- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-674
======================================================================
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001
_______
June 12, 2000.--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. 4635]
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, 2001, 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...... 19
21
Title III--Independent Agencies............................ 51
39
American Battle Monuments Commission............... 51
39
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board.... 52
40
Community Development Financial Institutions....... 52
40
Consumer Product Safety Commission................. 53
41
Corporation for National and Community Service..... 54
42
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.......... 54
42
Cemeterial Expenses, Army.......................... 55
43
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 55
44
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry... 56
44
Environmental Protection Agency.................... 57
45
Office of Science and Technology Policy............ 64
63
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality.......................... 65
64
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.............. 65
64
Federal Emergency Management Agency................ 66
65
Federal Consumer Information Center................ 71
71
National Aeronautics and Space Administration...... 72
72
National Credit Union Administration............... 75
77
National Science Foundation........................ 76
79
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.............. 78
84
Selective Service System........................... 79
84
Title IV--General Provisions............................... 79
84
Summary of the Bill
The Committee recommends $101,096,836,000 in new budget
(obligational) authority for the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 20 independent
agencies and offices. This is $8,218,918,000 above the 2000
appropriations level.
The following table summarizes the amounts recommended in
the bill in comparison with the appropriations for fiscal year
2000 and budget estimates for fiscal year 2001.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $46,849,667,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 44,255,165,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 46,948,405,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +2,594,502,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -98,738,000
The Department of Veterans Affairs is the third largest
Federal agency in terms of employment with an average
employment of approximately 204,000. It administers benefits
for more than 25,000,000 veterans, and 45,000,000 family
members of living veterans and survivors of deceased veterans.
Thus, close to 70,000,000 people, comprising about 25 percent
of the total population of the United States, are potential
recipients of veterans benefits provided by the Federal
Government.
A total of $46,849,667,000 in new budget authority is
recommended by the Committee for the Department of Veterans
Affairs programs in fiscal year 2001. The funds recommended
provide for compensation payments to 2,586,811 veterans and
survivors of deceased veterans with service-connected
disabilities; pension payment for 615,958 non-service-connected
disabled veterans, widows and children in need of financial
assistance; education training and vocational assistance of
431,185 veterans, servicepersons, and reservists, and 48,530
eligible dependents of deceased veterans or seriously disabled
veterans; housing credit assistance in the form of 250,000
guaranteed loans provided to veterans and servicepersons;
administration or supervision of life insurance programs with
4,353,921 policies for veterans and active duty servicepersons
providing coverage of $446,997,000,000; inpatient care and
treatment of beneficiaries in 172 medical centers; 40
domiciliaries, 134 nursing homes and 829 outpatient clinics
which includes independent, satellite, community-based, and
rural outreach clinics involving 41,837,000 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 2001 recommendation....................... $22,766,276,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 21,568,364,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 22,766,276,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +1,197,912,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... 0
This appropriation provides funds for service-connected
compensation payments to an estimated 2,586,811 beneficiaries
and pension payments to another 615,958 beneficiaries with non-
service-connected disabilities. The average cost per
compensation case in 2001 is estimated at $7,600, and pension
payments are projected at a unit cost of $4,957. The estimated
caseload and cost by program for 2000 and 2001 are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:
Compensation:
Veterans....................................... 2,290,710 2,285,075 -5,635
Survivors...................................... 302,575 300,872 -1,703
Children....................................... 864 864 0
Clothing allowance (non-add)................... (75,785) (75,598) -187
Pensions:
Veterans....................................... 372,635 363,060 -9,575
Survivors...................................... 266,101 252,898 -13,203
Minimum income for widows (non-add)............ (594) (562) -32
Vocational training (non-add).................. (7) (5) -2
Burial allowances.............................. 95,180 94,050 -1,130
========================================================
Funds:
Compensation:
Veterans....................................... $15,421,550,000 $16,010,051,000 +$588,501,000
Survivors...................................... 3,522,325,000 3,600,000,000 +77,675,000
Children....................................... 9,499,000 9,734,000 +235,000
Clothing allowance............................. 40,049,000 39,949,000 -100,000
Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508 and 102- 1,388,000 1,266,000 -122,000
568)..........................................
Medical exams pilot program.................... 26,324,000 28,390,000 +2,066,000
Pensions:
Veterans....................................... 2,342,253,000 2,366,889,000 +24,636,000
Survivors...................................... 707,003,000 683,070,000 -23,933,000
Minimum income for widows...................... 3,697,000 3,581,000 -116,000
Vocational training................................ 20,000 15,000 -5,000
Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508, 102-568, and 9,343,000 8,521,000 -822,000
103-446)..........................................
Payment to medical care (Public Laws 101-508 and 5,018,000 7,632,000 +2,614,000
102-568)..........................................
Payment to medical facilities (non-add)............ (2,879,000) (3,027,000) +148,000
Burial benefits.................................... 126,293,000 129,681,000 +3,388,000
Other assistance................................... 3,406,000 3,413,000 +7,000
Contingency........................................ 0 0 0
Unobligated balance and transfers.................. -649,804,000 -125,916,000 +523,888,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation 1............................ 21,568,364,000 22,766,276,000 +1,197,912,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 2001.
For fiscal year 2001, the Committee is recommending the
budget estimate of $22,766,276,000 for compensation and
pensions. The bill also includes requested language not to
exceed $17,419,000 of reimbursements of which ($9,787,000) goes
to the general operating expenses account and ($7,632,000) to
the medical care account for administrative expenses of
implementing cost saving provisions required by the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Public Law 101-508, the
Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992, Public Law 102-568, and the
Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Public Law 103-
446. These cost savings provisions include verifying pension
income against Internal Revenue Service and Social Security
Administration (SSA) data; establishing a match with the SSA to
obtain verification of Social Security numbers; and the $90
monthly Department 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
earned 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 2001 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 2001 recommendation....................... $1,664,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 1,469,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,634,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +195,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... +30,000,000
This appropriation finances the education and training of
veterans and servicepersons whose initial entry on active duty
took place on or after July 1, 1985. These benefits are
included in the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance
Program. Eligibility to receive this assistance began in 1987.
Basic benefits are funded through appropriations made to the
readjustment benefits appropriation and transfers from the
Department of Defense. Supplemental benefits are also provided
to certain veterans through 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 estimates of
$1,664,000,000 for readjustment benefits in fiscal year 2001.
The Committee rejects the proposal to move $30,000,000 from
this appropriation to the ``General operating expenses''
appropriation. The estimated number of trainees and costs by
program for 2000 and 2001 are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of trainees:
Education and training: dependents................. 46,420 48,530 +2,110
All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
Veterans and servicepersons.................... 279,100 309,300 +30,200
Reservists..................................... 71,300 70,900 -400
Vocational rehabilitation.......................... 51,630 50,985 -645
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 448,450 479,715 +31,265
========================================================
Funds:
Education and training: dependents................. $141,806,000 $148,148,000 +$6,342,000
All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
Veterans and servicepersons.................... 890,736,000 1,118,903,000 +228,167,000
Reservists..................................... 100,860,000 105,875,000 +5,015,000
Vocational rehabilitation...................... 416,718,000 421,887,000 +5,169,000
Housing grants................................. 21,065,000 21,065,000 0
Automobiles and other conveyances.............. 7,589,000 7,589,000 0
Adaptive equipment............................. 23,700,000 23,600,000 -100,000
Work-study..................................... 33,400,000 35,100,000 +1,700,000
Payment to States.............................. 13,000,000 13,000,000 0
Reporting fees................................. 3,530,000 3,771,000 +241,000
Unobligated balance and other adjustments...... -183,404,000 -234,938,000 -51,534,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation.............................. 1,469,000,000 1,664,000,000 +195,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $19,850,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 28,670,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 19,850,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -8,820,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 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 $19,850,000 for veterans insurance
and indemnities in fiscal year 2001 in included in the bill.
The amount provided will enable Department to transfer more
than $11,840,000 to the service-disabled veterans insurance
fund and transfer $8,820,000 in payments for the 3,310 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 2001 recommendation........................... $165,740,000 $300,000 $161,484,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation............................ 282,342,000 300,000 156,958,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request........................... 165,740,000 300,000 166,484,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation............ -116,602,000 0 +4,526,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request........... 0 0 -5,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 veterans housing loan program, of the Department'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. The Department 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. The Department requires that a downpayment be
made for a manufactured home. With a Department 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 total $165,740,000) for
funding subsidy payments, $300,000 for the limitation on direct
loans, and $161,484,000 for administrative expenses which is a
reduction of $5,000,000 below the budget request. 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 2001 recommendation........................... $1,000 $3,400 $220,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation............................ 1,000 3,000 214,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request........................... 1,000 3,400 220,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation............ 0 +400 +6,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 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 $3,400 as the limitation on direct loans,
and $220,000 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 2001 recommendation........................... $52,000 $2,726,000 $432,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation............................ 57,000 2,531,000 415,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request........................... 52,000 2,726,000 432,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation............ -5,000 +195,000 +17,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request........... 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appropriation covers the funding subsidy cost of
direct loans for vocational rehabilitation of eligible veterans
and, in addition, it includes administrative expenses necessary
to carry out the direct loan program. Loans of up to $841
(based on indexed chapter 31 subsistence allowance rate) are
available to service-connected disabled veterans enrolled in
vocational rehabilitation programs 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 $52,000 for
funding subsidy program costs and $432,000 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 $2,726,000. It is estimated that the Department
will make 4,700 loans in fiscal year 2001, with an average
amount of $580.
NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Administrative expenses:
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation................... $532,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.................... 520,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request................... 532,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation.... +12,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request... 0
This program is testing the feasibility of authorizing the
Department 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 $532,000 for administration
expenses, which may be transferred to and merged with the
general operating expenses account.
GUARANTEED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOANS FOR HOMELESS VETERANS PROGRAM
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
This program was established by Public Law 105-368, the
Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998. All funds authorized
for this program were appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
Therefore, no appropriation request has been included for 2001.
Bill language is included to use funds in ``Medical care'' and
``General operating expenses'' to administer this program.
Veterans Health Administration
MEDICAL CARE
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $20,281,587,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 18,926,481,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 20,281,587,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +1,355,106,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... 0
The Department of Veterans Affairs operates the largest
Federal medical care delivery system in the country, with 172
medical centers, 40 domiciliaries, 134 nursing homes, and 829
outpatient clinics which includes independent, satellite,
community-based, and rural outreach clinics.
This appropriation provides for medical care and treatment
of eligible beneficiaries in VA medical centers, nursing homes,
domiciliaries, and outpatient clinic 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 the Department's medical programs.
The bill includes $20,281,587,000 for medical care in
fiscal year 2001, an increase of $1,355,106,000 above the
enacted level and level with the budget request. In addition,
the Committee estimates $638,000,000 will be collected and
available from the Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF).
The bill includes a new limitation on the amount of
resources in this account that the Department may use for the
maintenance and operations of its buildings. According to a
recent GAO report, VA is spending one of every four medical
care dollars for the upkeep of facilities and needs to better
address capital asset needs and planning. The Committee directs
the Department to continue working with GAO to finalize a
methodology for isolating the cost of maintaining its
facilities. The Committee applauds the CARES initiative and
considers this initiative to be a Department priority. The
Committee further directs the Department to work with GAO to
create a new methodology for distributing maintenance and
operations funds based on CARES principles.
The Committee is again providing two-year spending
authority for $900,000,000 of the ``Medical care''
appropriation, a provision from the administration's budget
request intended to provide the Department more flexibility for
planning year to year. The Committee emphasizes that the two-
year funding provision is not meant to create ``emergency
funds'' and that all resources should be spent in a timely and
responsible manner addressing veterans health needs.
The bill includes language delaying the availability of
$927,000,000 of funds requested for the equipment and land and
structures object classifications until August 1, 2001. The
budget requested the delayed availability of $900,000,000 of
such funds. The bill also includes requested language in the
compensation and pensions appropriation transferring $7,632,000
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 includes transferring $28,134,000 to the ``General
operating expenses'' appropriations for the Office of
Resolution Management and the Office of Employment
Discrimination Compliant Adjudication. Additional information
on this transfer is included under the VA's administrative
provisions section of this report.
The bill includes a provision prohibiting the Department
from transferring funds to the Department of Justice for the
purposes of supporting a lawsuit against tobacco companies. The
Committee feels resources in this appropriation should remain
for the purposes of providing medical care to veterans.
The fiscal year 2001 budget justification included
estimates of millions of dollars in receipts generated from
TRICARE agreements with the Department of Defense (DoD), yet
there is no sign of support for this agreement from DoD. GAO
reports that both departments could save millions of dollars by
combining procurement practices for the purchase of
pharmaceutical drugs and supplies. The Committee directs the
Department to work with DoD to coordinate service delivery,
cost collections and procurement and directs the Department of
Veterans Affairs to include in its fiscal year 2002 budget
submission (a) the amount of revenue generated from providing
TRICARE services in 2001 and anticipated revenue in 2002, (b)
the locations involved in TRICARE delivery with negotiated
agreements in place, and (c) any procurement-sharing agreements
with DoD and the amount of resources saved by those contracts.
The Committee has noted the alarming rise in the percentage
of veterans infected with the hepatitis C virus, and is
concerned about the Department's management of this epidemic.
The Committee directs the GAO to report on the Department's
activities related to hepatitis C four months after the date of
enactment. The report should include, by VISN, the amount of
fiscal year 2000 resources spent on hepatitis C testing and
treatment, the number of veterans tested and treated for
hepatitis C, the percentage of tested veterans who are infected
with hepatitis C, and how fiscal year 2001 funds will be
allocated for hepatitis C testing and treatment. Further, the
Committee directs GAO to examine whether the Department's
allocation methodology provides adequate funding for VISNs with
statistically higher percentages of veterans testing positive
for hepatitis C.
In addition, the Committee directs the Department to
include hepatitis C as a new patient classification under the
Complex Care Component and to calculate VISN resources using
this new methodology.
The Committee continues to have concerns about the
Department's national drug formulary, and directs the
Department to conduct an internal review of each VISN's
formulary to ensure all VISNs have waiver procedures allowing
veterans to obtain necessary non-formulary medications and
supplies and any statistics on the number or percentage of non-
formulary medicines and supplies prescribed and dispensed to
veterans. The Department is directed to report its findings to
the Committee within four months after enactment of this bill.
The Committee is concerned that the Department is unaware
of how many VA nursing home beds are unoccupied nationally, and
that VA nursing home beds might be empty while veterans, some
100 percent service-connected, are waiting for space in state
veterans nursing homes. The Department is directed to report to
the Committee by February 1, 2001 the number of unoccupied
nursing home beds by VISN and to conduct a feasibility study of
using unoccupied nursing home beds for transitional and respite
care for veterans awaiting a state nursing home bed.
The Committee directs the Department to continue providing
medical care for all upper category veterans and those veterans
already enrolled with the Department healthcare system.
The Committee strongly discourages the Department from
transferring critical care services from areas with a high
veterans population to an area with a smaller veterans
population.
The Committee directs the Department to study the
feasibility and costs associated with establishing a long-term
care facility in northwestern Ohio in conjunction with the
Toledo Clinic and the Riverside Mercy Hospital and submit the
findings to the Committee within six months of enactment of the
bill.
The Committee is aware that the Veterans Health
Administration is testing automated medication dispensing
technology to reduce medication errors and improve hospital
efficiency and patient care. The Department should apply
evidence-based best practices to reduce medication errors. The
Committee urges the Department to fully support this test and
promptly evaluate the technology for potential use throughout
the health system.
As the Department consolidates more services, the Committee
is concerned about the safety of veterans traveling long
distances. The Committee directs the Department to ensure all
spinal cord injury buses, especially in areas with a high
number of veterans with spinal cord injuries, are in safe,
working order and replace any spinal cord injury buses which
are in a state of unacceptable disrepair.
The Committee directs the VA to spend its fiscal year 2001
medical resources, except where otherwise specified, in the
same manner as described in the budget justification. This
includes resources for prosthetics, increases in nurse pay,
hepatitis C, and long term care.
The Committee is concerned about the planned FTE reductions
in the area of psychiatric care. The Committee reminds the
Department of its obligation to provide quality psychiatric
care to veterans. The Committee directs the Department to
submit a report with the fiscal year 2001 operating plan
detailing how these planned cuts in FTEs will improve mental
health services and what performance indicators are in place to
measure an improvement in care.
The Committee strongly urges the Department to use up to
$5,000,000 to establish five centers of excellence for motor-
neuron diseases such as Parkinson's disease and multiple
sclerosis.
The Committee supports the Department's plan to provide
primary care services in Alamogordo, New Mexico and directs the
Department to give strong consideration to using the recently
vacated Gerald R. Champion Memorial Hospital.
This year, the Under Secretary for Health's Committee on
Care of Severely Chronically Mentally Ill Veterans examined
five VISNs which have experienced unusually large decreases in
funding and staffing for substance abuse care. The Committee
directs the Department to routinely examine substance abuse
care across the entire system to ensure substance abuse
programs are maintained.
The Committee recommends the Department establish community
based outpatient clinics in the Galax area of Virginia, the
Nantucket area of Massachusetts, and in Yakima, Washington.
The Committee recommends the Department establish a Class A
affiliation between the Toledo VA clinic and the Medical
College of Ohio.
The Committee recognizes the Department is taking steps to
provide proper care to veterans who can no longer live
independently, but do not qualify for permanent hospital or
nursing home care. The Committee believes veterans deserve the
opportunity to maintain their dignity and family structure
during their frail years. In order to develop a comprehensive
plan that meets the needs of veterans and their families, the
committee expects the VA to work in conjunction with a not-for-
profit organization with expertise in the developing assisting
living plans for seniors.
The Committee expects that funds will be available from the
National Reserve (not to exceed $2,000,000) to ensure the
smooth operations of the VAMC during the 2002 Winter Olympics
and Paralympics.
The Committee is concerned that many of the antibiotics
upon which modern medicine relies are becoming ineffective and
commends the VA for its sensitivity to this issue. VA hospitals
and clinics can serve as innovators and examples for other
hospitals on this important public health matter. The Committee
therefore urges the VA to use its south Florida facilities to
implement and evaluate innovative antibiotic-use practices,
including the routine use of vaccinations against streptococcus
pneumonia among elderly and immunocompromised veterans and
their dependents.
