA shall report its findings, including costs, 
back to the Committee no later than March 1, 2000.
    The Committee expects the VA and VISN 11 to complete the 
agreed upon review of health care in Southeast Michigan and 
issue a report of their findings.

                    medical and prosthetic research




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $326,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       316,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       316,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       +10,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       +10,000,000


    This account includes medical, rehabilitative and health 
services research. Medical research is an important aspect of 
VA programs, providing complete medical and hospital service 
for veterans. The prosthetic research program is also essential 
in the development and testing of prosthetic, orthopedic and 
sensory aids for the purpose of improving the care and 
rehabilitation of eligible disabled veterans, including 
amputees, paraplegics and the blind. The health service 
research program provides unique opportunities to improve the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the health care delivery 
system. In addition, budgetary resources from a number of areas 
including appropriations from the medical care account; 
reimbursements from the Department of Defense; and grants from 
the National Institutes of Health, private proprietary sources, 
and voluntary agencies provide support for VA's researchers.
    The Committee recommends $326,000,000 for medical and 
prosthetic research in fiscal year 2000. This is $10,000,000 
over the 1999 level and the budget request.
    The Committee recommends $5,500,000 for the purpose of 
establishing a VA Prostate Imaging Program--a public/private 
partnership to improve early detection and treatment of 
prostate cancer, one of the most common diseases of American 
veterans. This research will support development and 
feasibility testing of prostate imaging technologies at 
universities and expedite transfer of promising instrumentation 
to the VA research facilities for large-scale clinical 
evaluation in veteran patients. Present diagnostic methods are 
not reliable for early detection. Current treatment is 
associated with high costs and many permanent complications. 
The effort to advance imaging technologies and their 
integration with clinical diagnosis and treatment will make an 
important impact on the advancement of prostate cancer care in 
the veteran community, including reduction of patient 
suffering, side effects and health care costs.
    The Committee encourages the VA to continue conducting 
cooperative research with the developers of HCV treatments in 
order to improve the efficacy of existing treatments and 
perfect their utilization among veterans.
    Acute and chronic renal failure currently affects 8,000 
veterans and 300,000 patients nationwide. Patients are 
currently treated with the outmoded, painful, and time-
consuming method of kidney dialysis costing the VA $110,000,000 
in FY 1998. The Committee encourages the Department's continued 
support of the innovative research and partnership between the 
Ann Arbor VAMC and the University of Michigan. This research 
could ultimately lead to an implantable, bio-artifical kidney. 
Phase I of this project involves clinical trials at the VA on a 
device, worn outside the body, to treat acute renal failure. 
Building on trials, Phase II continues development of an 
implantable, bio-artifical kidney to treat chronic renal 
failure. The Committee supports this innovative research and is 
optimistic that this project could finally eliminate the need 
for dialysis and recommends $2,000,000 for Phase I and $500,000 
for Phase II.
    The Committee has been informed of the positive results of 
recent clinical trials utilizing the telemedicine capabilities 
of the Joslin Vision Network (JVN) and recommends $2,000,000 
for the VA to contribute toward costs involved with the 
research and the JVN.
    The Committee is concerned about reports that some VA 
medical centers may be discouraging investigators from applying 
for research project and career development awards due to 
conflicting constraints between research time and clinical care 
commitments. The Committee is pleased to learn that VA is 
developing internal approaches to resolve this issue and 
encourages VA to continue its efforts to provide physician-
investigators with adequate time to conduct VA-approved 
research.
    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Washington, DC 
VAMC to continue on the application of artificial neural 
networks to the diagnosis and prognosis of heart disease.
    The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the National 
Technology Transfer Center (NTTC) to establish a pilot program 
to assess, market, and license medical technologies researched 
in VA facilities. The Committee directs the NTTC to report to 
the Committee no later than July 1, 2000 the status and 
findings of the pilot.

      medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $61,200,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        63,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        61,200,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        -1,800,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......                 0


    This appropriation provides funds for central office 
executive direction (Under Secretary for Health and staff), 
administration and supervision of all VA medical and 
construction programs, including development and implementation 
of policies, plans and program objectives.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of $61,200,000 
for medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses 
in fiscal year 2000.

                   General post fund, national homes

                     (including transfer of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on    Administrative
                                                             Program account    direct loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation...........................            $7,000           $70,000           $54,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation............................             7,000            70,000            54,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request...........................             7,000            70,000            54,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation............                 0                 0                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request...........                 0                 0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                      Departmental Administration


                       general operating expenses




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $886,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       855,661,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       912,353,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       +30,339,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -26,353,000


    The general operating expenses appropriation provides for 
the administration of non-medical veterans benefits through the 
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and top management 
direction and support. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 
changed the accounting of Federal credit programs and required 
that all administrative costs associated with such programs be 
included within the respective credit accounts. Beginning in 
fiscal year 1992, costs incurred by housing, education, and 
vocational rehabilitation programs for administration of these 
credit programs are reimbursed by those accounts. The bill 
includes the budget requests totalling $158,107,000 in other 
accounts for these credit programs. In addition, $10,732,000 is 
transferred from the compensation and pensions account for 
administrative costs of implementing cost saving provisions 
required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992. Section 107 of the 
administrative provisions provides requested language which 
permits excess revenues in three insurance funds to be used for 
administrative expenses. The VA estimates that $36,754,000 will 
be utilized for such purposes in fiscal year 2000. Prior to 
fiscal year 1996, such costs were included in the general 
operating expenses appropriation. Thus, in total, 
$1,118,060,000 is requested in fiscal year 2000 for 
administrative costs of non-medical benefits.
    The Committee recommends $886,000,000 for general operating 
expenses in fiscal year 2000. This amount represents an 
increase of $30,339,000 above the current level and $26,353,000 
below the budget request.
    The VBA is to be funded at not less than $696,000,000. The 
Committee is greatly encouraged by the reengineering efforts of 
VBA to address the delay in claims processing and the need for 
technology improvements to the system. The Committee 
appreciates the effort and system-wide cooperation necessary 
for a large reinvention and applauds the VBA for moving forward 
with this endeavor.
    The Committee notes that various assessments have reported 
a possible increased cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs 
if the Benefits Delivery Network Data Processing Center were to 
be moved from its current location at the Hines Benefits 
Delivery Center, Hines, Illinois to the Austin Automation 
Center in Austin, Texas. In addition, the operations at Hines 
are important to ensuring uninterrupted payment of 
compensation, pension and education benefits to veterans during 
the changing millennium. The Committee directs the Secretary 
not to allocate or expend any appropriated funds during fiscal 
year 2000 to plan or implement a collocation of functions 
currently performed at the Hines Benefits Delivery Center with 
the Austin Automation Center.
    From funds in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Committee urges the 
VA to work with the Salt Lake Organizing Committee and provide 
resources to prepare for the 2002 Paralympic Games in Salt Lake 
City.

                    national cemetery administration




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $97,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        92,006,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        97,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        +4,994,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......                 0


    The National Cemetery Administration was established in 
accordance with the National Cemeteries Act of 1973. It has a 
fourfold mission: to provide for the interment in any national 
cemetery with available grave space the remains of eligible 
deceased servicepersons and discharged veterans, together with 
their spouses and certain dependents, and to permanently 
maintain their graves; to mark graves of eligible persons in 
national and private cemeteries; to administer the grant 
program for aid to States in establishing, expanding, or 
improving State veterans' cemeteries; and to administer the 
Presidential Memorial Certificate Program. This appropriation 
provides for the operation and maintenance of 153 cemeterial 
installations in 39 States, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico.
    The fiscal year 1999 appropriation increased 9.3 percent 
above the fiscal year 1998 amount. The fiscal year 2000 request 
is 5.9 percent higher than fiscal year 1999 appropriation. 
These relatively large increases are necessary to provide for 
the operations of new cemeteries, and to cover increased 
workloads at existing cemeteries.
    The Committee recommends $97,000,000 for the National 
Cemetery Administration in fiscal year 2000. This funding level 
is $4,994,000 over the 1999 level and equal to the President's 
request. The bill also includes requested language providing 
reimbursement authority for services rendered of up to 
$117,000--$111,000 for ORM and up to $6,000 for OEDCA.

                      office of inspector general




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $38,500,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        36,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        43,200,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        +2,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......        -4,700,000


    The Office of Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for the audit, 
investigation and inspection of all Department of Veterans 
Affairs programs and operations. The overall operational 
objective is to focus available resources on areas which would 
help improve services to veterans and their beneficiaries, 
assist managers of VA programs to operate economically in 
accomplishing program goals, and prevent and deter recurring 
and potential fraud, waste and inefficiencies.
    The Committee has provided $38,500,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General in fiscal year 2000. This amount is an 
increase of $2,500,000 above the current year appropriation and 
$4,700,000 below the budget request. Additional funds are not 
available for the Office to contract the financial statements 
audit. The bill also includes requested language providing 
reimbursement authority for services rendered of up to 
$30,000--$28,000 for ORM and up to $2,000 for OEDCA.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $34,700,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       142,300,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        60,140,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........      -107,600,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -25,440,000


    The construction, major projects appropriation provides for 
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the 
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the VA, 
including planning, architectural and engineering services, and 
site acquisition where the estimated cost of a project is 
$4,000,000 or more. Emphasis is placed on correction of life/
safety code deficiencies in existing VA medical facilities.
    A program of $60,140,000 is requested for construction, 
major projects, in fiscal year 2000. The bill provides 
$34,700,000 which is $107,600,000 below the 1999 funding level 
and $25,440,000 below the President's request. The Committee 
directs that some of the design funds be used for planning 
national cemeteries in the regions designated by the House 
Veterans Affairs Committee of Georgia, South Florida, and 
Northern California.
    The specific amounts recommended by the Committee are as 
follows:

                                            DETAIL OF BUDGET REQUEST
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Available                             House
                 Location and description                     through 1999      2000 request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Program:
    Clinical improvements:
        Kansas City, MO, Surgical suite...................                 0            13,000                 0
        Tampa, FL, Spinal cord injury center..............            24,000            17,500            17,500
    Patient environment: Murfreesboro, TN, Psychiatric                 1,300            12,700            12,700
     patient privacy......................................
    Advance planning fund: Various stations...............                 0             2,970             2,430
    Asbestos abatement: Various stations..................                 0             1,000             1,000
    Design fund: Various stations.........................                 0             1,000               750
    Less: Design fund.....................................                 0              -650              -650
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................            25,300            47,520            33,730
                                                           =====================================================
Veterans Benefits Administration: Advance planning fund...                 0               225               225
                                                           =====================================================
National Cemetery Program:
    Leavenworth, KS, Facility right-sizing/gravesite                       0            11,900                 0
     development..........................................
    Advance planning fund: Various stations...............                 0               500               750
    Less: Design fund.....................................                 0              -595              -595
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................................                 0            11,805               155
                                                           =====================================================
Claims Analyses: Various stations.........................                 0               590               590
                                                           =====================================================
      Total construction, major projects..................            25,300            60,140            34,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee has yet to see the initial plans for a 
national cemetery in Eastern Kentucky due March 31, 1999. The 
Committee strongly urges the Department to submit the requested 
plans by January 1, 2000.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $102,300,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       175,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       175,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -72,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -72,700,000


    The construction, minor projects appropriation provides for 
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the 
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the VA, 
including planning, architectural and engineering services, and 
site acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is less 
than $4,000,000. Program focus is placed on outpatient care 
projects.
    The Committee recommends $102,700,000 for the construction, 
minor projects appropriation in fiscal year 2000. The amount 
recommended is $72,700,000 below the budget request.
    Of the amount provided, the Committee directs $150,000 for 
``mothballing'' four historic buildings at the Dayton Veterans 
Affairs Medical Center in Dayton, Ohio, $3,000,000 for 
renovations of the research building at the Bronx Veterans 
Affairs Medical Center in Bronx, New York, and $500,000 for 
preparation of the satellite site at the National Cemetery at 
Salisbury, North Carolina. The Committee also requests a study 
to examine and design a relocated entrance to the West Virginia 
National Cemetery in Grafton, West Virginia.

                         PARKING REVOLVING FUND

    This appropriation provides funds for the construction, 
alteration, and acquisition (by purchase or lease) of parking 
garages at VA medical facilities. The Secretary is required 
under certain circumstances to establish and collect fees for 
the use of such garages and parking facilities. Receipts from 
the parking fees are to be deposited in the revolving fund and 
can be used to fund future parking garage initiatives.
    No new budget authority is requested for the parking 
revolving fund in fiscal year 2000. Leases will be funded from 
parking fees collected. The bill includes the requested 
language permitting operation and maintenance costs of parking 
facilities to be funded from the medical care appropriation.

       GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $80,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        90,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        40,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -10,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       +40,000,000


    This program provides grants to assist States to construct 
State home facilities for furnishing domiciliary or nursing 
home care to veterans, and to expand, remodel or alter existing 
buildings for furnishing domiciliary, nursing home or hospital 
care to veterans in State homes. A grant may not exceed 65 
percent of the total cost of the project. Grants for State 
nursing facilities may not provide for more than four beds per 
thousand veterans in any State.
    The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for grants for 
construction of State extended care facilities in fiscal year 
2000. This amount represents an increase of $40,000,000 above 
the budget request and is provided to address the high demand 
from States for this important program.
    The Committee encourages the Department to work with West 
Virginia, Colorado and Louisiana as those states apply for 
state home grants.

        GRANTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS CEMETERIES




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $11,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        10,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        11,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        +1,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......                 0


    Public Law 105-368, amended title 38 U.S.C. 2408, which 
established authority to provide aid to States for 
establishment, expansion, and improvement of State veterans' 
cemeteries which are operated and permanently maintained by the 
States. This amendment increased the maximum Federal Share from 
50 percent to 100 percent in order to fund construction cost 
and the initial equipment expenses when the cemetery is 
established. The states remain responsible for providing the 
land and for paying all costs related to the operation and 
maintenance of the state cemeteries, including the costs for 
subsequent equipment purchases.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of $11,000,000 
for grants for the construction State veterans cemeteries in 
fiscal year 2000. This amount is $1,000,000 over the 1999 
level.
    The Committee encourages the Department to work with 
Kentucky and California as those states apply for state 
cemetery grants.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

                   (INCLUDING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    The bill continues the existing eight administrative 
provisions as proposed in the budget. The budget proposes bill 
language to fund the new Office of Resolution Management (ORM) 
and Office of Employment Discrimination Compliant Adjudication 
(OEDCA) on a reimbursable basis from other VA appropriations in 
fiscal year 2000. The Committee agrees with need for these 
offices, but does not agree with this method of financing as it 
permits unlimited funding of these administrative functions. To 
provide definite levels of funding for these offices, as in the 
case with other administrative functions, language limiting the 
amounts to be reimbursed from ``Medical care'' ($27,907,000--
$26,111,000 for ORM and $1,796,000 for OEDCA), ``National 
cemetery administration'' ($117,000--$111,000 for ORM and 
$6,000 for OEDCA), and ``Office of inspector general'' 
($30,000--$28,000 for ORM and $2,000 for OEDCA) appropriations 
have been included in the bill. In addition, up to $2,068,000 
($1,888,000 for ORM and $180,000 for OEDCA) may be reprogrammed 
within ``General operating expenses'' for service rendered.
    The Committee expects the VA to examine the issue of 
capital asset planning. While the Act does not specifically 
provide funds for the proposed Capital Asset Fund, the 
Committee does expect that the VA will start undertaking 
activities to address the capital assets issues posed by GAO 
and the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. The Committee also 
expects that if a realignment or reinvestment process is 
underway at the VA, the VA will include the Committee as one of 
its stakeholders in the process and provide information to the 
Committee in a timely manner.
    The bill includes an administrative provision allowing 
$11,500,000, originally appropriated in fiscal year 1998 to 
renovate Building 9 at the VAMC in Waco, Texas, to instead be 
used for renovation and construction of a joint venture 
cardiovascular institute at the Olin E. Teague Department of 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Temple, Texas.

                                TITLE II


              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT





Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................   $26,057,049,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    24,079,378,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................  \1\28,052,478,00
                                                                       0
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........    +1,977,671,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......   -1,995,429,000

\1\ Amount includes $4,200,000,000 in an advance appropriation as
  proposed in the President's Budget request.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was 
established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-174). HUD is the principal Federal 
agency responsible for administering and regulating programs 
and industries concerned with the Nation's housing needs, 
economic and community development, and fair housing 
opportunities.
    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, rental and homeownership subsidy programs 
for low-income families, neighborhood rehabilitation programs, 
and community development programs.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$26,057,049,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, a decrease of $1,995,429,000 below the request and 
an increase of $1,977,671,000 above the fiscal year 1999 
appropriation.

                       Public and Indian Housing


                        Housing Certificate Fund




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................   $10,540,135,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    10,326,542,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................  \2\11,522,095,00
                                                                       0
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........      +213,593,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......     -981,960,000

\2\ Amount includes $4,200,000,000 in an advance appropriation as
  proposed in the President's Budget request.

    The Housing Certificate Fund provides funding for the 
renewal of expiring section 8 contracts, for section 8 enhanced 
vouchers, for the administration of section 8 contracts, and 
for relocation assistance in both the Housing and Public 
Housing programs.
    The Committee recommends $10,540,135,000 for the Housing 
Certificate Fund. Of the amount appropriated, $25,000,000 is 
provided for section 8 tenant-based rental assistance for 
disabled families who choose to move from public housing 
complexes designated for elderly-only residents. Though 
requested by the Administration, funds are not provided for the 
following requests: (1) $20,000,000 for regional opportunity 
counseling; (2) $144,400,000 for welfare to work vouchers; and, 
(3) $366,560,000 for incremental vouchers. For fiscal year 
2000, language is included in the bill to precluding HUD from 
paying $6,000,000 in increased administrative fee costs in the 
tenant-based section 8 program due to enactment of the Quality 
Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998.
    At the request of the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), HUD included a $4,200,000,000 advance appropriation in 
the section 8 contract renewal account, even though it was not 
submitted in HUD's budget request to OMB, or included in the 
Administration's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Passback. The 
Committee has not included the advance appropriation in its 
recommendation.
    HUD is directed to establish, maintain, and publish 
annually, an inventory of all housing that is designated in 
whole or in part for occupancy by elderly families, disabled 
families, or both. The inventory shall include, but not be 
limited to, the number of apartments in buildings designated 
for occupancy only by elderly families, the number of 
apartments in buildings designated for occupancy only by 
disabled families, and the number of apartments in buildings 
with special features designed to accommodate disabled persons. 
HUD is directed to work with the Committee in developing this 
inventory, and to complete and publish it no later than March 
1, 2000.
    The Fiscal Year 1997 VA, HUD and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act created a special section 8 enhanced voucher 
to provide a higher subsidy for residents in properties where 
an owner prepays the mortgage and then charges a higher rent. 
When this language was included, the Committee intended that it 
cover initial rent increases, as well as subsequent rent 
increases, where the rent is reasonable according to the public 
housing authority. The Administration, however, has chosen to 
interpret the law to cover only one rent increase rather than 
subsequent increases. To clarify any ambiguity, language is 
included in the Administrative provisions to ensure that 
subsequent rent increases, if reasonable, are covered by the 
enhanced voucher.
    Finally, the Committee is aware of legislation, under 
consideration by the House Banking Committee, to mitigate the 
loss of affordable housing when owners of assisted housing 
choose not to renew their section 8 project-based contracts, 
and looks forward to considering appropriating funds for it.

                      public housing capital fund




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................    $2,555,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     3,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     2,555,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........      -445,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......                 0


    The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for all 
public housing capital programs. Examples include public 
housing development, modernization, and amendments. Various 
levels of repair and modernization are eligible activities, for 
example, rehabilitation, new construction, replacing 
appliances, and non-routine maintenance that has become 
substantial in scope. Examples of capital modernization 
projects include replacing roofs and windows, physical 
improvements to common spaces, improving electrical and 
plumbing systems, and renovating the interior of an apartment.
    The Committee recommends funding this program at the 
request of $2,555,000,000, which is $445,000,000 below the 
fiscal year 1999 appropriation. Of the amount provided, no more 
than $10,000,000 may be used for technical assistance, contract 
expertise, training, interventions in troubled authorities, 
independent physical inspections, and management improvements 
in support of Management 2020. Pursuant to the Administration's 
request, there is no set-aside for the Tenant Opportunity 
Program (TOP).

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

                     (Including Transfers of Funds)




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................    $2,818,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     2,818,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     3,003,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......      -185,000,000


    Operating subsidies are provided to public housing 
authorities to supplement tenant rental contributions and other 
income for the purpose of paying for the ordinary daily costs 
of operating a public housing authority (PHA). These costs 
include utility, security, and insurance bills, and the 
salaries of public housing employees. Operating subsidy amounts 
are determined by formula grants.
    The Committee recommends funding operating subsidies at the 
fiscal year 1999 level of $2,818,000,000, a decrease of 
$185,000,000 from the level requested by the Administration.

             Drug Elimination Grants For Low-Income Housing




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $290,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       310,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       310,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -20,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -20,000,000


    Drug Elimination Grants funds are provided to public 
housing agencies and Indian housing authorities to eliminate 
drug-related crime in housing developments. Funds may be used 
to pay for law enforcement personnel and investigators, to 
provide for physical improvements that enhance security, to 
support tenant patrols and initiatives, and to develop drug 
abuse prevention programs.
    The Committee recommends funding this program at 
$290,000,000, a decrease of $20,000,000 below the request and 
below the level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. Of the level 
provided, $10,000,000 is set-aside for Operation Safe Home 
administered by the HUD Inspector General, $10,000,000 is for 
the Inspector General for other Operation Safe Home activities 
and $5,000,000 is for technical assistance. Though requested by 
the Administration, funds are not provided for the New Approach 
Anti Drug Program or the Youth Anti-Drug Diversion Program.

     Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing (Hope VI)




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $575,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       625,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       625,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -50,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -50,000,000


    The Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing 
program, also known as HOPE VI, provides grants to competing 
public housing authorities, thereby enabling them to revitalize 
entire neighborhoods adversely impacted by the presence of 
badly deteriorated public housing projects. In addition to 
developing and constructing new affordable apartments, the 
program provides PHAs with the authority to demolish obsolete 
projects and to provide self-sufficiency services for families 
who reside in and around the facility.
    The Committee recommends funding HOPE VI at $575,000,000, a 
decrease of $50,000,000 below the request and the fiscal year 
1999 appropriation. Like last year, the bill includes language 
that directs HUD to provide relocation vouchers, which HUD 
estimates will cost approximately $30,000,000, from the Housing 
Certificate Fund.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $620,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       620,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       620,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......                 0


    The Native American Housing Block Grants program provides 
funds to Indian tribes and their tribally-designated housing 
entities (TDHEs) to help them address housing needs within 
their communities. The block grant is designed to fund 
operating requirements and capital needs.
    The Committee recommends funding this program at the 
request of $620,000,000, which is the same level as the fiscal 
year 1999 appropriation. Of the amount provided $6,000,000 is 
set-aside for the section 601 Loan Guarantee Program, 
$6,000,000 is set-aside for inspections, training, travel costs 
and technical assistance, and $1,000,000 is set-aside for the 
purpose of conducting a study, described below, on unmet 
housing needs of tribes assisted with these grants.
    HUD uses U.S. Decennial Census data to determine current 
housing conditions, including housing needs, for Native 
Americans and Alaska Natives. This information also drives the 
NAHASDA formula funding allocation. Therefore, it is critical 
to collect Native American and Alaska Native housing needs data 
as determined by the tribes. Although some tribes do collect 
this data, it is only available to HUD when a tribe challenges 
its formula data. Furthermore, the information is critical to 
evaluate the accuracy of housing needs data by comparing Indian 
Housing Plan data against census data to develop a better 
picture of the number of substandard housing units, housing in 
need of rehabilitation, and new housing needs. The NAHASDA 
Annual Performance Report should also be analyzed to determine 
the extent to which NAHASDA is addressing the needs.
    The Committee directs HUD to contract for a study on any 
unmet housing needs of the tribes. As part of the review and 
analysis, consideration should be given to what data elements 
may be more appropriate for use in revising the current Indian 
Housing Block Grant formula to allocate NAHASDA appropriations. 
Additionally, by January 15, 2000, HUD is directed to provide a 
plan to the Committees on Appropriations that includes 
performance goals and objectives for the Indian Housing 
Program.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                       Program account    direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.....        $6,000,000       $71,956,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation......         6,000,000        68,881,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.....         6,000,000        71,956,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999                     0                 0
 appropriation......................
Comparison with fiscal year 2000                     0                 0
 budget request.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1992 establishes a loan guarantee program for Native Americans 
to build or purchase homes on trust land. This program provides 
access to sources of private financing for Indian families and 
Indian housing authorities that otherwise cannot acquire 
financing because of the unique legal status of Indian trust 
land. This financing vehicle enables approximately 20,000 
families to construct new homes or purchase existing properties 
on reservations.
    The Committee recommends funding this program at the 
request of $6,000,000, which is the same level appropriated in 
fiscal year 1999.

                   Community Planning and Development


                 Rural Housing and Economic Development




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................                 0
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        25,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        20,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -25,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -20,000,000


    The Committee has not provided funds for this account. The 
Committee recommends providing $10,000,000 for this program as 
a set-aside in the CDBG account. The Administration requested 
$20,000,000 and the fiscal year 1999 appropriation was 
$25,000,000.

              Housing Opportunities For Persons With Aids




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $215,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       225,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       240,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -10,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -25,000,000


    The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 
program is authorized by the Housing Opportunities for Persons 
with AIDS Act. The program provides states and localities with 
resources and incentives to devise long term comprehensive 
strategies for meeting the housing needs of persons with HIV/
AIDS and their families. Government recipients must have a HUD-
approved Comprehensive Plan/Comprehensive Housing Affordability 
Strategy (CHAS). Funds are allocated among eligible grantees 
pursuant to section 854(c) of the National Affordable Housing 
Act.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends 
$215,000,000, which is $10,000,000 below the fiscal year 1999 
appropriation, and $25,000,000 below the request.