The Committee received the report on the telemedicine
initiative at the Huntsville, Alabama VAMC as requested in last
year's report and encourages project implementation.
The statement of managers accompanying the fiscal year 2000
conference report urged the VA to partner with existing,
federally funded Community Health Care Centers to provide
outpatient primary and preventative health care systems to area
veterans in their home communities. The Committee understands
that the VA has begun negotiations with health centers in the
named counties in Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee, but
agreements have not been completed. The Committee reiterates
its support for establishing these partnerships in a manner
that fully respects the needs of the veteran population in the
respective communities. The VA is directed to report 30 days
after enactment of the act on the status of the partnerships.
The Committee notes with some concerns the Department's
single, national means test, based on annual income level,
applies across the board, differing only based upon the number
of a veterans' dependents. This means test is used to determine
veterans' copayments for treatment at VA facilities. Given that
some regions of the country face a higher cost of living than
others, the Committee requests GAO to examine the Department's
current system, and to provide recommendations to correct any
regional disparities that may exist. The report should include
a comparison of how other federal health care programs
compensate for regional differences in the cost of living, the
extent that the current means test standard may potentially
disadvantage veterans in some regions of the country, an
analysis of the Department's new proposal for the collection of
third-party payments, and how the Department's recognition of
regional costs differences affecting collection of third party
payments remains inconsistent with the national, uniform means
test standard.
medical and prosthetic research
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $321,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 321,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 321,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... 0
This account includes medical, rehabilitative and health
services research. Medical research is an important aspect of
the Department 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
the Department's researchers.
The Committee recommends $321,000,000 for medical and
prosthetic research in fiscal year 2001. This is the same
funding level as fiscal year 2000 and the 2001 budget request.
The Committee applauds a departmental initiative to align
the VERA research allocation with designated time for
clinician-investigators to conduct research. The Committee
directs the Department to extend through fiscal year 2001
policy that assigns administration of the VERA research
allocation to medical centers. The Committee also directs the
Department to implement and evaluate new accounting systems for
identifying and tracking research salaries, as well as research
facilities and administrative costs, for their effectiveness in
ensuring adequate research support.
The Committee again this year encourages the Department to
increase funding for prostate cancer research with emphasis on
clinical trials within the VA. Further, the Committee urges the
Department to increase its emphasis on research related to
diabetes treatment.
The Committee encourages the Department to continue working
with Garden State Cancer Center on its pending research
proposal.
The Committee remains supportive of the Department's
efforts in technology transfer.
medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $62,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 59,703,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 64,884,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +2,297,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -2,884,000
This appropriation provides funds for central office
executive direction (Under Secretary for Health and staff),
administration and supervision of all Department medical and
construction programs, including development and implementation
of policies, plans, and program objectives.
The bill provides $62,000,000, an increase of $2,297,000
over the fiscal year 2000 funding level and $2,884,000 below
the budget request.
General post fund, national homes
(including transfer of funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Administrative
Program account direct loans expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation........................... 0 0 0
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation............................ $7,000 $70,000 $54,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request........................... 0 0 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation............ -7,000 -70,000 -54,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request........... 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A legislative proposal will be submitted to repeal section
8 of Public Law 102-54, terminating the Transitional Housing
Loan Program. No loan activity on this program has occurred
since its inception in September 1994. The Committee accepts
the administration's proposal not to request funding for the
Transitional Housing Loan Program which has never made a loan
and does not provide funding in this bill. The portion of this
account which accepts gifts to the department and uses those
resources to promote comfort and welfare to veterans in
hospitals, nursing homes and domiciliaries is still operational
as a trust fund.
Departmental Administration
general operating expenses
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $1,006,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 912,594,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,061,854,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +93,406,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -55,854,000
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 $162,668,000 in other
accounts for these credit programs. In addition, $9,787,000 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 Department estimates that
$36,520,000 will be utilized for such purposes in fiscal year
2001. Prior to fiscal year 1996, such costs were included in
the general operating expenses appropriation. Thus, in total,
$1,297,717,000 is requested in fiscal year 2001 for
administrative costs of non-medical benefits.
The Committee recommends $1,006,000,000 for general
operating expenses in fiscal year 2001. This amount represents
an increase of $93,406,000 above the current level and
$55,854,000 below the budget request.
The Committee rejects the request to transfer $30,000,000
from the readjustment benefits appropriation to the general
operating expenses account. In addition, the general operating
expenses appropriation is $25,854,000 below the budget request.
The Committee directs the VBA to be funded at not less than
$782,000,000. The Committee supports VBA's hiring initiative in
the Compensation and Pension program and expects VBA to achieve
the FTE increases requested in the budget request. VBA
reductions should be applied to the various initiatives
requested based on VBA priorities and actual progress. The
Committee understands the Virtual VBA project is behind
schedule and recognizes reductions could be applied to this
area as the scope and implementation of this initiative
continues to evolve.
The Committee is greatly alarmed by the lack of improvement
in claims processing. The Committee directs VBA to continue
reporting on its progress in this area as directed by last
year's report.
The Committee is aware that under present law, veterans are
precluded from utilizing their veterans housing benefits to
purchase residential cooperative units, although these
guaranteed loans may currently be used to purchase a house, a
condominium, or a mobile home. In some communities, residential
cooperative units comprise a significant portion of housing
currently available for purchase. The Committee therefore
directs the VA to conduct a study of this problem and the
feasibility of including cooperative rental units under the
housing benefit and report back its findings to the Committee
by February 2001.
VA is presently occupying space at various locations within
the District of Columbia for its central office staff. The
Administration has determined that it would be in the best
interest of the Department and of the Government if all of the
VA's Central Office Operations could be consolidated in one or
two buildings within close proximity of the main VA office
building at 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W. The Lafayette building is
located at 811 Vermont Avenue, N.W., directly across the street
from the main VA building and currently accommodates some of
the VA operations in approximately 60% of the building. The US
Export-Import Bank occupies most of the remaining 40% of the
building.
While the General Services Administration is responsible
for the Lafayette building and its operations, it has been
unable to secure the needed funds to undertake the major
renovations necessary to replace all of its outdated systems.
The Department currently has authority to enter into enhanced-
use leases with the private sector where property under VA's
control or jurisdiction is leased to a private lessee that
expends private funds to renovate, rehabilitate, or construct
facilities on such property. The Department has successfully
used its enhanced-used leasing authority for such purposes.
This authority, if utilized in this situation, would permit VA
and other federal tenants, if space were available after VA
consolidates its operations, to occupy a fully renovated
facility without the need for major construction
appropriations.
The Committee supports consideration of an enhanced-used
leasing alternative and requests VA, in conjunction with GSA,
to provide a report by November 1, 2000 on the feasibility of
this effort.
The Committee strongly supports VA's initiative to replace
its core accounting system with a new integrated system. The
Committee expects the new system, core FLS, will allow the
Department to strengthen financial information management,
improve data integrity, and track the costs and workload
associated with various initiatives, such as those noted in the
Medical Care section of this report. The Office of Financial
Management will coordinate the Department's investment in this
area.
The current estimate for the core FLS project in 2001 is
approximately $43 million, which will fund specific tasks for
the acquisition and the prototyping and implementation phases
of the project. The Committee has provided these funds and
expects this project to be implemented as a top priority. These
funds will be provided through reimbursements from each of the
VA Administrations and the Supply Fund to General
Administration in this appropriation. The Committee directs VA
to submit a report on the milestones for the core FLS project
through FY 2002 by December 1, 2000.
The bill includes language redirecting up to $2,022,000 for
Office of Resolution Management and Office of Employment
Discrimination Compliant Adjudication.
national cemetery system
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $106,889,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 97,256,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 109,889,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +9,633,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -3,000,000
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 2000 appropriation increased 5.8 percent
above the fiscal year 1999 amount. The recommended fiscal year
2001 level is 9.9 percent higher than fiscal year 2000
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 $106,889,000 for the national
cemetery administration in fiscal year 2001. This funding level
is $9,633,000 over the 2000 level and $3,000,000 below the
budget request. The Committee is providing funds to meet needs
associated with new cemeteries opening in 2000 and 2001 and the
increased workload projected by the Department. The Committee
is only able to provide $2,000,000 of the requested $5,000,000
for the national shrine initiative.
The Committee supports planning efforts for the 2002
Paralympic Games.
office of inspector general
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $46,464,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 43,200,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 46,464,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +3,264,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... 0
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 Department programs to operate economically
in accomplishing program goals, and prevent and deter recurring
and potential fraud, waste and inefficiencies.
The Committee has provided $46,464,000 for the Office of
Inspector General in fiscal year 2001. This amount is an
increase of $3,264,000 above the current year appropriation and
equal to the budget request.
Construction, Major Projects
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $62,140,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 65,140,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 62,140,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -3,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... 0
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
Department, 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 Department medical
facilities.
The bill provides $62,140,000 for construction, major
projects, in fiscal year 2001 as requested in the budget
justification. The Committee again directs that adequate
planning funds are available for national cemeteries in
Detroit, Michigan; South Florida; Sacramento, California;
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Atlanta, Georgia. The Committee
directs the Department to start planning efforts for a national
cemetery in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The specific amounts recommended by the Committee are as
follows:
DETAIL OF BUDGET REQUEST
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available House
Location and description through 2000 2001 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Program:
Seismic corrections: Palo Alto, CA.................... 0 26,600 26,600
Advance planning fund: various stations............... 0 14,500 14,500
Asbestos abatement: various stations.................. 0 2,025 2,025
Less: Design fund..................................... 0 -1,330 -1,330
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, medical programs.......................... 0 41,795 41,795
=====================================================
Veterans Benefits Administration: Advance planning fund... 0 250 250
National Cemetery Program:
Ft. Logan National Cemetery gravesite development..... 0 16,100 16,100
Advance planning fund: various stations............... 0 2,500 2,500
Design fund........................................... 0 1,600 1,600
Less: Design fund..................................... 0 -805 -805
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, NCA....................................... 0 19,395 19,395
=====================================================
Claims Analyses: various stations......................... 0 700 700
=====================================================
Total construction, major projects.................. 0 62,140 62,140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction, Minor PRojects
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $100,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 160,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 162,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -60,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -62,000,000
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
Department, 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 $100,000,000 for the construction,
minor projects appropriation in fiscal year 2001. The amount
recommended is $62,000,000 below the budget request.
The Committee directs that VHA's minor construction
resources should be utilized in a manner that is consistent
with the current Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced
Services (CARES) initiative. Therefore, beginning in fiscal
year 2001 all VHA minor construction projects must be reviewed
by a central office work group that will consist of both VHA
and other Department officials. For evaluation purposes, the
work group is to utilize criteria that is consistent with those
developed for CARES. If total costs of projects being initiated
at any facility exceeds $4 million (the Capital Investment
Board threshold), the recommendations of the work group must be
approved by the Deputy Secretary.
The Committee directs the Department to expeditiously
expend remaining funds previously appropriated in Public Law
103-211 to repair the earthquake-damaged gymnasium on the VAMC
campus in Sepulveda, California.
Parking Revolving Fund
This appropriation provides funds for the construction,
alteration, and acquisition (by purchase or lease) of parking
garages at Department 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 2001. 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 2001 recommendation....................... $60,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 90,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 60,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -30,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... 0
This program provides grants to assist States to construct
State home facilities for furnishing domiciliary or nursing
home care to veterans, and to expand, remodel or alter existing
buildings for furnishing domiciliary, nursing home or hospital
care to veterans in State homes. A grant may not exceed 65
percent of the total cost of the project.
The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for grants for
construction of State extended care facilities in fiscal year
2001. This amount represents a decrease of $30,000,000 below
last year's funding level but is equal to the budget request.
GRANTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS CEMETERIES
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $25,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 25,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 25,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 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 $25,000,000
for grants for the construction State veterans cemeteries in
fiscal year 2001.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
(INCLUDING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
The bill continues the existing seven 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 2001. The Committee provides definite levels of
funding for these offices,as is the case with other
administrative functions, language transferring the amounts assumed in
``Medical care'' ($28,134,000--$26,069,000 for ORM and $2,065,000 for
OEDCA), ``National cemetery administration'' ($125,000--$111,000 for
ORM and $14,000 for OEDCA), ``Office of Inspector General'' ($28,000--
$28,000 for ORM and no funding for OEDCA) appropriations, has been
included in the bill. In addition, up to $2,022,000 ($1,847,000 for ORM
and $175,000 for OEDCA) is assumed in ``General operating expenses''
for these activities. All funds for these two offices should be
requested in the general operating expenses appropriation in fiscal
year 2001.
The bill also includes several new provisions. The
Committee does not accept the administration's request to
return $350,000,000 to the Department of Treasury. Instead,
Sec. 108 is included to offset receipts collected under the
Veterans Millennium Health Care Act in fiscal year 2001 against
the ``Medical care'' appropriation.
The Committee included bill language allowing the extension
of specific resources in the research program to be available
until 2003.
Two administrative provisions are included as technical
adjustments to the budget request. At this time, HR LINK$ is
not ready for operation in the Franchise Fund as proposed and
Sec. 110 is included allowing the Department to transfer those
amounts back to the ``General operating expenses''
appropriation for that purpose. In addition, Sec. 111 is
included to properly fund personnel in the Office of General
Counsel from the ``General operating expenses'' account instead
of ``Medical care''
The Committee included language requested in the budget
submission moving the compensation and pension pay date back to
fiscal year 2000 with Sec. 112.
The Committee also included language directing the
Department to fully utilize the Capital Investment Board when
evaluating procurement proposals. The Committee also directs
the Department to fully utilize the Veterans Affairs Resource
Board when making policy decisions to ensure the Department is
consistent with the ``One VA'' policy.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $29,967,030,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 25,860,183,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 32,458,550,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +4,106,030,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -2,490,167,000
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
$29,967,030,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, a decrease of $2,490,167,000 below the request and
an increase of $4,106,030,000 above the fiscal year 2000
appropriation.
Public and Indian Housing
Housing Certificate Fund
(including transfer of funds)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $13,275,388,459
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 11,376,695,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 14,127,824,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +1,898,693,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -852,436,000
The Housing Certificate Fund (HCF) 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 Housing and Public Housing
programs.
The Committee recommends $13,275,388,459, plus any
recaptures from the HCF accounts. As requested by the
Administration, the Committee recommends $4,200,000,000 in
advance appropriations.
The appropriated amount provided is sufficient to renew all
expiring section 8 contracts at a 100% utilization rate, and to
provide relocation assistance at the requested funding level.
By adding to the total appropriation the recaptures, which
historically have amounted to more than $1,000,000,000, and
combining them with the $1,295,000,000 offset requested by the
Administration, the total appropriation will adequately fund
not only renewals, but relocation assistance, amendments,
shelter plus care renewals, contract administrators, and new
section 8 incremental assistance as well. Confirming that the
recommendation is adequate are virtually identical CBO and OMB
outlay estimates for the HCF account, which both indicate a 93%
utilization rate. Finally, CBO analysis confirm that the amount
provided adequately funds the activities included in this
account.
In addition to renewals and relocation assistance,
$37,000,000 is for shelter plus care renewals, $25,000,000 is
for nonelderly disabled families, $192,000,000 is for section 8
contract administrators, $66,000,000 is for vouchers that work
in tandem with the low-income housing tax credit program,
$60,000,000 is for incremental vouchers to be distributed
within four months of enactment on a fair share basis to PHAs
that have a 97 percent utilization rate, and $660,000 is for
monitoring PHAs that increase the payment standard of a voucher
through legislation provided in section 206 of the general
provisions of this Act. Additionally, pursuant to HUD's Budget
Justifications, $11,000,000 is transferred to the Working
Capital Fund. Funds are not provided for welfare to work
vouchers as requested by the Administration, or for the Moving
To Work program, which is fully funded with fiscal year 2000
funds. Finally, the Committee recommends a rescission of
$275,388,459.
The Committee notes that earmarking recaptures prior to
their actual receipt is an unusual practice, and should be
considered a one-time event. Nevertheless, recaptures of this
magnitude indicate an under-utilization problem of monumental
proportions. Because $1,432,000,000 was recaptured from PHAs
last year, more than 237,000 families were not served by funds
Congress appropriated. HUD and public housing authorities
should strive to increase utilization rates to levels that more
closely replicate the conventional rental market. HUD is
studying this issue and the Committee directs HUD to report to
the Committees on Appropriations their findings by January 15,
2001.
Another problem confounding the HCF account is the slowness
with which incremental section 8 assistance is awarded.
Consistently, HUD fails to award assistance within the fiscal
year in which it is appropriated. This programmatic
inefficiency is unacceptable; consequently, language is
included requiring HUD to award incremental assistance on a
fair share basis within four months of enactment of this
legislation, or funds are to be returned to the general
treasury. New incremental assistance shall be provided only to
those PHAs that have a 97 percent utilization rate.
Additionally, language is included in the bill that precludes
HUD from paying increased administrative fee costs in the
tenant-based section 8 program that result from the enactment
of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998.
To increase section 8 utilization rates, the Committee has
included language in section 206 of the General Provisions of
Title II authorizing PHAs to increase the payment standard
under certain conditions. Furthermore, a section 8
homeownership demonstration program is provided in the
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) program account.
Finally, the Committee directs HUD to work closely with
organizations like the National Apartment Association to
ameliorate those requirements that are detrimental to creating
partnerships between section 8 client and apartment owner
partnerships in meeting our nation's housing needs and to come
up with solutions to the impediments apartment owners face in
offering affordable housing to section 8 clients.
PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND
(including transfer of funds)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $2,800,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 2,900,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 2,955,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -100,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -155,000,000
The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for all
public housing capital programs, like public housing
development, modernization, and amendments. Examples of capital
modernization projects include replacing roofs and windows,
improving common spaces, upgrading electrical and plumbing
systems, and renovating the interior of an apartment.
The Committee recommends funding this program at
$2,800,000,000, which is $100,000,000 below the fiscal year
2000 level of $2,900,000,000 and $155,000,000 below the
request. Of the amount provided, no more than $50,000,000 may
be used for technical assistance, contract expertise, training,
interventions in troubled authorities, independent physical
inspections, and management improvements. Additionally,
pursuant to HUD's Budget Justifications, $43,000,000 is
transferred to the Working Capital Fund. Finally, rather than
using the calculation authorized in section 9(k) of the 1937
Housing Act for repairs required because of natural disasters
and emergencies, up to $75,000,000 is provided for these
purposes. Funds are not provided for the following
Administration requests: $55,000,000 for the Resident
Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) program--this request
is funded in the Community Development Fund; $10,000,000 for
promoting consortia or other consolidations of PHAs; and
$1,000,000 for the design of a capital financing program.
Public housing for the elderly serves the poorest, the most
racially and ethnically diverse, the oldest, and the largest
number of seniors of the assisted housing programs. The
Committee is therefore interested in further examining the
Elderly Plus demonstration to retrofit public housing for
elderly to efficiently and economically serve their assisted
living needs.
PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $3,138,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 3,138,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 3,192,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -54,000,000
Operating subsidies are provided to public housing
authorities to supplement tenant rental contributions and other
income, to pay for the ordinary daily costs of operating a
public housing authority (PHA). These costs include utility,
security, 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 2000 level of $3,138,000,000, a decrease of
$54,000,000 below the request. Language is included prohibiting
HUD from spending any funds on section 9(k) activities.
DRUG ELIMINATION GRANTS FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING
(Including transfer of funds)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $300,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 310,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 345,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -10,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -45,000,000
Drug Elimination grant 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
$300,000,000, which is $10,000,000 below the fiscal year 2000
level and $45,000,000 below the request. Of the amount
provided, $5,000,000 is for technical assistance and program
assessment, $10,000,000 is set-aside for Operation Safe Home
administered by the HUD Inspector General and $10,000,000 is
for the Inspector General for other Operation Safe Home
activities. The request of $20,000,000 for the New Approach
Anti-Drug Program is not appropriated nor is the request for
the Community Gun Safety and Violence Reduction Initiative, a
proposal that is not authorized.
REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING (HOPE VI)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $565,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 575,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 625,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -10,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -60,000,000
The Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing
program, also known as HOPE VI, provides grants to competing
public housing authorities 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 programs
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 $565,000,000,
which is $10,000,000 below fiscal year 2000 and $60,000,000
below the request. Of the amount, $10,000,000 is for technical
assistance, which is the same level as fiscal year 2000 and is
a decrease of $5,000,000 below the request. The request to set-
aside $180,000,000 for converting sites to assisted living is
not provided.
NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS
(including transfer of funds)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $620,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 620,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 650,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -30,000,000
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 a TDHE's
operating requirements and capital needs.
The Committee recommends funding this program at the fiscal
year 2000 level of $620,000,000, which is $30,000,000 below the
request. 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,
of which $2,000,000, pursuant to HUD's Budget Justifications,
is transferred to the Working Capital Fund, and $2,000,000 of
the total appropriation is for the National American Indian
Housing Council to conduct training programs and to provide
technical assistance. The Committee has not provided $5,000,000
for a new initiative called the Indian Homeownership
Intermediary Initiative, as requested by the Administration.
INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Program account direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation... $6,000,000 $71,956,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.... 6,000,000 71,956,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request... 6,000,000 71,956,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 0 0
appropriation....................
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 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 to 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 2000.
Community Planning and Development
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $232,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 232,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 260,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -28,000,000
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).
For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends
$232,000,000, which is the same level as fiscal year 2000, and
$28,000,000 below the request. In addition, the Committee
recommends that one percent of the funds be used for technical
assistance and for tracking and monitoring systems.
RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $20,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 25,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 27,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -7,000,000
The Committee has provided $20,000,000, which is $5,000,000
below fiscal year 2000 and is $7,000,000 below the request.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND
(including transfers of funds)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $4,505,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 4,800,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 4,900,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -295,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -395,000,000
The Community Development Fund provides funding to state
and local governments, and to other entities that carry out
community and economic development activities under several
authorized programs.
The Committee recommends appropriating $4,505,000,000 for
the community development fund. The account was modified from
previous years to show all programs, including the CDBG formula
grant program, as set-asides within the overall account.
Presenting the accounts in this manner make it easier to see
how funding levels change from year to year.
Set-asides within the CDF account include:
$4,214,050,000 for Community Development Block
grants;
$67,000,000 for Native Americans;
$3,000,000 for the Housing Assistance Council;
$3,000,000 for the National American Indian Housing
Council;
$39,500,000 for section 107 activities;
$20,000,000 for the Self-Help Housing Opportunity
Program (SHOP);
$23,450,000 for the National Community Development
Initiative (NCDI) including set-asides of $3,400,000
for Habitat for Humanity for its capacity building
activities and of $4,000,000 for rural areas;
$55,000,000 for the Resident Opportunity and Social
Services program;
$10,000,000 for neighborhood initiatives;
$45,000,000 for Youthbuild which includes a
$3,740,000 set-aside for capacity building activities;
$10,000,000 for economic development initiatives; and
$28,000,000 for the cost of guaranteeing loans for
the section 108 program.
Additionally, pursuant to HUD's Budget Justifications,
$15,000,000 is transferred to the Working Capital Fund.
Set-asides within the section 107 grant account include:
$10,000,000 for Historically Black Colleges and
Universities;
$8,000,000 is for Community Outreach Partnership
Centers
$3,000,000 is for Community Development Work Study;
$6,500,000 is for Hispanic-Serving Institutions
Assisting Communities;
$0 for technical assistance;
$7,000,000 for Insular Areas; and
$5,000,000 for Management Information System Support
to be transferred to the Working Capital Fund.
Programs requested by the Administration but for which
funds are not provided include:
$5,000,000 for Tribal Colleges and Universities;
$2,000,000 for the Native American Economic
Development Access Center;
$5,000,000 for New Markets University Partnership
pilot grants;
$22,000,000 for economic revitalization and community
development initiatives in the Mississippi Delta
Region;
$2,000,000 to support Alaska Native serving
institutions and native Hawaiian serving institutions;
$100,000,000 for the Economic Development Initiative;
$125,000,000 for Regional Connections/Smart Growth;
$15,000,000 for technical assistance; and,
$20,000,000 for the Center for Community and
Interfaith Partnership initiative.
As requested by the Administration, the commitment level
for the section 108 Loan Guarantee program is limited to
$1,217,000,000, which is $44,000,000 below the fiscal year 2000
limitation.
Funds for America's Private Investment Companies (APIC) and
the communities in schools programs are not appropriated
because the proposal is unauthorized.
The Committee directs HUD to provide information to all
state and local jurisdictions that people with disabilities and
their advocates must be at the table when Consolidated Plans
are developed. In addition, the Committee directs HUD to
evaluate Consolidated Plans for this inclusion, as well as to
determine if the needs reflected in the final plan match the
proposed uses of federal funds. The Committee also directs HUD,
when reviewing Consolidated Plans, to take into consideration a
community's adoption of a building code that complies with the
Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, and a community's
efforts to remove ``impediments'' to fair housing.
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $20,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 25,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 50,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -30,000,000
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.
The Committee recommends appropriating $20,000,000, which
is $5,000,000 below fiscal year 2000, and $30,000,000 below the
request.
home investment partnerships program
(including transfer of funds)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $1,585,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 1,600,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,650,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -15,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -65,000,000
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 $1,585,000,000,
which is $15,000,000 below fiscal year 2000 and $65,000,000
below the request. Of the amount appropriated, $15,000,000 is
for Housing Counseling, which is the same level as fiscal year
2000 and is $9,000,000 below the President's request and,
pursuant HUD's Budget Justifications, $17,000,000 is
transferred to the Working Capital fund for the development and
operation of integrated community development management
information systems. Language requested by the Administration
making three percent of the total funds appropriated available
for use by Native Americans is not included.
To address the Committee's concerns about HUD's lack of
performance data in the Housing Counseling program, several
organizations have been working to design a system to measure
the outcomes of counseling services. The Committee reserves the
right to review this proposal, and to consider its suggestions
during Conference negotiations with the Senate, and to revise
the appropriation accordingly.
homeless assistance grants
(including transfer of funds)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $1,020,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 1,020,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,200,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -180,000,000
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
$1,020,000,000, the same level as fiscal year 2000 and a
decrease of $180,000,000 below the request. Language is
included requiring HUD to use not less than 30 percent of the
funds appropriated for Homeless programs for permanent housing.
Language requested by the Administration is included that
requires all homeless programs to coordinate their programs
with mainstream health, social services and employment programs
for which homeless populations are eligible. Finally, language
is included providing that 1.5 percent of the funds is
available for technical assistance and management information
systems of which .5 percent is to be transferred to the Working
Capital Fund. The Committee did not provide $105,000,000 for
section 8 rental assistance for homeless families from this
account as requested by the Administration though $37,000,000
is provided in the HCF account to renew shelter plus care
vouchers.
Housing Programs
housing for special populations
(including transfer of funds)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $911,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 911,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 989,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -78,000,000
The Housing for Special Populations program provides
eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital grants
used to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction
of housing intended for elderly people or people with
disabilities. To increase flexibility, twenty-five percent of
the funding for supportive housing for the disabled is
available for tenant-based assistance under section 8.
The Committee recommends funding the Housing for Special
Populations program at the fiscal year 2000 level of
$911,000,000, which is $78,000,000 below the request. Of the
amount provided, the fiscal year 2000 level of $710,000,000 is
for section 202 housing, which is $69,000,000 below the
request. For the section 811 disabled housing program, the
Committee recommends the fiscal year 2000 level of
$201,000,000, which is $9,000,000 below the request. Language
is included transferring $1,000,000, to be equally divided
between section 202 and section 811, to the Working Capital
Fund pursuant to HUD's Budget Justifications.
Of the amount provided for section 202, $50,000,000 is to
renew existing service coordinator and congregate services
contracts, and $50,000,000 is for the section 202 conversion
program. Language requested by the Administration is not
included making elderly persons living in the neighborhood but
not in assisted projects eligible to receive assistance.
Language requested by the Administration creating a
construction and insurance program, and intergenerational
learning centers, is not included.
The Committee strongly opposes the Administration's
proposal to increase the set-aside for section 8 for the
disabled from at least 25 percent to up to 50 percent. For many
years, the section 811 program has played a critical role in
``housing production.'' The program has added to the stock of
affordable and accessible housing and has been proven to be one
of HUD's most effective programs, successfully investing
federal funding through nonprofit disability organization. The
Committee strongly supports the role of tenant-based rental
assistance but recognizes that it is not the only component of
an effective, broad-based housing policy for people with
disabilities.
Likewise, the Committee is concerned that HUD's current
practice of converting section 811 tenant-based rental
assistance may discourage nonprofit disability organizations
from applying for and administering tenant-based rental
assistance. Therefore, the Committee directs HUD to refrain
from converting section 811 appropriations to section 8 rental
subsidies.
Last year, this Committee directed the Secretary to use
waiver authority and make nonprofit disability organizations
eligible applicants for the tenant-based rental assistance
funded through the section 811 program. The Committee is
pleased that the Secretary did so. Last year, approximately 100
non-profit disability groups applied to administer these funds.
Unfortunately, only 14 could be funded with the rest of the
funds going to PHAs. The Committee, once again, directs the
Secretary to use his waiver power and continue the eligibility
of these non-profit disability organizations.
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 2001 recommendation........................ $100,000,000 $160,000,000,000 $330,888,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation......................... 100,000,000 140,000,000,000 330,888,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request........................ 250,000,000 160,000,000,000 330,888,000
Comparison with 2000 Appropriation..................... 0 +20,000,000,000 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request........ -150,000,000 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $160,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2001,
which is $20,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 level, and is
the same level requested by the Administration through a budget
amendment. The Committee recommends the request of $330,888,000
for administrative expenses, which is the same level as fiscal
year 2000. Furthermore, the Committee recommends the request to
limit direct loans to $50,000,000, which is the same level as
the fiscal year 2000 appropriation. Finally, of the
$160,000,000 provided for administrative contract expenses,
pursuant to HUD's Budget Justifications request, $96,500,000 is
transferred to the Working Capital Fund.
Though requested by the Administration, $2,000,000 is not
provided for a data warehouse operated by the Federal Housing
Credit Consortium. Additionally, language increasing the FHA
limitation on individual mortgages to insure single family
loans to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac conforming loan limit
is not included. Finally, legislation to allow FHA to insure a
new Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) product is not included.
The Committee encourages HUD to work with training
organizations with strong community ties and workforce
development experience to provide low-income residents the
skills to rebuild their communities and to learn new
construction trades.
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 2001 recommendation..... $50,000,000 $21,000,000,000 $211,455,000 $101,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation...... 50,000,000 18,100,000,000 \1\ 64,000,000 \2\ 0
Fiscal year 2001 budget request..... 50,000,000 21,000,000,000 211,455,000 101,000,000
Comparison with 2000 Appropriation.. 0 2,900,000,000 147,455,000 101,000,000
Comparison with 2001 budget request. 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Actual spending in fiscal year 2000 was $211,000,000 due to $145,000,000 in unobligated balances being used
for this purpose.
\2\ Actual spending in fiscal year 2000 was $153,000,000 due to $153,000,000 in unobligated balances being used
for this purpose.
The general and special risk insurance (GI and SRI) funds
contain the largest number of program 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, those
for experimental housing and for high-risk mortgagors who would
not normally be eligible for mortgage insurance without housing
counseling.
As requested, the Committee recommends to limit loan
guarantee commitments for the FHA-general and special risk
insurance program account to $21,000,000,000, which is
$2,900,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 level. The Committee
recommends the budget request of $101,000,000 for credit
subsidy purposes, whereas, in fiscal year 2000, $153,000,000 of
unobligated balances were used to fund credit subsidy.
Likewise, the Committee recommends the request of $211,455,000
for administrative expenses. This is the same level as last
year, however, in fiscal year 2000, $147,000,000 in unobligated
balances were used to reduce the appropriated level of budget
authority, an offset that is not available in fiscal year 2001.
Additionally, the Committee recommends the request on limiting
direct loans to $50,000,000, which is the same level as the
fiscal year 2000 appropriation. Finally, as requested,
$33,500,000 of the $144,000,000 provided for administrative
contract expenses, is transferred to the Working Capital Fund.
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 2001 recommendation... $200,000,000,000 $9,383,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.... 200,000,000,000 9,383,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request... 200,000,000,000 9,383,000
Comparison with 2000 appropriation 0 0
Comparison with 2001 budget 0 0
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
to $200,000,000,000. This is the same level as fiscal year
2000. In addition, the request of $9,383,000 is provided to
fund administrative expenses, which is the same level
appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
Language requested by the Administration to provide
$40,000,000 for administrative contract expenses is not
provided.
Policy Development and Research
Research and technology
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $40,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 45,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 62,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -22,000,000
The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 directs the
Secretary to undertake programs of research, studies, testing,
and demonstrations related to the HUD mission. These functions
are carried out internally through contracts with industry,
non-profit research organizations, and educational institutions
and through agreements with state and local governments and
other federal agencies.
The bill includes $40,000,000 for research and technology,
which is $22,000,000 below the budget request. Of this amount,
the Committee recommends $30,000,000 for research, technology,
and policy analysis. Additionally, the Committee recommends the
fiscal year 2000 level of $10,000,000 for the Partnership for
Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) initiative, which is
$2,500,000 below the request.
Of the amount provided for research, technology, and policy
development, $3,000,000 to be used exclusively for program
evaluation and data collection to support strategic planning,
performance measurement, and budget. In its 1999 report on
Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) in HUD, the National
Academy of Public Administration noted that full implementation
of GPRA--especially for managing to results--requires an
investment in both the collection of data which might not be
available as well as in evaluation to determine the links
between the every-day activities of the Department and the
ultimate goals specified in the department's strategic and
annual performance plans.
The NAPA report states, in connection with one program
that, ``. . . the department may not be able to measure this
intermediate outcome using existing data sources; the
department may need to develop additional data sources, in this
case through the use of surveys. These new sources may need to
be developed in cooperation with other federal agencies and
non-federal service partners.'' The Committee directs HUD to
establish a process for using these funds that shall be sent to
the Committee for approval within 60 days after the enactment
of this bill.
In fiscal year 1998, this Committee recommended that HUD
study how new technologies contribute to lowering the costs of
constructing and operating affordable housing. Based on this
directive, HUD proposed the PATH program. One of its goals is
to coordinate the governmental effort to increase Federal
support for housing research, development, and demonstration
programs. As a research tool, it would be inappropriate to move
PATH from the Office of Policy Development and Research (PDR)
to the Federal Housing Administration, a home loan insurance
program with little research capacity. Therefore, the Committee
directs HUD to retain the program, and its administration, in
the Office of PDR. Furthermore, HUD is directed to cooperate
fully with the home building industry, and particularly the
National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) Research Center,
which coordinates industry participation and research planning
for PATH. HUD is also directed to recognize the role of
manufactured homes in providing housing to Americans and
research through the Manufactured Housing Research Alliance
(MHRA).
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Fair housing activities
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $44,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 44,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 50,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -6,000,000
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 assures prompt
and effective processing of complaints filed under title VIII
that are within the jurisdiction of state and local fair
housing agencies.
The Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) alleviates
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 recommends providing $44,000,000 for this
account; $22,000,000 for FHAP, and $22,000,000 for FHIP. The
Administration requested $50,000,000 for the account, with FHIP
receiving $29,000,000. In the FHIP account, the Committee
recommends $7,500,000 to fund the final year of a three-year
audit-based enforcement initiative. The requests of $2,500,000
for the Project for Accessibility Training and Technical
Assistance (PATTA), $1,000,000 for a fair housing enforcement
training academy, and $3,500,000 for the Fair Housing
Partnership are not provided.
The Committee is unsatisfied with the large carryover of
funds in this account and directs HUD to put mechanisms into
place that will result in funds being dispersed before the end
of the last quarter of the fiscal year. If HUD is unable to
comply with this direction, the Department is directed to
provide a detailed briefing and report to the Committees on
Appropriations on how the obligation rate in this program can
be improved.
Like last year, the Committee continues to be concerned
with the lack of accessible housing options available to people
with disabilities in the community. Therefore, the Committee
directs HUD to inform those who receive federal funds of the
need for compliance with the Fair Housing Act accessibility
Guidelines and to closely monitor this compliance.