                   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................    $4,500,200,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     4,750,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     4,775,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........      -249,800,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......      -274,800,000


    Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to make grants to 
units of general local government and states for local 
community development programs. The primary objective of the 
block grant program is to develop viable urban communities and 
to expand economic opportunities, principally for persons of 
low- and moderate-income.
    The Committee recommends appropriating $4,500,200,000 for 
community development grants in fiscal year 2000, which is 
$249,800,000 below the level appropriated in fiscal year 1999, 
and $274,800,000 below the President's request. Overall, set-
asides are $266,550,000 lower than in fiscal year 1999. 
Therefore, despite the decrease in the appropriation, funds for 
the entitlement communities and small cities programs will be 
greater than in fiscal year 1999. Set-asides within the CDBG 
account include $67,000,000 for Native Americans, $55,000,000 
for the Resident Opportunity and Social Services (ROSS) 
program, $3,000,000 for the Housing Assistance Council, 
$3,000,000 for the National American Indian Housing Council, 
$15,000,000 for the Self-Help Housing Opportunity Program 
(SHOP), $18,750,000 for the National Community Development 
Initiative (NCDI) including a set-aside of $3,750,000 for 
Habitat for Humanity International (HFHI) for its capacity 
building activities, $20,000,000 for the Neighborhood 
Initiatives program, $20,000,000 for Economic Development 
Initiative grants, $10,000,000 for the Rural Housing and 
Economic Development program and $42,500,000 for Youthbuild. 
Language is included providing Youthbuild with authority to 
make a grant of not less than $2,500,000 to Youthbuild USA for 
capacity building activities. Since receiving capacity building 
funds in fiscal year 1997, HFHI has utilized the funds 
primarily for the purpose of providing salaries for executive 
directors and construction managers of Habitat affiliates. The 
Committee is concerned with this approach to capacity building, 
and directs HFHI to reconsider its program so that operational 
costs are not paid for through this program. The Committee 
understands that the funding for the ROSS program is sufficient 
to fund renewals of service coordinators and congregate 
services.
    Additionally, $30,000,000 is provided for section 107 
grants. Of this amount, $2,000,000 is for community development 
work study, $6,500,000 is for historically black colleges and 
universities, $6,500,000 is for Hispanic-serving institutions 
assisting communities, $8,000,000 is for Community Outreach 
Partnerships, and $7,000,000 is for Insular areas. Unlike past 
years, funds are not provided for technical assistance or 
information systems. Though requested by the President, neither 
the Regional Connections program nor the Homeownership Zone 
program is funded.
    The Neighborhood Initiatives Program was created in fiscal 
year 1998 as an innovative program to encourage local 
governments, non-profits and for-profit organizations and 
businesses, and financial institutions to work cooperatively 
with each other to create new and exciting plans for 
revitalizing a discrete neighborhood. Additionally, the 
initiative sought to merge, if not eliminate, the boundaries 
that exist between HUD's core programs. A further intent was to 
explore whether time delays could be avoided by requiring 
applicants to provide plans that were complete in substantial 
measure. Several committees have begun to implement their 
plans. The Committee commends HUD for working with these 
communities as they establish their various initiatives, and 
looks forward to understanding more about their experiences as 
plans are implemented. HUD is encouraged to follow each 
community's progress, and to require them to document their 
experiences so that other organizations and communities can 
benefit from any lessons learned.
    To promote equity in the use of Federal housing and 
community development funds. The Committee recommends that HUD 
issue written guidance to housing officials encouraging 
participation in the Consolidated Plan process by people with 
disabilities and their advocates.
    The Committee recommends that the Secretary give special 
attention to making available to fledgling community 
development organizations training to advance skills of 
individuals and organizations. This training can best be 
provided and delivered on site at and by experienced community 
based organizations and a pilot effort should be initiated 
through the New Communities Corporation of Newark, New Jersey.
    Finally, the commitment level for the section 108 Loan 
Guarantee program is reduced to $1,087,000,000, with a credit 
subsidy of $25,000,000, which is $4,000,000 below the 
President's request and the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. As 
requested by the Administration, $1,000,000 is provided for 
Administrative expenses.

                  home investment partnerships program




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................    $1,580,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     1,600,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,610,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -20,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -30,000,000


    The HOME Investment Partnerships program provides grants to 
states, units of local government, Indian tribes and insular 
areas, through formula allocation, for the purpose of expanding 
the supply of affordable housing in the jurisdiction. Upon 
receipt, state and local governments develop a comprehensive 
housing affordability strategy that enables them to acquire, 
rehabilitate, or construct new affordable housing, or to 
provide rental assistance to eligible families.
    The Committee recommends appropriating $1,580,000,000, 
which is $20,000,000 below the fiscal year 1999 level, and 
$30,000,000 below the request. Of the amount appropriated, 
$7,500,000 is for Housing Counseling, which is $10,000,000 
below the 1999 fiscal year appropriation and $12,500,000 below 
the President's request.

                       brownfields redevelopment

    The Brownfields Redevelopment program provides competitive 
economic development grants in conjunction with section 108 
loan guarantees for qualified brownfield projects. Grants are 
made in accordance with section 108(q) selection criteria. The 
goal of the program is to return contaminated sites to 
productive and employment-generating uses with an emphasis on 
creating substantial numbers of jobs for lower-income people in 
physically and economically distressed neighborhoods.

                       homeless assistance grants




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $970,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       975,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,020,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        -5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -50,000,000


    The Homeless Assistance Grants account provides funding for 
four homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney Act: (1) 
the emergency shelter grants program; (2) the supportive 
housing program; (3) the section 8 moderate rehabilitation 
(single room occupancy) program; and (4) the shelter plus care 
program. This account also supports activities eligible under 
the innovative homeless initiatives demonstration program.
    The Committee recommends funding homeless programs at 
$970,000,000, a decrease of $50,000,000 below the request, and 
$5,000,000 below the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. Language 
is provided allowing HUD to use up to one percent of the funds 
appropriated for technical assistance and systems support.
    As required in the report accompanying the fiscal year 1999 
appropriation measure, HUD has begun to automate and aggregate 
previous grantee reports (APRs) and to revise the APR so that 
the adequacy of the response to homelessness can better be 
analyzed. The Committee encourages HUD to aggressively pursue 
this task. HUD is directed to report to Congress on this data 
within nine months of enactment. The report should include the 
number of homeless assistance projects it funds by 
jurisdiction, type of program, activity, and demographics of 
clients served.
    The Committee is concerned about the lack of progress on 
another Committee directive to work with a representative 
sample of jurisdictions to collect data on homeless clients. 
This information is critical to answer questions about the 
effectiveness of federal homeless assistance and changes in the 
need for such assistance. The Committee directs HUD to 
document, within 90 days of enactment, its progress in 
establishing a relationship with a representative sample of 
approximately ten jurisdictions which can collect, at a 
minimum, the following information: unduplicated count of 
clients served; client characteristics such as age, race, sex 
disability status; units (days) and type of housing received 
(shelter, transitional, or permanent); services rendered, and 
outcome information such as housing stability, income, and 
health status.
    Finally, in deference to the Banking Committee which is 
working on bipartisan legislation to reauthorize Homeless 
programs, the Committee has not included in the bill, language 
creating a 30% set-aside for permanent supportive housing or 
requiring a 25% match requirement for supportive services. The 
Committee reserves the right, however, to revisit these issues 
at Conference, and hopes to work with the Banking Committee in 
moving this very important legislation.

                            Housing Programs


                    housing for special populations




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $854,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       854,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       854,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......                 0


    The Housing for Special Populations program provides 
eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital grants 
which are used to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation or 
construction of housing intended for elderly people or people 
with disabilities. Twenty-five percent of the funding for 
supportive housing for the disabled is available for tenant-
based assistance under section 8 to increase flexibility.
    The Committee recommends funding the section 202 housing 
for the elderly program at $660,000,000, which is the same as 
the request and the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. The 
Committee recommends funding the section 811 housing for the 
disabled program at $194,000,000, which is the same as the 
request and the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
    The Committee notes a looming crisis in senior citizen 
housing. The United States will go through an unprecedented 
demographic shift over the next fifty years: by 2050, the 
elderly population will more than double to 80 million, with 
people 85 years of age and over making up almost one quarter of 
that population. Recent studies indicate that one and a half 
million elderly already pay more than 50 percent of their 
income in rent or live in substandard housing.
    In this context, the committee notes that the 
Administration has proposed expansion of the Service 
Coordinator program to ensure that low-income and frail elderly 
people receive the services they need. The Administration also 
proposed the conversion of certain 202 projects into assisted 
living facilities in order to allow residents to remain in 
their homes as they age rather than be forced to move. The 
Committee believes that this Continuum of Care approach has 
merit in creating a range of options that will enable low-
income and frail elderly to obtain decent housing and services 
they require.
    The Committee continues to be concerned by HUD's proposal 
to expand the percentage of section 811 funding directed to 
tenant based rental assistance. While tenant based assistance 
is critically important to people with disabilities, it is not 
the only answer. For example, it is not an effective strategy 
in small towns and rural areas that lack decent and reasonably 
priced rental housing. Housing produced using section 811 funds 
ensures that sufficient options exist for people with 
disabilities in communities without an adequate supply of 
rental housing stock. The Committee therefore, directs that no 
more than 25 percent of section 811 funding be used for tenant 
based assistance. In addition, the Committee is pleased that 
the Secretary used his waiver authority last year to permit no-
profit disability organizations to apply directly to HUD for 
section 811 tenant based assistance. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to continue the use of his wavier authority.
    Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that HUD's current 
practice of converting section 811 tenant based rental 
assistance funds to section 8 tenant based rental assistance 
may discourage non-profit disability organizations from 
administering tenant based rental assistance. Therefore, the 
Committee recommends that the Secretary refrain from converting 
section 811 appropriations to section 8 rent subsidies. The 
Committee also directs the Secretary to issue a joint NOFA for 
both capital advance/project-based rental assistance and the 
tenant based rental assistance components of the section 811 
program.

                         flexible subsidy fund

                          (transfer of funds)

    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized 
HUD to establish a revolving fund into which rental collections 
in excess of the established basic rents for units in section 
236 subsidized projects are deposited. Subject to approval in 
appropriations Acts, the Secretary is authorized under the 
Housing and Community Development Amendment of 1978 to transfer 
excess rent collections received after 1978 to the Troubled 
Projects Operating Subsidy program, renamed the Flexible 
Subsidy Fund.
    The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve 
as a repository of excess rental charges appropriated from the 
Rental Housing Assistance Fund. Although these resources will 
not be used for new reservations, they will continue to offset 
Flexible Subsidy outlays and other discretionary expenditures.

                     federal housing administration

             fha-mutual mortgage insurance program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Limitation of        Limitation of        Administrative
                                                       direct loans       guaranteed loans         expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation..................          $50,000,000     $140,000,000,000         $328,888,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation...................          100,000,000      110,000,000,000          328,888,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request..................           50,000,000      120,000,000,000          330,888,000
Comparison with 1999 Appropriation...............          -50,000,000          +30,000,000                    0
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request..                    0          +20,000,000           -2,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in 1992, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 
was split into two separate accounts. The first account is the 
FHA-mutual mortgage insurance program account and includes the 
mutual mortgage insurance (MMI) and cooperative management 
housing insurance (CMHI) funds. The second account is the FHA-
general and special risk program account and includes the 
general insurance (GI) and special risk insurance (SRI) funds.
    The mutual mortgage insurance program account covers 
unsubsidized programs, and consists of primarily the single-
family home mortgage program, the largest of all the FHA 
programs. The cooperative housing insurance program provides 
mortgages for cooperative housing projects of more than five 
units that are occupied by members of a cooperative housing 
corporation.
    The Committee recommends limiting commitments in the FHA-
MMI program account to $140,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2000, 
which is $30,000,000 above the fiscal year 1999 level, and is 
the same level in the Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act. The Committee recommends providing the 
fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $328,888,000 for 
administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed and direct 
loan programs, which is $2,000,000 below the Administration's 
request. Though requested by HUD, the Committee does not 
recommend providing $2,000,000 to support a data warehouse. 
Furthermore, though requested by the Administration to comply 
with credit reform, the Committee does not recommend providing 
an appropriation of $160,000,000 for administrative contract 
expenses; rather, the Committee recommends continuing to pay 
for these expenses from liquidating accounts, as provided for 
in the National Housing Act. Furthermore, the Committee 
recommends the request to limit direct loans to $50,000,000, 
which is $50,000,000 below the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
    The Committee understands that funding for the FHA 
Multifamily Credit Subsidy program in fiscal year 2000 relies 
solely on reserve funds. In fiscal year 2001, the Committee 
will re-evaluate the funding source and reinstate funding as an 
individual line item for the program.

              fha-general and special risk program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Limitation of       Limitation of      Administrative
                                     direct loans      guaranteed loans        expenses          Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.         $50,000,000     $18,100,000,000         $64,000,000                   0
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation..          50,000,000      18,100,000,000         211,455,000          81,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.          50,000,000      18,100,000,000          64,000,000                   0
Comparison with 1999                               0                   0        -147,455,000         -81,000,000
 Appropriation..................
Comparison with 2000 budget                        0                   0                   0                   0
 request........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general and special risk insurance funds contain the 
largest number of programs administered by the FHA. The GI 
funds cover a wide variety of special purpose single and multi-
family programs, including loans for property improvements, 
manufactured housing, multi-family rental housing, 
condominiums, housing for the elderly, hospitals, group 
practice facilities and nursing homes. The SRI fund includes 
insurance programs for mortgages in older, declining urban 
areas which would not be otherwise eligible for insurance, 
mortgages with interest reduction payments, and for high-risk 
mortgagors who would not normally be eligible for mortgage 
insurance without housing counseling.
    The Committee recommends the request to limit loan 
guarantee commitments for the FHA-general and special risk 
insurance program account to $18,100,000,000, which is the same 
level as fiscal year 1999. The Committee recommends the budget 
request to transfer unobligated balances of $153,000,000 for 
credit subsidy purposes, and $64,000,000 in new budget 
authority for administrative expenses. Finally, the Committee 
recommends the request on limiting direct loans to $50,000,000, 
which is the same level as the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
    As in the MMI fund, the Administration requested 
$144,000,000 in new budget authority to pay for non-overhead 
administrative expenses to comply with credit reform. The 
Committee has not provided this appropriation and recommends 
continuing to pay for these expenses from liquidating accounts, 
as provided for in the National Housing Act.

                government national mortgage association

                guarantees of mortgage-backed securities

                     loan guarantee program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Limitation of      Administrative
                                   guaranteed loans        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.    $200,000,000,000          $9,383,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation..     150,000,000,000           9,383,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.     200,000,000,000          15,383,000
Comparison with 1999                     +50,000,000                   0
 appropriation..................
Comparison with 2000 budget                        0          -6,000,000
 request........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Guarantee of Mortgage-backed Securities program 
facilitates the financing of residential mortgage loans insured 
or guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Rural Housing 
Services program. The Government National Mortgage Association 
(GNMA) guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest 
on securities issued by private service institutions such as 
mortgage companies, commercial banks, savings banks, and 
savings and loan associations which assemble pools of 
mortgages, and issues securities backed by the pools. In turn, 
investment proceeds are used to finance additional mortgage 
loans. Investors include non-traditional sources of credit in 
the housing market such as pension and retirement funds, life 
insurance companies and individuals.
    As the budget requests, the bill recommends language to 
limit loan guarantee commitments for mortgage-backed securities 
of the Government National Mortgage Association to 
$200,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2000, which is $50,000,000 
above the fiscal year 1999 level. In addition, the request of 
$9,383,000 is provided to fund administrative expenses, which 
is the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
    Though requested by HUD, the Committee does not recommend 
providing $6,000,000 to support a data warehouse.

                    Policy Development and Research


                        Research and Technology




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $42,500,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        47,500,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        50,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        -5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......        -7,500,000


    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 directs the 
Secretary to undertake programs of research, studies, testing 
and demonstrations related to the HUD mission. These functions 
are carried out internally through contracts with industry, 
non-profit research organizations, and educational institutions 
and through agreements with state and local governments and 
other federal agencies.
    The bill includes $42,500,000 for research and technology 
in fiscal year 2000, a decrease of $7,500,000 below the budget 
request and a decrease of $5,000,000 below fiscal year 1999. Of 
this amount, the Committee recommends $35,000,000 for research, 
technology, and policy analysis and $7,500,000 for the 
Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) 
initiative.
    HUD is directed to cooperate fully with the home building 
industry, and particularly with the National Association of 
Homebuilders (NAHB) Research Center, which shall coordinate 
industry participation and research planning for the 
Partnership. Furthermore, PATH funds shall not be provided to 
partnership agencies for duplicative program activities. 
Finally, the PATH Operating Plan is due no later than March 15, 
2000. HUD shall include as part of the Plan an explanation of 
how the technology and research activities of other agencies 
support PATH operations and goals.
    The Committee continues to support the Campus Affiliates 
Program, a unique partnership between HUD, the Housing 
Authority of New Orleans, higher education and the private 
sector. This program has begun to meet the needs of public 
housing residents in New Orleans by providing assistance and 
activities that foster self-sufficiency. The Committee expects 
HUD to continue to participate in this activity.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity


                        Fair Housing Activities




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $37,500,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        40,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        47,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        -2,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......        -9,500,000


    The Fair Housing Act, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 
prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of 
housing and authorizes assistance to state and local agencies 
in administering the provision of the fair housing law.
    The Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) assists state 
and local fair housing enforcement agencies that are certified 
by HUD as ``substantially equivalent'' to HUD with respect to 
enforcement policies and procedures. The FHAP is intended to 
assure prompt and effective processing of complaints filed 
under title VIII that are within the jurisdiction of state and 
local fair housing agencies.
    The Committee considers FHAP to be an effective program 
consistent with Congress' intent that regulatory 
responsibilities rest with state and local governments wherever 
appropriate. State and local agencies are best positioned to 
assess the circumstances surrounding, and take remedial action 
to address, fair housing complaints within their jurisdictions.
    The Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) is intended to 
alleviate housing discrimination by providing support to 
private nonprofit organizations, state and local government 
agencies and other nonfederal entities for the purpose of 
eliminating or preventing discrimination in housing, and to 
enhance fair housing opportunities.
    The Committee is encouraged by HUD's recent testimony 
stating that the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 
does not intend to use FHIP funds to solicit or fund 
applications that would address enforcement of the Fair Housing 
Act against property insurers. As the Committee has previously 
emphasized, given the limited resources available for 
enforcement of title VIII, it is appropriate that funds should 
serve the particular purposes expressly identified by the 
Congress in the statute. The Committee appreciates HUD's 
acknowledgement of these budgetary priorities and looks forward 
to the agency's continued cooperation in adhering to them.
    The Committee recommends providing $37,500,000; $18,750,000 
for FHAP, and $18,750,000 for FHIP. In the FHIP account, 
$2,000,000 is set-aside to continue a nationwide audit to 
determine the extent of discrimination in housing rental and 
sales.
    In addition, some fair housing advocates, advocates for the 
disabled and providers of housing (planners, builders, 
developers, sellers, renters, architects and building code 
officials) remain uncertain about some of the Fair Housing Act 
requirements. The Committee believes there are three areas 
where HUD could assist in addressing these issues in addition 
to enforcement of the Act: complete its review of the model 
building code matrix submitted in December 1997; expand its 
Fair Housing Act education efforts directed at all 
organizations involved in the delivery of multi-family housing; 
and ensure that HUD's enforcement activities be guided by its 
earlier stated policy as published in the March 6, 1991 Federal 
Register.
    The Committee directs HUD to finalize, and issue a policy 
statement on its review of the technical matrix comparing FHAG 
with the accessibility provisions in the model building codes 
supplied by the Council of American Building Code Officials by 
December 31, 1999. The Committee directs HUD to work with fair 
housing advocates, advocates for the disabled and users and 
providers of multifamily housing (planners, builders, 
developers, sellers, renters, architects and building code 
officials) to develop a plan for educating those parties on the 
requirements of the Fair Housing Act and how the requirements 
apply to the provision of accessible housing. In addition, the 
Agency will provide a copy of that plan to the Committee by 
February 29, 2000. Lastly, the Committee believes enforcement 
activities should be guided by the entire section entitled 
``Guidelines as Minimum Requirements'' published in its final 
rule in 1991 when determining compliance with the Fair Housing 
Act. That section states ``compliance with the Fair Housing 
Accessibility Guidelines will provide builders with a safe 
harbor'' and ``builders and developers should be free to use 
any reasonable design that obtains a result consistent with the 
Act's requirements.''

                     Office of Lead Hazard Control


       Lead Hazard Reduction Program and Healthy Homes Initiative




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $70,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        80,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        80,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -10,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -10,000,000


    The Lead Hazard Reduction Program, authorized under the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550) 
provides grants to state and local governments to perform lead 
hazard reduction activities in housing occupied by low-income 
families. The program also provides technical assistance, 
undertakes research and evaluations of testing and cleanup 
methodologies, and develops technical guidance and regulations 
in cooperation with EPA.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $70,000,000 
for this program, a decrease of $10,000,000 below the request 
and the fiscal year 1999 level. Of the amount appropriated, 
$7,500,000 is provided for the Healthy Homes Initiative, which 
focuses attention on cost-effective approaches to eliminating 
environmental health problems created by substandard housing. 
Funding for the Healthy Homes Initiative is $2,500,000 below 
the request and the fiscal year 1999 level. Of the total 
appropriated, $1,000,000 is for CLEARCorp.
    The Committee views lead safety as an integral part of 
rehabilitation in older housing, not as a stand-alone activity. 
Therefore, $750,000 is provided for grants or contracts to 
train sampling technicians in lead-safe repainting and 
remodeling, and $750,000 is provided to expand the National 
Center evaluation to examine and disseminate innovative, lower 
cost hazard control and educational strategies, and provide 
technical assistance for integrating$lead safety into HUD 
programs. By January 15, 2001, HUD is directed to provide a 
report to the Committees on Appropriations regarding 
CLEARCorp's performance and capacity to carry out its 
contractual obligations to reduce lead hazards.

                     Management and Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 By transfer
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                               Indian
                                                      Appropriation     FHA funds     GNMA funds      CPD        Title VI     housing         Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 recommendation.............................    $456,000,000    $518,000,000   $9,383,000   $1,000,000     $150,000     $200,000     $985,576,000
FY 1999 appropriation..............................     456,000,000     518,000,000    9,383,000    1,000,000      200,000      400,000      985,826,000
FY 2000 budget request.............................     502,000,000     518,000,000    9,383,000    1,000,000      150,000      200,000    1,030,733,000
Comparison with 1999 appropriation.................               0               0            0            0      -50,000     -200,000                0
Comparison with 2000 budget request................     -45,157,000               0            0            0            0            0      -45,157,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Administration requests a single appropriation to 
finance all salaries and related costs associated with 
administering the programs of the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, except the Office of Inspector General and 
the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. These 
activities include housing, mortgage credit, and secondary 
market programs; community planning and development programs; 
departmental management; legal services and field direction and 
administration.
    The Committee recommends last year's appropriation of 
$985,826,000, a decrease of $45,157,000 below the request. 
Transfers include: $518,000,000 from FHA funds; $9,383,000 from 
GNMA funds; $1,000,000 from Community Planning and Development 
funds; $150,000 from the title VI Indian Loan Guarantee 
program; and, $200,000 from Indian housing.
    As the country enters the next millennium, the Committee is 
more aware than ever that the strength of the country lies in 
its infrastructure. Elements of that infrastructure include the 
homes in which the nation's citizens reside. To state the 
obvious, these homes take many forms, including single-family 
houses, apartment buildings, condominiums and cooperatives, 
they make up the nation's cities, towns and neighborhoods, and 
they provide shelter to families of different sizes and income 
levels. As such, the nation's housing in its various forms 
should be thought of as assets and treated accordingly.
    Therefore, language is included in Administrative 
provisions that authorizes a Millennial Blue Ribbon Commission 
on Housing. HUD is directed to provide $2,000,000 for this 
purpose from the salary and expense account.
    The Committee intends that this Commission examine the 
importance of housing, particularly affordable housing, to the 
infrastructure of the United States. This examination should 
consider how the nation's housing assets impact the strength of 
communities and neighborhoods, as well as the social fabric of 
our society. Additionally, the Commission should explore the 
role of the private sector--both for-profits and non-profits--
and its role in expanding the supply of affordable housing. 
Part of this exploration should include increasing the use and 
creation of new or alternative building technologies that can 
decrease construction and long term operational costs of the 
nation's housing. Finally, the Commission should review HUD's 
existing core programs and make recommendations about how they 
can better work in conjunction with the private sector and with 
one another to provide better homes and opportunities for 
families, including the elderly and disabled, neighborhoods, 
and urban and rural communities.
    Language requires the Commission to conduct hearings and 
workshops over a two-year period. Following this period, the 
Commission shall have six months in which to write a report, 
which shall then be transmitted to the House of Representatives 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations and Banking and 
Financial Services.

                      Office of Inspector General

                     (including transfer of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Drug elim.
                                               Appropriation      FHA funds          grants           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 recommendation......................      $40,000,000      $22,343,000      $10,000,000      $72,343,000
FY 1999 appropriation.......................       49,567,000       22,343,000       10,000,000       81,910,000
FY 2000 budget request......................       38,000,000       22,343,000       10,000,000       70,343,000
Comparison with 1999 appropriation..........       -9,567,000                0                0       -9,567,000
Comparison with 2000 budget request.........       +2,000,000                0                0       +2,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office of Inspector General provides agency-wide audit 
and investigative functions to identify and correct management 
and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for 
existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and 
mismanagement. The audit function provides internal audit, 
contract audit and inspection services. Contract audits provide 
professional advice to agency contracting officials on 
accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, 
award, administration, re-pricing and settlement of contracts. 
Internal audits evaluate all facets of agency operations. 
Inspection services provide detailed technical evaluations of 
agency operations. The investigative function provides for the 
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities 
involving programs, personnel and operations.
    The Committee recommends the $72,343,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General, a decrease of $9,567,000 below the fiscal 
year 1999 level and a $2,000,000 increase above the request. 
Transfers of $22,343,000 from FHA funds and $10,000,000 from 
Drug Elimination Grants make up the appropriation.
    The Committee continues to be supportive of the Housing 
Fraud Initiative, which is now operational, and anticipates 
productive results over the course of the year.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight


                         Salaries and Expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $19,493,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        16,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        19,493,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        +3,493,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......                 0


    The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) 
was established in 1992 to regulate the financial safety and 
soundness of the two housing government-sponsored enterprises 
(GSEs)--the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) 
and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). 
The office was authorized in the Federal Housing Enterprises 
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, and gave the 
regulator enhanced authority to enforce these standards. In 
addition to financial regulation, the OFHEO monitors the GSEs 
compliance with affordable housing goals that were contained in 
the Act.
    The Committee recommends the request of $19,493,000, an 
increase of $3,493,000 above the fiscal year 1999 
appropriation. Language is included providing OFHEO with $1,000 
for a R&R; account.

                       Administrative Provisions

    The bill contains a number of administrative provisions.
    Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment 
factors.
    Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to 
investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair 
Housing Act.
    Section 203 extends enhanced disposition authority to 
fiscal year 2000.
    Section 204 corrects an anomaly in the HOPWA formula that 
results in the loss of funds for a state when the incidence of 
AIDS in a large city increases.
    Section 205 extends the FHA Multifamily Mortgage Credit 
Demonstration to fiscal year 2000.
    Section 206 reprograms funds from a previously appropriated 
economic development initiative grant.
    Section 207 amends section 16 of the United States Housing 
Act of 1937 to allow HUD to permit adjustments for unusually 
high or low family incomes.
    Section 208 authorizes creating a Millennial Blue Ribbon 
Commission on Housing.
    Section 209 is a technical correction which clarifies that 
the increase for single family loan limits extends to those 
homes which have two, three, or four units.
    Section 210 allows for the reuse of section 8 budget 
authority.
    Section 211 provides for enhanced vouchers.
    Section 212 rescinds $74,400,000 from HUD's obligated and 
unobligated balances.
    Section 213 provides $5,000,000 for the National Cities in 
Schools program.
    Section 214 provides $5,000,000 for the Moving to Work 
program. The Committee assumes that if the Administration fails 
to request funds for this program as part of the normal budget 
process in fiscal year 2001, that the Administration opposes 
the program, and the Committee will not provide funds for the 
program.
    Section 215 repeals section 218 of Public Law 104-204.

                               TITLE III


                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


                  American Battle Monuments Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $28,467,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        26,431,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        26,467,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        +2,036,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......        +2,000,000


    The Commission is responsible for the administration, 
operation and maintenance of cemetery and war memorials to 
commemorate the achievements and sacrifices of the American 
Armed Forces where they have served since April 6, 1917. In 
performing these functions, the American Battle Monuments 
Commission maintains twenty-four permanent American military 
cemetery memorials and thirty-one monuments, memorials, markers 
and offices in fifteen foreign countries, the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the British dependency of 
Gibraltar. In addition, five memorials are located in the 
United States: the East Coast Memorial in New York; the West 
Coast Memorial, The Presidio, in San Francisco; the Honolulu 
Memorial in the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in 
Honolulu, Hawaii; and the American Expeditionary Forces 
Memorial and the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, 
DC.
    The Committee recommends $28,467,000 for fiscal year 2000 
to administer, operate and maintain the Commission's monuments, 
cemeteries, and memorials throughout the world. This amount 
represents an increase of $2,000,000 above the budget request 
and is the third increment provided the Commission to reduce 
the maintenance backlog identified prior to passage of the 
fiscal 1998 appropriation. The Committee notes and commends the 
work performed in this regard so far by the Commission, and 
intends over the next few years that the backlog be further 
reduced. These actions will ensure that the cemeteries and 
memorials under ABMC's jurisdiction are maintained at a high 
standard to reflect the nation's continuing commitment to its 
Honored War Dead and their families.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board


                         Salaries and Expenses




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................        $9,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................         6,500,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................         7,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        +2,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............        +1,500,000


    The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board was 
authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to 
investigate accidental releases of certain chemical substances 
resulting in serious injury, death, or substantial property 
loss. The Board became operational in fiscal year 1998.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee is recommending 
$9,000,000, an increase of $2,500,000 above the 1999 funding 
level and $1,500,000 above the budget request. The Committee 
believes its funding recommendation is consistent with the oft-
stated commitment of the Committee to allow for measured growth 
in this new agency.
    Again this year, bill language has been included which 
limits the number of career senior executive service positions 
to three.