Office of Lead Hazard Control
lead hazard reduction program and healthy homes initiative
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $80,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 80,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 120,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -40,000,000
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 $80,000,000
for this program, which is the same level appropriated in
fiscal year 2000 and is $40,000,000 below the request. Of the
amount appropriated, $1,000,000 is for CLEARCorps, and
$10,000,000 is for the Healthy Homes Initiative.
The Committee is concerned about several provisions in the
proposed Lead-Based Paint rule, and plans to carefully monitor
ongoing negotiations between HUD and the industry on the impact
of the rule. While the Committee does not have a recommendation
at this time, the Committee reserves the right to revisit this
issue, should it be necessary, in Conference.
Management and Administration
salaries and expenses
(including transfers of funds)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By transfer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian
Appropriation FHA funds GNMA funds CPD Title VI Housing APIC Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 recommendation.............. $475,647,000 $518,000,000 $9,383,000 $1,000,000 $150,000 $200,000 $0 $1,004,380,000
FY 2000 appropriation............... 477,000,000 518,000,000 9,383,000 1,000,000 150,000 200,000 0 1,005,733,000
FY 2001 budget request.............. 565,000,000 518,000,000 9,383,000 1,000,000 150,000 200,000 1,000,000 1,094,733,000
Comparison with 2000 appropriation.. -1,353,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1,353,000
Comparison with 2001 budget request. -89,353,000 0 0 0 0 0 -1,000,000 -90,353,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past, a single appropriation has been provided 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 an appropriation of
$1,004,380,000, a decrease of $90,353,000 below the request.
This appropriation is premised on no more than 9,100 employees.
Funds for object classes are dispersed in the following manner:
Personal Services--$745,000,000.
Travel and transportation of persons--$10,000,000.
Rent, communications, and utilities--$120,000,000.
Transportation of Things--$800,000.
Printing and Reproduction--$3,500,000.
Other Services--$123,480,000.
Supplies and Materials--$300,000.
Furniture and Equipment--$1,000,000.
Indemnities--$300,000.
The Committee is very concerned that for the last two
fiscal years, HUD has threatened reductions in force (RIFs)
claiming insufficient personal services funds for 9,300 FTEs.
Though the Committee provided funds for 9,300 FTEs, as of
January 29, 2000, HUD had only 9,040 FTEs, indicating an
inflated personnel requirement in the budget. Again, in the
fiscal year 2001 budget, HUD resource estimates are based on
9,300 FTEs. As a practical matter, this estimate requires that,
with attrition, HUD hire 748 new staff by the end of fiscal
year 2000. Hiring to this level is unnecessary, unachieveable,
and unacceptable to the Committee. Accordingly, the Committee
has provided funds sufficient for 9,100 FTEs, which is an
increase over current services.
Furthermore, according to the National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA) October, 1999 report entitled ``Aligning
Resources and Priorities at HUD: Designing a Resource
Management System,'' HUD is beginning to implement a resource
management system. The Committee has long felt that the lack of
such a system within the Department served as a major detriment
to the efficient operation of Departmental programs in a period
of staff downsizing and increasing workload, and has
contributed to HUD's inclusion on GAO's ``High Risk'' list.
NAPA has also briefed the Committee on the implementation plan
it has prepared for HUD. The Committee expects the Department
to proceed with implementation, as detailed in the NAPA plan,
and to provide a briefing to the Committees on Appropriations
as soon as possible on the implementation plan along with a
proposed implementation schedule. This briefing should also
discuss how HUD intends to decrease it's FTE cost, which is now
$78,800 per employee. This cost is exacerbated by 400 community
builders who make, on average, $91,000 per individual.
Following this initial briefing, the Committee directs the
Department to provide the Committee quarterly progress reports
on the efforts to implement its resource management system.
Of the funds provided for ``Other Services,'' HUD is
directed to spend $100,000,000 on ADP systems, for the working
capital fund in accordance with the Justifications. Remaining
funds from this account shall first be spent on statutorily
mandated systems and contracts. If additional funds remain,
they may be spent on other contracts.
The Committee is committed to improving HUD's capacity to
disseminate useful information about program performance. To a
large extent, Congress' ability to oversee the effectiveness of
HUD is undermined because data is simply inaccessible.
Perennially, this deficiency is cited by the Inspector General,
and is a major reason the General Accounting Office (GAO)
retains HUD on its high-risk list. In an attempt to resolve
this problem, the Committee recommends transferring specific
amounts from various programmatic accounts. In addition, HUD is
directed to include in its Budget Justifications, a
comprehensive multi-year budget plan that creates, maintains,
and refines HUD's information technology systems. This plan
should prioritize expenditures based on the deficiencies cited
by GAO and the Inspector General, and should be described on a
program-by-program basis.
Finally, language is included that terminates the
``community builder'' program. The Committee is extremely
concerned about reports that HUD has retained the community
builder program and intends to supplement it by hiring at least
200 personnel, contrary to the spirit of the agreement reached
during extensive negotiations in the fiscal year 2000 VA, HUD
Conference report. Therefore, HUD is directed to terminate the
community builder program by October 1, 2000.
office of inspector general
(including transfers of funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug elim.
Appropriation FHA funds grants Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 recommendation.................. $50,657,000 $22,343,000 $10,000,000 $83,000,000
FY 2000 appropriation................... 50,657,000 22,343,000 10,000,000 83,000,000
FY 2001 budget request.................. 52,000,000 22,343,000 10,000,000 84,343,000
Comparison with 2000 appropriation...... 0 0 0 0
Comparison with 2001 budget request..... -1,343,000 0 0 -1,343,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $83,000,000 for the Office of
Inspector General, which is the same level as fiscal year 2000
and a $1,343,000 below the request. Of the amount, $10,000,000
is for Operation Safe Home, which is the request and the same
as fiscal year 2000. Transfers of $22,343,000 from FHA funds
and $10,000,000 from Drug Elimination Grants are in addition to
the appropriation, and are the same levels as the request and
the fiscal year 2000 appropriation.
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $22,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 19,493,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 25,800,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -2,507,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -3,800,000
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 an appropriation of $22,000,000
which is $2,507,000 above fiscal year 2000 and $3,800,000 below
the budget request. OFHEO requires additional staff to conduct
safety and soundness work, as well as additional new computer
equipment to enhance examiner ability.
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 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 204 extends enhanced disposition authority to
fiscal year 2001.
Section 205 amends section 8(t)(1)(B) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 to cap enhanced vouchers.
Section 206 authorizes PHAs, in areas designated by the
Secretary, to increase the payment standard for section 8
vouchers.
TITLE III
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission
salaries and expenses
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $28,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 28,467,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 26,196,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -467,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... +1,804,000
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 $28,000,000 for fiscal year 2001
to administer, operate and maintain the Commission's monuments,
cemeteries, and memorials throughout the world. This amount
represents an increase of $1,804,000 above the budget request
and is the fourth 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 2001 recommendation....................... $8,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 8,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 8,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. 0
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 2001, the Committee is recommending
$8,000,000, the same as the 2000 funding level and the budget
request.
Again this year, bill language has been included which
limits the number of career senior executive service positions
to three. Bill language has also been included which makes
$3,000,000 of appropriated funds available for two fiscal
years.
Department of the Treasury
Community Development Financial Institutions
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Program Account
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $105,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 95,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 125,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +10,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. -20,000,000
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 $105,000,000
for the program in fiscal year 2001. The recommendation is a
decrease of $20,000,000 below the budget request and is an
increase of $10,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000
appropriation.
Like last year, the Committee is very pleased with CDFI's
significant contributions to communities across the country,
and has increased funding for the account accordingly. For a
minimal federal investment of $34,000,000, community
development loans and investments worth $565,000,000 were made;
12,412 jobs were created or retained; 8,614 units of affordable
housing were developed; 98 childcare centers served 7,168
children; 17 health care facilities served 32,723 clients; and
10,641 individuals received business training, credit
counseling, homebuyer training and other redevelopment
services. Of the beneficiaries, 70% were low-income, 60% were
minorities, 50% were women, 53% lived in the inner cities, 36%
lived in suburban areas, and 11% lived in rural areas.
The Committee acknowledges the efforts that the CDFI Fund
has made to support credit unions that are CDFIs and/or
emerging CDFIs. As of June 6, 2000, the Fund has certified 78
credit unions as CDFIs and invested $19.3 million in credit
unions and the National Federation of Community Development
Credit Unions. The Committee recognizes that credit unions are
excellent vehicles for community development efforts and
expects that the CDFI Fund will continue its efforts to support
credit unions that are CDFIs through such means as financial
assistance, technical assistance, and training programs. In
addition, the Committee asks the CDFI Fund to strengthen its
efforts to encourage eligible credit unions, particularly
community development credit unions to apply to its programs
through outreach activities and implementing a Small and
Emerging CDFI Access Program.
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Salaries and Expenses
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $51,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 48,814,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 52,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +2,186,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. -1,500,000
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 $51,000,000
for fiscal year 2001, an increase of $2,186,000 over the fiscal
year 2000 appropriation and a decrease of $1,500,000 from the
budget request.
The Committee recommendation includes a reduction of
$1,500,000 which is to be applied by the Commission in an
equitable manner rather than applying all of the reduction to
only one or two programs.
Corporation for National and Community Service
National and Community Service Programs Operating Expenses
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $0
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 353,153,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 533,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -353,153,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -533,700,000
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 2001 budget request for program and
administrative activities of the Corporation for National and
Community Service is $533,700,000. The Committee recommends no
funding for this program in fiscal year 2001. Language is
included in the bill which directs the Corporation to use any
funds remaining from prior year's appropriations to accomplish
the orderly closure of the Corporation.
Office of Inspector General
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $5,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 3,985,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +1,015,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 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 $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001, the same as the budget request and an
increase of $1,015,000 when compared to the appropriation for
fiscal year 2000.
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Salaries and Expenses
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $12,500,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 11,450,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 12,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +1,050,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 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 $12,500,000 for the
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in fiscal year 2001, an
increase of $1,050,000 above the current year appropriation.
This increase continues funding for the additional law clerks
as temporary FTE's 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 fully funds pro bono representation program
request of $895,000 as an earmark.
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
Salaries and Expenses
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $15,949,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 12,473,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 15,949,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +3,476,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 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 1999, the remains of 277,932
persons were interred/inured in these cemeteries. Of this
total, 237,323 persons were interred and 25,960 remains inured
in the Columbarium in Arlington National Cemetery, and 14,649
remains were interred in the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home
National Cemetery. There were 3,586 interments and 2,152
inurnments in fiscal year 1999. It is projected that there will
be 3,700 interments and 2,200 inurnments in fiscal year 2000;
and 3,700 interments and 2,300 inurnments in fiscal year 2001.
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 shares the concern expressed through the
budget request that additional funds are necessary and
appropriate to meet the backlog of long and short-term
maintenance needs as well as important capital improvement
projects within Arlington National Cemetery. An additional
$2,000,000 beyond the budget submission has therefore been
provided in order to ``jump-start'' the highest priority
projects as identified in the Cemetary's ten-year plan. The
Cemetery is requested to provide the Committee an updated
project priority list on a semi-annual basis, which list should
include a brief explanation of the plans, timing, and progress
toward completion of each such project.
Department of Health and Human Services
National Institutes of Health
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $60,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation \1\.................... 60,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request \1\................... 48,526,700
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... +11,473,300
\1\ Fiscal year 2000 appropriation and fiscal year 2001 request
included in the Hazardous Substance Superfund account of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, an
agency within the National Institutes of Health, was authorized
in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to conduct certain
research and worker training activities associated with the
nation's Hazardous Substance Superfund program.
For fiscal year 2001 the Committee has recommended a
funding level of $60,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2000
level and an increase of $11,473,300 over the budget request.
The Committee's recommendation includes $37,000,000 for
research and $23,000,000 for the worker training program.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
toxic substances and environmental public health
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $70,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation \1\.................... 70,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request \1\................... 64,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... +6,000,000
\1\ Fiscal year 2000 appropriation and fiscal year 2001 request included
in the Hazardous Substance Superfund account of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), an agency of the Public Health Service, was created in
section 104(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The ATSDR's primary
mission is to conduct surveys and screening programs to
determine relationships between exposure to toxic substances
and illness. Other activities include the maintenance and
annual update of a list of hazardous substances most commonly
found at Superfund sites, the preparation of toxicological
profiles on each such hazardous substance, consultations on
health issues relating to exposure to hazardous or toxic
substances, and the development and implementation of certain
research activities related to ATSDR's mission.
For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has recommended a
funding level of $70,000,000, the same as for fiscal year 2000
and an increase of $6,000,000 above 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.
Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $7,148,888,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 7,591,659,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request \1\................... 7,164,072,300
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -413,923,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -15,184,300
\1\ Line does not include budget request for NIEHS and ATSDR totalling
$112,526,700. These requests are noted in the new account structure
for these two agencies.
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 2001, the Committee has recommended a total
program and support level of $7,150,888,000, a decrease of
$411,923,000 below last year's appropriated level and
$13,184,300 below the budget request. Programmatically, when
adding the $130,000,000 provided to ATSDR and NIEHS in the
preceding, new account, rather than in the Hazardous Substances
Superfund account at EPA as in past years, the Committee's
recommendation is $3,401,000 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. Reprogramming
requests associated with States and Tribes applying for
Partnership Grants do not need to be submitted to the Committee
for approval should such grants exceed the normal reprogramming
limitations. Finally, the Committee wishes to continue to be
notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, or
activities prior to the planned implementation of such
reorganizations.
The Committee believes it is in the public interest for EPA
to measure and report its progress under the Government
Performance and Results Act primarily in terms of environmental
outcomes, such as healthier people and better habitat. This is
not the approach currently being taken. The Committee
recognizes that a precise understanding of the relationship
between Agency action and each environmental outcome does not
currently exist and may never be fully established. In
environmental policy, as in every other area of public policy,
action must often be taken in the face of scientific
uncertainty. Nevertheless, the Act calls on the Agency to make
its best professional judgment of this relationship under the
assumption that the Agency's effectiveness will improve by
doing so.
Therefore, the Committee directs EPA, in its implementation
of the Act, to define its long-term strategic goals in terms of
environmental, health, and other appropriate outcome measures.
Outcome measures are direct measures of the health of humans,
animals, plants, and ecosystems. (Among examples of such
measures are those classified as ``Level 6'' on the ``Hierarchy
of Indicators,'' a framework of indicators created by EPA and
in current use by EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program and a number of
states.) The Committee directs EPA in reporting its performance
to present measures of activities and materials that may
present a hazard to the health of humans, animal, plants, and
ecosystems, as well as activities intended to prevent or
control such hazards. Further, it calls on the Agency to
organize and present performance measures in a manner that
strengthens agency management, budgeting, performance
evaluation, and effectiveness, including reporting performance
by EPA regions and individual states.
The Committee directs the Agency to make the necessary
changes to the Strategic Plan by September 2001 and reflect
such changes in subsequent GPRA plans and reports. The
Committee realizes that the Agency may not be able to measure
all the necessary outcomes by September 2001. However, the
Agency must show significant progress each year, and include
within its Annual Performance Plans an explanation of when and
how the agency expects to improve data quality, ensure data
integration and comparability, and establish sufficient
publicly available information upon which to base conclusions.
In addition, the Agency must identify resource constraints and
legal impediments that may prevent the Agency from achieving
its mission.
Finally, the Committee expects the Agency to evaluate and
measure the effectiveness of all its program activities
(including, but not limited to, compliance monitoring,
enforcement, the dissemination of environmental information,
education, and technical assistance) which are designed to meet
long-term goals, and to share the results of those evaluations
with the public and the Committee. These studies shall include
estimates of program costs in a manner that allows comparison
of the effectiveness of different intervention strategies.
Performance reports should also indicate the accuracy,
sufficiency, and level of certainty regarding performance
information reported.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation \1\................... $650,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 645,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 674,348,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -24,348,000
\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 emerging environmental
issues.
The Committee has recommended an appropriation of
$650,000,000 for Science and Technology for fiscal year 2001,
an increase of $5,000,000 above last year's spending level, and
a decrease of $24,348,000 below the budget request.
The Committee's recommended appropriation includes the
following increases to the budget request:
1. +$2,500,000 for EPSCoR.
2. +$3,000,000 for Water Environmental Research Foundation.
3. +$4,000,000 for the American Water Works Association
Research Foundation.
4. +$2,000,000 for the National Decentralized Water
Resource Capacity Development Project, in coordination with
EPA, for continued training and research and development
program.
Other Science and Technology program levels include:
1. CCTI Transportation research is funded at the 2000 level
of $27,000,000.
2. Climate Change research is funded at $20,592,200, the
fiscal 2000 level.
3. STAR Fellowships are funded at $9,726,400, an increase
of $773,800 above the fiscal 2000 level.
4. Project EMPACT is funded $6,000,000.
5. Mobile sources research is provided $50,000,000, an
increase $1,943,100 above the fiscal 2000 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $1,900,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 1,900,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 2,099,461,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -199,461,000
The Environmental Programs and Management account
encompasses a broad range of abatement, prevention, and
compliance activities, 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 2001, the Committee has recommended
$1,900,000,000 for Environmental Programs and Management, the
same as last year's level and a decrease from the budget
request of $199,461,000. 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 programs and
activities 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. +$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.
2. +$1,000,000 for implementation of the National Biosolids
Partnership Program.
3. +$1,500,000 for source water protection programs.
4. +$3,000,000 for section 103 grants to the states to
develop regional haze programs under Title I, Part C of the
Clean Air Act.
Other Environmental Programs and Management activities are
funded at the following levels:
1. $42,650,000 for CCTI Buildings;
2. $2,500,000 for CCTI Transportation;
3. $22,000,000 for CCTI Industry;
4. $5,500,000 for CCTI International Capacity
Building;
5. $2,500,000 for CCTI State and Local programs;
6. $1,000,000 for CCTI Carbon Removal;
7. $7,800,000 for Project EMPACT;
8. $48,500,000 for compliance monitoring;
9. $82,500,000 for civil enforcement;
10. $4,000,000 for enforcement training;
11. $32,000,000 for planning and resource management;
12. $23,500,000 for criminal enforcement activities.
13. $36,610,500 for RCRA Corrective Action; and
14. $12,000,000 for the Multilateral Fund.
The Committee has provided no funds for the new
International Environmental Monitoring program, for Innovative
Community Partnership Program for the new Integrated
Information Initiative, and for the GLOBE program. In addition,
the Committee has reduced the funding available for contracts
and grants by $23,500,000, has proposed a general reduction of
$23,500,000, and has directed a reduction in payroll costs of
$9,444,600. This later reduction will result in no reduction-
in-force requirement and can be achieved through continuation
of normal attrition. The Committee appreciates the Agency's
commitment to reduce its personnel level to a maximum of 18,000
FTEs by the end of fiscal year 2001, and strongly encourages
the Agency to make every effort to reach and exceed this goal
as early in the fiscal year as possible.
Within available funds, EPA is directed to provide the
fiscal year 2000 funding level for the Environmental Finance
Centers as well as for the Regional Environmental Enforcement
Associations. Similarly, the Agency is directed to provide no
less than the budget request levels for Pesticide Registration
and Re-registration programs as well as for the Environmental
Education programs.
The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for section 103
grants to the states to develop regional haze programs under
title I, part C of the Clean Air Act. These funds must be used
to aid states in the development of emissions inventories,
quantification of natural visibility conditions, 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.
In addition to funds provided to the NRWA, RCAP, the GWPC,
NETC, and the Small Flows Clearinghouse, the Committee has
again provided $1,500,000 for source water protection programs.
The Committee intends that these funds be used to develop local
source water protection programs within each state utilizing
the infrastructure and process of an organization now engaged
in groundwater and wellhead protection programs. These
resources will provided 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.
The Committee has included bill language which prohibits
the expenditure of funds by the Administrator to make a final
determination on or to implement rules relative to the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program and Federal
Antidegradation Policy, and the Proposed Revisions to the Water
Quality Planning and Management Regulations Concerning Maximum
Daily Loads, published in the Federal Register in August 23,
1999. This action was taken as a result of a multitude of
concerns with the timing, impact, and cost of the proposed TMDL
rule registered by numerous States and businesses throughout
the country. The Committee's action should be interpreted as
nothing more than a brief holding action on this rule until
many of these matters get sorted out and further addressed by
the EPA, Congress, the States, the business community.
With regard to this TMDL issue, the Committee is aware that
EPA Region IX, and perhaps others, have recently issued and
implemented guidance to impose stringent TMDL requirements in
individuals permits prior to the finalization of the TMDL
rulemaking. The Committee notes that such guidance may be
inconsistent with a final rule and, further, that no Region of
the EPA has the authority to take such actions. The Agency is
strongly encouraged to direct its Regions to revoke any such
guidance and to take no further actions in this regard until
the TMDL rule is finalized.
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 and 2000
appropriation Acts 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 2001 Act.
At this point, there still does not appear to be a clear
strategy to resolve this issue. Currently, the Agency is in the
process of implementing a new stakeholder process for input on
many difficult issues. The Committee nevertheless remains
concerned that there may be conflicts between the internal and
external guidance of the Agency that will make it difficult to
resolve complaints in a fair and efficient manner.
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 again 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 again this year included bill language
which prohibits the use of funds to take certain actions for
the purpose of implementing or in contemplation of preparing to
implement, the Kyoto Protocol. Although the Agency may under
the current prohibition continue to conduct educational
seminars and activities, it 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 proposing or issuing of rules,
regulations, decrees, or orders, for the purpose of
implementing, or in preparation of implementing, 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.
Again this year, bill language has been included in Title
IV, General Provisions, prohibiting funds for use to promulgate
a final regulation to implement changes in the payment of
pesticide tolerance processing fees as proposed at 64 Federal
Register 31040, or any similar proposal.
The Committee is aware that the EPA is considering a policy
to revoke a tolerance under section 408 (1)(2) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended, when the
corresponding uses of a pesticide product have been voluntarily
withdrawn or canceled by the registrant. This policy may have
the unintended effect of unnecessarily undermining consumer
confidence and jeopardizing foreign and domestic commerce
without enhancing food safety. The Committee expects EPA to
allow sufficient time for food that may contain residues of a
voluntarily canceled use to clear the channels of trade before
revoking the associated tolerances unless the Agency determines
the dietary risk associated with such residues is unacceptable
based upon a notice of intent to cancel issued by the
Administrator.
The Committee is aware of bipartisan efforts in the
Congress to introduce legislation to provide better public
health protection from the threat of radon than the proposed
Radon in Drinking Water Rule. The Committee strongly encourages
EPA to work closely with the Congress in crafting this
legislation and directs that final promulgation of a drinking
water standard for radon be postponed until such legislation
can be fully considered.
Similarly, the Committee is concerned with the Agency's
efforts to force a number of communities to mitigate for
naturally occurring arsenic in their drinking water in excess
of EPA's interim maximum containment level at the same time the
Agency is pursuing new regulatory requirements to reduce the
current standard to 5 parts per billion. The costs associated
with having to mitigate this natural occurring substance twice
is more than many of these communities can afford, and is not
justified by any definitive health studies associated with the
citizens located in any of these communities. The Committee
therefore strongly urges the Agency to focus its efforts on
developing its new rule and cease all actions relative to the
enforcement on these communities of its interim requirements.
The Committee is aware that a number of organizations
including the National Academy of Sciences sponsored
Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR), the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have recognized that allowing certain
flexibility within the academic laboratory research environment
can potentially yield superior compliance while reducing
regulatory burden. The Committee is also aware of a new
collaborative initiative involving environmental health
professionals and academic research scientists from 10 major
academic research institutions and authorized state regulatory
officials from each of the EPA regions in the country to
establish consensus best practices for laboratory waste
management. The Committee supports this approach for
development of consensus best practices for the academic
research laboratory and applauds the initiative's commitment to
minimize the potential for harm to human health and the
environment and to promote excellence in environmental
stewardship, the basis of RCRA.
The Committee strongly encourages the Administrator to
participate in the initiative and to provide the maximum
flexibility permissible under the regulatory provisions of
RCRA, as appropriate, in support of the initiative. In
addition, the Committee strongly encourages the Administrator
to allow state agencies which have been delegated authority
under RCRA to provide such regulatory flexibility, as
appropriate, under the regulatory provisions of RCRA in support
of the initiative.
The Committee expects to receive within 12 months a report
from the Administrator evaluating the consensus best practices
developed through the initiative and the need for regulatory
changes, if any, to carry out the recommendations of the
initiative.
In addition, the Committee encourages the Administrator to
consider proposing regulatory changes within the statutory
requirements of RCRA based on the consensus approach to best
practices for academic research laboratory waste management
developed under this initiative.
The Committee has become aware of an effort being
undertaken by the major state environmental and energy
organizations to attempt to integrate energy and environmental
policies, programs, and regulations. State and local groups
have been meeting in an effort to develop strategies to reduce
multiple pollutants, improve energy efficiency, and enhance
reliability. Participants include the Environmental Council of
the States, the State and Territorial Air Pollution Prevention
Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Officials, the National; Association of State Energy Officials,
and the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners. The Committee also understands that other state
and local organizations have been involved in this effort. A
meeting of state and local representatives was held on March
23-24, 2000, with a larger meeting planned for September 24-27,
2000. Such exercises are strongly supported by the Committee,
and it is hoped that this effort will be an important step in
harmonizing this country's energy and environment activities,
including avoiding contradictory programs, duplicative
activities, and related problems. The Committee encourages EPA
as well as the Department of Energy to continue to cooperate
with this important effort.
Finally, the Committee notes that with the coming of the
2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, many
requirements for participation and financial support have and
will continue to fall to the Committee. Several projects
necessary to the success of the Games relative to programs of
the Environmental Protection Agency are currently being
considered by the Committee and have thus not been included in
the bill presented for the consideration of the House. However,
the Committee remains committed to fulfilling its obligations
in this regard and expects to address the issue in conference
with the Senate.
The Committee recognizes the environmental benefits of
robotic technology capable of inspecting for internal
structural integrity and strongly encourages investment in the
research necessary to allow for even greater environmental
benefits through application of the technology to above-ground
storage tanks, underground storage tanks, pipelines and other
potential applications. The Committee also encourages
development of the technology to permit its safety-certified
application to not only tank inspection, but also tank
cleaning, repair, maintenance and other potential applications.
EPA's Office of Environmental Information is urged to
develop a plan of action to facilitate federal and state
efforts to develop and implement integrated information systems
to improve environmental decisionmaking, reduce the burden on
regulated entities and improve the reliability of information
available to the public. Such systems should provide the
capability to implement standard environment management
functions such as permitting, compliance and enforcement. The
Agency should develop an integrated information system for
federal use that is compatible with the integrated State
systems.
The Committee recognizes that voluntary efforts to use non-
ozone depleting substances prior to the Clean Air Act mandate
provides benefit to stratospheric ozone recovery. The Committee
encourages EPA to develop a more comprehensive strategy to
promote the benefits of ozone protection. In developing this
strategy, EPA should consider increased public awareness,
education, and outreach on the importance of ozone protection
beyond those activities employed by EPA today and should design
and support voluntary incentives that encourage the use of non-
ozone depleting substances.
The Committee encourages the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to work more closely with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of the
Interior, and the Forest Service to develop a plan to mitigate
environment degradation caused by illegal immigrants crossing
into southeastern Arizona. This mitigation plan must be
provided to the Committee by October 1, 2001.
The Committee is concerned about the potential lack of
sound environmental insurance coverage at solid waste
landfills. Currently, federal guidelines require landfill
operators to assume all costs of closing a landfill and 30
years of post-closure care. A number of questions, however,
have been raised about the adequacy and structure of existing
financial assurance agreements covering landfill closure
obligations, raising the possibility that the public could
ultimately become liable for post-closure costs. The Committee,
therefore, directs the Administrator to conduct a study of
existing financial assurance agreements to determine if
sufficient safeguards have been properly maintained and future
liabilities minimized. The results of this study should be
completed expeditiously and shared with the Committee as well
as the public.
The VA-HUD Conference Report for fiscal year 2000 expressed
the Conferee's concern over EPA's NOx reduction program and the
apparent inequities created by two conflicting actions: EPA's
final rule on the 126 petitions and the D.C. Circuit Court
issuing a stay of the NOx SIP Call Rule. The Conferees
encouraged ``EPA to retain the linkage and refrain from
implementing the Section 126 regulation until the NOx SIP Call
litigation is complete.'' Unfortunately, EPA did not follow
this recommendation and now individual businesses are faced
with a Section 126 compliance deadline of May 2003 while both
the NOx SIP Call Rule and the 126 Rule are still in litigation.
The Committee would like to see these actions harmonized so
that both state regulators and affected businesses would have
input into the process and the air quality enhancements that
should move forward on a businesslike basis. The Committee
urges EPA to find an equitable way to work this out and to
recognize that states should be the primary entities to control
air pollution. States and businesses need and deserve a
reasonable and harmonized amount of time in which to implement
the NOx reduction requirements of each state.
To that end, should the NOx SIP Call Rule and the 126 Rule
be finally adjudicated and the court uphold these rules, the
Committee strongly suggests that EPA conduct a rulemaking on
the appropriate deadlines for the states to submit their SIPs
and the appropriate deadlines for businesses to comply with
both the SIP and the Section 126 Rule.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation \1\................... $34,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 32,409,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 34,094,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +1,591,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -94,000
\1\ Total does not include transfer of $11,500,000 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 2001, the Committee recommends a total
appropriation of $45,500,000 for the Office of Inspector
General, an increase of $2,091,000 above last year's funding
level and a decrease of $246,000 below the budget request. Of
the amount provided, $11,500,000 shall be derived by transfer
from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account.
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $23,931,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 62,600,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 23,931,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -38,669,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... 0
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 $23,931,000, the budget
request, for Buildings and Facilities. This funding level
represents a decrease of $38,669,000 below the fiscal year 2000
funding level. This recommendation provides for necessary
maintenance and repair costs at Agency facilities and the
ongoing renovation of EPA's new headquarters.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation \1\................... $1,270,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 1,400,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request \2\................... 1,337,473,300
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -130,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -67,473,300
\1\ Appropriation does not include $130,000,000, the same as provided in
FY2000, proposed in FY2001 for NIEHS and ATSDR in new, separate
accounts.
\2\ Request does not include $112,526,700 for ATSDR and NIEHS, provided
in a new, separate account in this bill.
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 are 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 2001, $1,270,000,000 has been recommended
by the Committee, a decrease of $130,000,000 below last year's
funding level, and a decrease of $67,473,300 from the amount
included in the budget request. However, the decrease below the
fiscal 2000 level is due to the transfer of $130,000,000 from
this account to create new, separate accounts for the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Both agencies of
the Department of Health and Human Services had previously been
funded in the Hazardous Substance Superfund account.
Bill language has been included which transfers $11,500,000
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:
$915,000,000 for Superfund response/cleanup actions. This
level of funding includes $91,600,000, the budget request, for
continued Brownfields activities.
$140,000,000 for enforcement activities.
$141,500,000 for management and support. This
recommendation includes a transfer of $11,500,000 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.
$28,500,000 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.
As noted above, funds previously provided through this
account for the ATSDR and NIEHS programs have been provided
through new, separate accounts created for these two programs
of the Department of Health and Human Services.
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 directs that the Agency continue to fund the
hazardous substance research centers at a level of no less than
$4,500,000. Similarly, the Committee continues to recognize the
positive contributions of the SITE program and directs that no
less than $6,500,000 be provided for this activity.
The Committee supports efforts to identify cost-effective,
innovative technology solutions for contamination problems such
as Brownfields, sediments, and fuel oxygenates.
In the conference reports accompanying the Appropriations
Acts for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the conferees directed EPA
not to initiate or order dredging or other invasive sediment
remediation technologies currently under study by the National
Academy of Sciences until the NAS study is complete and the
results are appropriately considered by the Agency. The pending
NAS study is addressing dredging, capping, source control,
natural recovery, and disposal of contaminated sediments, and
comparing the risks of each technology. The NAS expects to
submit its report of this study at the end of September 2000.
Accordingly, the Committee continues to direct that the Agency
take no action to order the use of invasive remedial
technologies until the NAS report has been completed and its
findings incorporated into EPA decision-making processes.
Exceptions are provided for voluntary agreements and for urgent
cases where contaminated sediment poses a significant threat to
public health.
The Committee reaffirms that dredging and other sediment
remediation actions should only be initiated where a
comprehensive analysis of long and short-term health and
environment impacts has been conducted as required by EPA's
Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy, published in April
1998.
Once again the Committee believes that any reversal of the
long-standing policy of the EPA 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 finally 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 regulations, the Committee, in its previous report,
strongly encouraged 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 were directed to
report to the Committees on Appropriations no later than May 1,
2000 on the status of the development of such an MOU. The
Committee received notice from both agencies that there is no
status in the development of a MOU as of May 1, 2000. The
Committee believes that both agencies have not worked in good
faith to resolve the problem of dual regulation by the federal
government in NRC licensed site decomissioning. As this area is
of interest to the Committee, to other agencies, and state
governments, the Committee directs the Administrator undertake
a review of EPA action on the MOU, the costs to the NRC
licensees associated with duel regulation by EPA and NRC on
site cleanup, the potential costs associated with listing these
facilities on the NPL, and options for resolving this issue by
regulation, litigation or legislation. The Administrator will
submit this review prior to March 31, 2001.
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
(Including Transfer of Funds)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $79,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 70,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 72,096,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +9,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... +6,904,000
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 is funded through the
imposition of a motor fuel tax of one-tenth of a cent per
gallon, which generates approximately $170,000,000 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 2001, the Committee has provided
$79,000,000, an increase of $9,000,000 above last year's
appropriated level and an increase of $6,904,000 above the
budget request. The Committee intends that these additional
funds be made available for efforts to mitigate leaking
underground storage tank problems associated with the presence
of MTBE.
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 tribes and notes
that its recommendation will allow for approximately 85% of the
total appropriation to be used in the states and tribes.
Oil Spill Response
(Including Transfer of Funds)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $15,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 15,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 15,712,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -712,000
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 2001,
the same as that provided last fiscal year and a decrease of
$712,000 from the budget request.
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $3,178,957,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 3,466,650,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 2,906,957,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -287,683,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... +272,000,000
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, tribes, and others to meet
Federal environmental statutory and regulatory requirements.
For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends a total of
$3,176,957,000, a decrease of $289,683,000 below the current
fiscal year spending level, and $270,000,000 above the level
proposed in the budget request.
The Committee's recommendation includes the following
program level:
$1,200,000,000 for Clean Water State Revolving Funds.
$825,000,000 for Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.
$1,068,957,000, the budget request, for state and tribal
program/categorical grants.
$75,000,000 for high priority U.S./Mexico border projects.
$8,000,000 for Alaska rural and Native Villages.
The Committee has provided the full budget request for
state and tribal program assistance/categorical grants;
however, the Committee's recommendation includes an allocation
different than that proposed in the budget submission for five
specific programs. 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 compliance; (8) underground
storage tanks; (9) public water system supervision; (10)
underground injection control; (11) wetlands program; (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; (16) radon grants; and
(17) enforcement and compliance assurance.
For State and local air assistance grants, the Committee
has provided $214,690,000, an increase of $11,000,000 above the
budget request and $16,000,000 above the fiscal 2000 level.
Section 106 pollution control grants have been provided
$245,529,300, an increase of $85,000,000 above the budget
request and $130,000,000 above last year's funding level. The
Committee believes that an adequately funded section 106
program is necessary for the states to meet the long-term needs
of the TMDL program. The Committee has not included a
legislative ``Rider'' proposed by the Administration to require
a 40% cost share for this important grant program. Section 319
non-point source pollution grants would receive $220,000,000,
an increase of $20,000,000 above the 2000 funding level but a
decrease of $30,000,000 below the budget request.
No funds have been provided for the newly proposed matching
grant program for the Great Lakes or for the information
integration initiative. Similarly, severe budget restrictions
have forced the Committee to recommend, without prejudice, that
no fiscal year 2001 funding be made available at this time for
the new Clean Air Partnership program.
State and local air pollution control agencies have been
facing a significant budget shortfall for many years.
Accordingly, the Committee has increased grants to state and
local air quality agencies under Section 105 of the Clean Air
Act by $11,000,000 over the Administration's request for fiscal
2001.