                       Department of the Treasury


              Community Development Financial Institutions


   Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Program Account




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $70,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        95,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       125,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -25,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............       -55,000,000


    The Community Development Financial Institutions fund 
provides grants, loans, and technical assistance to new and 
existing community development financial institutions such as 
community development banks, community development credit 
unions, revolving loan funds, and micro-loan funds. Recipients 
must use the funds to support mortgage, small business, and 
economic development lending in currently underserved, 
distressed neighborhoods. The CDFI fund also operates as an 
information clearinghouse for community development lenders.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $70,000,000 
for the program in fiscal year 2000. The recommendation is a 
decrease of $55,000,000 below the budget request and 
$25,000,000 below the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
    The Committee is very pleased with the CDFI Strategic Plan, 
and the goals, objectives, and strategies it contains, and 
commends the new management team.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission


                         salaries and expenses




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $47,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        47,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        50,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............        -3,500,000


    The Consumer Product Safety Act established the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, an independent Federal regulatory 
agency, to reduce unreasonable risk of injury associated with 
consumer products. Its primary responsibilities and overall 
goals are: to protect the public against unreasonable risk of 
injury associated with consumer products; to develop uniform 
safety standards for consumer products, minimizing conflicting 
State and local regulations; and to promote research into 
prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $47,000,000 
for fiscal year 2000, the same amount provided in fiscal year 
1999. The amount provided is a decrease of $3,500,000 from the 
budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes a reduction of 
$3,500,000. The budget request included a new applied product 
hazard research program in fiscal year 2000 at a cost of 
$1,000,000. The Committee agrees with the goals of such a 
research program but finds that funding is not available to 
begin such a program at this time. Therefore, authority to 
begin this new activity is denied. The remaining $2,500,000 
reduction is to be applied by the Commission in an equitable 
manner rather than applying all of the reduction to only one or 
two programs.
    The Committee notes that the Commission's 1998 Annual 
Report to the Congress included a statement that certain data 
derived from death certificates should not be compared with 
prior year reports because of the inconsistent manner in which 
the death certificates are acquired or evaluated. The Committee 
believes that the data should be consistent from year to year 
so the Report may be used as a guide for the Congress and the 
Commission on the effectiveness of the programs being funded. 
The Committee directs the Commission to take steps to ensure 
that death certificate data is consistent from year to year and 
further directs that the Commission is to acquire a 
statistically significant number of death certificates each 
fiscal year.
    The Committee remains concerned about the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission's position regarding fire safety standards 
for children's sleepwear. Two GAO reports have found that CPSC 
data is insufficient to determine whether the number of burns 
and deaths for children have risen since the relaxation of fire 
safety standards in 1996. The Committee directs the CPSC to 
continue to monitor the fire injury data and report to the 
Committee next year on the number of burns or deaths associated 
with children's sleepwear. The CPSC should work with interested 
groups which monitor burn injuries in developing this report. 
Should these be any increase in burns or injuries among 
children, the Committee will reconsider this issue in FY01 and 
is prepared to take appropriate action.

             Corporation for National and Community Service


       National and Community Service Programs Operating Expenses




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................                 0
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       435,500,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       545,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........      -435,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......      -545,500,000


    The Corporation for National and Community Service was 
established by the National and Community Service Trust Act of 
1993 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. Funds for the Volunteers in Service to America 
and the National Senior Service Corps are provided in the 
Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill.
    The fiscal year 2000 budget request for program and 
administrative activities of the Corporation for National and 
Community Service is $545,500,000. Funding for this level of 
activity is not possible in this fiscal year. The Committee 
recommendation has provided for termination of the program. The 
Committee has not included bill language, proposed in the 
budget request, which would have the effect of establishing new 
programs for high school age individuals. The Committee 
believes such an expansion of the program requires 
authorization by the appropriate Congressional Committee of 
jurisdiction.

                      Office of Inspector General




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................         3,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................         3,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................         3,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......                 0


    The Office of Inspector General is authorized by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. This Office provides 
an independent assessment of all Corporation operations and 
programs, including those of the Volunteers in Service to 
America and the National Senior Service Corps, through audits, 
investigations, and other proactive projects.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2000, the same as the budget request and the fiscal 
year 1999 appropriation.

                  Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims


                         Salaries and Expenses




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $11,450,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        10,195,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        11,450,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        +1,255,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......                 0


    The Veterans Benefits Administration Adjudication Procedure 
and Judiciary Review Act established the Court of Appeals for 
Veterans Claims. The Court reviews appeals from Department of 
Veterans Affairs claimants seeking review of a benefit denial. 
The Court has the authority to overturn findings of fact, 
regulations and interpretations of law.
    The bill includes the budget request of $11,450,000 for the 
Court of Veterans Appeals in fiscal year 2000, an increase of 
$1,255,000 above the current year appropriation. The increase 
provides funding for one additional law clerk per judge for FY 
2000. The additional law clerks are a temporary FTE increase in 
FY 2000 to assist the Court with the large number of backlogged 
cases coming from the Department of Veterans Affairs Board of 
Veterans Appeals.
    The bill also includes requested language earmarking 
$865,000 for the pro bono representation program.

                      Department of Defense--Civil


                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army


                         Salaries and Expenses




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $12,473,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        11,666,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        12,473,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........          +807,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......                 0


    The Secretary of the Army is responsible for the 
administration, operation and maintenance of Arlington National 
Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery. 
At the close of fiscal year 1998, the remains of 272,195 
persons were interred/inured in these cemeteries. Of this 
total, 233,747 persons were interred and 23,809 remains inured 
in the Columbarium in Arlington National Cemetery, and 14,639 
remains were interred in the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home 
National Cemetery. There were 3,604 interments and 2,034 
inurnments in fiscal year 1998. It is projected that there will 
be 3,600 interments and 2,100 inurnments in fiscal year 1999; 
and 3,700 interments and 2,150 inurnments in fiscal year 2000. 
In addition to its principal function as a national cemetery, 
Arlington is the site of approximately 2,700 nonfuneral 
ceremonies each year and has approximately 4,000,000 visitors 
annually.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of $12,473,000 
and 102 full-time equivalents to administer, operate, maintain 
and provide ongoing development at the Arlington National and 
Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries in fiscal year 
2000.

                    Environmental Protection Agency





Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................    $7,312,557,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     7,590,352,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     7,206,646,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........      -277,795,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......      +105,911,000


    The Environmental Protection Agency was created by 
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which consolidated nine 
programs from five different agencies and departments. Major 
EPA programs include air and water quality, drinking water, 
hazardous waste, research, pesticides, radiation, toxic 
substances, enforcement and compliance assurance, pollution 
prevention, oil spills, Superfund and the Leaking Underground 
Storage Tank (LUST) program. In addition, EPA provides Federal 
assistance for wastewater treatment, drinking water facilities, 
and other water infrastructure projects. The agency is 
responsible for conducting research and development, 
establishing environmental standards through the use of risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis, monitoring pollution 
conditions, seeking compliance through a variety of means, 
managing audits and investigations, and providing technical 
assistance and grant support to states and tribes, which are 
delegated authority for actual program implementation. Finally, 
the Agency participates in some international environmental 
activities.
    Among the statutes for which the Environmental Protection 
Agency has sole or significant oversight responsibilities are:
    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
    Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as 
amended.
    Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended.
    Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
    Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended.
    Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 
as amended.
    Oil Pollution Act of 1990
    Public Health Service Act (Title XIV), as amended.
    Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended.
    Clean Air Act, as amended.
    Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended.
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980, as amended.
    Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986.
    Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.
    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee has recommended a total 
program and support level of $7,312,557,000, a decrease of 
$277,795,000 below last year's appropriated level and an 
increase of $105,911,000 above the budget request.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Agency must limit transfers of funds between 
objectives to not more than $500,000, except as specifically 
noted, without prior approval of the Committee. No changes may 
be made to any account or objective, except as approved by the 
Committee, if it is construed to be policy or a change in 
policy. Any activity or program cited in the report shall be 
construed as the position of the Committee and should not be 
subject to reductions or reprogramming without prior approval 
of the Committee. It is the intent of the Committee that all 
carryover funds in the various appropriations accounts are 
subject to the normal reprogramming requirements outlined 
above. The Agency is expected to comply with all normal rules 
and regulations in carrying out these directives. Finally, the 
Committee wishes to continue to be notified regarding 
reorganizations of offices, programs, or activities prior to 
the planned implementation of such reorganizations.
    For the Science and Technology, Environmental Programs and 
Management, and Office of Inspector General accounts, bill 
language has been included at the request of the President 
which provides that sums necessary for liquidating obligations 
made in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 are available through 
September 30, 2007, and that sums necessary for liquidating 
obligations made in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 are available 
through September 30, 2008.

                         science and technology




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation \1\...................      $645,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       660,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       642,483,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -15,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       +2,517,000

\1\ Total does not include transfer of $35,000,000 from the Hazardous
  Substance Superfund.

    The Science and Technology account funds all Environmental 
Protection Agency research (including Hazardous Substances 
Superfund research activities) carried out through grants, 
contracts, and cooperative agreements with other Federal 
agencies, states, universities, and private business, as well 
as on an in-house basis. This account also funds personnel 
compensation and benefits, travel, supplies and operating 
expenses for all Agency research. Research addresses a wide 
range of environmental and health concerns across all 
environmental media and encompasses both long-term basic and 
near-term applied research to provide the scientific knowledge 
and technologies necessary for preventing, regulating, and 
abating pollution, and to anticipate merging environmental 
issues.
    The Committee has recommended an appropriation of 
$645,000,000 for Science and Technology for fiscal year 2000, a 
decrease of $15,000,000 below last year's spending level, and 
an increase of $2,517,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee's recommended appropriation includes the 
following increases to the budget request:
    1. +$1,250,000 for continuation and California. Regional PM 
10 and 2.5 air quality study.
    2. +$2,500,000 for EPSCoR.
    3. +$700,000 for continuation of study of livestock and 
agricultural pollution abatement at Tarleton State University.
    4. +$3,000,000 for Water Environmental Research Foundation.
    5. +$1,000,000 for continued research on urban waste 
management at the University of New Orleans.
    6. +$1,000,000 for continued perchlorate research through 
the East Valley Water District.
    7. +$2,000,000 for the Mickey Leland National Urban Air 
Toxics Research Center.
    8. +$4,000,000 for the American Water Works Association 
Research Foundation, including $1,000,000 for continued 
research on arsenic.
    9. +$2,000,000 for the National Decentralized Water 
Resource Capacity Development Project, in coordination with 
EPA, for continued training and research and development 
program.
    10. +$750,000 for the Integrated Petroleum Environmental 
Consortium project.
    11. +$1,000,000 for the National Center for Atlantic and 
Caribbean Reef Research.
    12. +$800,000 for the University of New Hampshire's Bedrock 
Bioremediation Center research project.
    13. +$750,000 for the Lovelace National Environmental 
Respiratory Center.
    14. +$500,000 for the development, design, and 
implementation of a research effort on tributyltin based ship 
bottom paints at Old Dominion Univ.
    15. +$1,000,000 for research of advanced vehicle design, 
advanced transportation systems, vehicle emissions, and 
atmospheric pollution at the University of Riverside CE-CERT 
facility.
    16. +$1,500,000 for the Environmental Technology 
Commercialization Center (ETC2) in Cleveland, Ohio.
    17. +$1,000,000 for continued research of the Salton Sea at 
the University of Redlands.
    18. +$750,000 for the final phase of research conducted 
through the Institute for Environmental and Industrial Science 
in San Marcos, Texas.
    19. +$1,000,000 for the Center for Estuarine Research at 
the University of South Alabama for research on the 
environmental impact of human activities on water quality and 
habitat loss in an estuarine environment.
    20. +$700,000 to develop and maintain an information 
repository of water related materials for research and conflict 
resolution at the Water Resources Institute at California State 
University, San Bernardino.
    21. +$300,000 for environmental remanufacturing research at 
the Rochester Institute of Technology.
    22. +$2,000,000 for the Fresh Water Institute to extend and 
expand acid deposition research.
    23. +$5,000,000 for endocrine disrupter research.
    24. +$2,000,000 for assessing and mitigating the impact of 
exposure to multiple indoor contaminants on human health 
through the Metropolitan Development Association of Syracuse 
and Central New York.
    25. +$2,000,000 to establish a regional environmental data 
center and coordinated information system in the Mid-Atlantic 
Highlands, in coordination with the Federal Geographic Data 
Committee and the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.
    26. +$2,000,000 for the Center for the Engineered 
Conservation of Energy in Alfred, New York to conduct 
environmental performance and resource conservation research.
    27. +$1,000,000 for the National Center for Animal Waste 
management Technologies at Purdue University.
    28. +$1,000,000 for analysis and research of the 
environmental and public health impacts associated with 
pollution sources, including waste transfer stations, in the 
South Bronx, New York, to be conducted by New York University.
    29. +$1,000,000 for research associated with the 
restoration and enhancement of Manchac Swamp conducted by 
Southeastern Louisiana at the Turtle Cover Research Station.
    Other Science and Technology program levels include:
    1. CCTI Transportation research is funded at the 1999 level 
of $27,000,000.
    2. Global Change research is funded at $17,051,000, 
slightly above the 1999 level.
    3. The new Coastal Environmental Monitoring program has not 
been funded.
    4. Project EMPACT is funded at the 1999 level of 
$6,400,000.
    5. Clean Water Action Plan related research is funded at 
$1,800,000, an increase of $400,000 above the 1999 level.
    For Science and Technology, no general reduction is 
proposed.
    In addition to the funds provided through appropriations 
directly to this account, the Committee has recommended that 
$35,000,000 be transferred to ``Science and Technology'' from 
the ``Hazardous Substance Superfund'' account for ongoing 
research activities consistent with the intent of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980, as amended.
    Again this year, the Committee notes that the Experimental 
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is designed 
to improve the scientific and technological capacity of states 
with less developed research infrastructure. Developed with 
NASA and the National Science Foundation as partners, the 
Committee has provided EPA with $2,500,000 for its continued 
participation in this program.
    The Committee has provided an additional $5,000,000 for 
endrocrine disrupter research, bringing the total funding level 
to $17,700,000. The Committee expects these funds to be used by 
the Office of Research and Development in conjunction with the 
Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program to improve, standardize 
and validate the recommended Tier I screens and Tier II tests 
to appropriately protect public health and reduce the instances 
of false positives. For the public to have confidence in 
information developed under the EDSP, the screens and tests 
must produce credible, replicable results.
    The Committee is aware of the potential of carbon 
sequestration through proper application of agricultural 
conservation practices to show or reduce the build-up of 
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and has collateral benefits 
of erosion abatement and increased soil fertility. The Agency 
is thus strongly encouraged to provide up to $1,000,000 from 
within available funds to create the databases and analysis 
necessary to help establish programs and technologies to 
achieve an effective carbon sequestration program.

                 environmental programs and management




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................    $1,850,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     1,846,700,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     2,046,993,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        +3,300,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......      -196,993,000


    The Environmental Programs and Management account 
encompasses a broad range of abatement, prevention, and 
compliance, and personnel compensation, benefits, travel, and 
expenses for all programs of the Agency except Science and 
Technology, Hazardous Substance Superfund, Leaking Underground 
Storage Tank Trust Fund, Oil Spill Response, and the Office of 
Inspector General.
    Abatement, prevention, and compliance activities include 
setting environmental standards, issuing permits, monitoring 
emissions and ambient conditions and providing technical and 
legal assistance toward enforcement, compliance, and oversight. 
In most cases, the states are directly responsible for actual 
operation of the various environmental programs. In this 
regard, the Agency's activities include oversight and 
assistance in the facilitation of the environmental statutes.
    In addition to program costs, this account funds 
administrative costs associated with the operating programs of 
the Agency, including support for executive direction, policy 
oversight, resources management, general office and building 
services for program operations, and direct implementation of 
all Agency environmental programs--except those previously 
mentioned--for Headquarters, the ten EPA Regional offices, and 
all non-research field operations.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee has recommended 
$1,850,000,000 for Environmental Programs and Management, an 
increase above last year's level of $3,300,000, and a decrease 
from the budget request of $196,993,000. This account 
encompasses most of those activities previously conducted 
through the Abatement, Control and Compliance and Program and 
Research Operations accounts. In 1996, these accounts, except 
for certain research operations and the state categorical grant 
program, were merged in order to provide greater spending 
flexibility for the Agency. Bill language is included which 
makes this appropriation available for two fiscal years and, 
for this account only, the Agency may transfer funds of not 
more than $500,000 between objectives without prior notice to 
the Committee, and of not more than $1,000,000 without prior 
approval of the Committee. But for this difference, all other 
reprogramming procedures as outlined earlier shall apply.
    The Committee's recommended appropriation includes the 
following increases to the budget request:
    1. + $2,000,000 for the Michigan Biotechnology Institute 
for continued development of viable cleanup technologies.
    2. + $500,000 for continued activities of the Small 
Business Pollution Prevention Center at the University of 
Northern Iowa.
    3. + $750,000 for the painting and coating compliance 
project at the University of Northern Iowa.
    4. + $2,000,000 for continuation of the Sacramento River 
Toxic Pollution Control Project, to be cost shared.
    5. + $1,500,000 for ongoing activities at the Canaan Valley 
Institute.
    6. + $2,500,000 for the Southwest Center for Environmental 
Research and Policy (SCERP).
    7. + $500,000 for continuation of the Small Water Systems 
Institute at Montana State University.
    8. + $14,500,000 for rural water technical assistance 
activities and groundwater protection with distribution as 
follows: $8,600,000 for the NWRA; $2,600,000 for RCAP; $700,000 
for GWPC; $1,600,000 for Small Flows Clearinghouse; and 
$1,000,000 for the NETC.
    9. + $1,000,000 for implementation of the National 
Biosolids Partnership Program.
    10. + $1,000,000 for continued work on the Soil Aquifer 
Treatment Demonstration Project.
    11. + $3,000,000 for continuation of the New York and New 
Jersey dredge decontamination project.
    12. + $500,000 for operation of the Long Island Sound 
Office.
    13. + $750,000 for the Southern Appalachian Mountain 
Initiative.
    14. + $100,000 to the Miami-Dade County Department of 
Environmental Resources Management to expand the existing 
education program.
    15. + $200,000 for the Northwest Citizen's Advisory 
Commission to coordinate research and education efforts of 
environmental issues covering the entire Northwest Straits 
area.
    16. + $250,000 for use in planning to enhance environmental 
stewardship in the design, construction, and operation of the 
University of California, Merced.
    17. + $1,000,000 for the Northeast Project including 
$700,000 to be split among the three other regional 
environmental enforcement projects.
    18. + $690,000 to develop a broad-based, highly 
interdisciplinary risk assessment program with strong community 
involvement, at Cleveland State University.
    19. + $800,000 for the university portion of the Southern 
Oxidant Study.
    20. + $2,000,000 for source water protection programs.
    21. + $6,000,000 for section 103 grants to the states to 
develop regional haze programs under Title I, Part C of the 
Clean Air Act.
    22. + $500,000 for continued work on the Cortland, County, 
New York aquifer protection plan, $150,000 of which is for 
planning and implementation of the Upper Susquehanna watershed.
    23. + $1,250,000 for the National Onsite Water 
Demonstration Project.
    24. + $2,500,000 for the Federal Energy Technology Center 
and EPA Region III for continued activities of a comprehensive 
clean water initiative.
    25. + $2,000,000 for Tampa Bay Watch to establish a 
sustaining program and expand community environmental 
restoration and developmental stewardship projects designed to 
elevate the health of the Tampa Bay estuary.
    26. + $3,000,000 for the National Technology Transfer 
Center to establish a technology commercialization partnership 
program, and a comprehensive training program on 
commercialization best practices for EPA and other Federal 
officials.
    Other Environmental Programs and Management activities, 
funded at the fiscal year 1999 program level, include:
    1. $38,800,000 for CCTI Buildings;
    2. $4,800,000 for CCTI Transportation;
    3. $18,600,000 for CCTI Industry;
    4. $7,400,000 for CCTI International Capacity Building;
    5. $6,200,000 for partnerships with countries;
    6. $7,700,000 for EMPACT;
    7. $48,500,000 for compliance monitoring;
    8. $81,800,000 for civil enforcement;
    9. $3,800,000 for enforcement training;
    10. $19,500,000 for human resources management;
    11. $4,200,000 for information management-right-to-know 
programs;
    12. $133,400,000 for facility operations; rental and lease 
activities;
    13. $12,900,000 for toxics programs/chemical data 
collection and screening;
    14. $23,700,000 for criminal enforcement activities.
    The Committee has provided no funds for the Multilateral 
Fund, for Sustainable Development Challenge Grants, and for the 
new Urban Environmental Quality and Human Health program. In 
addition, the Committee has reduced the funding available for 
contracts and grants by $40,183,000, and has directed a 
reduction in payroll costs of $35,000,000. This later reduction 
will result in no reduction-in-force requirement and can be 
achieved through continuation of the current EPA hiring freeze 
until normal attrition brings the Agency to the proper 
personnel level. This new level is expected to be more in line 
with the personnel level contemplated in this and in the fiscal 
1999 funding measure.
    Again this year, the Committee has provided the statutory 
funding level for the National Environmental Education and 
Training Foundation. In addition, the Committee expects the 
Agency to fund the Environmental Finance Centers at a level of 
$1,250,000, an increase of $310,000 over the level proposed in 
the budget submissions; and encourages the Agency to provide 
from within available funds the resources necessary to 
accelerate completion of the lead safety sampling technician 
course to meet the urgent need for individuals trained to 
perform visual inspection and sample dust, soil, and paint 
chips in high-risk housing and as needed for clearance after 
painting and remodeling.
    The Committee has provided the full budget request for 
registration and re-registration activities performed by EPA. 
The Committee is aware of the importance of the Food Quality 
Protection Act and the need to make the registration of new 
products an Agency priority. Faster review and approval of 
registration applications will allow safer, more 
environmentally friendly products on the market sooner and 
ensure that farmers have the ability to protect their crop.
    In addition to funds provided to the NRWA, RCAP, the GWPC, 
NETC, and the Small Flows Clearinghouse, the Committee has 
provided $1,250,000 for the National Onsite Water Demonstration 
Project and $2,000,000 for source water protection programs. 
The Committee intends that these latter funds be used to 
develop local source water protection programs within each 
state utilizing the infrastructure and process now used for 
groundwater and wellhead protection programs. These resources 
will provide additional technicians for in-the-field work and 
will virtually guarantee that nearly 1,000 more communities 
will adopt local, country-wide and/or regional source water 
protection programs targeted to the highest risk watershed 
areas in each state.
    Bill language requested by the Administration which would 
permit grants awarded under section 20 of the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and section 10 of 
the Toxic Substances Control Act to be used for research, 
development, monitoring, public education, training, 
demonstrations, and studies has been included by the Committee.
    The Committee has included bill language which specifically 
provides $6,000,000 for section 103 grants to the states to 
develop regional haze programs under title I, part C of the 
Clean Air Act. The Committee recognizes that the Agency's re-
interpretation of the Clean Air Act's visibility program in its 
final regional haze rule imposes significant new and burdensome 
requirements on all 50 states. Although, in response to state 
concerns, the final rule contains flexibility for states to 
develop appropriate strategies to improve visibility in federal 
Class I areas, this flexibility cannot be realized without 
adequate funding. The Agency is, therefore, required to direct 
this additional $6,000,000 to provide funding through section 
103 grants to the 50 states. The money shall be used to aid 
states in the development of emissions inventories, 
quantification of natural visibilityconditions, monitoring and 
other data necessary to define reasonable progress and develop control 
strategies, and to support the states' participation in regional 
efforts to coordinate their strategies, where necessary, and at the 
election of the individual states. To the extent that western states 
choose to proceed on an earlier schedule to complete the required State 
Implementation Plans, the Committee recognizes these states will need a 
larger allocation in the near term than other states that are 
increasing their regional haze efforts. The Agency is advised, however, 
not to shortchange the needs of the other states to begin their work. 
Furthermore, although the Clean Air Act allocates responsibility for 
the visibility program to the states, it is a program to protect 
federal Class I areas and as such requires adequate federal funding. 
The Committee expects the agency to include funding for state 
implementation of the regional haze rule in their FY 2001 budget and 
future budget requests to Congress.
    The Committee continues to be concerned about the 
Environmental Protection Agency's approach to resolving the 
issue of the Agency's ``Interim Guidance for Investigating 
Title VI Complaints Challenging Permits'' which was released on 
February 5, 1998. This was an effort by the Agency to move 
beyond a case-by-case approach to address state permit program 
compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act through the 
administrative petition process. Numerous organizations, State 
and local governments, including the Environmental Council of 
the States, requested that the EPA suspend or withdraw the 
interim guidance because of concerns about Brownfields, urban 
sprawl, empowerment zones, and redevelopment. In addition, 
there was little if any opportunity prior to the release of the 
guidance for any public or stakeholder input. Therefore, the 
Committee provided in the fiscal year 1999 Appropriation Act 
that no funds be used to implement the interim guidance. 
Identical bill language to continue this prohibition has also 
been included in the fiscal year 2000 Act.
    At this point, there does not appear to be a clear strategy 
to resolve this issue. A FACA Committee was established and has 
met on several occasions, but has not appeared to have resolved 
any of the major issues on how the Agency should handle Title 
VI complaints. Currently, the Agency is in the process of 
establishing a new stakeholder process for input on some of 
these same contentious issues. The Committee is concerned that 
there may be conflicts between internal and external guidance 
developed by EPA that will make it difficult to resolve 
complaints in a fair and efficient manner. Equally important, 
developing internal guidance before final guidance has been 
subjected to full public comments conflicts with Congressional 
intent.
    On January 20, 1999, the General Counsel of the United 
States General Accounting Office issued an opinion (B-281575) 
that EPA's Interim Guidance clearly affects the rights of non-
Agency parties and constitutes a ``rule'' under the Small 
Business Review and Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), which is 
subject to Congressional review. If the Agency intends to 
promulgate guidance rather than a rulemaking,procedural 
requirements of a rulemaking should be followed including input from 
the small business community, sufficient time for notice and comment, 
published response to comments provided to the agency, interagency 
review, and analysis of any unfunded mandates on State and local 
governments. The Committee is very concerned that there be sufficient 
time for review of any new guidance given the lack of stakeholder 
review prior to the release of the Interim Guidance last year. In 
addition, the Committee requests that EPA examine successful State and 
local programs as model programs, and look at the possibility of 
delegating initial review and resolution of Title VI claims to States 
with such established model programs.
    The Committee has also again this year included bill 
language which prohibits the use of funds to take certain 
actions for the purpose of implementing or preparing to 
implement, the Kyoto Protocol. The Committee is concerned with 
reports that, during the past year, the Agency may have strayed 
across the fine line separating education from advocacy. 
Although the Agency may under the current prohibition continue 
to conduct educational seminars and activities, if should 
ensure balance in those programs. Balance does not mean merely 
that there is an acknowledgment of viewpoints different from 
those of the Administration, but that qualified representatives 
of those viewpoints are included in the programs and in numbers 
roughly equal to the participants representing the 
Administration's positions. One dissenting voice in what is 
otherwise an obviously stacked or biased program does not 
constitute balance.
    The bill language is intended to prohibit funds provided in 
this bill from being used to implement actions called for under 
the Kyoto Protocol, prior to its ratification. Based on an 
identical provision in the 1999 Appropriations Act, the bill 
language prohibits the development of rules, regulations, 
decrees, orders, and non-regulatory actions, such as programs 
or initiatives, for the purpose of implementing, or in 
preparation of implementating the Kyoto Protocol.
    The Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which passed with a 
vote of 95-0 in July 1997, remains the clearest statement of 
the will of the Senate with regard to the Kyoto Protocol. 
Through the prohibition contained herein, the Committee is 
committed to ensuring that the Administration not implement the 
Kyoto Protocol without prior Congressional consent, including 
approval of any implementing legislation, regulation, programs 
or initiatives.
    It has come to the attention of the Committee that the 
Agency is proposing to add 40 new ambient air toxics monitors 
during fiscal year 2000 to the 19 monitors which have already 
been funded. Because of the potential significance of the 
information to be gained from this monitoring program and the 
potential investment needed, the Committee believes that it is 
important for the Agency to have a well developed plan in place 
to direct the installation and operation of any new monitors. 
As a result, the Committee directs EPA to develop a 
comprehensive plan to guide the Agency's efforts in 
establishing a monitoring program for air toxics. The plan 
should describe in detail the overall goals and objectives of 
the monitoring program, including whether the data generated 
will be used to: (1) characterize ambient concentrations and 
the public'sexposure to air toxics at the national, regional or 
local level; (2) quantify public health risks at the national, 
regional, or local level; (3) guide regulatory decisions; (4) evaluate 
and improve emissions inventories; (5) validate dispersion models; and/
or (6) help identify sources of emissions.
    Once the objectives and goals have been determined, the 
plan should provide information on: (1) the number of monitors 
and measurements that will be needed to satisfy these goals; 
(2) the specific pollutants to be measured and the ability of 
the present technology to make measurements for the specific 
pollutants; and (3) the approximate level of investment needed 
over time to meet the program's goals and objectives. It is 
important that the plan include a realistic assessment of the 
amount of data likely to be generated given existing and 
anticipated budgetary expenditures, a timeline for when the 
data will be available for analysis, and an assessment of the 
likely usefulness of the data in drawing statistically valid 
estimates of the public's exposure to air toxics on a national 
or regional level.
    If the data generated from the monitoring program are 
expected to support regulatory decisions, the plan should list 
the specific regulatory programs impacted or expected to be 
impacted and describe in detail how the data will be used to 
guide decisionmaking. Given the likely strengths and 
limitations of the data, the plan should also assess how the 
Agency will integrate the resulting information with other 
sources of information on air toxics from emission inventories, 
such as the National Toxics Inventory, and air toxics models, 
such as the ASPEN model and associated National Air Toxic 
Assessment. The plan should assure that a significant fraction 
of the resources expended are dedicated to methodologies, such 
as personal exposure monitoring, that will allow determination 
of real exposure of individuals rather than reliance on 
community ambient monitoring being used as a surrogate. Because 
of the number of existing State monitors, the plan should also 
address optimal ways of integrating the information gained at 
the Federal level with the many existing state monitors now in 
place.
    Once a draft of the plan has been completed, the Committee 
directs EPA to enter into an agreement with the National 
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review the draft plan and provide 
comments to the Agency. The Committee urges the Agency to also 
seek comments on the draft plan from States and other 
interested parties and to respond to these comments, as well as 
the comments of the NAS, in developing the final plan.
    The Committee notes with approval the efforts of EPA to 
address the serious and widespread concerns about the 1994 
proposed rule regarding so-called ``plant pesticides.'' To 
assure any final rule is not over-reaching, the Committee 
expects the Agency, before completing this rulemaking, to 
solicit and consider additional public comment regarding 
exemptions from the rule that were suggested by the Consortium 
of Eleven Scientific Societies convened to address this matter. 
The Committee remains skeptical of EPA's proposal to consider 
the genetic material of plants to be a pesticide.
    The Committee strongly encourages EPA's Office of Air and 
Radiation to collaborate with industry to better integrate zero 
emission technologies such as solar into its programs, 
competitive solicitations, education, and information 
dissemination activities. The OAR is requested to respond to 
the Committee within three months of passage of this Act on how 
it intends to implement such collaboration.
    The Committee strongly discourages the EPA from finalizing 
any revisions to the 1980 New Source Review (NSR) rule and 
strongly encourages EPA instead to continue stakeholder 
discussions with the states, environmental groups and the 
regulated community. These discussions to date have produced 
three broadly supported proposals by the regulated community to 
simplify and clarify the NSR program. The NSR program plays a 
critical role in the continued growth and improvement of this 
nation's industrial base, as review under the program is 
required before any new facility construction and significant 
non-routine facility process changes. Under the existing 
program, this review can take over a year. The regulations as 
currently written are cumbersome, contradictory, and punitive, 
and EPA's proposed NSR rule will unfortunately not minimize 
these problems.
    Previous efforts by the Agency to reform the program have 
been repeatedly rejected by both the states and the regulated 
community. Through STAPPA and ALAPCO, state representatives 
have indicated that three alternative proposals continue to 
provide a constructive basis for further discussions and have 
asked EPA to provide the time necessary to refine the 
proposals. These stakeholder discussions represent an 
outstanding opportunity to avoid the contentious proceedings 
and litigation that have characterized the previous NSR 
rulemakings, and the Agency is strongly encouraged to continue 
in this direction.
    Beginning in fiscal year 2000, the Committee strongly 
encourages the Agency to include Green Thumb, Inc. among the 
national organizations participating in the Senior 
Environmental Employment (SEE) program. The Committee expects 
that the long experience of this organization will be a real 
asset to the SEE program.
    The Committee fully expects the Agency to follow through on 
its current commitment to the Sustainable Industry program. The 
program's success thus far with the metal finishing industry 
has focused on collaboration rather than confrontation with 
industry, improved EPA understanding of industry practices, and 
achieving better environmental results from companies in tandem 
with concrete improvements to the regulatory system. The Agency 
is encouraged to provide resources at the 1999 level in order 
to support necessary personnel, outreach, grants, and EPA 
regional capacity for continued progress with the metal 
finishing industry and other key participating sectors, 
including specialty chemicals, meat processing, metal casting, 
shipbuilding and repair, photo processing, and travel and 
tourism.
    While EPA has a number of programs designed to promote 
pollution prevention and recycling in industrial processes, few 
resources have been directed at the reuse of materials. One 
example is the reuse of industrial packages which include 
packages used for the transportation or storage of commodities, 
the contents of which are not meant for retail sale without 
being repackaged. The Committee encourages the Agency to 
investigate and promote opportunities for the reuse of 
industrial packages in their original intended form through 
reconditioning and remanufacture by working with private sector 
organizations whose primary purposes include education and 
research in the field of reusable industrial packages. The 
Agency is also encouraged to review the need for additional 
research in this area, as well as to educate small business of 
the benefits of such reuse.
    The Committee is concerned that the EPA is no longer 
working to remedy a restrictive covenant relating to the 
proposed Outer Loop Flood Compensation Bank in the Pond Creek 
watershed of Jefferson County, Kentucky. Instead, the Agency is 
insisting on a costly, off-site wetlands mitigation plan when 
on-site mitigation is feasible. The Committee notes that the 
flood compensation bank is supported by local governments and 
is desperately needed to reduce the potential for the loss of 
life and property in the Louisville area. The Committee urges 
EPA to reconsider its position and work toward a solution which 
will allow the project to move forward expeditiously.
    The Committee is concerned that EPA's recent Lead-based 
Paint Pre-Renovation Education Rule creates difficulty and 
confusion for multifamily property owners and residents. The 
substantial and time-consuming paperwork burden imposed on 
multifamily property owners/managers through these regulations 
may impede routine repair and maintenance activities. Lead-
hazard education of multifamily residents will be facilitated, 
the Committee believes, by requiring property owners/managers 
whose staff perform repairs to (1) annually distribute the 
pamphlet to residents, (2) notify residents at the time of in 
unit repairs of the potential disturbance of lead-based paint 
and the availability of copies of the pamphlet, and (3) post a 
notice at the site of the repairs in common areas informing 
residents of the scope and dates of work and that the pamphlet 
is available for review.
    The Committee believes that EPA should amend this 
regulation at the earliest possible opportunity to ensure that 
the rule achieves the statutory goal of educating residents 
about the danger associated with the disturbance of lead based 
paint. The Committee also directs EPA to meet regularly with 
property owners to consider the practical effect of the 
regulations and to discuss how record-keeping burdens can be 
minimized in conformance with the statutory direction of child 
health protection. The Committee intends to consider the 
results of these meetings and Agency actions during the next 
budget cycle in determining whether the compliance assistance 
phase of enforcement should be extended.
    The Committee is concerned that EPA is proposing to greatly 
expand pesticide tolerance processing fees. The Committee 
expects that EPA not implement the tolerance fee proposal until 
EPA provides the Committee a report detailing the dramatic 
increase in the proposed fees. EPA's report should include an 
analysis of the pre-FQPA costs versus the post-FQPA cost 
attributed to tolerance development.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation \1\...................       $30,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        31,154,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        29,409,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        -1,154,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......          +591,000