The Subcommittee is concerned that EPA has been
inappropriately setting aside and spending portions of Section
105 air grants to support activities that were historically
funded and should continue to be funded through EPA's own
budget (i.e., not federal grant funds intended for state and
local air agencies). In the fiscal 2001 budget, EPA was
intending to use Section 105 grants to support training
activities, an emission inventory improvement program and a
heavy-duty truck and bus idling study, for example. These are
very important activities that should be funded; however, the
resources to support them should not be taken from state and
local air grants.
EPA's practice of setting aside and spending Section 105
grants, rather than distributing them to state and local air
agencies, is particularly troublesome because the Agency has
decided to make these expenditures unilaterally. There are
certainly instances in which it is expeditious for EPA to
withhold grant funds from state and local agencies to be spent
at the national level, including making equipment purchases on
behalf of state and local air agencies or to pay for projects
or activities that state and local agencies have decided to
support collectively and for which it is administratively more
advantageous to have EPA fund directly. However, the decision
to withhold state and local grant funds for expenditure
directly by EPA should only be made after conferring with state
and local air agencies and obtaining their concurrence. This
should be done only for activities that are the responsibility
of state and local air agencies.
In this fiscal year and in the future, the Committee
directs EPA to fund activities such as those identified above
(i.e., training, the emission inventory project, the heavy-duty
bus and truck idling study), and similar activities that are
federal responsibilities, from within the agency's own budget
and to allow state and local agencies to use the funds that
Congress has earmarked for the many important responsibilities
facing them. Additionally, in fiscal 2001 and in the future,
EPA should withhold state and local grant funds at the national
level to pay for activities or programs only if such activities
are efforts that will benefit state and local air agencies, if
the activities are the responsibility of state and local air
agencies and if state and local air agencies have provided
their concurrence.
Once again this year, bill language has been included to
settle administrative actions taken against two communities
relative to audits of construction grants which were issued and
approved during the mid-1970's. In this regard, the Committee
is aware that problems remain in the close-down of the title II
Clean Water Act construction grant program, particularly in the
final resolution of audits and grantee requests for review or
waiver. In the interest of minimizing the need for additional
administrative appeals, judicial review, and further
legislative remedies, EPA is directed to resolve, equitably and
as expeditiously as its resources will allow, grantee requests
for review or waiver, audit resolutions, and appeals in
accordance with the following guidelines:
1. Once a grantee has made a prima facie case
establishing its entitlement to grant funding, the
burden of proof should be on EPA to deny such
entitlement;
2. A prior affirmative determination favoring a
grantee made by the Corps of Engineers, a State agency,
or the EPA, should be accepted unless it is manifestly
contrary to applicable law. Upon request of a grantee,
any prior negative determination should be reviewed de
novo;
3. All project costs should be reviewed, without
regard to whether such costs were previously claimed,
and shall be deemed eligible if based upon statute,
regulation, EPA or state program guidance, prior
decisions, or practice of EPA or a state agency or is
otherwise established according to law, when the
provision or practice relied upon by the grantee is
reasonably clear or adequately established;
4. The Agency should not assess interest against, nor
seek payment from, a grantee until final resolution of
all administrative or judicial reviews or requests for
waiver, and should assess interest only if justified
under the principles set forth in Baltimore v. Browner;
and
5. EPA should take all necessary actions to preserve
the availability of funds previously appropriated under
title II of the Clean Water Act, including section 206,
in an amount adequate to compensate grantees for their
grant funding entitlements upon final administrative or
judicial resolution of grantee requests for review or
grant entitlements as otherwise determined by a state
agency, the EPA, or the Congress.
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.
The Committee remains concerned with EPA's chosen preferred
alternative for constructing secondary treatment facilities at
the USIWTP near San Diego. The Committee is aware of requests
from EPA to raise the existing cap on construction spending at
the IWTP in order to build 25 mdg of secondary ponds at the
IWTP with previously appropriated monies in the Border
Environmental Infrastructure Fund.
The Committee is aware that significant concerns exist
regarding the limited capacity of EPA's preferred alternative,
the lack of available land on which future capacity could be
constructed, and its inadequacy in addressing increasing future
cross-border sewage flows in the region. The Committee is also
aware of at least one private sector proposal to construct in
Mexico similar secondary facilities which would also reclaim
the water for use in Mexico, and would have considerably
greater potential capacity more suited to the long term sewage
treatment needs of the rapidly growing border region.
The Committee believes that it would be in appropriate to
lift the cap at this time, or to permit construction of a
limited capacity secondary treatment facility at the IWTP which
would not meet long term sewage treatment needs. The Committee
urges EPA to continue working with the IBWC, the State
Department, and its counterparts in Mexico to ascertain whether
such a Mexico-based facility could become viable in a timely
manner.
The Committee acknowledges the need to resolve this
situation and recognizes construction of a secondary treatment
facility on United States soil may be necessary in the future.
The Committee therefore will continue to monitor closely
progress made in negotiations with all interested parties.
Executive Office of the President
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $5,150,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 5,108,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 5,201,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +42,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. -51,000
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 $5,150,000 for
fiscal year 2001, an increase of $42,000 above the fiscal year
2000 appropriation and a decrease of $51,000 from the
President's budget request.
Public Law 105-261 transferred responsibility for satellite
technology export licensing from the Department of Commerce to
the Department of State as part of the International Traffic in
Arms Regulations (ITAR). An unfortunate and unintended
consequence of that move has been that university-based
fundamental science and engineering research, widely
disseminated and unclassified, has become subject to overly
restrictive and inconsistent ITAR direction. The result has
been critical delays in NASA-funded research projects and has
forced some universities to forego participation in such
projects. Such research traditionally has been excluded from
export controls under the fundamental research exception. The
Committee finds the current situation to be unacceptable and
directs the Office of Science and Technology Policy Director,
in consultation with the NASA Administrator and the Secretary
of State, to expeditiously issue clarification of ITAR that
ensures that university collaborations and exchanges vital to
the continued success of federally-funded research are allowed
to continue in a manner consistent with the long-standing
fundamental research exception.
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY and OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $2,911,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 2,816,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 3,020,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +95,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -109,000
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 2001, the Committee has recommended
$2,911,000 for the CEQ and OEQ, an increase of $95,000 above
last year's spending level and a decrease of $109,000 from the
budget request. The Committee's proposed funding for CEQ will
allow full cost of living increases for the current staff of 20
FTEs as well as other necessary expense adjustments. The
Committee directs that CEQs total staffing level not exceed 22
FTEs at any time during the fiscal year.
As in previous years, bill language is included which
stipulates that, notwithstanding the National Environmental
Policy Act, the CEQ can operate with one council member and
that member shall be considered the chairman for purposes of
conducting the business of the CEQ and OEQ.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $33,661,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 33,666,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 33,660,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -5,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... +1,000
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 $33,661,000 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 2001.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $876,730,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 3,338,421,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 3,580,477,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -2,461,691,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -2,703,747,000
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 2001, the Committee recommends $876,730,000
which represents a decrease of $2,461,691,000 from the fiscal
year 2000 appropriation and a decrease of $2,703,747,000 from
the 2001 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
(Including Transfer of Funds)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $300,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 2,768,009,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 2,909,220,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -2,468,009,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -2,609,220,000
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 2001, the Committee recommends $300,000,000
for disaster relief, a decrease of $2,609,220,000 from the
budget request and a decrease of $2,468,009,000 compared to the
fiscal year 2000 level. The amount recommended includes
$300,000,000 in contingent emergency funding.
The Committee recommendation includes provision for the
transfer of $5,500,000 to ``Emergency Management Planning and
Assistance'' for the consolidated emergency performance grant
program and the Project Impact program. Also included is a
transfer of $30,000,000 to the ``Flood Map Modernization Fund''
for flood map modernization activities. In addition, language
is included which provides that up to $50,000,000 may be
obligated for pre-disaster mitigation activities and repetitive
loss buyouts following disaster declarations.
PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... 0
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 0
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... $30,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -30,000,000
The budget request for fiscal year 2001 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 2001. As in the
past, the Committee believes this program should be administer
as part of the Emergency Management and Planning Assistance
account. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has also included
authority within the ``Disaster Relief'' account to use
disaster relief funding for pre-disaster mitigation activities.
Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account
State Share Loan
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $1,295,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 1,295,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,678,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -383,000
Limitation on direct loans
Administrative expenses
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation... ($19,000,000) $420,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation.... (25,000,000) 420,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request... (25,000,000) 427,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 (0) 0
appropriation....................
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 (0) -7,000
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 2001, the Committee recommends $1,295,000
for the cost of State Share Loans, a decrease of $383,000 from
the President's request and the same as provided in fiscal year
2000. In addition, the Committee has provided $19,000,000 for
the limitation on direct loans pursuant to Section 319 of the
Stafford Act, as well $420,000 for administrative expenses of
the program.
Salaries and Expenses
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $190,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 179,950,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 221,024,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +10,050,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -31,024,000
This activity encompasses the salaries and expenses
required to provided executive direction and administrative
staff support for all agency programs in both the headquarters
and field offices. The account funds both program support and
executive direction activities.
The bill includes $190,000,000 for salaries and expenses, a
decrease of $31,024,000 from the budget request and an increase
of $10,050,000 when compared to fiscal year 2000. 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.
Office of Inspector General
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $8,015,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 7,965,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 8,476,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +50,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -461,000
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 2001, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $8,015,000 for the Office of Inspector
General, an increase of $50,000 above the fiscal year 2000
appropriation and a decrease of $461,000 from the fiscal year
2001 budget request.
Emergency Management Planning and Assistance
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $267,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 266,782,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 269,652,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +218,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -2,652,000
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 2001 appropriation
of $267,000,000, an increase of $218,000 to the fiscal year
2000 level and a decrease of $2,652,000 to the fiscal year 2001
budget request. In addition, the Committee recommends a
transfer of $5,500,000 from the Disaster Relief account to
consist of $2,900,000 for the consolidated emergency
performance grants program and $2,600,000 for administration of
Project Impact programs.
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 believes the
program should be administered as part of the EMPA account. The
Committee has included authority for FEMA to use funds from the
Disaster Relief account for pre-disaster mitigation purposes.
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.
The Committee encourages FEMA's continued support to those
communities which have received support in the past to ensure
the initiative has a long term effect on reducing disaster
costs.
The Committee is pleased that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency has worked closely with the International
Hurricane Center at Florida International University in the
development of a Windstorm Simulation and Modeling Program. The
Committee urges FEMA to continue this effort, including such
activities as improved flood and surge models, significantly
more accurate flood mapping using airborne laser technology,
the development of improved emergency management and mitigation
tools and other measures. The ultimate benefit of this effort
will be to reduce property damage and threats to human life
from hurricanes and other severe windstorms.
The Committee notes that FEMA has published an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on insurance requirements for
public assistance. The Committee remains concerned that
requiring insurance as a condition of receiving public
assistance exceeds FEMA's statutory authority, discourages
attempts to mitigate damage before it occurs, assumes a
fundamental misunderstanding of the insurance market, and
merely shifts the costs of disasters from the federal
government to states, municipalities, and private non-profit
hospitals and universities. In addition, the Committee notes
that denying disaster assistance to underinsured or uninsured
entities that suffer catastrophic losses as a result of a
disaster could result in significant consequential losses of
public services, medical care, and education. The Committee
urges FEMA to complete a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the
proposed rule and conduct extensive outreach with potentially
affected entities.
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 2001.
Emergency Food and Shelter Program
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $110,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 110,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 140,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -30,000,000
The Emergency Food and Shelter Program within the Federal
Emergency Management Agency originated in the 1983 Emergency
Jobs legislation. Minor modifications were incorporated in the
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. The program is
designed to help address the problems of the hungry and
homeless. Appropriated funds are awarded to a National Board to
carry out programs for sheltering and feeding the needy. This
program is nationwide in scope and provides such assistance
through local private voluntary organizations and units of
government selected by local boards in areas designated by the
National Board as being in highest need.
The Committee has recommended $110,000,000 for the
Emergency Food and Shelter Program, the same as provided in
fiscal year 2000 and $30,000,000 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 2001.
FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND
(Transfer of Funds)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $30,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 5,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +25,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... +30,000,000
In fiscal year 2000 FEMA proposed and the Congress
established a Flood Map Modernization Fund through which
appropriations and contributions from State and local
governments would flow. The objective of the Fund is to
establish a mechanism through which a comprehensive flood map
modernization program can be financed. The Committee notes that
the proposal to replenish the Fund through the establishment of
a flood map license fee has not yet been enacted. In
recognition of the need to update flood map, the Committee
recommends using a portion of disaster relief funding for this
purpose, with the expected result being the long term reduction
in losses caused by structures being placed in flood-prone
areas.
The Committee believes FEMA should prioritize its Flood Map
Modernization activities to achieve the highest payoff for the
investment. To this end, the Committee recommends that emphasis
first be placed on initiating flood studies leading to map
panels for communities with unstudied and unmapped flood
hazards. Likewise, the Committee believes that the process of
converting existing map panels to a digital format for use by
the general population should be a lower priority since the
payoff for this investment would be marginal at best. Due to
their extensive experience in similar areas, FEMA is encouraged
to work with multi-jurisdictional regional planning and
development organizations that serve general units of local
government.
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 $25,736,000, and for mitigation activities,
not to exceed $77,307,000. 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 2001 does not currently exist. The
Committee has included bill language which extends this
authority for fiscal year 2001.
NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND
(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $20,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 20,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 20,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriations....... 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... 0
The budget request includes a program to address the issue
of repetitive loss properties within the National Flood
Insurance Program. This program targets 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
Committee recommends $20,000,000 for this effort in fiscal year
2001, to be derived by transfer from the National Flood
Insurance Program.
General Services Administration
FEDERAL CONSUMER INFORMATION CENTER
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $7,122,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 2,622,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 6,822,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +4,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. +300,000
The Consumer Information Center (CIC) was established
within the General Services Administration (GSA) by Executive
Order on October 26, 1970, to help Federal departments and
agencies promote and distribute consumer information collected
as a byproduct of the Government's program activities.
On January 28, 2000, the Consumer Information Center
assumed responsibility for the operations of the Federal
Information Center (FIC) program with the resulting
organization being officially named the Federal Consumer
Information Center (FCIC). The FIC program was established
within the General Services Administration in 1966, and was
formalized by Public Law 95-491 in 1980. The program's purpose
is to provide the public with direct information about all
aspects of Federal programs, regulations, and services. To
accomplish this mission, the FIC uses contractual services to
respond to public inquiries via a nationwide toll-free
telephone call center. The FIC was previously funded by the
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act.
The new Federal Consumer Information Center combines the
nationwide toll-free telephone assistance program and the
database of the FIC with the CIC website and publications
distribution programs. The FCIC is a one-stop source for
citizens to get information about government programs and
everyday consumer issues.
In fiscal year 2001, the FCIC program expects to respond to
2.7 million phone calls, distribute approximately 5,600,000
publications, and receive 13.5 million web accesses. This
represents delivery of a total of 21.8 million information
products to the public.
Public Law 98-63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a
revolving fund for the FCIC. Under this fund, FCIC activities
are financed from the following: annual appropriations from the
general revenues of the Treasury, reimbursements from agencies
for distribution of publications, user fees collected from the
public, and any other income incident to FCIC activities. All
are available as authorized in appropriation acts without
regard to fiscal year limitations.
The Committee recommends $7,122,000 for the Federal
Consumer Information Center. This reflects an increase of
$300,000 from the fiscal year 2001 budget request and is
necessary to bring FCIC's annual income more in balance with
its administrative expenses and to shore up the FCIC Fund
balance.
The bill includes a limitation of $12,000,000 on the
availability of the revolving fund. Any revenues accruing to
this fund during fiscal year 2001 in excess of this amount
shall remain in the fund and are not available for expenditure
except as authorized in appropriations Acts. Despite FCIC's
actions to reduce costs, fixed expenses have continued to
increase while the appropriation has remained stable and other
funding sources, such as users fees, have declined due to the
reduction in the public's demand for printed publications. This
has resulted in a projected Fund balance of $291,000 at the end
of fiscal year 2001, an amount insufficient to offset
administrative expenses in future years.
The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from
Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications,
user fees from the public, and other income. FCIC's anticipated
obligations for fiscal year 2001 will total approximately
$10,927,000.
The Committee supports the recommendation by the General
Services Administration (GSA) that the Director of the Federal
Consumer Information Center is of executive level and deserves
the SES designation. The additional responsibilities added as a
result of the merger of FIC and CIC make the SES position even
more imperative. Therefore, the Committee directs GSA to
allocate one SES position from its allotment immediately for
the Director of the Federal Consumer Information Center
regardless of whether OPM provides an additional slot to GSA
for this purpose. The Committee is aware that GSA currently has
vacancies within the current allocation of SES slots and could
request an additional SES slot from OPM for its next allocation
if all SES positions are filled in the future.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $13,713,600,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 13,600,819,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 14,035,300,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +112,781,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. -321,700,000
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 has recommended a total program level of
$13,713,600,000 in fiscal year 2001, which is a decrease of
$321,700,000 from the budget request and an increase of
$112,781,000 compared to the fiscal year 2000 enacted
appropriation.
The Committee has included a general provision in the bill
which prohibits the expenditure of funds for joint NASA and Air
Force research programs. The Committee directs NASA to
terminate all joint aeronautics and space related research
programs with the United States Air Force. In addition, the
Committee directs NASA to terminate participation with the AF-
NASA Council on Aeronautics and the AFSPC-NRO-NASA Partnership
Council.
The Committee is aware of continuing concerns within the
research community about NASA support for Research and Analysis
(R&A;) activities.
The Research and Analysis program contributes directly to
NASA's mandate to engage in effective science and provides the
clear scientific goals and questions which define our nation's
space exploration missions. The Committee is concerned that
shortfalls in R&A; degrade the public return from more visible
and expensive flight programs, while diminishing science
capability, flexibility and overall competitiveness within
space science and technology fields Program support costs and
internal ``taxes'' are also eroding the very marginal increases
in these accounts.
The 1998 National Research Council Report ``supporting
Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Science Programs,''
offered significant new findings and important recommendations
for strengthening this activity as well as Data Analysis (DA)
programs. These recommendations have not been enthusiastically
embraced by NASA despite their clear potential for improving
the effectiveness of NASA's flight programs, and for supporting
and exploiting the innovative strengths in science and
technology found in academia and industry. These activities are
the least costly phase of space exploration.
Therefore, the Committee directs NASA to conduct a joint
study with the National Research Council and the National
Academy of Public Administration on the health and resilience
of R&A; and DA. The study shall include: a review of the status
in implementing all six recommendations contained in the 1998
NRC report, barriers to implementation, and specific guidance
on optimal funding levels for R&A; and DA. The Committee
believes a review of the 1998 study will benefit from NAPA's
involvement. In particular, NAPA will have a beneficial role in
guiding a cost-benefit review of the optimal balance between
flight programs and the R&A; and DA programs, and measuring the
effectiveness of management and strategic planning for R&A; and
DA activities. Preliminary findings from the study be submitted
to the Committees on Appropriations no later than March 30,
2001.
HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $5,499,900,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 5,487,900,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 5,499,900,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +12,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. 0
This appropriation provides for human space flight
activities, including development of the international space
station andoperation 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 $5,499,900,000 for the
human space flight account in fiscal year 2001. The
recommendation is the same as the budget request and
$12,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted
appropriation.
The conference report accompanying the FY 2000
appropriations bill for NASA included a requirement that NASA
develop and deliver to the Committees on Appropriations a
comprehensive plan for Space Shuttle upgrades. The Committee is
pleased that NASA completed the report and provided it to the
Committee in a timely manner and that NASA has supported the
recommendations of the plan by requesting a total of $256
million in the budget for fiscal year 2001. The Committee
recommendation includes full funding of the budget request for
Shuttle Upgrades and encourages NASA to move forward in an
expeditious manner to accomplish the goals outlined in the
report.
SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND TECHNOLOGY
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $5,606,700,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 5,580,895,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 5,929,400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +25,805,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. -322,700,000
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, aero-space
technology, advanced concepts and technology, space operations,
and academic programs. Funds are also included for the
construction, maintenance, and operation of programmatic
facilities.
The Committee recommends $5,606,700,000 for Science,
Aeronautics and Technology in fiscal year 2001. The amount
recommended is $322,700,000 below the budget request and
$25,805,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2000.
The budget request for Space Science is $2,398,800,000. The
Committee recommends a funding level of $2,378,800,000, a
reduction of $20,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee
notes that the ``Living with a Star'' program is a new start in
fiscal year 2001, and while the cost is initially quite low,
the costs escalate rapidly to $64,000,000 in 2002 and balloon
to $177,000,000 by 2005. The Committee is concerned with the
manner in which NASA is administering the program and believes
the NASA Inspector General should review the program at this
time to ensure that contract awards are made only after full
and open competition. Pending completion of this review, the
Committee recommends no funding for the program in fiscal year
2001.
The budget request for Life and Microgravity Sciences and
Applications is $304,000,000. The Committee recommends a
funding level of $329,000,000, an increase of $25,000,000 to
the budget request. The increase is for NASA to fund ground-
based investigators to prepare for space flight opportunities,
particularly in the area of life sciences. The Committee has
previously expressed concern for a lack of dedicated life and
microgravity research missions being flown on shuttle during
assembly of the International Space Station. The lack of
manifested flight opportunities, along with schedule delays in
station assembly, is making research flight opportunities both
unpredictable and unreliable. The lack of flight opportunities
is not only leading to a backlog of critical research, but is
also having harmful effects on the long-term health of the
academic and commercial communities who are intended to be the
primary users of the space station.
The Committee therefore directs NASA to submit a report to
Congress by January 15, 2001, detailing the planned life and
microgravity research opportunities in the shuttle manifest,
beginning after the flight of STS-107 and extending until the
space station reaches its full research capability. The
Committee directs NASA to include as part of this report (1)
any changes in the original schedule for development of
research capabilities onboard the station, including the
expected date for attaining full research capability, and (2) a
plan for manifesting dedicated Shuttle research missions in
order to increase and stabilize life and microgravity research
flight opportunities during ISS assembly.
The Committee also encourages NASA to work closely with the
academic and commercial sectors to further reduce the lead-time
necessary for scheduling a research experiment for a shuttle
flight opportunity, while maintaining mission safety
requirements.
The Committee recommendation for Earth Sciences is
$1,405,800,000, the same as the budget request. The Committee
is aware of the need for NASA to obtain global wind profile
data to improve the understanding of the climate. The Committee
encourages NASA to obtain this data through purchase from
commercial sources.
The budget request for Aero-Space Technology is
$1,193,000,000. The Committee recommends a funding level of
$859,000,000, a net reduction of $333,100,000 from the budget
request. The Committee is concerned about NASA's commitment to
long-term aeronautics research and development programs and the
effect the declining funding will have on NASA's ability to
provide high-risk technology advances for safer, cleaner,
quieter, and more affordable air travel. In order to help
reverse the trend of the last three years, during which funding
for civil aircraft programs has been substantially reduced, the
Committee recommendation includes an increase of $15,000,000
for the Ultra Efficient Engine Technology program, resulting in
a total funding level of $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. The
Committee recommendation does not include the budget request of
$9,000,000 for the Small Air Transport System initiative, a new
start for fiscal year 2001. However, the Committee recognizes
the validity of the program and will evaluate the merits of
this program should further funding become available. Likewise,
the Committee is concerned that NASA has taken on the mantel of
building more efficient airports which is more appropriately
the mission of the Federal Aviation Administration. For this
reason, the Committee recommends a reduction of $49,100,000 to
the budget request for the Aviation System Capacity program.
Finally, the Committee is unable to fund the entire Space
Launch Initiative, a new start in fiscal year 2001, and
recommends a reduction of $290,000,000. The Committee is
supportive of NASA's efforts to reduce the cost of access to
space for the government, academic, and commercial sectors. In
particular, the Committee feels the Alternative Access
proposals hold promise for decreasing dependence on the limited
means currently available to resupply the International Space
Station. The Committee commends NASA for developing this
program and the entire Space Launch Initiative as a way to
reduce space access cost and bring new participants into the
space launch business. However, the Committee is unable to
accommodate funding for the initiatives at this time. The
Committee will continue to monitor the proposals and may be
able to address the issue prior to final enactment of the
bill.The Committee commends the collaboration between Wright
Patterson Air Force Base and NASA Glenn on polymer battery
technology research and recommends continued funding for the
Polymer Energy Rechargeable System in fiscal year 2001.
The Committee recommends $529,400,000 for Space Operations,
the same as the budget request.
The budget request for Academic Programs is $100,000,000.
The Committee recommends $105,400,000 for fiscal year 2001, an
increase of $5,400,000 for the EPSCoR program to raise the
level to $10,000,000, the same as provided in fiscal years 1999
and 2000.
The committee is aware that the NASA Sounding Rocket
Operations Contract (NSROC) competitive subcontract procurement
for rocket systems now underway requires any new rocket system
to be privately developed, and that at least one such new
rocket system has been formally proposed in response to this
procurement solicitation. The committee has supported private
development of U.S. launch capabilities as a way to strengthen
the U.S. launch industry and help introduce increased
efficiency into NASA's suborbital rocket program. The committee
is disturbed to learn that the NSROC contractor, with NASA
approval and with the planned use of appropriated funding, may
now be considering funding development of a new, non-U.S.
sounding rocket system when it has been demonstrated there is
interest in a suitable privately developed rocket system by one
or more companies in the United States. Further, government
funding for development of any new rocket system is
inconsistent with current U.S. commercial launch policy, which
clearly states that the government must purchase transportation
services from U.S. commercial providers when they are
available. Given the Committee's interest and progress to date
in pursuing privately funded sounding rockets, NASA is directed
to utilize a privately developed rocket system and may not
expend any appropriated funds for development or improvement of
any other competing rocket system on a ``cost reimbursable''
basis when a privately developed rocket system is available and
meets government requirements.
MISSION SUPPORT
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $2,584,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 2,512,024,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 2,584,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +71,976,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. 0
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 $2,584,000,000 for the
mission support account. The recommended amount is $71,976,000
above the fiscal year 2000 appropriation and the same as the
budget request.
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.
The Committee is aware of the significant cost savings,
flexibility, and increased efficiency which have accrued in the
private corporate sector through the utilization of fractional
ownership of business aircraft. Fractional ownership provides
access to an entire fleet of aircraft, as well as the
availability of a mix of aircraft types and sizes, all on very
short notice. The Committee believes that fractional ownership
of administrative aircraft could prove extremely beneficial for
NASA in reducing costs and overcoming the inefficiencies of the
administrative support aircraft currently owned and operated by
NASA. Therefore, the Committee directs NASA to establish a two-
year test program of fractional ownership for aircraft it uses
for administrative support requirements to determine the
flexibility, efficiency, and cost benefits for the government.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $23,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 20,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 22,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation........ +3,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. +1,000,000
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 $23,000,000 for the Office of the
Inspector General in fiscal year 2001, an increase of
$3,000,000 to the amount provided in fiscal year 2000 and an
increase of $1,000,000 to the budget request for fiscal year
2001.
Administrative Provisions
The bill includes three administrative provisions as
proposed in the budget, and carried in prior appropriations
acts.
National Credit Union Administration
CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FACILITY
(Including Transfer of Funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Limitation on administrative Revolving loan
direct loans expenses program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation..................... $3,000,000,000 $296,303 $1,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation...................... 18,600,000,000 257,000 1,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request..................... 20,700,000,000 257,000 1,000,000
Comparison with 2000 appropriation.................. -15,600,000,000 +39,303 0
Comparison with 2001 request........................ -17,100,000,000 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 in order to address concerns about
Y2K liquidity demands. Preliminary findings by GAO suggest that
although the CLF was used to address liquidity demands in
preparation for Y2K, these demands were not necessarily
``emergency demands''. The Committee is concerned that the use
of CLF funds has expanded beyond Congressional intent and
beyond the scope explicitly stated in budget material and
hearing testimony. Moreover, daily demand for loans from CLF
never exceeded $159,000,000. Most CLF lending was funded from
CLF's own resources and credit unions also borrowed funds from
the Federal Reserve discount window. CLF used $49,200,000 in
borrowed funds from the Federal Financing Bank only once, for a
three-day period. While data provided by GAO does not recommend
or suggest an alternative limitation level, the Committee finds
that the $600,000,000 borrowing limitation, which has remained
unchanged since 1980, may prove inadequate to address and
emergency liquidity need. The Committee also recognizes that
there is no precise formula available to determine how much
liquidity might be required by credit unions in the event of an
unanticipated economic downturn. The current state of the
credit union industry is strong and continues to grow making it
more difficult to prepare for an emergency situation. The
Committee recommends a limitation of $2,000,000,000 on CLF
lending activity to member credit unions from borrowed funds.
While the limitation has been raised to address concerns
about the adequacy of funds available during an emergency
liquidity drain, the Committee does not support the use of CLF
funds to indirectly enhance a member credit union portfolio.
The CLF was originally created to serve as a lender of last
resort for credit unions as these institutions did not have
access to the Federal Reserve's discount window prior to the
creation of the CLF. The current function of the CLF is to
serve as an intermediary lender and should be utilized when all
other sources of liquidity have been exhausted with the
exception of the Federal Reserve discount window.
Since 1980, credit unions that maintain transaction
accounts or accept certain other specified types of deposits
qualify for the Federal Reserve discount window. Currently, 62%
of credit unions meet the criteria for accessing the Federal
Reserve discount window. Because of the large growth and
changes within the credit union industry, the CLF may require
changes to its authorizing statute. For this reasons, the
Committee strongly urges the authorizing committee to
investigate the current purpose for the CLF and make changes to
the authorizing statute as appropriate. The Committee looks
forward to working with the authorizing committee toward this
end.
The Committee recommends the budget request of $296,303 for
administrative expenses, and increase of $39,303 above the
fiscal year 2000 appropriation. Additionally the Committee
recommends that $1,000,000 be transferred to the Community
Development Revolving Loan Fund of which $650,000 is provided
for loans to community development credit unions and $350,000
is provided specifically to fund the technical assistance grant
program. The technical assistance grant program provides
assistance to credit unions serving low-income and undeserved
communities. Technical assistance grants would be available to
low-income designated credit unions and those credit unions
that expand service to low-income communities or investment
areas. The purpose of these awards is to strengthen these
credit unions by funding the following activities; improved
technology and service delivery systems; economic development;
consumer and entrepreneurial education; microenterprise
business development; employment opportunities through
community business development; and credit union infrastructure
and staff development.
The Committee recognizes that the Community Development
Revolving Loan Fund was originally established to stimulate
economic development in low-income communities. The total Fund
balance is currently $11,700,000, and technical assistance
grants are currently funded from interest accrued from Fund
loans. The demand for technical assistance has greatly
surpassed available funding.
The National Credit Union Administration is required to
provide the Committees on Appropriations a detailed budget
estimate of the costs associated with each activity of the
community Development Revolving Loan Fund as part of the Budget
Justifications. For fiscal year 2001, NCUA shall transmit this
information to the Committee by November 1, 2000 for 30 days of
review.
National Science Foundation
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $4,064,300,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 3,897,184,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 4,572,400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +167,116,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. -508,100,000
Established in 1950 and receiving its first appropriation
of $225,000 in 1951, the National Science Foundation celebrates
its 50th anniversary as an important, highly regarded federal
agency during fiscal year 2001. 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. Since its
first appropriation in 1951, NSF has grown to what in fiscal
2001 will be a multi-billion dollar agency.
The Committee recommends a total of $4,064,300,000 for
fiscal year 2001. This recommendation is an increase of
$167,116,000 above last year's appropriation and a decrease of
$508,100,000 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 besubject 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 2001 recommendation....................... $3,135,690,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 2,966,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 3,540,680,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +169,690,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. -404,990,000
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 $3,135,690,000 for
Research and Related Activities in fiscal year 2001, an
increase of $169,690,000 above last year's funding level and a
decrease of $404,990,000 below the budget request. The
Committee's recommendation includes the following program
levels: (1) Biological Sciences, $449,930,000; (2) Computer and
Information Science and Engineering, $439,420,000; (3)
Engineering, $411,040,000; (4) Geosciences, $523,800,000; (5)
Mathematical and Physical Sciences, $802,130,000; (6) Social
Behavioral and Economic Sciences, $157,640,000; (7) U.S. Polar
Research Programs, $201,900,000; (8) U.S. Antarctic Logistical
Support Activities, $62,600,000; and (9) Integrative
Activities, $87,230,000.
The Committee's recommendation has been developed using the
same percentage increase for each directorate as that proposed
in the budget submission. In its distribution of funds within
each directorate, the Foundation is directed to provide each
program, project, and activity the same percentage as that
proposed in the budget request.
Although acknowledging the funding flexibility afforded the
Foundation through its use of the Opportunity Fund, budget
constraints have forced the Committee to again this year
recommend no funding for this activity within the Integrative
Activities funding line. 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.
The NSF is commended on the NSB report, ``Environmental
Science and Engineering for the 21st Century: the Role of the
National Science Foundation,'' and encourages the Foundation to
consider incorporating the recommendations of that report in
its fiscal 2002 budget submission.
The Committee is concerned with the lack of research
addressing linkages between human health and the world's
oceans. Marine systems and processes impact public health in a
variety of ways included natural disasters, waterbone diseases,
and toxic algal blooms. The report by the National Research
Council, ``Monsoons to Microbes: Understanding the Oceans Role
in Human Health,'' describes a broad spectrum of
interdisciplinary research that would lead to a better
understanding of the role of oceans in human health. The
Committee urges the NSF to work with the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences and other relevant agencies and
research institutions to examine this report and identify
specific areas of cooperation that should be jointly pursued to
more fully understand and mitigate the impacts of the oceans on
public health, particularly in the areas of lessening the human
consequences of natural disasters, minimizing the outbreak and
spread of epidemics and toxic algal blooms, keeping
recreational beaches and seafood safe, and extracting life-
savings products from the sea.
The Foundation is urged to provide up to $5,000,000 for an
independently competed Children's Research Initiative within
the funds made available for social and behavioral sciences.
The Committee recognizes that previous funds provided for this
purpose have funded some research on children's issues. The
Committee believes, however, that NSF should more appropriately
implement the National Science and Technology's Council's
recommendation that this should be a separate and dedicated
initiative. While the NSF should employ its normal peer
reviewed approach for determining grants for the Children's
Research Initiative, funding priority should be given to
institutions of higher education that have both an
interdisciplinary base of knowledge in child and human sciences
and an existing delivery system for outreach to bring the
benefits of this research to the majority of residents in any
given state. A strong emphasis should also be placed on theory-
driven, applied policy-related research on health and behavior,
children and environmental hazards, cognition and development,
influence of families and communities on development, and
longitudinal studies.
Similarly, the Committee recognizes that as information
technologies become increasingly prevalent in children's and
adolescents' lives, vital questions arise regarding their
impact on behavioral, social, emotional, cognitive and physical
development. The Committee, therefore, encourages NSF to make
research on the impact of emerging media on children's and
adolescents' development a funding priority within both NSF's
Information Technology Research Initiative and the agency's
core disciplinary research programs.
The Committee recognizes that the proposed funding
allocations within the astronomical sciences are governed by an
overall concern and priority for individual investigator
awards. However, the facilities component of the proposed
allocation is slated for an increase that is marginally above
zero and is less than inflation. Noting that these outstanding
facilities serve the research programs of individual
investigator programs nationwide and should thus be maintained
at a level necessary to enhance operations, morale, and
momentum within each facility program, the NSF is strongly
encouraged to provide a more appropriate balance between the
individual investigator awards and facilities operations.
Major Research Equipment
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $76,600,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 95,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 138,540,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -18,400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. -61,940,000
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 $76,600,000 for the
major research equipment account for fiscal year 2001. This
appropriation reflects the budget request levels of $6,000,000
for the Millimeter Array, $16,400,000 for the Large Hadron
Collider, $13,500,000 for continued construction of the new
South Pole Station, and $28,200,000 for the Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation. The Committee has also
included $12,500,000 to continue 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 went through a multiple-
year review and selection process prior to its approval and
endorsement by the National Science Board. The Congress
provided $10,000,000 for this important project in the fiscal
2000 appropriation, which amount was subsequently reduced
disproportionately by the Foundation in an across-the-board
reduction.