\1\ Total does not include transfer of $11,000,000 from the Hazardous
  Substance Superfund account.

    The Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides EPA audit 
and investigative functions to identify and recommend 
corrective actions of management, program, and administrative 
deficiencies which create conditions for existing and potential 
instances of fraud, waste, or mismanagement. This account funds 
personnel compensation and benefits, travel, and expenses 
(excluding rent, utilities, and security costs) for the Office 
of Inspector General. The appropriation for the OIG is funded 
from two separate accounts: Office of Inspector General and 
Hazardous Substance Superfund.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends a total 
appropriation of $41,000,000 for the Office of Inspector 
General, a decrease of $2,391,000 below last year's funding 
level and an increase of $838,000 above the budget request. Of 
the amount provided, $11,000,000 shall be derived by transfer 
from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account. All funds 
within this account are to be considered annual monies.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $62,600,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        56,948,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        62,630,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        +5,652,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......           -30,000


    This activity provides for the design and construction of 
EPA-owned facilities as well as for the operations, 
maintenance, repair, extension, alteration, and improvement of 
facilities utilized by the agency. The funds are to be used to 
pay nationwide FTS charges, correct unsafe conditions, protect 
health and safety of employees and Agency visitors, and prevent 
serious deterioration of structures and equipment.
    The Committee is recommending $62,600,000 for Buildings and 
Facilities, an increase of $5,652,000 above last year's funding 
level and a decrease of $30,000 below the budget request. This 
recommendation provides $36,700,000 for continued construction 
of the consolidated research center at Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina, as well as the budget request of $25,900,000 
for necessary maintenance and repair costs at Agency facilities 
and the ongoing renovation of EPA's new headquarters.
    The Committee's proposal to make available $36,700,000 for 
RTP construction is the final increment necessary to complete 
this important, state-of-the-art research facility within its 
maximum authorized cost ceiling.

                     HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................    $1,450,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     1,500,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,500,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -50,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -50,000,000


    The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) program was 
established in 1980 by the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act to clean up emergency 
hazardous materials, spills, and dangerous, uncontrolled, and/
or abandoned hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Amendments 
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) expanded the program 
substantially in 1986, authorizing approximately $8,500,000,000 
in revenues over five years. In 1990, the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act extended the program's authorization through 
1994 for $5,100,000,000 with taxing authority through calendar 
year 1995.
    The Superfund program is operated by EPA subject to annual 
appropriations from a dedicated trust fund and from general 
revenues. Enforcement activities heretofore employed were used 
to identify and induce parties responsible for hazardous waste 
problems to undertake clean-up actions and pay for EPA 
oversight of those actions. In addition, responsible parties 
have been required to cover the cost of fund-financed removal 
and remedial actions undertaken at spills and waste sites by 
Federal and state agencies. Through transfers to the Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) and Science and Technology Accounts, 
the OIG and the Office of Research and Development also receive 
funding from this account.
    For fiscal year 2000, $1,450,000,000 has been recommended 
by the Committee, a decrease of $50,000,000 from last year's 
funding level, and a decrease of $50,000,000 from the amount 
included in the budget request. Bill language has been included 
which transfers $11,000,000 from this account to the Office of 
Inspector General and $35,000,000 to the Science and Technology 
account. The Committee expects EPA to prioritize resources to 
the actual cleanup of sites on the National Priority List and, 
to the greatest extent possible, limit resources directed to 
administration, oversight, support, studies, design, 
investigations, monitoring, assessment, and evaluation.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following 
program level:
    $987,000,000 for Superfund response/cleanup actions. This 
level of funding includes $90,000,000 for continued Brownfields 
activities.
    $140,000,000 for enforcement activities.
    $122,337,000 for management and support. This 
recommendation includes a transfer of $11,000,000 to the Office 
of Inspector General. Bill language is included which provides 
for this transfer.
    $35,000,000 for research and development activities, to be 
transferred to Science and Technology as proposed in the budget 
request.
    $57,000,000 for the National Institute of Environmental 
Health Sciences (NIEHS), including $34,000,000 for research 
activities and $23,000,000 for worker training.
    $70,000,000 for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry (ATSDR).
    $28,663,000 for the Department of Justice.
    $10,000,000 for all other necessary, reimbursable 
interagency activities, including $650,000 for OSHA, $1,100,000 
for FEMA, $2,450,000 for NOAA, $4,800,000 for the Coast Guard, 
and $1,000,000 for the Department of the Interior.
    Through adoption of this appropriation, the Committee 
signals its continued strong support for an active and 
aggressive Superfund site response action/cleanup effort, 
including strong and bi-partisan support for the Brownfields 
program as an integral part of the overall program.
    Further, the Committee supports the national pilot worker 
training program which recruits and trains young persons who 
live near hazardous waste sites or in the communities at risk 
of exposure to contaminated properties for work in the 
environmental field. The Committee directs EPA to continue 
funding this effort in cooperation and collaboration with 
NIEHS. The research activities of NIEHS can compliment the 
training and operational activities of EPA in carrying out this 
program. Moreover, an expanded focus to Brownfield 
communities--identified as the growing number of contaminated 
or potentially contaminated vacant or abandoned industrial 
sites--is critical in order to actively engage and train the 
under-served populations that are the focus of this effort. 
While the number of National Priorities List sites is remaining 
fairly static, there is a growing need for continued assessment 
activities at Brownfield sites across the country.
    The Committee has provided ATSDR an increase of $6,000,000 
over the budget request. The Committee encourages ATSDR to 
continue to provide adequate funds for minority health 
professions, as well as for continuation of a health effects 
study on the consumption of Great Lakes fish. Finally, an 
additional $1,000,000 has been provided for ATSDR to complete 
its work on the Toms River, New Jersey cancer evaluation and 
research project.
    Of the funds provided for transfer from Hazardous Substance 
Superfund to Science and Technology, the Committee directs that 
the Agency continue to fund the hazardous substance research 
centers at a level no less than the 1998 level. In addition, 
the Committee continues to support the work performed through 
the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program 
and directs the Agency to provide no less than $6,500,000 for 
this program for fiscal year 2000.
    In the conference report accompanying the 1999 
Appropriations Act, the conferees expressed concern that EPA is 
requiring dredging of contaminated sediments sites without full 
analysis of its short and long-term impacts, and urged the 
Agency to delay dredging actions pending completion of a 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study of sediment remedial 
technologies. The Committee notes with approval that the NAS 
study is underway, and re-affirms the direction to EPA not to 
initiate or order dredging, except as noted in the 
aforementioned conference report, until the NAS study has been 
completed and the results are appropriately considered by the 
Agency. The Committee also re-affirms that dredging should only 
be initiated or ordered in cases where a full analysis of long 
and short-term health and environmental impacts have been 
conducted as required by EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management 
Strategy.
    The Committee notes that the number of Superfund sites 
proceeding through to completion of the cleanup process 
continues to grow, and recognizes that costs associated with 
the program, as originally conceived in the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 
(CERCLA), will likely go down in the near future. In order to 
be better prepared for such a Superfund program reduction, the 
Agency is directed to conduct, from within available funds in 
this account, an independent analysis of the projected ten year 
costs for implementation of the CERCLA program. This analysis 
should include the annual and cumulative costs to the Trust 
Fund over the next ten years associated with administering 
CERCLA activities at NPL sites, including: (1) response costs 
for completion of all sites currently listed on the NPL; (2) 
response costs associated with additions to the NPL anticipated 
for fiscal years 2000 through 2005 consistent with the average 
rate of new site listings over the previous five years; (3) 
costs, if any, associated with the operations and management at 
both existing and anticipated new NPL sites; (4) response costs 
for emergency removals; (5) non-cleanup costs assigned to other 
activities including, but not limited to, research, 
enforcement, administration, and inter-departmental transfers. 
For purposes of this analysis, costs associated with 
redevelopment or the Brownfields program should not be 
considered. The Committee requests that this independent 
analysis be completed and forwarded to the Committee no later 
than May 1, 2000.
    Once again the Committee notes that the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) has and will continue to remediate sites under 
its jurisdiction to a level that fully protects public health 
and safety, and believes that any reversal of the long-standing 
policy of the Agency to defer to the NRC for cleanup of NRC 
licensed sites is not a good use of public or private funds. 
The interaction of the EPA with the NRC, NRC licensees, and 
others with regard to sites being remediated under NRC 
regulatory requirements--when not specifically requested by the 
NRC--has created stakeholder concerns regarding the authority 
and finality of NRC licensing decisions, the duration and costs 
of site cleanup, and the potential future liability of parties 
associated with affected sites. However, the Committee 
recognizes that there may be circumstances at specific NRC 
licensed sites where the Agency's expertise may be of critical 
use of the NRC. In the interest of ensuring that sites do not 
face dual regulation, the Committee strongly encourages both 
agencies to enter into an MOU which clarifies the circumstances 
for EPA's involvement at NRC sites when requested by the NRC. 
The EPA and NRC are directed to report to the Committees on 
Appropriations no later than May 1, 2000 on the status of the 
development of such an MOU.

              LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $60,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        72,500,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        71,556,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -12,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -11,556,000


    Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by 
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, authorized 
the establishment of a response program for clean-up of 
releases from leaking underground storage tanks. Owners and 
operators of facilities with underground tanks must demonstrate 
financial responsibility and bear initial responsibility for 
clean-up. The Federal trust fund was funded through the now-
expired imposition of a motor fuel tax of one-tenth of a cent 
per gallon, which generated approximately $150,000,000 per 
year. Most states also have their own leaking underground 
storage tank programs, including a separate trust fund or other 
funding mechanism, in place.
    The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund provides 
additional clean-up resources and may also be used to enforce 
necessary corrective actions and to recover costs expended from 
the Fund for clean-up activities. The underground storage tank 
response program is designed to operate primarily through 
cooperative agreements with states. However, funds are also 
used for grants to non-state entities including Indian tribes 
under Section 8001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act. Per the budget request again this year, the Office of 
Inspector General will receive no funding by transfer from the 
trust fund through this appropriation.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee has provided 
$60,000,000, a decrease of $12,500,000 below last year's 
appropriated level and a decrease of $11,556,000 from the 
budget request.
    The Committee is aware of concerns expressed by several 
states that LUST funds not be used in a disproportionate manner 
for federal projects instead of state projects as anticipated 
by the authorizing statutes. The Committee concurs in this 
position of predominate use in the states and notes that its 
recommendation will allow for approximately 85% of the total 
appropriation to be used in the states.

                           OIL SPILL RESPONSE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $15,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        15,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        15,618,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......          -618,000


    This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act and amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 
1990, provides funds for preventing and responding to releases 
of oil and other petroleum products in navigable waterways. EPA 
is responsible for directing all clean-up and removal 
activities posing a threat to public health and the 
environment; conducting site inspections; providing for a means 
to achieve cleanup activities by private parties; reviewing 
containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency 
plans; and pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed clean-ups. 
Funds are provided through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 
which is composed of fees and collections made through 
provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the Comprehensive 
Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act, the Deepwater 
Port Act of 1974, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
Amendments of 1978, and the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act. Pursuant to law, the fund is managed by the United States 
Coast Guard.
    The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, 
the same as that provided last fiscal year and a decrease of 
$618,000 from the budget request.

                   STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................    $3,199,957,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     3,408,050,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     2,837,957,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........      -208,093,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......      +362,000,000


    The State and Tribal Assistance Grant account was created 
in fiscal year 1996 in an effort to consolidate programs, and 
provide grant funds for those programs, which are operated 
primarily by the states. This budget structure includes the 
Water Infrastructure/SRF account, which was intended to help 
eliminate municipal discharge of untreated or inadequately 
treated pollutants and thereby maintain or help restore this 
country's water to a swimmable and/or fishable quality, and 
miscellaneous categorical grant programs formerly included 
within the Abatement, Control and Compliance account.
    The largest portion of the STAG account is the State 
Revolving Funds (SRF). The Clean Water SRF funds water 
infrastructure grants, which for more than a decade have been 
made to municipal, inter-municipal, state, interstate agencies, 
and tribal governments to assist in financing the planning, 
design, and construction of wastewater facilities. This account 
also funds the Safe Drinking Water SRF as well as various grant 
programs to improve both air and water quality. Among these are 
non-point source grants under Section 319 of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, Public Water System Supervision grants, 
Section 106 water quality grants, and Clean Air Act Section 
105/103 air and monitoring grants to the states, and other such 
grants utilized by the states and tribes to meet Federal 
environmental statutory and regulatory requirements.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends a total of 
$3,199,957,000, a decrease of $208,093,000 below the current 
fiscal year spending level, and $362,000,000 above the level 
proposed in the budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following 
program level:
    $1,175,000,000 for Clean Water State Revolving Funds.
    $775,000,000 for Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
    $884,957,000 for state and tribal program/categorical 
grants.
    $50,000,000 for high priority U.S./Mexico border projects.
    $15,000,000 for Alaska rural and Native Villages.
    $36,500,000 for Clean Air Partnership Grants.
    $263,500,000 for special needs water and wastewater grants, 
including:
          1. $2,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements in Cherokee County ($750,000); South 
        Vinemont ($750,000); and Dodge City ($500,000), 
        Alabama.
          2. $1,000,000 for water infrastructure needs in 
        Jefferson County, Alabama.
          3. $500,000 for the Dog river watershed project in 
        Mobile, Alabama.
          4. $2,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements in Stevenson ($1,000,000) and Athens 
        ($1,000,000), Alabama.
          5. $500,000 for water quality monitoring of the 
        Tennessee River basin through the Alabama Department of 
        Environmental Management.
          6. $300,000 for the East Wetlands Restoration project 
        in Yuma, Arizona.
          7. $1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements in Fort Chaffee, Arkansas.
          8. $3,000,000 for the Coastal Low Flow Storm Drain 
        Diversion project in San Diego, California.
          9. $1,500,000 for the removal of Arundo Donax on the 
        lower Santa Ana River ($1,000,000); and for restoration 
        of Lake Elsinore ($500,000), California.
          10. $3,000,000 for continued construction of the 
        Olivenhain Water District, California water treatment 
        project.
          11. $2,000,000 for continued work on the Lake Tahoe, 
        California water export replacement project.
          12. $3,500,000 for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements for Arcadia and Sierra 
        Madre ($2,000,000) and the City of San Dimas Walker 
        House ($1,000,000); and for the Desalination Research 
        and Innovation Partnership ($500,000), California.
          13. $500,000 for continued development of the 
        Calleguas Creek, California watershed management plan.
          14. $4,000,000 for water, wastewater, and system 
        infrastructure development and improvements for the 
        Yucaipa Valley Water District ($2,000,000); the Lower 
        Owens River project in Inyo County ($1,000,000); the 
        Lower Owens River project in the City of Los Angeles 
        ($500,000); and the San Timoteo Creek environmental 
        restoration project in Redlands ($500,000), California.
          15. $2,000,000 for Sacramento, California's combined 
        sewer system improvement and rehabilitation project.
          16. $2,500,000 for a desalination facility in 
        Carlsbad ($500,000); for the San Diego wastewater 
        capital improvement program ($1,000,000), and for 
        watershed planning for the community and environmental 
        transportation acceptability process in Riverside 
        County ($1,000,000), California.
          17. $1,000,000 for wastewater and sewer 
        infrastructure improvements in Huntington Beach, 
        California.
          18. $1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements in the Russian River Sanitation District 
        ($500,000), and for continued development of the Santa 
        Rosa Reclaimed Water Recharge project ($500,000), 
        California.
          19. $1,600,000 for continuation of water reuse 
        demonstration projects in Yucca Valley ($1,000,000) and 
        Twenty Nine Palms ($600,000), California.
          20. $1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure needs on 
        Mare Island, Vallejo, California.
          21. $1,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements in New Britain and Southington, 
        Connecticut.
          22. $1,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure and 
        combined sewer overflow improvements on the Connecticut 
        River in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
          23. $10,000,000 for water, wastewater, and water 
        reuse infrastructure improvements in West Palm Beach, 
        Florida ($2,000,000) and through Florida's five water 
        management district Alternative Water Sources 
        Development program ($8,000,000).
          24. $2,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements for Opa-locka ($1,000,000) and for the 
        Highland Village neighborhood of North Miami Beach 
        ($1,000,000), Florida.
          25. $350,000 for the Leon County, Florida storm water 
        runoff study.
          26. $1,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements necessary to reduce effluent discharge 
        into Sarasota Bay, Florida.
          27. $500,000 for development of the Deer Point 
        Watershed Protection Zone in Bay County, Florida.
          28. $1,000,000 for analysis and development of 
        necessary combined system overflow facilities in 
        Atlanta, Georgia.
          29. $1,000,000 for infrastructure development and 
        improvements of the Big Creek watershed programs in the 
        cities of Roswell, Mountain Park, and Brookfield, and 
        Fulton County, Georgia.
          30. $1,500,000 for continued work on the basin 
        stormwater retention and reuse project at Big Haynes 
        Creek, Georgia.
          31. $1,000,000 for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements in Blackfoot ($500,000), 
        Jerome ($300,000), and Dietrich ($200,000), Idaho.
          32. $7,500,000 for drinking water infrastructure 
        improvements in the cities of DeKalb ($2,500,000); 
        Yorkville ($1,000,000); Elburn ($500,000); Batavia 
        ($1,500,000); Oswego ($1,000,000); and Geneva 
        ($1,000,000), Illinois.
          33. $5,000,000 for continued development of the 
        tunnel and reservoir project (TARP) of the Metropolitan 
        Water Reclamation District in Chicago, Illinois.
          34. $1,000,000 for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements in Robbins ($500,000) and 
        Phoenix ($500,000), Illinois.
          35. $1,000,000 for infrastructure development of the 
        Pigeon Creek Enhancement project in Evansville, 
        Indiana.
          36. $500,000 for water quality improvements in the 
        Ohio River Valley through the Ohio River Valley Water 
        Sanitation Commission.
          37. $2,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements within the Gary Sanitary District, 
        Indiana.
          38. $1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements in Kansas City, Kansas.
          39. $1,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        development and improvements in Jessamine County, 
        Kentucky.
          40. $1,000,000 for wastewater and drinking water 
        infrastructure improvements in Bonnieville ($600,000) 
        and in the Kentucky Turnpike Water District Division 2 
        ($400,000), Kentucky.
          41. $1,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements at the West County Wastewater Treatment 
        Plant within the Metropolitan Sewer District of 
        Louisville, Kentucky.
          42. $6,400,000 for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure needs for Knott County ($2,000,000); 
        Somerset ($1,400,000); Knox County ($1,000,000); and 
        Harlan ($1,000,000); and McCreary County ($1,000,000), 
        Kentucky.
          43. $800,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements within the Henderson County Water District 
        ($500,000); and the Logan/Todd Regional Water System 
        ($300,000), Kentucky.
          44. $2,500,000 for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements in the East Baton Rouge 
        Parish ($1,000,000); Ascension Parish ($1,250,000); and 
        San Gabriel ($250,000), Louisiana.
          45. $1,000,000 for continued restoration of Lake 
        Pontchartrain, Louisiana.
          46. $2,000,000 for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements in St. Bernard Parish, 
        Louisiana.
          47. $4,000,000 for New Orleans, Louisiana wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements.
          48. $1,500,000 for combined sewer overflow 
        infrastructure support in Middlesex and Essex Counties 
        ($750,000), and for continued wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements in Essex County (4750,000), Massachusetts.
          49. $2,000,000 for continued wastewater needs in 
        Bristol County, Massachusetts.
          50. $2,000,000 for combined sewer overflow 
        infrastructure improvements in Boston, Massachusetts.
          51. $1,500,000 for combined sewer overflow 
        infrastructure improvements in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
          52. $5,000,000 for continuation of the Rouge River 
        National Wet Weather Demonstration project.
          53. $1,000,000 for infrastructure improvements within 
        the Clinton River Watershed, Michigan.
          54. $1,000,000 for water and watershed infrastructure 
        improvements and research through Western Michigan 
        University at Kalamazoo, Michigan.
          55. $2,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements in Port Huron, Michigan.
          56. $2,000,000 for continued development of the Mille 
        Lacs regional wastewater treatment facility, Minnesota.
          57. $500,000 for the Hogg Creek Interceptor 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements within the West 
        Rankin Regional Sewage System, Mississippi.
          58. $1,000,000 for sewer and wastewater 
        infrastructure needs in Picayune, Mississippi.
          59. $3,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements at the DeSoto County Wastewater Treatment 
        Facility ($2,950,000), and the City of Farmington 
        wastewater collection and treatment facility 
        ($550,000), Mississippi.
          60. $500,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements in Lamont, Mississippi.
          61. $1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        evaluation and improvements in Jackson, Mississippi.
          62. $2,500,000 for the Meramac River, Missouri 
        enhancement and wetlands protection project.
          63. $1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements in Jefferson County, Missouri.
          64. $1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements for the East Missoula wastewater system 
        ($250,000); the El Mar Estates wastewater treatment 
        facility ($250,000); and the Lolo wastewater treatment 
        plant ($500,000), Montana.
          65. $450,000 for watershed management improvements in 
        Omaha, Nebraska.
          66. $2,000,000 for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure needs of the Moapa Valley Water District 
        ($500,000) and the City of Fallon ($1,000,000); and for 
        an arsenic groundwater study in Fallon, Nevada.
          67. $1,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements 
        in Henderson, Nevada.
          68. $2,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements in Epping, New Hampshire.
          69. $5,000,000 for combined sewer overflow 
        requirements of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission, 
        New Jersey.
          70. $500,000 for combined sewer overflow 
        infrastructure improvements of the North Hudson 
        Sewerage Authority, New Jersey.
          71. $500,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements for the South Side Interceptor/Queens 
        Ditch in Newark, New Jersey.
          72. $3,000,000 for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure and development needs in Lovington 
        ($1,500,000) and Belen ($1,500,000), New Mexico.
          73. $2,000,000 for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements in Bernalillo, New Mexico.
          74. $10,000,000 for drinking water infrastructure 
        needs in the New York City watershed.
          75. $5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements within the Western Ramapo Sewer District 
        in Rockland County, New York.
          76. $1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements at New York and Pennsylvania treatment 
        facilities which discharge into the Susquehanna River.
          77. $1,000,000 for infrastructure improvements at the 
        White Plains water filtration facility, New York.
          78. $500,000 for planning and development of the 
        Buffalo Creek watershed, New York.
          79. $1,500,000 for phase one of the Genesee County, 
        New York public water supply project.
          80. $1,500,000 for continued work on the water 
        quality management plans for the Onondaga and Cayuga 
        County, New York watersheds.
          81. $1,000,000 for continued development of South 
        Bronx, New York waste transfer stations.
          82. $1,500,000 for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements for the Hamlet of Verona, 
        New York.
          83. $1,500,000 for the Lake Water Supply project in 
        Monroe County, New York.
          84. $1,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements 
        in Syracuse, New York.
          85. $20,000,000 for continued clean water 
        improvements of Onondaga Lake, New York.
          86. $1,000,000 for the Mecklenburg County, North 
        Carolina surface water improvement and management 
        program.
          87. $2,500,000 for drinking water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements of the Buncombe County 
        Metropolitan Sewerage District ($2,000,000), and in the 
        town of Waynesville ($500,000), North Carolina.
          88. $2,000,000 for continued development of a storm 
        water abatement system in the Doan Brook Watershed 
        Area, Ohio.
          89. $3,000,000 for combined sewer overflow 
        infrastructure improvements in Port Clinton 
        ($1,500,000) and Van Wert ($1,500,000), Ohio.
          90. $1,000,000 for water treatment infrastructure 
        improvements in Girard, Ohio.
          91. $2,000,000 for wastewater improvements associated 
        with the Toledo Waste Equalization Basin, Ohio.
          92. $1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements in Hood River, Oregon.
          93. $3,000,000 for continued development of the Three 
        Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration program in Allegheny 
        County, Pennsylvania.
          94. $1,000,000 for Hampden Township, Pennsylvania 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          95. $1,000,000 for continued wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements for the Springettsbury 
        Township and City of York, Pennsylvania.
          96. $1,000,000 for planning and development of a 
        master plan of the Susquehanna-Lackawanna, Pennsylvania 
        watershed through the Pennsylvania Geographic 
        Information Consortium.
          97. $4,000,000 for groundwater, drinking water and 
        watershed infrastructure restoration and improvements 
        in Carrolltown Borough ($1,650,000); Sipesville 
        ($2,230,000); and the Saint Vincent watershed 
        ($120,000), Pennsylvania.
          98. $1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements for the Roaring Brook Township Sewer 
        Authority ($300,000); the Borough of Olyphant 
        ($300,000); and the Borough of Honesdale ($400,000), 
        Pennsylvania.
          99. $1,000,000 for wastewater and sewer 
        infrastructure improvements in New Kensington, 
        Pennsylvania.
          100. $5,000,000 for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements for the Lewistown Municipal 
        Water Authority ($500,000); Chambersburg Borough 
        ($1,250,000); Hollidaysburg Borough ($1,500,000); 
        Houtzdale Borough Municipal Authority ($200,000); 
        Northern Blair Regional Sewer Authority ($800,000); 
        Metal Township Sewer Authority ($500,000); and Decatur 
        Township ($250,000), Pennsylvania.
          101. $2,000,000 for the continued development of 
        water supply needs of the Lake Marion Regional Water 
        Agency, South Carolina.
          102. $1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        development and improvements at the George's Creek 
        Wastewater Treatment Plant, Pickens County, South 
        Carolina.
          103. $2,000,000 for drinking water infrastructure 
        improvements of the Sunbright Utility District, Morgan 
        County, Tennessee.
          104. $3,000,000 for drinking water infrastructure 
        improvements of the El Paso/Las Cruces Sustainable 
        Water Project.
          105. $1,500,000 to conduct a study of the effect of 
        pesticide runoff on inter-urban lakes in Fort Worth, 
        Texas.
          106. $2,000,000 for continued development of water 
        supply needs in Brownsville, Texas.
          107. $500,000 for the Brazos/Navasota, Texas 
        watershed management initiative.
          108. $500,000 for continued development of the 
        Riverton, Utah water reuse system improvement project.
          109. $2,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements 
        for the City of Ogden ($1,000,000) and for the former 
        Department of Defense Depot facility in Ogden 
        ($1,000,000), Utah.
          110. $10,000,000 for continued development of 
        combined sewer overflow improvements in Richmond 
        ($5,000,000) and Lynchburg ($5,000,000), Virginia.
          111. $2,000,000 for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements in western Lee County 
        ($1,250,000) and in Amonate, Tazewell County 
        ($750,000), Virginia.
          112. $300,000 for implementation of the Potomac River 
        Visions Initiative through the Friends of the Potomac.
          113. $1,500,000 for water system improvements in 
        Metaline Falls, Washington.
          114. $1,000,000 for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements in Huntington, West 
        Virginia.
          115. $7,400,000 for water, wastewater, and sewer 
        infrastructure improvements in Davis ($2,000,000); 
        Newburg ($2,000,000); the Chestnut Ridge Public Service 
        District in Barbour County ($2,000,000); and 
        Worthington ($1,400,000), West Virginia.
          116. $2,000,000 for continued development of the 
        Metropolitan Milwaukee Sewerage District interceptor 
        system.
          117. $1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements in Beloit,Wisconsin.
          118. $5,900,000 for continuation of the National 
        Community Decentralized Wastewater Demonstration 
        Project to develop and transfer technologies which 
        offer alternatives to centralized wastewater treatment 
        facilities. The three communities of Monroe County, 
        Florida Keys, Florida ($4,000,000); Mobile, Alabama 
        ($1,200,000); and Skaneateles Lake, New York have been 
        added to the demonstration project based on their 
        unique and diverse geology and geography, as well as on 
        the commitment of each community to find appropriate 
        alternative technologies to resolve their wastewater 
        treatment needs. The Committee expects to continue the 
        cost share requirements for these three projects as was 
        provided the first three project communities.
          119. $1,500,000 for continued drinking water 
        infrastructure improvements for Bad Axe, Michigan.
          120. $1,500,000 for drinking water infrastructure 
        needs in Jackson County, Ohio.
    The Committee notes that there is a long-standing cost 
share requirement of 45% for the recipients of these special 
needs grants. The Committee, however, again expects the Agency 
to work closely with the governments or entities receiving such 
special needs grants to, when appropriate, be flexible in the 
application of the historical cost share requirements of this 
program.
    The Committee has provided the full budget request for 
state and tribal program assistance/categorical grants for all 
activities. This recommendation includes categorical grants for 
the following programs: (1) air resource assistance to State, 
local and tribal governments under section 103 and 105 of the 
Clean Air Act, as amended; (2) Pesticides Program 
implementation; (3) pesticides enforcement; (4) hazardous waste 
financial assistance; (5) lead grants; (6) pollution 
prevention; (7) toxic substances enforcement; (8) underground 
storage tanks; (9) public water system supervision; (10) 
underground injection control; (11) wetlands State program 
development; (12) section 319 of FWPCA non-point source 
pollution grants, including programs formerly eligible under 
the section 314 Clean Lakes program; (13) water pollution 
control agency resource supplementation under section 106 of 
FWPCA; (14) water quality cooperative agreements under section 
104(b)(3) of FWPCA and; (15) Indians general assistance; and 
(16) radon State grants.
    As was the case in the past three fiscal years, no 
reprogramming requests associated with States and Tribes 
applying for Partnership grants need to be submitted to the 
Committee for approval should such grants exceed the normal 
reprogramming limitations.
    Bill language is included at the request of the President 
which permits the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency to hereafter use funds appropriated under section 319 of 
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to make grants to 
Indian Tribes pursuant to sections 319(h) and 518(e) of that 
Act. Bill language, similar to language carried in the 1999 
Appropriation Act, has also been included which for fiscal year 
2000 and prior years permits states to include as principal 
amounts considered to be the cost of administering or 
capitalizing State Revolving Fund loans to eligible borrowers.

                   Executive Office of the President


                office of science and technology policy




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................        $5,108,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................         5,026,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................         5,201,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........           +93,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............           -93,000


    The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was 
created by the National Science and Technology Policy, 
Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP advises the 
President and other agencies within the Executive Office on 
science and technology policies and coordinates research and 
development programs for the Federal Government.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,108,000 for 
fiscal year 2000, an increase of $93,000 from the fiscal year 
1999 appropriation and a decrease of $93,000 from the 
President's budget request.
    The Committee commends the work of OSTP's Working Group on 
Structural Biology at Synchrotron Radiation Facilities based 
upon the report issued in January, 1999 on this subject. The 
Working Group examined synchrotron facilities that were 
operated by the U.S. Department of Energy. Those facilities, 
however, provided time for users from a variety of backgrounds 
and research interests including energy and biomedical areas. 
In reviewing these dual purpose facilities, the Working Group 
concluded that, because of the multiple research purposes of 
these facilities, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) could 
appropriately share in some of the costs associated with these 
facilities. The Working Group also noted that other facility or 
instrumentation areas that also might be candidates for such 
funding approaches included high-field nuclear magnetic 
resonance (NMR). As this area is of interest to the Committee 
and to other agencies, including the National Science 
Foundation, the Committee requests that the Science Advisor 
instruct the Working Group to undertake a similar review of 
funding opportunities, coordinated siting and support 
approaches, and future development strategies for the next 
generation of high-field NM technologies. Such a report would 
be particularly useful as a tool for assessing scientific and 
funding opportunities for the next fiscal year, and would hope 
to have a preliminary report on this matter prior to April 1, 
2000.

  council on environmental quality AND office of environmental quality




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................        $2,827,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................         2,675,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................         3,020,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........          +152,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......          -193,000


    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established 
by Congress under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA). The Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ), which 
provides professional and administrative staff for the Council, 
was established in the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 
1970. The Council on Environmental Policy has statutory 
responsibility under NEPA for environmental oversight of all 
Federal agencies and is to lead interagency decision-making of 
all environmental matters.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee has recommended 
$2,827,000 for the CEQ and OEQ, an increase of $152,000 above 
last year's spending level and a decrease of $193,000 from the 
budget request.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation


                      office of inspector general

                          (transfer of funds)




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $33,666,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        34,666,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        33,666,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        -1,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......                 0


    Funding for the Office of the Inspector General at the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is provided pursuant to 
31 U.S.C. 1105(a)(25), which requires a separate appropriation 
account for appropriations for each Office of Inspector General 
of an establishment defined under section 11(2) of the 
Inspector General Act of 1978.
    The Committee recommendation, the same as the budget 
request, provides for the transfer of $33,666,000 from the Bank 
Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and the 
FSLIC Resolution Fund to finance the Office of Inspector 
General for fiscal year 2000.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency





Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $880,737,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     2,870,254,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     3,401,725,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........    -1,989,517,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......    -2,520,988,000


    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created 
by reorganization plan number 3 of 1978. The Agency carries out 
a wide range of program responsibilities for emergency planning 
and preparedness, disaster response and recovery, and hazard 
mitigation.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends $880,737,000 
which represents a decrease of $1,989,517,000 from the fiscal 
year 1999 appropriations and a decrease of $2,520,988,000 from 
the 2000 budget request.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Agency must limit transfers of funds between 
programs and activities to not more than $500,000 without prior 
approval of the Committee. Further, no changes may be made to 
any account or program element if it is construed to be a 
change in policy. Any program or activity mentioned in this 
report shall be construed as the position of the Committee and 
should not be subject to any reductions or reprogrammings 
without prior approval of the Committee.

                            disaster relief




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $300,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     2,343,745,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     2,780,425,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........    -2,043,745,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......    -2,480,425,000


    The Federal Emergency Management Agency has responsibility 
for administering disaster assistance programs and coordinating 
the Federal response in Presidentially declared disasters. 
Major activities under the disaster assistance program are 
human services which provides aid to families and individuals; 
infrastructure which supports the efforts of State and local 
governments to take emergency protective measures, clear debris 
and repair infrastructure damage; hazard mitigation which 
sponsors projects to diminish effects of future disasters; and 
disaster management, such as disaster field office staff and 
automated data processing support.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends $300,000,000 
for disaster relief, the same as the budget request for regular 
aappropriations. The Committee has not included emergency 
appropriations of $2,480,425,000 as requested by the President.

                        pre-disaster mitigation




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................                 0
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       $30,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -30,000,000


    The budget request for fiscal year 2000 proposes a new 
account for Pre-disaster Mitigation programs. In the past, this 
activity has been funded within the Emergency Management 
Planning and Assistance account. The Committee recommends no 
funding in this new account in fiscal year 2000. Instead, the 
Committee has included this activity as part of the Emergency 
Management and Planning Assistance account at the same level as 
provided in fiscal year 1999, $25,000,000.

            disaster assistance direct loan program account

                            state share loan




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................        $1,295,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................         1,355,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................         1,295,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........           -60,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......                 0



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Limitation on    Administrative
                                        direct loans        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.....     ($25,000,000)          $420,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation......      (25,000,000)           440,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.....      (25,000,000)           420,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999                   (0)           -20,000
 appropriation......................
Comparison with fiscal year 2000                   (0)                 0
 request............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in 1992, loans made to States under the cost 
sharing provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act were funded in accordance with the 
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. The Disaster Assistance 
Direct Loan Program Account, which was established as a result 
of the Federal Credit Reform Act, records the subsidy costs 
associated with the direct loans obligated beginning in 1992 to 
the present, as well as administrative expenses of this 
program.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends $1,295,000 
for the cost of State Share Loans, the same as the President's 
request and a decrease of $60,000 from the fiscal year 1999 
level. In addition, the Committee has provided $25,000,000 for 
the limitation on direct loans pursuant to Section 319 of the 
Stafford Act, as well as $420,000 for administrative expenses 
of the program.

                         salaries and expenses




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $177,720,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       171,138,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       189,720,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        +6,582,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -12,000,000


    This activity encompasses the salaries and expenses 
required to provide executive direction and administrative 
staff support for all agency programs in both the headquarters 
and field offices. The account funds both program support and 
executive direction activities.
    The Committee recommends $177,720,000 for salaries and 
expenses, a decrease of $12,000,000 from the budget request and 
an increase of $6,582,000 when compared to fiscal year 1999. 
The amount recommended by the Committee should be sufficient to 
fund all current employees with some modest growth for those 
areas where the agency's mission has been expanded. The 
Committee recommendation includes funding for modest growth in 
the areas of anti-terrorism and Project Impact. The Committee 
is not convinced that a more than 10% growth in personnel is 
necessary in order to implement the recommendations of the Blue 
Ribbon Panel Reports on improving the operation of the United 
States Fire Administration and directs FEMA to prioritize its 
spending with this in mind.

                      office of inspector general




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................        $6,515,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................         5,400,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................         8,015,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        +1,115,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......        -1,500,000


    The Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established 
administratively within FEMA at the time of the Agency's 
creation in 1979. Through a program of audits, investigations 
and inspections, the OIG seeks to prevent and detect fraud and 
abuse and promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the 
Agency's programs and operations. Although not originally 
established by law, FEMA's OIG was formed and designed to 
operate in accordance with the intent and purpose of the 
Inspector General Act of 1978. The Inspector General Act 
Amendments of 1988 created a statutory Inspector General within 
FEMA.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $6,515,000 for the Office of Inspector 
General, an increase of $1,115,000 above the fiscal year 1999 
appropriation and a decrease of $1,500,000 from the fiscal year 
2000 budget request.

              emergency management planning and assistance




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $280,787,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       240,824,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       250,850,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       +39,963,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       +29,937,000


    This appropriation provides program resources for the 
majority of FEMA's ``core'' activities, including, response and 
recovery; preparedness, training and exercises; mitigation 
programs, fire prevention and training; information technology 
services; operations support; and executive direction. Costs 
for the floodplain management component are borne by 
policyholders and reimbursed from the National Flood Insurance 
Fund.
    The Committee recommends a fiscal year 2000 appropriation 
of $280,787,000, an increase of $39,963,000 to the fiscal year 
1999 level and an increase of $29,937,000 to the fiscal year 
2000 budget request.
    The budget request included a new account for pre-disaster 
mitigation at a value of $30,000,000. The Committee does not 
agree that the new account is required and instead has included 
$25,000,000 within the EMPA account. This funding will continue 
the Project Impact program which leverages local government and 
private funding to encourage communities across the country to 
become disaster resistant. With more than 100 communities 
already part of the program, the Committee encourages FEMA's 
continued support to those communities to ensure the initiative 
has a long term effect on reducing disaster costs.
    The Committee supports the basic conclusions of the Blue 
Ribbon Panel Reports on improving the operation of the United 
States Fire Administration but finds the funding increases 
requested to implement the findings may be too aggressive at 
this time and recommends a reduction of $5,000,000 to this 
activity. This reduction will still allow for an increase of 
over $6,000,000 for Fire Prevention and Training activities, an 
increase of over 24% when compared to the fiscal year 1999 
funding level. The Committee fully supports the initiative to 
improve and expand the National Fire Incident Reporting System 
and directs FEMA to work with the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission to ensure that the Commission's work receives a 
benefit from the reporting system improvements.
    The budget request includes an initiative to focus on 
emergency management professional development at a cost of 
$10,000,000 in fiscal year 2000. The Committee does not support 
this initiative in the current fiscal environment and denies 
the funding request.
    The Committee recommendation includes a reduction of 
$4,000,000 to the budget request for anti-terrorism activities. 
The Committee notes that the budget request included an 
increase of over $10,000,000 for this activity. The House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure recently held 
hearings on federal anti-terrorism programs. The conclusion of 
the hearing was that waste and confusion is rife within the 
fragmented federal anti-terrorism programs. In light of the 
hearings held by the Committee responsible for program 
oversight, this Committee is concerned that a 100% growth in 
funding may not be used in a responsible manner. The Committee 
has included funding for modest personnel increases and a 
modest expansion of programs, but cautions FEMA to ensure that 
none of FEMA's efforts should be structured in such a way as to 
duplicate the activities of other federal anti-terrorism 
programs.
    The Committee supports FEMA's initiative to consolidate 
non-disaster funds to State Emergency Management Agencies into 
the Emergency Management Performance Grant. Through this 
consolidation, grant processing will be streamlined, reporting 
requirements will be simplified, and States will better meet 
their emergency management priorities. The Committee 
understands that the EMPG is the next evolution of the 
partnerships developed with States through the Performance 
Partnership Agreements and notes that FEMA's initiative is 
consistent with a recent Office of Inspector General 
recommendation.
    The Committee directs FEMA to ensure that, in exchange for 
the additional flexibility provided through the EMPG, States 
are held accountable for EMPG funds by tying such funds to 
performance measures. FEMA is expected to provide adequate 
financial and programmatic accountability in order to 
demonstrate appropriate use of EMPG funds.
    The Committee acknowledges that the cost share developed 
for the EMPG is a composite cost share based on the cost share 
policies for the funding sources contributing funds to the 
EMPG, and that the State may use the consolidated grant for any 
purpose(s) authorized by any of the program authorities 
included in the grant, without regard to the proportion of the 
grant that was made based on any one of those programs.
    The Committee recommendation includes the following 
increases to the budget request:
    1. $1,000,000 for a state emergency communications center 
to be co-located with the National Guard at Fort Harrison in 
Montana.
    2. $2,000,000 for construction of a hurricane shelter in 
Milton, Florida.
    3. $1,237,000 for the repair/construction of the Tracy Fire 
Station Number 1 in the City of Tracy, California.
    4. $1,000,000 for the installation of wave monitoring buoys 
in the Gulf of Mexico off the Louisiana coast.
    5. $2,500,000 for a windstorm simulation project at Florida 
International University.
    6. $400,000 for upgrades to the computer modeling 
capability of FEMA and the California Office of Emergency 
Services. Specifically, the Regional Assessment of Mitigation 
Priorities computer program is to be upgraded to evaluate 
earthquake disaster mitigation projects.
    7. $6,300,000 for Disaster Resistant Universities, 
including $3,300,000 for Syracuse University, $1,000,000 for 
South Florida University, and $2,000,000 for California States 
University, San Bernardino.
    8. $6,000,000 for continuation of the seismic retrofit 
project at Loma Linda University Hospital utilizing laser 
technology.
    9. $1,500,000 for the commercialization of emergency 
response technologies, to be performed by the National 
Technology Transfer Center.
    10. $1,000,000 for the Operations Support Directorate to 
archive key agency documents by digitalization to optical 
disks.
    11. $1,000,000 for FEMA to conduct a Logistical Staging 
Area concept demonstration of civil-military cooperation. This 
concept will include warehouse facilities at the Stanly County 
Airport located in North Carolina that will assist emergency 
management planning and logistical support assistance on a 
regional basis.
    12. $2,000,000 for a seismic retrofit project at the 
University of Redlands, Redlands, California.
    The Committee is concerned with FEMA's proposed re-write of 
the regulations pertaining to the Public Assistance Insurance 
Requirements. The proposal could place an enormous financial 
burden on states, local governments, school districts, private 
non-profit hospitals, and universities. In light of these 
potential impacts and action already taken by the House of 
Representatives through the Disaster Mitigation and Cost 
Reduction Act, the Committee directs the General Accounting 
Office to conduct a study to determine the financial impacts of 
FEMA's proposed regulation. This study should also analyze and 
compare current and future expected availability and cost of 
disaster insurance for public infrastructure eligible for 
FEMA's Public Assistance Program. The Committee directs FEMA to 
withhold its proposed disaster insurance regulations until the 
GAO report has been submitted and reviewed by the House and 
Senate.
    The Committee directs FEMA to develop an evacuation plan 
for a Category 3 or greater storm, a levee break, flood or 
other natural disaster for the New Orleans area; including the 
parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, Lafourche, St. Bernard, 
Plaquemines, St. Charles and Terrebonne. FEMA should 
incorporate the feasibility of a vertical evacuation into 
multi-level structures and identify evacuation problems and 
infrastructure improvements and is directed to work with the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisiana Department of 
Transportation and Development, Louisiana Office of Emergency 
Preparedness, New Orleans Regional Planning Commission, and 
Terrebonne Readiness and Action Committee in the preparation of 
this plan and report.

                RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND

    The fiscal year 1999 bill included language establishing 
the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Fund. The Committee 
recommendation includes continuation of this Fund in fiscal 
year 2000.
    The Committee directs the FEMA Director to deliver to the 
Committee, by March 31, 2000, an implementation plan to address 
the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Strategic 
Review recommendations developed in 1998, including program-
enhancing priorities, responsibilities, implementation 
requirements, and schedules. Following submittal of the plan, 
the Director shall provide to the Committee by July 2000 a 
report on the status of implementation.

                   EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $110,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       100,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       125,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       +10,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -15,000,000


    The Emergency Food and Shelter Program within the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency originated in the 1983 Emergency 
Jobs legislation. Minor modifications were incorporated in the 
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. The program is 
designed to help address the problems of the hungry and 
homeless. Appropriated funds are awarded to a National Board to 
carry out programs for sheltering and feeding the needy. This 
program is nationwide in scope and provides such assistance 
through local private voluntary organizations and units of 
government selected by local boards in areas designated by the 
National Board as being in highest need.
    The Committee has recommended $110,000,000 for the 
Emergency Food and Shelter Program, an increase of $10,000,000 
when compared to the fiscal year 1999 funding level and 
$15,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee continues 
to believe this is a well run and very worthwhile program and 
acknowledges and appreciates the support and commitment to the 
program by many religious and charity organizations.
    Once again this year, bill language is included which 
limits administrative costs to 3.5% for fiscal year 2000.

                      FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................        $5,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................         5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        +5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......                 0


    The budget request included a proposal to establish a Flood 
Map Modernization Fund. The goal of the fund would be to create 
a mechanism to collect revenue and distribute funds for the 
modernization of flood plain maps. Many flood plain maps are 
over 30 years old and are in dire need of replacement using 
more accurate and modern technology to ensure that properties 
are properly categorized with respect to their flood risk. The 
Committee applauds the goal of such a fund, but has significant 
objections to the financing scheme which was proposed in the 
budget. The budget proposal of assessing a $15 fee on each 
federally regulated mortgage would impose an inequitable tax on 
homeowners and an administrative burden on mortgage processors. 
At this time the Committee recommends establishing the fund 
with an appropriation of $5,000,000, but notes that on-going 
operation of the fund will require additional funding. FEMA is 
encouraged to propose mechanisms other than the fee on 
federally regulated mortgages in order to fully finance this 
program.
    Of the funds provided, $2,000,000 is to be provided to the 
New York Department of Environmental Conservation for 
initiating the Statewide Flood Plain Mapping Program. The 
funding will be used for re-mapping of high priority MRIP 
communities and will be performed using advanced GIS-based 
hydrologic and hydraulic modeling software and methods which 
have been developed in cooperation with and approved by FEMA.
    The Committee directs the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency to revisit the issue of flood zone remapping for Gulf 
County, Florida. In addition, the Committee directs the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency to report to the Committee on the 
procedures used by the agency to develop new flood zone maps 
when the region in question is also a Coastal Barrier Resources 
Act zone.

                  NATIONAL INSURANCE DEVELOPMENT FUND

    The National Insurance Development Fund was established 
from the proceeds of the Riot Reinsurance Program. It was also 
used as the vehicle for funding the Federal Crime Insurance 
Program and it received deposits for crime insurance premiums 
and other receipts. In the process of carrying out its 
responsibilities under this program, FEMA incurred debts as a 
result of borrowings for the NIDF. The budget request includes 
a provision which liquidates these borrowings by forgiving the 
debt and the interest on the borrowings.
    The Committee agrees with FEMA that this matter should be 
closed and recommends inclusion of the necessary language to 
forgive the indebtedness. The cost of forgiving the interest on 
this debt is less than $500,000.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

                          (TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

    The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 requires the 
purchase of insurance in communities where it is available as a 
condition for receiving various forms of Federal financial 
assistance for acquisition and construction of buildings or 
projects within special flood hazard areas identified by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. All existing buildings and 
their contents in communities where flood insurance is 
available, through either the emergency or regular program, are 
eligible for a first layer of coverage of subsidized premium 
rates.
    Full risk actuarial rates are charged for new construction 
or substantial improvements commenced in identified special 
flood hazard areas after December 31, 1974, or after the 
effective date of the flood insurance rate map issued to the 
community, whichever is later. For communities in the regular 
program, a second layer of flood insurance coverage is 
available at actuarial rates on all properties, and actuarial 
rates for both layers apply to all new construction or 
substantial improvements located in special flood hazard areas. 
The program operations are financed with premium income 
augmented by Treasury borrowings.
    The Committee has included bill language proposed in the 
budget request for salaries and expenses to administer the 
fund, not to exceed $24,333,000, and for mitigation activities, 
not to exceed $78,710,000. Also included is a limitation of 
$20,000,000 for expenses under Section 1366 of the National 
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, which shall be 
available for transfer to the National Flood Mitigation Fund.
    The Committee is aware that authorization to write new 
policies during fiscal year 2000 does not currently exist. The 
Committee urges the passage of appropriate authorizing 
legislation prior to September 30, 1999 to ensure continuation 
of this program.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND

                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $20,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       $32,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriations.......       +20,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -12,000,000


    The budget request includes a new program to address the 
issue of repetitive loss properties within the National Flood 
Insurance Program. This new program would target properties 
with a high incidence of repetitive losses, and offer removal 
or elevation of structures with the goal of significantly 
reducing the future costs of the National Flood Insurance Fund. 
The budget proposal would finance this program with a transfer 
of $20,000,000 from the National Flood Insurance Fund and 
$12,000,000 in direct budget authority. The Committee commends 
FEMA for addressing this very real problem and endorses the 
effort. Unfortunately, the Committee does not have sufficient 
resources to fully fund the budget proposal. Therefore, the 
Committee recommends $20,000,000 for this effort in fiscal year 
2000, to be derived by transfer from the National Flood 
Insurance Program. The Committee is aware of a number of areas 
in the country where repetitive flood losses have occurred. In 
particular, the Committee has had brought to its attention the 
situation of six jurisdictions of the Johnson Creek watershed 
in Oregon. It appears that this location would qualify for 
further buy-out activities under this program. FEMA is 
encouraged to review the situation in Oregon and take whatever 
action is appropriate.

                    General Services Administration


                      CONSUMER INFORMATION CENTER




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................        $2,622,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................         2,619,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................         2,622,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........            +3,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............                 0


    The Consumer Information Center (CIC) helps Federal 
departments and agencies promote and distribute consumer 
information and promotes public awareness of existing 
government publications through dissemination of a consumer 
information catalog and other media programs.
    The Consumer Information Center Fund, a revolving fund 
established by Public Law 98-63, provides for the efficient 
operation of the Consumer Information Center. The revolving 
fund finances CIC activities through annual appropriations, 
reimbursement from agencies for distribution costs, fees 
collected from the public, and incidental income.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,622,000 for 
fiscal year 2000. This is an increase of $3,000 from the fiscal 
year 1998 level and the same as the fiscal year 2000 budget 
request. The bill also includes a limitation of $7,500,000 on 
the availability of the revolving fund. Any revenues accruing 
to this fund during fiscal year 2000 in excess of this amount 
shall remain in the fund and are not available for expenditure 
except as authorized in appropriations Acts.
    The Director of the Consumer Information Center has 
significant responsibilities for management and execution of 
the programs within the Consumer Information Center. At the 
present time, the Director's position is a GM-15 grade which 
does not appear to reflect the responsibilities of the 
position. The Committee directs the General Services 
Administration to review the classification level of the 
position of Director of the Consumer Information Center and to 
provide a recommendation to the Committee with the fiscal year 
2001 budget.
    The Consumer Information Center Fund is comprised of 
appropriated dollars and contributions from other governmental 
and non-governmental sources. Each year the CIC provides the 
Congress with an accounting of the Fund, showing expected 
income and expenditures for the current fiscal year and the 
next fiscal year. The latest report shows an expected balance 
at the end of fiscal year 2000 of only $230,000. Based upon the 
experience of prior years, the Fund will have a negative 
balance by the end of fiscal year 2001 unless a cash infusion 
is provided through either an increase in gifts or a 
significant one-time appropriation. The Committee has not taken 
any action at this time to provide additional appropriated 
dollars, but may need to do so prior to the start of fiscal 
year 2001 to avoid depletion of the Fund.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration





Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................   $12,653,800,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    13,665,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................    13,578,400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........    -1,011,200,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............      -924,600,000


    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was 
created by the National Space Act of 1958. NASA conducts space 
and aeronautics research, development, and flight activity 
designed to ensure and maintain U.S. preeminence in space and 
aeronautical endeavors.
    The Committee recommends a total program level of 
$12,653,800,000 in fiscal year 2000, which is a decrease of 
$924,600,000 from the budget request and $1,011,200,000 below 
the fiscal year 1999 enacted appropriation.
    The Committee recognizes that the funding reduction for 
NASA is significant. However, when looked at on a program-by-
program or project-by-project basis, the recommendations are 
less severe than they appear at first. Projects which are 
specifically noted for cancellation are for the most part very 
early in their development, so sunk costs are minimal and long-
term savings are significant. This is true in the case of 
Contour and LightSAR. Additionally, other reductions are in the 
budgets for planning future missions and technology 
development, and many of these budgets have grown significantly 
over the last two years. Examples include: supporting research 
and technology within the Space Science account, which has 
increased by over $250,000,000 since fiscal year 1998; planning 
for future missions in the Explorer and Discovery programs, 
which have increased by $145,000,000 since fiscal year 1998; 
Earth Probes funding has increased over $100,000,000 since 
fiscal year 1998; and the Earth Observing System Data 
Information System program has expended more than 
$1,600,000,000 since its inception and has delivered minimal 
products to NASA despite this expenditure. Numerous other 
examples could be sited, these are only the most compelling 
reasons which justify the reductions proposed by the Committee.

                           HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................    $5,388,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     5,480,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     5,638,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -92,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............      -250,000,000


    This appropriation provides for human space flight 
activities, including development of the international space 
station and operation of the space shuttle. This account also 
includes support of planned cooperative activities with Russia, 
upgrades to the performance and safety of the space shuttle, 
and required construction projects in direct support of the 
space station and space shuttle programs.
    The Committee recommends a total of $5,388,000,000 for the 
human space flight account in fiscal year 2000. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $250,000,000 from the budget 
request and $92,000,000 below the fiscal year 1999 enacted 
appropriation.
    The Committee recommendation includes a reduction of 
$100,000,000 from the budget request for the International 
Space Station and $150,000,000 from the budget request for 
Space Shuttle Operations. The Committee received many requests 
for additional funding for the upgrades to the shuttle but was 
unable to accommodate the additional funding at this time. The 
Committee will continue to monitor the shuttle program and may 
be able to address this issue prior to final enactment of this 
bill. The Committee remains committed to safe operation of the 
space shuttle program and does not believe the funding 
reduction proposed will jeopardize the program's record of safe 
operations.
    The Committee applauds the progress being made by NASA and 
its partners in the assembly of the International Space 
Station. However, the Committee remains concerned that 
continued progress may be hampered if Russian assets continue 
to be diverted to the MIR space station. It is imperative that 
the MIR space station not become a drain on the limited 
financial resources of Russia. It is also vital that the 
infrastructure in central Asia, as well as Russian Soyuz and 
Progress vehicles, remain dedicated to the priority of 
supporting assembly and operation of the International Space 
Station. NASA is directed to take all action necessary to 
ensure that the MIR station does not become a liability to the 
International Space Station program and that Russia lives up to 
its previous commitments to assist in the assembly and 
operations of the International Space Station.
    The Committee continues to be concerned about increasing 
requirements and costs in the International Space Station 
program. While Congress has advocated introducing more 
commercialization and privatization into the ISS program, the 
Committee sees little progress at NASA toward implementing this 
direction. The Committee believes long-term cost savings will 
result from more commercial involvement and endorses the White 
House stated policy that commercially available goods and 
services should be purchased to the maximum extent possible. To 
this end, the Committee directs NASA to aggressively consider 
commercial proposals for ISS program requirements. Except for 
cases involving national security or public safety concerns, 
when a commercial provider proposes a solution that meets 
mission requirements in a cost-effective manner, the agency 
must accept the commercial proposal. If NASA determines it is 
not in the best interest of the government for reasons other 
than national security or public safety, NASA must demonstrate 
the reasons for pursuing a non-commercial solution. In cases 
involving cost comparisons between government and commercial 
options, NASA must compare the proposed commercial price 
against the full cost associated with the government solution, 
including fixed costs for maintaining government assets. The 
Committee believes it is critical that NASA not compete with 
commercial providers for routine space hardware and service 
requirements.NASA must endeavor to create an environment that 
fosters the growth of a commercial space industry to service commercial 
ISS users. It is the Committee's strong belief that utilizing 
commercial services at this time will help control long-term ISS costs 
and encourage more commercial interest in the ISS program.

                  SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND TECHNOLOGY




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................    $4,975,700,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     5,653,900,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     5,424,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........      -678,200,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............      -449,000,000


    This appropriation provides for the research and 
development activities of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. These activities include: space science, life 
and microgravity science, earth sciences, aeronautical research 
and technology, advanced concepts and technology, launch 
services, and academic programs. Funds are also included for 
the construction, maintenance, and operation of programmatic 
facilities.
    The Committee recommends $4,975,700,000 for Science, 
Aeronautics and Technology in fiscal year 2000. The amount 
recommended is $449,000,000 below the budget request. The 
amount provided includes a decrease of $240,800,000 for Space 
Science, an increase of $7,000,000 for Life and Microgravity 
Sciences and Applications, a decrease of $285,000,000 for Earth 
Sciences, an increase of $43,500,000 for Aero-Space Technology, 
no change to the budget request for Mission Communications 
Services, and an increase of $26,300,000 for Academic Programs. 
Specific program adjustments are explained below.

                             space science

    For space science programs, the Committee recommends the 
following changes to the budget request:
    1. Reduce funding for future planning for the Explorer 
program by $60,000,000.
    2. Reduce funding for future planning for the Discovery 
program future mission by $60,000,000.
    3. Cancellation of the Contour mission for a savings of 
$50,000,000.
    4. Reduce funding for supporting research and technology by 
$95,800,000 of which $60,800,000 is to be taken from the 
Technology program and $35,000,000 is to be taken from the 
Research program.
    5. An increase of $10,000,000 for Space Solar Power.
    6. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Science Center at 
Glendale Community College.
    7. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Louisville Science 
Center.
    8. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Science Center 
Initiative at Ohio Wesleyan University.
    9. An increase of $5,000,000 for the Polymer Energy 
Rechargeable System.
    10. An increase of $2,000,000 for the center on life in 
extreme thermal environments at Montana State University in 
Bozeman.
    11. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Adler Planetarium in 
Chicago, Illinois.
    12. NASA is directed to provide a total of $20,000,000 for 
fundamental physics research.

                     life and microgravity sciences

    For Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, the 
Committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget 
request:
    1. An increase of $1,000,000 for the ``Garden Machine'' 
program at Texas Tech University.
    2. An increase of $4,000,000 for the Space Radiation 
program at Loma Linda University Hospital.
    3. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Neutron Therapy 
Facility at Fermilab.
    As part of the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill, the 
Congress provided $15,000,000 and directed NASA to conduct 
research using the shuttle for a dedicated mission. NASA 
declined to pursue such a mission, citing a lack of resources. 
The Committee reiterates that providing regular research flight 
opportunities for life and microgravity sciences during space 
station assembly is critical for providing scientists the 
opportunity to develop research capabilities needed for optimal 
utilization of the station. The Committee is dismayed that, 
despite numerous expressions of concern from the Congress on 
this issue, and the provision of extra funds, NASA has not yet 
responded to include additional research flights in its shuttle 
launch schedule. The current plan includes only one life and 
microgravity research shuttle mission over at least a 5-year 
period from 1999 through 2004. This is unacceptable. The 
Committee directs NASA to use the $15,000,000 provided in 
fiscal year 1999 to pursue near-term flight opportunities for 
life and microgravity sciences. Specifically, NASA should use 
the funding to increase the research allocation on STS-107 and 
to initiate work on a new research mission in the early fiscal 
year 2002 timeframe. The Committee believes annual dedicated 
life and microgravity research flights during the space station 
assembly period are essential and directs NASA to actively 
pursue this goal.

                             earth sciences

    For Earth Sciences, the Committee recommends the following 
adjustments to the budget request:
    1. Cancellation of the GLOBE program for a savings of 
$5,000,000.
    2. A reduction of $100,000,000 from the Earth Probes 
program, including cancellation of the TRIANA program, the 
LightSAR program, and the Earth System Science Pathfinders 
program.
    3. The Earth Observing System budget request is reduced by 
$150,000,000, consisting of $60,000,000 from the Technology 
Infusion program, $40,000,000 reduction in algorithm 
development, and $50,000,000 from the EOS follow-on effort.
    4. The Earth Observing System Data Information System 
budget request is reduced by $51,000,000.
    5. An increase of $2,000,000 for a Remote Sensing Center 
for Geoinformatics at the University of Mississippi.
    6. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Advanced Tropical 
Remote Sensing Center of the National Center for Tropical 
Remote Sensing Applications and Resources at the Rosenstiel 
School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.
    7. An increase of $10,000,000 for the Regional Application 
Center in Cayuga County, New York.
    8. An increase of $2,500,000 for a joint U.S./Italian 
space-based research initiative for the study and detection of 
forest fires.
    9. An increase of $3,000,000 for continuation of programs 
at the American Museum of Natural History.
    10. An increase of $1,500,000 for a remote sensing center 
at the Fulton-Montgomery Community College in New York. The 
center is to work through the Regional Application Center at 
Cayuga County, New York.
    11. An increase of $1,000,000 for continued development of 
the nickel metal hydride battery.
    The Committee is disappointed in NASA's effort to use 
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to meet science requirements. 
The ERAST program has spent in excess of $100,000,000 over the 
past five years to push the development of operational UAV 
platforms. ERAST is close to completing its technology 
objectives, and the Office of Space Science should now design a 
robust program to utilize this new scientific platform.
    The Committee understands that NASA's current plans include 
only a minimal UAV science demonstration, to provide an 
individual scientist with a flight opportunity on an aircraft 
of choice. This level of commitment is inadequate. The National 
Academy of Sciences has urged that there be a sound balance 
between ``in situ'' and space-based observations in the Global 
Climate Change Program. Further, they have stated that 
``innovative treatment of the nation's research aircraft 
capability, both piloted and robotic is strongly advised.''
    The Committee urges NASA's Office of Earth Science to make 
a strategic commitment to UAV platforms by devising a program 
that is structured to create a business incentive for platform 
providers. In this regard, the Committee requests a report 
outlining NASA's five year plan for UAVs as a scientific 
platform, including a projected budget profile that is not 
confined within the existing manned aircraft budget. In 
particular, NASA should closely examine the alternative of 
leased services or fractional ownership arrangements to meet 
these goals. The Committee requests this report by November 15, 
1999 and expects NASA's fiscal year 2001 budget request to 
reflect this plan.

                         aero-space technology

    For Aero-space Technology, the Committee recommends the 
following adjustment to the budget request:
    1. An increase of $25,000,000 for Ultra Efficient Engine 
Technology.
    2. An increase of $1,800,000 for phase two of the synthetic 
vision information system being tested at the Dallas-Ft.Worth 
Airport.
    3. An increase of $1,200,000 for continued support of the 
Dynamic Runway Occupancy Measurement System demonstration at 
the Seattle-Tacoma Airport.
    4. An increase of $2,000,000 to facilitate the acquisition 
of a 16 beam SOCRATES system and integration of SOCRATES into 
the AVOSS program.
    5. An increase of $5,000,000 for the Trailblazer program at 
the Glenn Research Center.
    6. An increase of $500,000 for the Institute for Software 
Research to continue its collaborative effort with NASA-Dryden, 
focusing on adaptive flight control research and fault tolerant 
systems.
    7. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Software Optimization 
and Reuse Technology program.
    8. An increase of $2,000,000 for the establishment of the 
NASA-Illinois Technology Commercialization Center as an 
extension of the Midwest Regional Technology Transfer Center, 
to be located at the DuPage County Research Park.
    9. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Florida Technological 
Research and Development Authority to develop a technology-
oriented business incubator in Homestead, Florida.
    10. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Earth Alert program 
for a test of the system throughout the State of Maryland.
    11. An increase of $1,500,000 for the National Technology 
Transfer Center, to bring total funding for the center up to 
$7,200,000.
    Last year the Committee noted its interest in the work 
being done for NASA by the Schepens Eye Research Institute. The 
Committee is aware that much of the research being conducted by 
the Institute's Center of the Aging Eye may be of use to NASA 
when astronauts begin to spend extended periods of time in 
space. With this in mind, the Committee directs NASA to provide 
a report which addresses the research conducted by the 
Institute for NASA and further opportunities for research.
    The Committee encourages NASA to work in coordination with 
the Department of Energy and other interested federal agencies 
on an investigation of the cavitative physics behind the 
patented Micro-Combustion Heat Engine prototype technology 
developed by Micro-Combustion, L.L.P. The Committee is 
encouraged by initial NASA investigations and believes this new 
technology represents an energy breakthrough deserving of 
further study. Understanding the national security concerns 
associated with this technology, the Committee requests NASA 
inform the Committee in writing, with respect to its 
intentions, no later than January 30, 2000.
    The Committee is aware of the unique closed system 
capabilities of Biosphere 2 Center, the earth system research 
facility located in Oracle, Arizona. The Committee directs 
NASA, after consultation with Biosphere 2, to submit a report 
to the Committee on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment 
of this Act, that details potential partnerships between NASA 
and Biosphere 2 to enhance the research capabilities of NASA.
    The Committee is pleased to note that NASA has included in 
the budget request $18,000,000 for the NASA-Ames Software 
Independent Verification and Validation Facility in Fairmont, 
West Virginia.
    The Committee supports NASA's plan to transition the ERAST 
alliance into a competitive process to meet its original ERAST 
objectives. Further, the Committee is aware of NASA's interest 
in reaching 100,000 feet using solar power. However, the 
Committee urges NASA to ensure that the project's primary focus 
support technologies that will enable an operational unmanned 
aerial vehicle (UAV) platform to meet the established science 
requirements of the Office of Earth Science. In particular, 
NASA should support over-the-horizon command-and-control 
protocols and work to ensure platform integration within the 
national airspace system. As NASA ``down selects'' to one 
consumable fuel UAV, the Committee believes NASA must ensure an 
appropriate transition phase for other alliance partners. 
Although the change in direction of the ERAST program is 
warranted, the Committee urges that the transition be 
implemented in such a manner that it not undermine the 
viability of NASA's investment in the alliance member 
companies.

                           academic programs

    For Academic Programs, the Committee recommends the 
following adjustments to the budget request:
    1. An increase of $6,500,000 for the National Space Grant 
College and Fellowship program, bringing the total funding for 
this program to $19,100,000.
    2. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Franklin Institute for 
development of an exhibit on astronomy.
    3. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Sci-Quest, the North 
Alabama Science Center.
    4. An increase of $2,300,000 for the JASON Foundation's 
JASON XI expedition, ``Going to Extremes.''
    5. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Carl Sagan Discovery 
Center at the Children's Hospital at Montefiore Medical Center.
    6. An increase of $4,000,000 for the Texas Learning and 
Computational Center at the University of Houston.
    7. An increase of $5,000,000 for the Space Science Museum 
and Educational Program at Downey, California.
    8. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Ohio View Project.
    9. An increase of $2,000,000 for continued academic and 
infrastructure needs related to the computer sciences, 
mathematics and physics building at the University of Redlands.
    10. An increase of $1,000,000 for the NASA Minority 
University Research Program to provide support for the 
establishment of a center of excellence in Mathematics and 
Science at Texas College.
    The Committee remains concerned about the lack of emphasis 
on maintaining the critical advantage that the U.S. has with 
its highly skilled, highly educated workforce. The United 
States' leadership in cutting edge technologies in aerospace 
and aeronautics would be severely damaged if activities are not 
enhanced to address this threat to global competition. The 
Committee strongly believes the establishment of an Aerospace 
Education Center is important to address this void. NASA SEMAA 
program has a critical role to play in this regard and NASA is 
encouraged to more fully develop this SEMAA resource via an 
Aerospace Education Center.

                            MISSION SUPPORT




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................    $2,269,300,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     2,511,100,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     2,494,900,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........      -241,800,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............      -225,600,000


    The appropriation provides for mission support, including: 
safety, reliability, and quality assurance activities 
supporting agency programs; space communication services for 
NASA programs; salaries and related expenses in support of 
research in NASA field installations; design, repair, 
rehabilitation, and modification of institutional facilities 
and construction of new institutional facilities; and other 
operational activities supporting the conduct of agency 
programs.
    The Committee recommends a total of $2,269,300,000 for the 
mission support account. The recommended amount is $241,800,000 
below the fiscal year 1999 appropriation and $225,600,000 below 
the budget request.
    The Committee recommendation includes deferral of all 
Construction of Facilities projects, to be accomplished at some 
future date. This results in a budget reduction of $67,100,000. 
In addition, given the programmatic changes directed in other 
NASA activities, personnel and related costs are reduced by 
$100,000,000 and research and operations support funding is 
reduced by $58,500,000.
    The Committee continues its prohibition on the use of funds 
appropriated or otherwise made available to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration by this Act, or any other 
Act enacted before the date of enactment of this Act, by the 
Administrator of NASA to relocate aircraft of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration based east of the 
Mississippi River to the Dryden Flight Research Center in 
California.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $20,800,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        20,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        20,800,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........          +800,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............                 0


    The Office of the Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for audit and 
investigation of all agency programs.
    The Committee recommends $20,800,000 for the Office of the 
Inspector General in fiscal year 2000, an increase of $800,000 
to the amount provided in fiscal year 1999 and the same as the 
budget request for fiscal year 2000.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    The bill continues the current four administrative 
provisions as proposed in the budget. An additional 
administrative provision is included this year which addresses 
the need for NASA to transition to full cost accounting.

                  National Credit Union Administration


                       CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FACILITY

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Limitation on
                                                           Limitation on      administrative     Revolving loan
                                                            direct loans         expenses           program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation........................             \1\ $0           $257,000         $1,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation.........................        600,000,000            176,000          2,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request........................        600,000,000            257,000                  0
Comparison with 1999 appropriation.....................       -600,000,000            +81,000         -1,000,000
Comparison with 2000 request...........................       -600,000,000                  0         +1,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act, the Committee increased the limitation on
  new loans to $18,600,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 for the purpose of dealing with improbably liquidity needs
  resulting from Y2K concerns; therefore, no limitation is needed for this fiscal year.

    The National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility Act 
established the National Credit Union Administration Central 
Liquidity Facility (CLF) on October 1, 1979, as a mixed-
ownership government corporation within the National Credit 
Union Administration. It is managed by the National Credit 
Union Administration and is owned by its member credit unions. 
Loans may not be used to expand a loan portfolio, but are 
authorized to meet short-term requirements such as emergency 
outflows from managerial difficulties, seasonal credit, and 
protracted adjustment credit for long-term needs caused by 
disintermediation or regional economic decline.
    In the fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriation Act, the Committee increased the limitation on 
new loans to $18,600,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; therefore, 
no limitation is needed in this legislation. The Committee 
recommends the request of $257,000 on administrative expenses, 
which is $81,000 above the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. 
Additionally, the Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the 
revolving loan program, which is $1,000,000 below the fiscal 
year 1999 appropriation. The Administration did not have a 
similar request.
    The Committee is concerned that residents of public housing 
are not being adequately provided with on-site financial 
services. The Committee suggests that HUD and the National 
Credit Union Administration (NCUA) submit a feasibility study 
of providing credit union services to residents of public 
housing.

                      National Science Foundation





Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................    $3,646,825,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     3,671,200,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     3,921,450,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -24,375,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............      -274,625,000


    The National Science Foundation was established in 1950 and 
received its first appropriation of $225,000 in 1951. The 
primary purpose behind its creation was to develop a national 
policy on science, and support and promote basic research and 
education in the sciences filling the void left after World War 
II.
    The Committee recommends a total of $3,646,825,000 for 
fiscal year 2000. This recommendation is a decrease of 
$24,375,000 below last year's appropriation and $274,625,000 
below the President's budget request.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Foundation must limit transfers of funds between 
programs and activities to not more than $500,000 without prior 
approval of the Committee. Further, no changes may be made to 
any account or program element if it is construed to be policy 
or a change in policy. Any activity or program cited in this 
report shall be construed as the position of the Committee and 
should not be subject to reductions or reprogramming without 
prior approval of the Committee. Finally, it is the intent of 
the Committee that all carryover funds in the various 
appropriations accounts are subject to the normal reprogramming 
requirements outlined above.

                    RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................    $2,778,500,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................     2,770,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     3,004,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        +8,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............      -225,500,000


    The appropriation for Research and Related Activities 
covers all programs in the Foundation except Education and 
Human Resources, Salaries and Expenses, NSF Headquarters 
Relocation, Major Research Equipment, and the Office of 
Inspector General. These are funded in other accounts in the 
bill. The Research and Related Activities appropriation 
includes United States Polar Research Programs and Antarctic 
Logistical Support Activities and the Critical Technologies 
Institute, which were previously funded through separate 
appropriations. Beginning with fiscal year 1997, the 
President's budget provided funding for the instrumentation 
portion of Academic Research Infrastructure in this account.
    The Committee recommends a total of $2,778,500,000 for 
Research and Related Activities in fiscal year 2000, an 
increase of $8,500,000 above last year's funding level and a 
decrease of $225,500,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee's recommendation includes the following program 
levels which it expects the Foundation to adhere to: (1) 
Biological Sciences, $391,000,000; (2) Computer and Information 
Science and Engineering, $312,670,000; (3) Engineering, 
$369,000,000; (4) Geosciences, $473,000,000; (5) Mathematical 
and Physical Sciences, $735,000,000; (6) Social Behavioral and 
Economic Sciences, $138,000,000; (7) U.S. Polar Research 
Programs, $183,000,000; (8) U.S. Antarctic Logistical Support 
Activities, $62,600,000; and (9) Integrative Activities, 
$114,230,000.
    Within the amount provided to the Computer and Information 
Science and Engineering directorate, $35,000,000 is to support 
individual and team research projects consistent with H.R. 
2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research and 
Development Act, which, as introduced, authorizes a sizable 
increase for Information Technology (IT) research over the next 
five fiscal yerars. Budget constraints make it impossible for 
the Committee to provide the funding level as provided in H.R. 
2086 or the full budget request for this new initiative without 
adversely disrupting funding in all other program areas. 
Nevertheless, the Committee believes $35,000,000 is a 
significant down-payment towards what it expects will be a 
long-term, comprehensive research program in this important 
field of computing and information technologies.
    Included in the amount provided to the new Integrative 
Activities directorate is $35,000,000 for the new Biocomplexity 
Initiative; $50,000,000 for Major Research Instrumentation; 
$25,000,000 for Science and Technology Centers; and $4,230,000 
for the Science and Technology Policy Institute. Although 
acknowledging the funding flexibility afforded the Foundation 
through its use of the Opportunity Fund, the Committee has, for 
fiscal year 2000, included no funds for this activity. Should 
the NSF find it necessary to pursue funds for ``emergency'' 
research needs at any time during the fiscal year, the 
Committee will make every effort to respond to appropriate 
reprogramming requests as quickly as possible.

                        MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $56,500,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        90,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        85,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -33,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............       -28,500,000


    This account provides funding for the construction of major 
research facilities that provide unique capabilities at the 
cutting edge of science and engineering.
    The Committee recommends a total of $56,500,000 for the 
major research equipment account for fiscal year 2000. This 
appropriation reflects the budget request levels of $8,000,000 
for the Millimeter Array, $15,900,000 for the Large Hadron 
Collider, $12,000,000 Polar support aircraft upgrades, 
$5,400,000 for continued construction of the new South Pole 
Station, and $7,700,000 for the Network for Earthquake 
Engineering Simulation.
    As outlined under the Research and Related Activities 
account, the Committee has included $35,000,000 for new 
research related activities consistent with the Information 
Technology Initiative (IT). The Committee, however, is not 
prepared at this time to commit resources to the construction 
of a single site, five teraflop computing facility as requested 
in the budget submission. The Committee has taken this action, 
without prejudice, due to budget constraints and other, higher 
priority pressures on available financial resources. The 
Committee expects to consider this request in future year 
budget submissions and would hope to have the benefit of any 
new IT research that may be available to assist during those 
forthcoming deliberations.
    Finally, the Committee has provided $7,500,000 to begin 
production of the High-Performance Instrumented Airborne 
Platform for Environmental Research (HIAPER). The Committee 
recognizes the atmospheric science community's need for such a 
new high-altitude research aircraft, and notes that this 
aircraft has gone through a multiple-year review and selection 
process prior to its approval and endorsement by the National 
Science Board. Upon its completion, this aircraft will be 
available to support outstanding research opportunities over 
the next 25 to 30 years.

                     EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $660,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       662,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       678,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        -2,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............       -18,000,000


    The Foundation's Education and Human Resources activities 
are designed to encourage the entrance of talented students 
into science and technology careers, to improve the 
undergraduate science and engineering education environment, to 
assist in providing all pre-college students with a level of 
education in mathematics, science, and technology that reflects 
the needs of the nation and is the highest quality attained 
anywhere in the world, and extend greater research 
opportunities to underrepresented segment of the scientific and 
engineering communities.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends 
$660,000,000, a decrease of $2,000,000 below last year's 
appropriated level and a decrease of $18,000,000 below the 
budget request. The Committee's proposal includes the following 
program funding levels: (1) Educational System Reform, 
$114,200,000; (2) Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive 
Research (EPSCoR), $48,410,000; (3) Elementary, Secondary and 
Informal Education, $193,520,000; (4) Undergraduate Education, 
$103,540,000; (5) Graduate Education, $69,650,000; (6) Human 
Resource Development, $73,680,000; and (7) Research, Evaluation 
and Communication, $57,000,000.
    The Committee has provided the budget request for the HBCU-
UP initiative. However, the Committee strongly encourages the 
Foundation to take all appropriate steps to increase funding, 
through both the Education and Human Resources and the Research 
and Related Activities accounts, to support enhanced education 
and research opportunities at additional HBCU institutions.
    The Committee views the Advance Technological Education 
program as crucial to ensuring a highly competent technical 
workforce. The Committee is pleased that the Foundation is 
using a portion of the H1-B visa receipts along with effective 
partnership with the relevant, local scientific and technical 
business sector to further expand the scope and significance of 
the program.
    The Committee believes that it is important to promote 
agricultural and related environmental awareness through 
improved curriculum and materials development targeted at the 
K-12 level of education. Recent reports by the National 
Research Council, the Farm Foundation, and other organizations 
have highlighted the need for improved education efforts in 
this vital area for all students. The Committee urges the 
Foundation to actively encourage and to provide appropriate 
support for competitive proposals that will improve 
agricultural and environmental literacy, promote critical 
thinking and problem solving skills, and improve the quality of 
agricultural and environmental education materials being used 
by K-12 teachers in our Nation's schools. Such efforts should 
be coordinated with similar efforts to be undertaken by the 
Department of Agriculture, particularly as it incorporates 
several years of effort developed by the National Resource and 
Conservation Services to prepare an agro-ecosystem curriculum 
for teachers focusing on land, food, and people.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................      $146,500,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       144,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       149,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........        +2,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............        -2,500,000


    The Salaries and Expenses activity provides for the 
operation, support and management, and direction of all 
Foundation programs and activities and includes necessary funds 
that develop, manage, and coordinate Foundation programs.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $146,500,000 
for salaries and expenses, a decrease of $2,500,000 from the 
President's budget request and an increase of $2,500,000 over 
last year's appropriated level.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................        $5,325,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................         5,200,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................         5,450,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........          +125,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request..............          -125,000


    This account provides National Science Foundation audit and 
investigation functions to identify and correct management and 
administrative deficiencies which could lead to fraud, waste, 
or abuse.
    For fiscal year 2000, the Committee has recommended 
$5,325,000 for the Office of Inspector General. This amount is 
$125,000 above last year's funding level and is a decrease of 
$125,000 below the budget request.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation


          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................       $80,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        90,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        90,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -10,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -10,000,000


    The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, established by 
title VI of Public Law 95-557 in October 1978, is committed to 
promoting reinvestment in older neighborhoods by local 
financial institutions working cooperatively with community 
people and local government. This is primarily accomplished by 
assisting community-based partnerships (NeighborWorks 
organizations) in a range of local revitalization efforts. 
Increasing homeownership among lower-income families is a key 
revitalization tool. Neighborhood Housing Services of America 
(NHSA) supports lending activities of the NeighborWorks 
organizations through a national secondary market that 
leverages its capital with private sector investment.
    The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, 
a decrease of $10,000,000 below the fiscal year 1999 level and 
the budget request. Consistently, the Neighborhood Reinvestment 
Corporation performs beyond its goals and the Committee's 
expectations. The Committee applauds NRC's contributions to the 
affordable housing industry and endorses the second round of 
its homeownership initiative and its multifamily initiative.

                        Selective Service System


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES




Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.......................        $7,000,000
Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        24,426,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        25,250,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........       -17,426,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 budget request.......       -18,250,000


    The Selective Service System was reestablished by the 
Selective Service Act of 1948. The basic mission of the System 
is to be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces 
adequate to ensure the security of the United States during a 
time of national emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have 
relied on volunteers to fill military manpower requirements. 
However, the Selective Service System remains the primary 
vehicle by which men will be brought into military if Congress 
and the President should authorize a return to the draft.
    The fiscal year 2000 budget request for registration and 
administrative activities for the Selective Service System is 
$25,250,000. The Committee recommends that the selective 
service registration activities be terminated in fiscal year 
2000 and provides $7,000,000 for termination costs.
    The bill includes language permitting the System to use 
fiscal year 1999 funds for necessary administrative expenses 
and termination costs.

                                TITLE IV


                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The committee recommends inclusion of twenty-two general 
provisions, twenty of which were requested in the fiscal year 
2000 budget and were carried in the fiscal year 1999 
Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-276). The Committee 
recommendation does not include the proposed provision 
pertaining to the United States/Mexico Foundation. The 
Committee recommendation does include a provision pertaining to 
reporting requirements of the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs 
prior to entering into leases of real property, which was 
carried in the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act. The 
Committee also recommends a new general provision, Sec. 422, 
which rescinds $3,000,000,000 of the borrowing authority of the 
Tennessee Valley Authority.
    A new section 423 has been included which prohibits funds 
to be used to publish or issue an assessment required under 
section 106 of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 unless 
certain conditions are met.
    The Committee understands that there are many qualified 
minority-owned businesses, women-owned businesses, and small 
businesses that design and place advertising and advertising 
campaigns, which can assist the departments and agencies 
receiving appropriations in this bill in their public 
information efforts using the print, radio, and electronic 
media. The Committee believes these firms can provide valuable 
new insights and expertise to public information programs. The 
Committee expects the departments and agencies to increase the 
use of these qualified businesses in the initiation, design, 
and placement of public information in the print, radio, and 
electronic media.

              House of Representatives Report Requirements

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

                        Constitutional Authority

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states: ``Each report of a committee on a bill 
or joint resolution of a public character, shall include a 
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in 
the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint 
resolution.''
    The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to 
report this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I 
of the Constitution of the United States of America which 
states: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
consequence of Appropriations made by law. * * *''
    Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to 
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following statements are made 
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying 
bill.
    The Committee has included language transferring not to 
exceed $17,932,000 from compensation and pensions to general 
operating expenses and medical care. These funds are for the 
administrative costs of implementing cost-saving proposals 
required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992. Language is also included 
permitting necessary sums to be transferred to the medical 
facilities revolving fund to augment funding of medical centers 
for nursing home care provided to pensioners as authorized by 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992.
    The Committee recommends transferring the following amounts 
to the VA's general operating expenses appropriation pursuant 
to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990: the veterans housing 
benefit program fund program account ($156,958,000), the 
education loan fund program account ($214,000), the vocational 
rehabilitation loans program account ($415,000), and the Native 
American veteran housing loan program account ($520,000). In 
addition, the bill provides for transfers of $7,000 for program 
costs and $54,000 for the administrative expenses of the 
general post fund, national homes program from the general post 
fund.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Veterans Affairs which would transfer funds from the medical 
care collections fund to medical care.
    The Committee recommends providing authority under 
administrative provisions for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs for any funds appropriated in 2000 for compensation and 
pensions, readjustment benefits, and veterans insurance and 
indemnities to be transferred between those three accounts. 
This will provide the Department of Veterans Affairs 
flexibility in administering its entitlement programs. Language 
is also included permitting the funds from three life insurance 
funds to be transferred to general operating expenses for the 
costs of administering such programs.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring all uncommitted 
prior balances of excess rental charges as of fiscal year 1999 
and all collections made during fiscal year 2000 to the 
flexible subsidy fund.
    The Committee recommends a provision under the Public 
Housing Capital Fund which transfers all balances for debt 
service previously funded within annual contributions for 
assisted housing.
    The Committee recommends a transfer of $10,000,000 from the 
Drug Elimination Grants for Low-Income Housing to the Office of 
Inspector General for Operation Safe Home.
    The Committee has included language transferring $1,000,000 
of funds appropriated for administrative expenses to carry out 
the section 108 loan guarantee program to the departmental 
salaries and expenses account.
    The Committee recommends transferring a total of 
$518,000,000 from the various funds of the Federal Housing 
Administration for salaries and expenses of the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development.
    The Committee has included language transferring a total of 
$22,343,000 from the various funds of the Federal Housing 
Administration to the Office of Inspector General.
    The Committee has included language transferring $9,383,000 
from the Government National Mortgage Association's guarantees 
of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account to 
HUD's salaries and expenses account.
    The Committee recommends language allowing a transfer of 
$19,493,000 from the federal housing enterprise oversight fund 
to the office of federal housing enterprise oversight account.
    The Committee has included language transferring $150,000 
from the Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account to 
HUD's salaries and expenses account.
    The Committee has included language transferring $200,000 
from the Native American housing block grants account to the 
salaries and expenses account.
    The Committee has included language under the Environmental 
Protection Agency transferring funds from the hazardous 
substance superfund trust fund ($11,000,000) to the Office of 
Inspector General. In addition, $35,000,000 is transferred from 
the hazardous substance superfund trust fund to the science and 
technology account.
    The Committee recommends transferring $15,000,000 from the 
oil spill liability trust fund to the oil spill response 
account.
    The Committee has included language under the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation transferring up to $33,666,000 
from the Bank Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance 
Fund, and the FSLIC Resolution Fund to the Office of Inspector 
General.
    The Committee has included language under the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency transferring $3,000,000 from the 
disaster relief account to the emergency management planning 
assistance account.
    The Committee has included language under the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency transferring up to $20,000,000 from 
the National Flood Insurance Fund to the National Flood 
Mitigation Fund.

          Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)

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

  SECTION 204 OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND 
  URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  Sec. 204. Flexible Authority.--During fiscal year 1997 and 
fiscal years thereafter, the Secretary may manage and dispose 
of multifamily properties owned by the Secretary, including, 
for [fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999] fiscal years 1997, 
1998, 1999, and 2000, the provision of grants and loans from 
the General Insurace Fund (12 U.S.C. 1735(c)) for the necessary 
costs of rehabilitation or demolition, and multifamily 
mortgages held by the Secretary on such terms and conditions as 
the Secretary may determine, notwithstanding any other 
provision of law.
                              ----------                              


  SECTION 207 OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND 
  URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

           Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS Grants

  Sec. 207. (a) Eligibility.--Notwithstanding section 
854(c)(1)(A) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 
12903(c)(1)(A)), from any amounts made available under this 
title for [fiscal year 1999] fiscal years 1999 and 2000 that 
are allocated under such section, the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development shall allocate and make a grant, in the 
amount determined under subsection (b), for any State that--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) is not otherwise eligible for an allocation for 
        [fiscal year 1999] fiscal years 1999 and 2000 under 
        such clause (ii) because the areas in the State outside 
        of the metropolitan statistical areas that qualify 
        under clause (i) in [fiscal year 1999] fiscal years 
        1999 and 2000 do not have the number of cases of 
        acquired immunodeficiency syndrome required under such 
        clause.
  (b) Amount.--The amount of the allocation and grant for any 
State described in subsection (a) shall be an amount based on 
the cumulative number of AIDS cases in the areas of that State 
that are outside of metropolitan statistical areas that qualify 
under clause (i) of such section 854(c)(1)(A) in [fiscal year 
1999] fiscal years 1999 and 2000 in proportion to AIDS cases 
among cities and States that qualify under clauses (i) and (ii) 
of such section and States deemed eligible under subsection 
(a).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


    SECTION 542 OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992

SEC. 542. MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE CREDIT DEMONSTRATIONS.

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Risk-Sharing Pilot Program.--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) Funding.--Using any authority provided in 
        appropriation Acts to insure loans under the National 
        Housing Act, the Secretary may enter into commitments 
        under this subsection for risk sharing with respect to 
        mortgages on not more than 7,500 units during fiscal 
        year 1996, and not more than an additional 25,000 units 
        [during fiscal year 1999] in each of fiscal years 1999 
        and 2000. The demonstration authorized under this 
        subsection shall not be expanded until the reports 
        required under subsection (d) are submitted to 
        Congress.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Housing Finance Agency Pilot Program.--
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Limitation on insurance authority.--Using any 
        authority provided by appropriations Acts to insure 
        mortgages under the National Housing Act, the Secretary 
        may enter into commitments under this subsection with 
        respect to mortgages on not more than 12,000 units 
        during fiscal year 1996, not more than an additional 
        7,500 units during fiscal year 1997 and not more than 
        an additional 25,000 units [during fiscal year 1999] in 
        each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000. The demonstration 
        authorized under this subsection shall not be expanded 
        until the reports required under subsection (d) are 
        submitted to the Congress.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                   UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    lower income housing assistance

  Sec. 8. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (z) Termination of Section 8 Contracts and Reuse of 
Recaptured Budget Authority.--
          (1) General authority.--The Secretary may reuse any 
        budget authority, in whole or part, that is recaptured 
        on account of expiration or termination of a housing 
        assistance payments contract [(other than a contract 
        for tenant-based assistance)] only for one or more of 
        the following:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(3) Effective date.--This subsection shall be 
        effective for actions initiated by the Secretary on or 
        before September 30, 1995.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  Sec. 16. (a) Income Eligibility for Public Housing.--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) PHA income mix.--
                  (A) Targeting.--Except as provided in 
                paragraph (4), of the public housing dwelling 
                units of a public housing agency made available 
                for occupancy in any fiscal year by eligible 
                families, not less than 40 percent shall be 
                occupied by families whose incomes at the time 
                of commencement of occupancy do not exceed 30 
                percent of the area median income, as 
                determined by the Secretary with adjustments 
                for smaller and larger families; except that 
                the Secretary may establish income ceilings 
                higher or lower than 30 percent of the area 
                median income on the basis of the Secretary's 
                findings that such variations are necessary 
                because of unusually high or low family 
                incomes.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Income Eligibility for Project-Based Section 8 
Assistance.--
          (1)  * * *
          (3) Targeting.--For each project assisted under a 
        contract for project-based assistance, of the dwelling 
        units that become available for occupancy in any fiscal 
        year that are assisted under the contract, not less 
        than 40 percent shall be available for leasing only by 
        families whose incomes at the time of commencement of 
        occupancy do not exceed 30 percent of the area median 
        income, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments 
        for smaller and larger families; except that the 
        Secretary may establish income ceilings higher or lower 
        than 30 percent of the area median income on the basis 
        of the Secretary's findings that such variations are 
        necessary because of unusually high or low family 
        incomes.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                SECTION 203 OF THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

                         insurance of mortgages

  Sec. 203. (a)  * * *
  (b) To be eligible for insurance under this section a 
mortgage shall--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) Involve a principal obligation (including such 
        initial service charges, appraisal, inspection, and 
        other fees as the Secretary shall approve) in an 
        amount--
          (A) not to exceed the lesser of--
                  (i)  * * *
                  (ii) 87 percent of the dollar amount 
                limitation determined under section 305(a)(2) 
                of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 
                Act for a residence of the applicable size; 
                except that the dollar amount limitation in 
                effect for any area under this subparagraph may 
                not be less than the greater of the dollar 
                amount limitation in effect under this section 
                for the area on the date of enactment of the 
                Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
                Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
                Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999 or 48 
                percent of the dollar limitation determined 
                under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home 
                Loan Mortgage Corporation Act for a residence 
                of the applicable size; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


       SECTION 15d OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ACT OF 1933

  Sec. 15d. (a) The Corporation is authorized to issue and sell 
bonds, notes, and other evidences of indebtedness (hereinafter 
collectively referred to as ``bonds'') in an amount not 
exceeding [$30,000,000,000] $27,000,000,000 outstanding at any 
one time to assist in financing its power program and to refund 
such bonds. The Corporation may, in performing functions 
authorized by this Act, use the proceeds of such bonds for the 
construction, acquisition, enlargement, improvement, or 
replacement of any plant or other facility used or to be used 
for the generation or transmission of electric power (including 
the portion of any multiple-purpose structure used or to be 
used for power generation); as may be required in connection 
with the lease, lease-purchase, or any contract for the power 
output of any such plant or other facility; and for other 
purposes incidental thereto. Unless otherwise specifically 
authorized by Act of Congress the Corporation shall make no 
contracts for the sale or delivery of power which would have 
the effect of making the Corporation or its distributors, 
directly or indirectly, a source of power supply outside the 
area for which the Corporation or its distributors were the 
primary source of power supply on July 1, 1957, and such 
additional area extending not more than five miles around the 
periphery of such area as may be necessary to care for the 
growth of the Corporation and its distributors within said 
area: Provided, however, That such additional area shall not in 
any event increase by more than 2\1/2\ per centum (or two 
thousand square miles, whichever is the lesser) the area for 
which the Corporation and its distributors were the primary 
source of power supply on July 1, 1957: And provided further, 
That no part of such additional area may be in a State not now 
served by the Corporation or its distributors or in a 
municipality receiving electric service from another source on 
or after July 1, 1957, and no more than five hundred square 
miles of such additional area may be in any one State now 
served by the Corporation or its distributors.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    The Committee submits the following statements in 
compliance with clause 3, rule XIII of the House of 
Representatives, describing the effects of provisions proposed 
in the accompanying bill which may be considered, under certain 
circumstances, to change the application of existing law, 
either directly or indirectly.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue ongoing activities and programs where authorizations 
have not been enacted to date. In some cases, the Committee has 
recommended appropriations which are less than the maximum 
amounts authorized for the various programs funded in the bill. 
Whether these actions constitute a change in the application of 
existing law is subject to interpretation, but the Committee 
felt that this should be mentioned.
    The Committee has included limitations for official 
reception and representation expenses for selected agencies in 
the bill.
    Sections 401 through 421 of title IV of the bill, all of 
which are carried in the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act, 
are general provisions which place limitations or restrictions 
on the use of funds in the bill and which might, under certain 
circumstances, be construed as changing the application of 
existing law. The bill also includes two new general 
provisions, the first of which modifies the borrowing authority 
of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the second places a 
limitation on the use of funds unless research is subjected to 
peer review prior to its use for assessment purposes.
    The bill includes, in certain instances, limitations on the 
obligation of funds for particular functions or programs. These 
limitations include restrictions on the obligation of funds for 
administrative expenses, the use of consultants, and 
programmatic areas within the overall jurisdiction of a 
particular agency.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, readjustment benefits, allowing the use of funds for 
payments arising from litigation involving the vocational 
training program.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, medical care, earmarking and delaying the availability 
of certain equipment and land and structures funds.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, general operating expenses, providing for the 
reimbursement to the Department of Defense for the costs of 
overseas employee mail. This language has been carried 
previously and permits free mailing privileges for VA personnel 
stationed in the Philippines. Language is included which 
permits this appropriation to be used for administration of the 
Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act in 
1997.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, construction, major projects, establishing time 
limitations and reporting requirements concerning the 
obligation of major construction funds, limiting the use of 
funds, and allowing the use of funds for program costs.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, construction, minor projects, providing that 
unobligated balances of previous appropriations may be used for 
any project with an estimated cost of less than $4,000,000, 
allowing the use of funds for program costs, and making funds 
available for damage caused by natural disasters.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, parking revolving fund, providing for parking 
operations and maintenance costs out of medical care funds.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, administrative provisions, permitting transfers 
between mandatory accounts, limiting and providing for the use 
of certain funds, and funding administrative expenses 
associated with VA life insurance programs from excess program 
revenues. Seven provisions have been carried in previous 
Appropriations Acts. Two new provisions have been added. The 
first would allow the use of salaries and expenses funding to 
reimburse the Office of Resolution Management and the Office of 
Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication for services 
provided. The second new provision makes previously earmarked 
funds available for a different project.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, housing certificate fund, which limits the fees 
for section 8 certificate and voucher programs, and allows for 
the transfer of unobligated balances from various prior year 
accounts into this account.
    Language is included under the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, public housing capital fund, which transfers 
prior year balances from public housing service coordinators.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, drug elimination grants for low-income housing, 
which specifies the use of certain funds, and transfers funds 
for the Operation Safe Home program.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, revitalization of severely distressed public 
housing (HOPE VI), which prohibits the use of funds for awards 
to settle litigation or pay judgements and which amends 
environmental review provisions.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, native American housing block grants, which 
provides for the use of certain funds, provides for the 
transfer of funds, and places a limitation on the principal 
amounts of notes issued.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, housing opportunities for persons with AIDS, which 
provides for use of funds for technical assistance.
    Language is included under the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, community development block grants fund, 
which earmarks funds for specific housing organizations and 
programs, limits the expenses for planning and management 
development and administrative activities, and modifies and 
repeals certain provisions of the CDBG program.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, home investment partnerships program, which 
earmarks funds for a counseling program, and provides for the 
transfer of funds from prior year accounts.
    Language is included under the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, housing for special populations: elderly and 
disabled, which earmarks funds for tenant-based rental 
assistance for the disabled, and which permits waivers of 
certain program provisions under the disabled and elderly 
programs.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, flexible subsidy fund, which permits the use of 
excess rental charges.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, FHA-general and special risk program account, 
which earmarks funds for various purposes.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, fair housing and equal opportunity, which places 
restrictions on the use of funds for lobbying activities.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, office of lead hazard control, lead hazard 
reduction, which sets-aside funds for certain programs.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, salaries and expenses, which earmarks funds for 
various purposes.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, office of federal housing enterprise oversight, 
which limits net appropriations for the General Fund of the 
Treasury.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, administrative provisions, which maintains and 
reduces annual adjustment factors, provides public housing 
flexibility, revises allocations for housing opportunities for 
people with AIDS recipients, redesignates the use of funds for 
economic development initiatives provided in prior fiscal 
years, provides the Secretary with discretion on the 
establishment of income ceilings, establishes the millenial 
housing commission, clarifies a dollar limitation for FHA, 
amends the U.S. Housing Act to allow the re-use of certain 
budget authority, allows for the use of enhanced housing 
vouchers, rescinds balances in prior Appropriations Acts, 
provides funding for two programs, and repeals section 218 of 
Public Law 104-204.
    Language is included under Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board, salaries and expenses, which limits the 
size of the Board.
    Language is included under Department of the Treasury, 
Community Development Financial Institutions, community 
development financial institution program account, which sets 
aside funds for various purposes, and defines training program 
costs as administrative expenses.
    Language is included under Corporation for National and 
Community Service, which terminates the program.
    Language is included under the Court of Appeals for 
Veterans Claims, salaries and expenses, permitting the use of 
funds for a pro bono program.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, science and technology, which extends the availability 
of funds for liquidating obligations.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, environmental programs and management, which limits use 
of funds, provides funds for development of regional haze 
programs, expands the use of funds awarded for certain 
programs, and resolves a contract dispute.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, office of inspector general, which extends the 
availability of funds for liquidating obligations.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, hazardous substance superfund, limiting availability of 
funds for toxicological profiles performed by the Agency for 
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, state and tribal assistance grants, which provides 
grants to states and local tribal governments, authorizes the 
reallotment of certain construction grants, and resolves 
certain claims.
    Language is included under the Council on Environmental 
Quality, which limits the size of the Council.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, emergency management planning and assistance, which 
authorizes the director of FEMA to provide consolidated 
emergency management performance grants.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, emergency food and shelter, limiting administrative 
expenses.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, flood map modernization fund, establishing the fund and 
allowing for the acceptance of contributions from state and 
local governments.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, national insurance development fund, which forgives 
debt.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, national flood insurance fund, which limits 
administrative expenses, program costs, and the amount 
available for repayment of debt, and which sets the rate for 
flood insurance for fiscal year 2000 at the level set in the 
National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, national flood mitigation fund, which establishes a 
fund for flood mitigation activities.
    Language is included under the General Services 
Administration, Consumer Information Center, limiting certain 
fund and administrative expenses.
    Language is included under the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, administrative provision, extending the 
availability of construction of facility funds, permitting 
funds for contracts for various services in the next fiscal 
year, and transferring of prior year appropriations to the 
appropriate new appropriations accounts.
    Language is included under the National Credit Union 
Administration, central liquidity facility, limiting new loans 
and administrative expenses.
    Language is included under the National Science Foundation, 
research and related activities, providing for the use of 
receipts from other research facilities, requiring under 
certain circumstances proportional reductions in legislative 
earmarkings, and use of funds.
    Language is included under the National Science Foundation, 
education and human resources activities, requiring under 
certain circumstances proportional reductions in legislative 
earmarkings.
    Language is included under the National Science Foundation, 
salaries and expenses, permitting funds for contracts for 
various services in the next fiscal year and permitting the 
reimbursement of funds to the General Services Administration.
    Language is included under the Selective Service System, 
salaries and expenses, which terminates the program.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following lists the agencies in 
the accompanying bill which contain appropriations that are not 
authorized by law:
    Department of Veterans Affairs.
          Construction, Major projects.
    Department of Housing and Urban Development: All programs 
except Public and Indian Housing programs.
    Community Development Financial Institutions.
    Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    Corporation for National and Community Service.
    Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
Environmental Quality (not authorized above $1,000,000).
    Environmental Protection Agency:
          Science and Technology (except the Clean Air Act and 
        Safe Drinking Water Act).
          Environmental Programs and Management (except the 
        Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act).
          Hazardous Substance Superfund.
          State and Tribal Assistance Grants.
    Office of Science and Technology Policy.
    Federal Emergency Management Agency:
          Emergency Food and Shelter Program.
          Emergency Management Planning and Assistance (with 
        re- spect to the Federal Fire Prevention and Control 
        Act of 1974, Defense Production Act of 1950 and the 
        Urban Property Protection and Reinsurance Act).
    General Services Administration--Consumer Information 
Center.
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    National Credit Union Administration Revolving Loan Fund.
    Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporations.

           Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act

    During fiscal year 2000 for purposed of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), 
the following information provides the definition of the term 
``program, project, and activity'' for departments and agencies 
carried in the accompanying bill. The term ``program, project, 
and activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget 
items identified in the 2000 Departments of Veterans Affairs 
and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act, the accompanying House and Senate reports, 
the conference report of the joint explanatory statement of the 
managers of the committee of conference.
    In applying any sequestration reductions, departments and 
agencies shall apply the percentage of reduction required for 
fiscal year 2000 pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 99-
177 to each program, project, activity, and subactivity 
contained in the budget justification documents submitted to 
the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in 
support of the fiscal year 2000 budget estimates, as amended, 
for such departments and agencies, as subsequently altered, 
modified, or changed by Congressional action identified by the 
aforementioned Act, resolutions and reports. Further, it is 
intended that in implementing any Presidential sequestration 
order, (1) no program, project, or activity should be 
eliminated, (2) no reordering of funds or priorities occur, and 
(3) no unfunded program, project, or activity be initiated. 
However, for the purposes of program execution, it is not 
intended that normal reprogramming between programs, projects, 
and activities be precluded after reductions required under the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act are 
implemented.
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each 
rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, 
together with the names of those voting for and those voting 
against, are printed below:

                             rollcall no. 1

    Date: July 30, 1999.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2000.
    Motion by: Mr. Knollenberg.
    Description of Motion: To add language in the report 
agreeing that HUD should continue its current practice of 
awarding Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) funds to 
organizations that conduct a variety of enforcement activities, 
including reviewing property insurance.
    Results: Adopted 27 Yeas to 26 Nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Aderholt                        Mr. Boyd
Mr. Bonilla                         Mr. Clyburn
Mr. Callahan                        Mr. Cramer
Mr. Cunningham                      Ms. DeLauro
Mr. DeLay                           Mr. Edwards
Mr. Frelinghuysen                   Mr. Farr
Ms. Granger                         Mr. Hinchey
Mr. Hobson                          Mr. Hoyer
Mr. Istook                          Mr. Jackson
Mr. Kingston                        Ms. Kaptur
Mr. Knollenberg                     Ms. Kilpatrick
Mr. Kolbe                           Mrs. Lowey
Mr. Latham                          Mrs. Meek
Mr. Lewis                           Mr. Mollohan
Mr. Miller                          Mr. Moran
Mr. Nethercutt                      Mr. Murtha
Mr. Packard                         Mr. Obey
Mr. Regula                          Mr. Olver
Mr. Rogers                          Mr. Pastor
Mr. Skeen                           Ms. Pelosi
Mr. Sununu                          Mr. Porter
Mr. Taylor                          Mr. Price
Mr. Walsh                           Ms. Roybal-Allard
Mr. Wamp                            Mr. Sabo
Mr. Wicker                          Mr. Serrano
Mr. Wolf                            Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Young
                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a)(1)(b) of rule 
XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each 
rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, 
together with the names of those voting for and those voting 
against, are printed below:

                             rollcall no. 2

    Date: July 30, 1999.
    Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2000.
    Motion by: Mr. Edwards.
    Description of Motion: To increase Veterans Medical Care by 
$730 million and to delay any reduction in the rates of 
taxation on capital gains until January 1, 2001.
    Results: Rejected 25 Yeas to 26 Nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd                            Mr. Callahan
Mr. Clyburn                         Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. DeLay
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Dickey
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Farr                            Ms. Granger
Mr. Hinchey                         Mr. Hobson
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Istook
Mr. Jackson                         Mr. Kingston
Ms. Kaptur                          Mr. Knollenberg
Ms. Kilpatrick                      Mr. Kolbe
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Latham
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Lewis
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Miller
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Murtha                          Mr. Packard
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Porter
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Regula
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Rogers
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Skeen
Mr. Price                           Mr. Taylor
Ms. Roybal-Allard                   Mr. Walsh
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Wamp
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Wicker
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

    Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) requires 
that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget 
authority contain a statement detailing how the authority 
compares with the reports submitted under section 302(b) of the 
Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution of 
then budget for the fiscal year. This information follows:
    The bill provides no new spending authority as described in 
section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended.

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 302(b) allocation--           This bill--
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Budget                    Budget
                                                               authority     Outlays     authority     Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...............................................       68,633       82,045       68,632       82,040
Mandatory...................................................       21,319       21,136       21,258       21,136
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following information was 
provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:

                                                                Millions
Budget Authority in bill.........................................$89,890
Outlays:
    2000..........................................................52,449
    2001..........................................................24,995
    2002.......................................................... 6,659
    2003.......................................................... 3,566
    2004.......................................................... 3,697

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the Congressional Budget 
Office has provided the following estimate of new budget 
authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for 
financial assistance to state and local governments:

                                                                Millions
Budget authority.................................................$26,887
Fiscal year 2000 outlays resulting therefrom...................... 4,354

                              Rescissions

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following information describes 
the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:
    The Committee recommends a rescission of $74,400,000 from 
unobligated and obligated amounts from various programs at the 
Department of Housing Urban Development.



                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    If presented to the President in its current form, the 
fiscal year 2000 VA-HUD appropriations bill would surely and 
deservedly be vetoed.
    The bill appears to be little more than a crass political 
statement designed to allow the House majority leadership to 
say they have passed 12 of the 13 annual appropriations bills 
by the start of the August break--when, in fact, they have 
accomplished far less than those numbers would indicate.
    What the action on this bill demonstrates more than 
anything else is that the Republican majority in the House of 
Representatives still has no coherent strategy that will result 
in successful completion of the appropriations process by 
October 1st, or by anytime near that date. There are many 
shortcomings in this bill, but the damage is not limited just 
to the VA-HUD bill. To try to garner support for House 
consideration, the section 302(b) allocation for the VA-HUD-
Independent Agencies Subcommittee was increased last week by 
more than $3 billion in budget authority. That increase came at 
the expense of the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education 
Subcommittee, the allocation for which now is $16 billion (or 
nearly 20 percent) below the enacted level. Apparently the 
majority believes that dropping any pretense to the facade that 
there was a chance to move the Labor-HHS bill is preferable to 
deeming $5.5 billion in the VA-HUD bill as ``emergency 
spending'', as the subcommittee had originally recommended.
    Even after the improvements made possible by the raid on 
the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee, however, there are many 
problems remaining in the VA-HUD bill.
    The basic problem is that the VA-HUD subcommittee was 
required by the majority leadership to comply with a total 
funding level that is seriously inadequate to meet the needs 
this bill is supposed to cover. Overall, leaving aside the 
various one-time rescissions and offsets used to hold down the 
apparent spending levels, total appropriations under this bill 
are about $3.2 billion below the actual 1999 level. They are 
even further below the levels that would be needed to keep up 
with inflation and rising program costs.
    The VA-HUD appropriations bill funds agencies and programs 
with missions of great importance to the American public--
meeting our responsibilities to war veterans, providing relief 
and promoting recovery after natural disasters, protecting the 
environment, helping to meet housing needs, and undertaking 
basic and applied scientific research. Yet somehow the 
Republican leadership has decided that the appropriate funding 
level for this bill is $3.2 billion less than would be needed 
just to maintain the 1999 dollar level.
    These cuts are particularly incomprehensible because they 
come not at a time of fiscal crisis but rather a time of 
unprecedented prosperity, when the federal budget is in the 
best shape in decades. The federal budget deficit has declined 
steadily every year since 1992, and last year it turned into a 
surplus for the first time in three decades. Every projection 
shows that surplus continuing to grow. Just a couple of weeks 
ago, the Majority Leader declared that the federal government 
is ``wallowing in surplus''. The majority is so convinced that 
massive budget surpluses are assured that they are insisting on 
an $800 billion tax cut.
    But despite all this prosperity and plenty, the Republican 
leadership has evidently decreed that we cannot even spend the 
same amount as last year on housing assistance for low-income 
elderly people and families with children, or on research 
funded by NASA and the NSF, or on community service by our 
youth, or financial support for building businesses in 
impoverished urban and rural communities. If we can't 
adequately meet these needs during the current period of 
prosperity and surplus, when will we ever be able to do so?

          national aeronautics and space administration (nasa)

    The major agency that takes the largest cuts in the bill is 
NASA. Total appropriations for 2000 under the bill are $1 
billion, or 7 percent, less than the 1999 level. These cuts 
jeopardize the future of our space research programs, including 
programs directed at solving real problems here on earth as 
well as pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge about our 
universe.
    The largest portion of these cuts are taken in NASA's 
science, aeronautics and technology (``SAT'') account--which 
funds most of NASA's science and space programs other than the 
Space Station and the Space Shuttle. The bill cuts 
appropriations for the overall SAT account 12 percent, or $678 
million, below 1999. It also cuts funding for the Space Shuttle 
$150 million below the request--perhaps forcing deferral of 
necessary upgrades and improvements--and cuts funding for the 
Space Station $100 million below the request.
Earth sciences
    Within the SAT account, the largest cuts come in the earth 
science area, which is cut 17 percent ($240 million) below last 
year. These are the NASA programs that use space-based 
observations to gather and interpret information about the 
earth.
    The earth sciences cuts in the bill are targeted heavily 
towards programs for developing new methodologies, better 
observing instruments, and improved techniques for translating 
raw data into useful end products. In particular, the bill cuts 
funding for Earth Observing System ``technology infusion'' 77 
percent below the budget request, and cuts funding for 
algorithm development (i.e., development of methods for 
interpretingand presenting observational data) 31 percent below 
the request. It cancels completely the ``Pathfinder'' generation of 
earth probes, which are aimed at developing and demonstrating new 
remote sensing technologies while providing data not available from 
other sources. It also cancels two other earth sciences missions--
LightSAR and TRIANA.
    The bill also calls for a 22 percent ($50 million) 
reduction below the request for Earth Observing System Data 
Information Systems (EOSDIS). This activity is responsible for 
processing, compiling and archiving the huge masses of data now 
being generated by NASA's earth science systems and making this 
data available to users in the scientific community and the 
general public. Thus, under the bill, NASA will continue to 
receive data from its earth observing satellites, but will have 
to scale back its efforts to make that data available to those 
who want to use it.
    Finally, the bill calls for cancellation of NASA's part of 
the GLOBE program, a small ($5 million) program which involves 
elementary and secondary school students and teachers 
throughout the world in making and analyzing environmental 
observations.
    These cuts in earth sciences programs are shortsighted and 
unfortunate. Space-based observations hold great promise for 
helping to solve real problems here on earth, such as better 
understanding and predicting climate phenomena like El Nino or 
the current droughts, reducing uncertainties about long-term 
climate change, and better tracking and analyzing air and water 
pollution. These technologies and data also have current 
potential applicability to a host of other pursuits--
``precision agriculture'', water resources management, and 
siting of highways and construction projects, to name a few.
Space science
    The bill cuts space science programs by $241 million (or 11 
percent) below the Administration's request for 2000, and by 
$163 million (or 8 percent) below the 1999 level. This budget 
item funds the planetary missions, space-based observatories 
and other spacecraft that have so captured public imagination 
in the past few years. It also funds research grants to 
universities and other institutions.
    As in the earth science area, the bill's space science cuts 
are targeted to the next generation of missions and 
technologies. The bill recommends sharply reducing future 
mission planning and development in the Discovery and Explorer 
series of spacecraft. It also makes $95 million in cuts to 
supporting research and technology programs. These programs 
fund work in areas such as propulsion, sensors and instruments, 
high performance computing, and design of small or lightweight 
spacecraft, as well as making grants to universities and 
researchers for analysis and interpretation of results from 
past and current space missions and for basic theoretical work.
Mission support
    The bill reduces appropriations for the Mission Support 
account by 10 percent below 1999 and 9 percent below the 
request. The recommended cuts include deferral of all 
facilities construction projects and a $100 million reduction 
in personnel funding. NASA indicates that deferral of all 
construction projects would affect correction of critical 
safety deficiencies. NASA also indicates that the cut in 
personnel funding would probably force agency-wide furloughs of 
three weeks, require a hiring freeze that would hamper efforts 
to revitalize the current workforce, and ultimately require 
layoffs.
    All of these cuts are ill advised. It is particularly 
unfortunate that the NASA and contractor employees who have 
undertaken a major restructuring and streamlining of the agency 
and who are responsible for many recent successes are now being 
told that they must face furloughs and layoffs. Why? The 
message Congress sends with these cuts is that space science 
and research activities are secondary efforts at best that can 
be blithely tampered with. The reverberations of such a callous 
attitude will probably be felt for many years.

              department of housing and urban development

    Some of the largest cuts in the bill come in the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development. While the committee reported 
bill is sometimes presented as providing an increase of almost 
$2 billion for HUD relative to 1999, this comparison does not 
present an accurate picture of what happens to HUD programs. 
The 1999 level was artificially held down by $2 billion in 
rescissions of prior-year budget authority in the section 8 
program (which had no impact on program spending in 1999) and 
by almost $1 billion in one-time offsets involving the FHA 
(about half of this was due to savings from legislation 
included in the 1999 appropriations bill, the rest came from a 
scorekeeping gimmick that is not being repeated).
    Excluding the effects of these one-time savings, the bill 
cuts appropriations for HUD programs by $945 million below a 
hard freeze--from $27.076 billion in 1999 to $26.131 billion in 
2000. Thus, we are not just talking about reductions below what 
would be needed to keep up with inflation or program costs, but 
rather cuts below the actual dollar amount spent the year 
before. The bill is also almost $2 billion less than the 
Administration's request.
    Reductions in HUD programs below the prior year's level are 
spread throughout the bill. Of the 24 on-going accounts within 
the HUD title, the bill increases spending for one, freezes 9 
at the 1999 level, and cuts the remaining 14 below 1999. Some 
of the cuts are small, others are substantial.
The affordable housing crisis
    These cuts should be considered in the context of the 
continuing serious crisis in housing affordability for lower-
income people. The problem may actually be getting worse, as 
the economic boom drives up rents beyond the reach of low-wage 
workers in many areas. While many people who used to be 
unemployed and dependent on public assistance programs are now 
working, they often still have serious difficulty affording 
decent housing--especially in areas with the best employment 
opportunities.
    The most recent HUD study on housing needs found more than 
5.3 million very-low-income families with ``worst case'' needs 
who were receiving no federal housing assistance at all. (These 
are defined as families with incomes under 50 percent of the 
local median who either pay more than 50 percent of their 
income for rent or live in seriously substandard housing.) 
During the 1990s, the fastest growth in worst-case housing 
needs has been among working families.
Federal housing programs
    The Federal Government provides financial support for two 
main forms of direct housing assistance: public housing (i.e., 
low-income housing owned and operated by local housing 
authorities) and ``section 8'' housing assistance, which 
provides rent subsidies to help people afford privately owned 
housing. Together, these programs assist about four million 
households, representing more than 9 million individuals.
    A large portion--about 31 percent--of these households 
consist of one or more senior citizens. Another 11 percent are 
persons with disabilities. Most of the rest are families with 
children. In addition to public housing and section 8, HUD also 
provides housing assistance through smaller programs that 
subsidize the development and operation of housing for the 
elderly and disabled (the section 202 and 811 programs), the 
HOME block grant to local governments, special housing programs 
for the homeless, and various other means.
Retrenchment of Federal support for housing
    Despite the continuing need, the past several years have 
seen a retrenchment in the federal commitment to housing. After 
growing for the previous two decades, the number of households 
assisted has at best been kept level between 1994 and 1998, and 
actually appears to have declined a bit during this period. 
Between 1995 (before rescissions) and 1998, appropriations 
dropped by 50 percent for the elderly and disabled housing 
programs, by 27 percent for homeless assistance programs, and 
by 32 percent for capital assistance for public housing.
    In 1999, this trend began to turn around, with 
appropriations provided for the first expansion since 1994 in 
section 8 housing assistance and an increase in public housing 
capital funds. The current bill would halt that modest progress 
and put federal housing programs back on the path of decline.
Section 8 housing vouchers--no new assistance
    The bill provides no funds whatsoever to increase the 
number of families receiving section 8 housing vouchers. By 
contrast, $283 million was appropriated last year to provide 
50,000 new vouchers, and the housing authorization legislation 
enacted last year authorized 100,000 new vouchers for 2000. The 
50,000 vouchers funded last year were specifically targeted to 
helping families on welfare make the transition to work, by 
helping them to move closer to better job opportunities, for 
example. With 5.3 million households with worst case housing 
needs receiving no help at all and waiting lists for section 8 
assistance averaging 28 months nationally (and many years in 
some cities), it is unfortunate that this bill funds absolutely 
none of the new vouchers requested by the Administration and 
authorized by Congress last year.
Public housing
    Another very serious problem with the bill is its treatment 
of public housing. The bill--
          cuts capital assistance for public housing by $445 
        million--from $3 billion in 1999 to $2.555 billion in 
        2000.
          cuts special grants to assist in revitalization, 
        demolition and replacement of the most seriously 
        distressed public housing (the ``HOPE VI'' program) by 
        $50 million--from $625 million in 1999 to $575 million 
        in 2000;
          cuts grants for drug elimination programs by $20 
        million--from $310 million to $290 million (these pay 
        both for security and law enforcement efforts and for 
        anti-drug programs for youth residing in public 
        housing); and
          keeps operating subsidies for public housing steady 
        at the 1999 level of $2.818 billion.
    the cut in capital assistance (although proposed by the 
Administration) seems particularly unfortunate, as the backlog 
in modernization and capital improvement needs in public 
housing has been estimated at $20 billion. As for operating 
assistance, the 1999 level is widely recognized to be 
inadequate--HUD calculates that it will cover just 92 percent 
of the amount required by the funding formula and housing 
authorities maintain that the percentage covered is actually 
even lower. Freezing funding at that level for another year 
will just make the situation worse.
    Public housing operating subsidies cover the difference 
between rents paid by residents and operating costs such as 
utilities, staff, and maintenance. Housing authorities 
generally have very few sources of income other than tenant 
rents and federal subsidies. Faced with a need to make sure the 
utility bills are paid, they may have littlechoice but to 
respond to the shortfall in operating subsidies by cutting back on 
maintenance and deferring repairs.
    Thus, the result of reduced capital assistance and frozen 
operating assistance will be less maintenance, a growing 
backlog of repairs, and further deterioration of the housing 
stock. At some point--and perhaps that point will soon be 
reached in some places--housing authorities may decide that 
they cannot afford to maintain and operate all of their units.
    Our colleagues should keep in mind that public housing is 
not just a big city matter. While many big cities do not have 
large stocks of public housing, there are about 3,200 local 
housing authorities spread throughout the nation, operating in 
small and medium sized cities as well as large ones. Just last 
year, Congress signaled its interest in the state of public 
housing by passing major authorizing legislation making 
substantial reforms. this bill now sends the opposite signal.
 community development block grants
    The bill cuts funding for the Community Development Block 
Grant (CDBG) program by $250 million, from $4,750 billion in 
1999 to $4.5 billion in 2000. This program primarily provides 
very flexible block grants to city and county governments (and 
to states for distribution to small cities and counties). 
Grantees can use the funds for public facilities (such as day 
care centers or health centers), public improvements (such as 
street improvements), social services, housing development, and 
economic development, among other purposes. We all have heard 
strong messages from our local elected officials about the 
importance of maintaining or even increasing funding for this 
important program.
Cuts in other HUD programs
    The bill makes reductions in a wide range of other HUD 
programs. In some cases, these cuts are quite small--leaving 
one to wonder why they are being made at all. For example, is 
the $5 million cut in the $975 million Homeless Assistance 
Grants program really considered necessary to save money in the 
bill, or is it intended to make some sort of statement? And if 
it is making a statement, what sort of statement is it intended 
to make--that the House majority thinks we are spending too 
much on help for the homeless? In other cases the cuts are 
quite substantial relative to the size of the program. All of 
these cuts will diminish the federal government's capacity to 
respond to real needs--needs which would justify modest 
increases in many cases.
    Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (``HOPWA'')--
funded at $215 million in the bill, a cut of $10 million below 
1999;
    Home Investment Partnerships Program (very popular block 
grant for state and local governments, to be used for 
affordable housing purposes)--funded at $1.580 billion in the 
bill, a cut of $20 million below 1999;
    Homeless Assistance Grants--funded at $970 million, a cut 
of $5 million below 1999;
    Fair Housing Activities (grants to state and local 
government agencies and private non-profit organizations for 
fair housing testing, enforcement, education and outreach--
funded at $37.5 million, a cut of $2.5 million below 1999;
    Grants for lead-based paint hazard reduction--funded at $70 
million, a cut of $10 million below 1999;
    ``Regional Opportunity Counseling'' (program to help 
families using section 8 vouchers to move outside of low-income 
areas)--zero funding in bill; 1999 funding is $10 million;
    Housing Counseling (program to help low- and moderate-
income families better understand process of purchasing a home 
and the potential sources of assistance)--funded at $7.5 
million, a cut of $10 million below 1999; and
    Self-help Housing Ownership Program (``SHOP'', a set-aside 
within CDBG that makes grants to non-profit organizations such 
as Habitat for Humanity for ``sweat equity'' and volunteer-
based housing programs)--funded at $15 million, a cut of $5 
million below 1999.
Salaries and expenses
    Finally, I am also concerned about funding for salaries and 
expenses at HUD, which the bill freezes at the 1999 level of 
$986 million (including transfers from other accounts). Roughly 
70 percent of the salaries and expenses appropriation is used 
to cover personnel costs, with most of the rest going for 
relatively fixed expenses such as rent, utilities, and ADP 
contracts. The Administration has requested a $45 million 
increase, most of which is needed to cover increases in 
employee pay and benefit costs for the existing number of 
employees. The Administration's request does not propose any 
increase in staff above the 1999 level.
    With no increase to cover the cost of pay raises provided 
by law and other relatively fixed costs, the bill could force 
HUD to cut staff. In fact, the Department estimates that the 
committee's funding level will require about 600 positions to 
be cut.
    This is absolutely the wrong time to be cutting HUD's 
staff. The Department is trying to improve its financial and 
information management, increase oversight of federally 
assisted housing, combat fraud and abuse in its programs, and 
implement acomplex congressionally mandated restructuring of 
the ``section 8'' assisted housing portfolio. It is unfair and 
misguided to tell HUD to do a better job of managing its programs and 
assets (as it must) and then cut the staff it needs to carry out that 
job.

            other housing and community development programs

    In addition to HUD, the bill makes appropriations for at 
least two other smaller agencies with missions related to 
housing and economic development. Both have their budgets cut 
under this bill.
CDFI fund
    One of these agencies is the Community Development 
Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund, a unit of the Treasury 
Department. This agency makes grants to community-based 
institutions whose purpose it is to provide financing for 
micro-enterprises, small businesses, housing development and 
community facilities in low-income areas. Assistance from the 
CDFI Fund is used primarily for capital, but also for technical 
assistance and other purposes. This would seem to be the kind 
of program that members of both political parties could 
enthusiastically support--it is small-scale, locally based, and 
emphasizes provision of credit for entrepreneurship in 
economically distressed areas. Indeed, the committee report on 
this bill praises the CDFI Fund's strategic plan and management 
team. Nevertheless, for some reason the bill cuts funding for 
the CDFI Fund by more than a quarter--from $95 million in 1999 
to $70 million in 2000.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
    Another agency targeted for cuts in the bill is the 
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation. This agency provides 
financial and technical support to a network of local 
organizations that seek to turn around declining neighborhoods 
through strategies for encouraging home ownership and 
rehabilitation. The Corporation's affiliates have an impressive 
record of mobilizing numerous sources of capital and credit and 
using relatively small amounts of federal funds to leverage 
large amounts of private financing. A multi-year program to 
increase homeownership in targeted neighborhoods more than 
exceeded its goals, and the Corporation is now embarked on a 
successor program. The committee report on this bill praises 
the Corporation's achievements. But for some reason the bill 
cuts appropriations for the Neighborhood Reinvestment 
Corporation from $90 million in 1999 to $80 million in 2000.

                     department of veterans affairs

    While an amendment adopted in committee increased the 
amount in the bill for veterans medical care to the minimum 
level deemed acceptable by veterans service organizations, the 
recommended amount still leaves many needs unmet. At the 
reported level, the bill still falls $1.3 billion short of the 
amount nearly 60 veterans groups believe is necessary for 
veterans health care. And although the medical programs are 
above the Administration's request, several other VA accounts 
are below requested amounts. The construction accounts, for 
instance, would receive about $100 million less than requested. 
At a time when the VA is trying to rehabilitate some older, 
less efficient facilities and focus more on outpatient 
treatment, this action is counterproductive. In addition, the 
cuts in general operating expenses of the VA could result in 
reductions-in-force and could frustrate efforts to improve 
service in the Veterans Benefits Administration.

                    environmental protection agency

    Although the total funding recommendation of $7.2 billion 
for the Environmental Protection Agency is $100 million above 
the budget request, examining some of the specific actions 
proposed reveals serious shortcomings. Popular programs such as 
Superfund and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund are funded 
below 1999 levels. The Environmental Programs and Management 
account is reduced by $40 million in external grants/contracts 
and $35 million in salary/payroll costs. The Administration 
estimates that the payroll reduction alone would require a 
cutback of roughly 400 staff years. Since the Agency is already 
operating under a hiring freeze to accommodate budget 
reductions in 1999, this action would compound a difficult 
situation. And while the statutory language relating to the 
Kyoto Protocol and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
(Environmental Justice) is the same as that carried in the 1999 
Act, explanatory language in this report is of considerable 
concern to the Administration and others.

             corporation for national and community service

    The following is an example showing how the unrealistic 
budget caps imposed by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act pits one 
popular program against another. The subcommittee's 
recommendations funded the Corporation for National and 
Community Service (AmeriCorps) at about 90 percent of the 1999 
level. In addition, the subcommittee recommended a reduction of 
$1.3 billion from the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. After listening to the shocked reaction to that 
cut from the space and science communities for a few days, a 
manager's amendment in committee proposed to increase funds for 
NASA by $400 million. The proposed offset was AmeriCorps, 
terminating one of President Clinton's favorite programs. As 
has been made abundantly clear in the past five years, any VA-
HUD bill presented to the President without substantial funding 
for AmeriCorps will not be signed into law. It would be hard to 
find any reputable budget observer who believes the committee's 
recommendations for either AmeriCorps or NASA will be the last 
word.

                      national science foundation

    One of the most insidious reductions reflected in this bill 
is the one for the National Science Foundation. The committee's 
recommendation is $275 million below the President's request, 
reducing the Foundation to less than the amount provided in 
1999. It is difficult to predict exactly how and where a 
reduction of this magnitude in our nation's premier science 
agency will be felt. But everyone should be able to 
understandand appreciate the comment of the NSF Director after hearing 
of the committee's recommendation: ``We are able and ready to do 21st 
century science and engineering--but we can not do it on a 20th century 
budget.''
    One program that would be especially damaged under the 
committee's action is the Administration's Information 
Technology for the 21st Century Initiative. The National 
Science Foundation is leading a six-agency multi-year effort to 
prepare the groundwork for continued American leadership and 
innovation in computing and software systems. The committee's 
recommendation to provide only $35 million of the $146 million 
requested for the initiative will delay investment in 
fundamental, long-term information technology research. With 
the information technology industry employing millions of 
Americans and contributing $700 billion to the U.S. economy, 
this action is terribly shortsighted. Another troubling 
reduction that would result from the committee's recommendation 
is the 30 percent cut in the Foundation's biocomplexity 
initiative designed to study the interdependencies among 
elements of specific environmental systems.

                    tva borrowing authority gimmick

    After taking into consideration: (1) the deep cuts in 
programs virtually throughout the bill, (2) the additional 
section 302(b) allocation robbed from the Labor-HHS 
Subcommittee, and (3) the directed scoring provisions that 
generate $800 million in outlay savings, this bill was still $3 
billion above its tentative budget allocation. The final 
gimmick employed was adding a completely non-germane provision 
reducing the permanent borrowing authority of the Tennessee 
Valley Authority from $30 billion to $27 billion. While the 
Office of Management and Budget scores this provision (section 
422) as having no budgetary impact, the Congressional Budget 
Office gives the subcommittee a $3 billion budget authority 
credit. Since the effect of the provision is to reduce the 
TVA's authority to borrow from the public, it is hard to 
understand how it would have any impact whatsoever on the 
federal budget or the U.S. Treasury.
    TVA officials, noting that the Authority's debt is 
currently $26.4 billion, are very concerned about the borrowing 
authority reduction. They fear that having to comply with one 
more pollution regulation or respond to a hurricane or other 
natural disaster could be problematic with the lowered limit. 
They also have concerns that the reduced limit could be viewed 
negatively by the financial markets. If the TVA's cost to 
borrow money rises, millions of consumer's power bills could 
increase as a result.

                               conclusion

    Finally, we should all clearly understand that the House 
majority does not intend these cuts to be a one-time affair, to 
be restored in the future. Rather, the majority party's budget 
plan calls for this situation not only to continue year after 
year, but actually to get steadily worse. The budget resolution 
passed earlier this year calls for total appropriations for 
domestic programs in 2001 to be less than in 2000. By 2004, the 
resolution calls for domestic appropriations to have fallen by 
more than 20 percent in inflation-adjusted terms. That is what 
pays for the majority's $800 billion tax cut.
    The vision for the future presented by the majority's 
budget plan is that every year we do a little less: That every 
year our public housing gets a little more dilapidated, that 
every year we fund a little less basic scientific research, 
that every year the standard of medical care for our veterans 
goes down a bit, that every year the backlog of sewage 
treatment and safe drinking water needs gets a little bigger. 
And, in the view of the majority's budget plan, all this is 
acceptable, because it allows a huge tax cut bill to be 
enacted. This steady decline in public services is not our 
vision for the future, nor do we think it is our constituents' 
vision for the future. However, that is the path this Congress 
appears to be headed down. And, regrettably, this bill 
represents a big step down that path of decline.

                                                         Dave Obey.