Because of budget constraints, the Committee determined not
to begin funding on two new research facilities proposed in the
budget submission, the USArray and San Andreas Fault
Observatory at Depth (SAFOD), and the National Ecological
Observatory Network (NEON). The Committee believes both
projects have great merit and notes that its action was taken
without prejudice.
The Committee has also not included $45,000,000 for a
second Terascale Computing System as requested in the budget
submission. The Committee is not prepared to commit resources
to the construction of this additional five teraflop computing
facility until the first such facility is constructed and has
become operational. Once such construction is complete and
operations have commenced, the Committee expects the Foundation
to provide a report detailing all aspects of this activity,
including pertinent and up-to-date cost data, so that an
informed decision can be made on moving forward with one or
more additional such facilities.
Education and Human Resources
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $694,310,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 696,600,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 729,010,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -2,290,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. -34,700,000
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 2001, the Committee recommends
$694,310,000, a decrease of $2,290,000 belowe last year's
appropriated level and a decrease of $34,700,000 below the
budget request. The Committee's proposal includes the following
program funding levels: (1) Educational System Reform,
$109,510,000; (2) Innovative Partnerships/ Experimental Program
to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), $48,410,000; (3)
Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education, $191,500,000; (4)
Undergraduate Education, $110,860,000; (5) Graduate Education,
$84,450,000; (6) Human Resource Development, $81,880,000; and
(7) Research, Evaluation and Communication, $67,700,000.
Within the amount provided for Undergraduate Education,
$34,250,000 has been provided for Advanced Technological
Education, an increase of $5,000,000 over the fiscal 2000
level, and $13,000,000, the same as in fiscal 2000, has been
recommended for the National SMETE Digital Library. No funding
has been provided for the Distinguished Teaching Scholars
program or for the new Scholarships for Service (SFS) program.
The Committee recognizes the potential long-term value of this
newly proposed SFS program. However, before financial resources
are provided, the Committee is aware of several, significant
operational details which must first be worked out among all
interested parties.
Within the Graduate Education programs, Graduate Teaching
Fellowships in K-12 Education has been provided $19,750,000, a
$10,750,000 increase over the fiscal 2000 spending level.
Salaries and Expenses
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $152,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 149,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 157,890,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +3,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. -5,890,000
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 $152,000,000
for salaries and expenses, a decrease of $5,890,000 from the
President's budget request and an increase of $3,000,000 over
last year's appropriated level.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $5,700,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 5,450,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 6,280,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ +250,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 request.............. -580,000
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 2001, the Committee has recommended
$5,700,000 for the Office of Inspector General. This amount is
$250,000 above last year's funding level and is a decrease of
$580,000 below the budget request.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $90,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 75,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 90,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ 15,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... 0
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.
Increase in homeownership among lower-income families is a key
revitalization tool. Neighborhood Housing Services of America
(NHSA) supports lending activities of the NeighborWorks
organizations through a national secondary market that
leverages its capital with private sector investment.
The Committee recommends the request of $90,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001, an increase of $15,000,000 above the fiscal
year 2000 level. A set-aside of $5,000,000 is included for an
innovative initiative that combines a conventional mortgage,
section 8 assistance, and the NRC revolving loan fund, with
pre-and post-purchase counseling thereby enabling low-income
families, some of whom are on welfare, to attain the goal of
homeownship.
Selective Service System
Salaries and Expenses
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... $23,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ 24,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 24,480,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2000 appropriation........ -1,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2001 budget request....... -1,480,000
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.
For fiscal year 2001, the bill includes $23,000,000 for the
Selective Service System, $1,000,000 below the fiscal year 2000
funding level and a decrease of $1,480,000 below the budget
request.
TITLE IV
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee recommends inclusion of twenty-five general
provisions, twenty of which were requested in the fiscal year
2001 budget and were carried in the fiscal year 2000
Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-76). 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 Veterans' Affairs
prior to entering into leases of real property, which was
carried in the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act. The
Committee also recommends new general provisions.
A new section 421 has been added this year which limits the
use of funds for technical assistance, training, or management
improvements until reporting requirements are completed by HUD.
A new section 424 has been included in the bill which directs
the General Services Administration to allocate one of its
senior executive service positions to the Federal Consumer
Information Center. A new section 425 has been included which
prohibits the expenditure of funds for joint NASA and Air Force
research programs.
House of Representatives Report Requirements
The following items are included in accordance with various
require 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 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 $17,419,000 from compensation and pensions to general
operating expenses and medical care. These funds are for the
administrative costs of implementing cost-savings 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 ($161,484,000), the
education loan fund program account ($220,000), the vocational
rehabilitation loans program account ($432,000) and the Native
American veteran housing loan program account ($532,000). In
addition, the bill provides up to $750,000 in general operating
expenses and medical care for administration of the guaranteed
transitional housing loans for homeless veterans program
account.
The Committee has included language transferring the
following amounts to the VA's general operating expenses
appropriation for services provided by the Office of Resolution
Management and the Office of Employment Discrimination
Compliant Adjudication: medical care ($28,134,000), office or
inspector general ($28,000), and national cemetery
administration ($125,000).
The Committee recommends transferring the following amounts
to the VA's general operating expenses appropriation for HR
LINK$ services if that function is not a part of the Franchise
Fund in fiscal year 2001: the office of inspector general
($78,000), national cemetery administration ($358,000), medical
care ($1,106,000), and medical administration and miscellaneous
operating expenses ($84,000).
The Committee included language allowing the transfer of
funds up to $1,600,000 from medical care to general operating
expenses to fund personnel services costs of employees
providing legal services and administrative support for the
Office of General Counsel.
The Committee has included language under the Department of
Veterans Affairs which would transfer funds from the medical
collections fund to medical care.
The Committee recommends providing authority under
administrative provisions for the Department of Veterans
Affairs for any funds appropriated in 2001 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 2000
and all collections made during fiscal year 2001 to the
flexible subsidy fund.
The Committe has included language transferring unobligated
funds from the housing certificate fund to the public housing
capital fund.
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 Committe has included language transferring $200,000
from the Native American housing block grant account to HUD's
salaries and expenses account.
The Committee recommends a transfer of $150,000 from the
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account to HUD's
salaries and expense account.
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 HUD's salaries and
expenses.
The Committee recommends transferring a total of
$518,000,000 from the various funds of the Federal Housing
Administration to HUD's salaries and expense account.
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 expense account.
The Committee has included language transferring
$11,000,000 from the housing certificate fund to the working
capital fund of HUD's salaries and expense account.
The Committee has included language transferring
$43,000,000 from the public housing capital fund to the working
capital fund of HUD's salaries and expense account.
The Committee has included language transferring
$15,000,000 from the community development fund to the working
capital fund of HUD's salaries and expense account.
The Committee has included language transferring
$17,000,000 from the HOME Investment partnerships program to
the working capital fund of HUD's salaries and expense account.
The Committee has included language transferring up to 1.5
per cent of the funds appropriated for homeless assistance
grants to the working capital fund of HUD's salaries and
expense account.
The Committee has included language transferring $1,000,000
from housing for special populations to the working capital
fund of HUD's salaries and expense account.
The Committee has included language transferring
$96,500,000 from HFA's mutual mortgage insurance program
account to the working capital fund of HUD's salaries and
expense account.
The Committee has included language transferring
$33,500,000 from FHA's general and special risk insurance
program account to the working capital fund of HUD's salaries
and expense account.
The Committee recommends language allowing a transfer of
$22,000,000 from the federal housing enterprise oversight fund
to the office of federal housing enterprise oversight account.
The Committee has included language transferring $200,000
from the Native American housing block grants account to HUD's
salaries and expense account and $2,000,000 to the Working
Capital Fund.
The Committee has included language under the Environmental
Protection Agency transferring funds from the hazardous
substance superfund trust fund ($11,500,000) 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 $33,661,000
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 $5,500,000 from the
disaster relief account to the emergency management planning
and assistance account.
The Committee has included language under Federal Emergency
Management Agency transferring $30,000,000 from the disaster
relief account to the flood map modernization fund 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.
The Committee has included language under National Credit
Union Administration transferring $1,000,000 to the Community
Development Revolving Loan 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):
UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937
TITLE I--GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING
* * * * * * *
lower income housing assistance
Sec. 8. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(o) Voucher Program.--
(1) Authority.--
(A) * * *
(B) Establishment of payment standard.--
Except as provided under [subparagraph (D)]
subparagraphs (D) and (E), the payment standard
for each size of dwelling unit in a market area
shall not exceed 110 percent of the fair market
rental established under subsection (c) for the
same size of dwelling unit in the same market
area and shall be not less than 90 percent of
that fair market rental.
* * * * * * *
(E) Difficult utilization areas.--
(i) Criteria.--The Secretary shall
establish criteria setting forth
requirements for treatment of areas as
difficult utilization areas with
respect to the voucher program under
this subsection, which may include
criteria specifying a low vacancy rate
for rental housing, a particular rate
of inflation in rental housing costs,
failure to lease units by more than 30
percent of families issued vouchers
having an applicable payment standard
of 110 percent of the fair market
rental or higher, and any other
criteria the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(B) Use of assistance.--Any public
housing agency that serves a difficult
utilization area may--
(I) increase the payment
standard applicable to all or
part of such area for any size
of dwelling unit to not more
than 150 percent of the fair
market rental established under
subsection (c) for the same
size of dwelling unit in the
same market area; and
(II) use amounts provided for
assistance under this section
to make payments or provide
services to assist families
issued vouchers under this
subsection to lease suitable
housing, except that the cost
of any such payments or
services for a family may not
exceed the agency's average
cost per family of 6 months of
monthly assistance payments.
[(E)] (F) Review.--The Secretary--
(i) shall monitor rent burdens and
review any payment standard that
results in a significant percentage of
the families occupying units of any
size paying more than 30 percent of
adjusted income for rent; and
(ii) may require a public housing
agency to modify the payment standard
of the public housing agency based on
the results of that review.
* * * * * * *
(t) Enhanced Vouchers.--
(1) In general.--Enhanced voucher assistance under
this subsection for a family shall be voucher
assistance under subsection (o), except that under such
enhanced voucher assistance--
(A) * * *
(B) during any period that the assisted
family continues residing in the same project
in which the family was residing on the date of
the eligibility event for the project, if the
rent for the dwelling unit of the family in
such project exceeds the applicable payment
standard established pursuant to subsection (o)
for the unit, the amount of rental assistance
provided on behalf of the family shall be
determined using a payment standard that is
equal to the rent for the dwelling unit (as
such rent may be increased from time-to-time),
subject to paragraph (10)(A) of subsection (o)
and any other reasonable limit prescribed by
the Secretary;
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 856 OF THE AIDS HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ACT
SEC. 856. RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRANTEES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Environmental Review.--For purposes of environmental
review, a grant under this subtitle shall be treated as
assistance for a special project that is subject to section
305(c) of the Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Reform
Act of 1994, and shall be subject to the regulations issued by
the Secretary to implement such section.
----------
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, 1999, [and 2000] 2000, and
thereafter, the provision of grants and loans from the General
Insurace Fund (12 U.S.C. 1735(c)) for the necessary costs of
rehabilitation, demolition, or construction on the properties
(which shall be eligible whether vacant or occupied) and
multifamily mortgages held by the Secretary on such terms and
conditions as the Secretary may determine, notwithstanding any
other provision of law.
----------
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ACT OF 1968
TITLE XIII--NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1309. (a) All authority which was vested in the Housing
and Home Finance Administrator by virtue of section 15(e) of
the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1084)
(pertaining to the issue of notes or other obligations or the
Secretary of the Treasury), as amended by subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1303 of this Act, shall be available to the
Director for the purpose of carrying out the flood insurance
program under this title; except that the total amount of notes
and obligations which may be issued by the Director pursuant to
such authority (1) without the approval of the President, may
not exceed $500,000,000, and (2) with the approval of the
President, may not exceed $1,500,000,000 through September 30,
[2000] 2001, and $1,000,000,000 thereafter. The Director shall
report to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate at any time when he
requests the approval of the President in accordance with the
preceding sentence.
* * * * * * *
appropriations
Sec. 1376. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may
be necessary through September 30, [2000] 2001, for studies
under this title.
SECTION 312 OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958
Sec. 312. (a) Appropriations for the Administration for fiscal
year 2002 and thereafter shall be made in three accounts, ``Human space
flight'', ``Science, aeronautics and technology,'' and an account for
amounts appropriated for the necessary expenses of the Office of
Inspector General. Appropriations shall remain available for two fiscal
years. Each account shall include the planned full costs of the
Administration's related activities.
(b) To ensure the safe, timely, and successful accomplishment
of Administration missions, the Administration may transfer amounts for
Federal salaries and benefits; training, travel and awards; facility
and related costs; information technology services; publishing
services; science, engineering, fabricating and testing services; and
other administrative services among accounts, as necessary.
(c) The Administrator, in consultation with the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, shall determine what balances from the
``Mission support'' account are to be transferred to the ``Human space
flight'' and ``Science, aeronautics and technology'' accounts. Such
balances shall be transferred and merged with the ``Human space
flight'' and ``Science, aeronautics and technology'' accounts, and
remain available for the period of which originally appropriated.
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
The Committee submits the following statements in
compliance with clause 3, rule XXI of the Rules 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 420, 422 and 423 of title IV of the
bill, all of which are carried in the fiscal year 2000
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. A new section 421 has
been added this year which limits the use of funds for
technical assistance, training, or management improvements
until reporting requirements are completed by HUD. A new
section 424 has been included in the bill which directs the
General Services Administration to allocate one of its senior
executive service positions to the Federal Consumer Information
Center. A new section 425 has been included which prohibits the
expenditure of certain NASA funds for joint research with the
Air Force.
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, and
limiting funds available for the operations and maintenance of
facilities.
Language is included under Department of Veterans Affairs,
medical care prohibiting the transfer of funds to the
Department of Justice for the purposes for supporting tobacco
legislation.
Language is included under Department of Veterans Affairs
providing for the deposit of receipts collected under the
Millennium Health Care and Benefits Improvements Act of 1999 in
the medical care collections fund.
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. Six new provisions have been added.
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 judgments and provides funds for
technical assistance.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, native American housing block grants, which
provides for the use of certain 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 Department of Housing and Urban
Development, home investment partnerships program, earmarking
funds for a counseling program.
Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban
Development, homeless assistance grants, requiring grantees to
integrate homeless programs with other social service
providers, and which provides for use of funds for technical
assistance.
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, revises allocations for
housing opportunities for people with AIDS recipients, allows
for a cap on the value of enhanced housing vouchers, and
rescinds balances in prior Appropriations Acts.
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 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 Department of Health and
Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, toxic substances and environmental public health,
limiting availability of funds for toxicological profiles.
Language is included under the Environmental Protection
Agency, environmental programs and management, which limits use
of funds, and expands the use of funds awarded for certain
programs.
Language is included under the Environmental Protection
Agency, administrative provision, which extends the
availability of funds for liquidating obligations.
Language is included under the Environmental Protection
Agency, state and tribal assistance grants, which provides
grants to states and local tribal governments, and which
eliminates certain construction grant disputes.
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, disaster relief, which makes funds available only upon
an emergency declaration by the President.
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 allowing for the
acceptance of contributions from state and local governments
and retention of receipts.
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.
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, Federal 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,
technical assistance, 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.
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 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
respect 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--Federal Consumer
Information Center.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
National Credit Union Administration Revolving Loan Fund.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporations.
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:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation-- This bill*
---------------------------------------------------
Budget Budget
authority Outlays authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary............................................... 76,194 84,154 76,494 84,166
Mandatory................................................... 24,330 24,089 24,612 24,035
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Including scoring from the House-passed FY 2000 supplemental appropriations bill.
Note.--The amounts in this bill are technically in excess of the subcommittee section 302(b) suballocation.
However, pursuant to section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, increases to the
Committee's section 302(a) allocation are authorized for funding in the reported bill for spending designated
as emergency. After the bill is reported to the House, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget will
provide an increased section 302(a) allocation consistent with the funding provided in the bill. That new
allocation will eliminate the technical difference prior to floor consideration.
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...................................... $101,097
Outlays:
2001...................................................... 60,308
2002...................................................... 24,176
2003...................................................... 9,199
2004...................................................... 3,669
2005...................................................... 3,752
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.............................................. 25,471
Fiscal year 2001 outlays resulting therefrom.................. 5,133
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
During fiscal year 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 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 roll
call 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: June 7, 2000.
Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, Appropriations
Bill, FY 2001.
Motion by: Mr. Price.
Description of Motion: To terminate funding for the
Selective Service system and transfer savings from this
reduction to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical and
Prosthetic Research account.
Results: Rejected 19 yeas to 36 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Aderholt Mr. Bonilla
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dixon Mr. Cramer
Mr. Farr Mr. Cunningham
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Dickey
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Dicks
Mr. Knollenberg Mr. Edwards
Mrs. Lowey Mrs. Emerson
Mrs. Meek Mr. Forbes
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Obey Mr. Goode
Mr. Olver Ms. Granger
Mr. Pastor Mr. Hinchey
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Hobson
Mr. Price Mr. Hoyer
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Kingston
Mr. Sabo Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Serrano Mr. Latham
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Lewis
Mr. Miller
Mr. Moran
Mr. Murtha
Mr. Nethercutt
Mrs. Northup
Mr. Packard
Mr. Peterson
Mr. Regula
Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sununu
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
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 roll
call 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: June 7, 2000.
Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, Appropriations
Bill, FY 2001.
Motion by: Mrs. Meek.
Description of Motion: To increase funds for the Department
of Housing and Urban Development's fair Housing Initiatives
Program from $22,000,000 to $24,000,0000, and decrease the
Department's Fair Housing Assistance Program from $22,000,000
to $20,000,0000.
Results: Rejected 26 yeas to 27 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderbolt
Mr. Cramer Mr. Bonilla
Ms. Deluro Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Dicks Mr. Dickey
Mr. Dixon Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Edwards Mr. Goode
Mr. Farr Ms. Granger
Mr. Frobes Mr. Hobson
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Kingston
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Knolleberg
Mr. Kaptur Mr. Kolbe
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Latham
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Lewis
Mrs. Meek Mr. Miller
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Moran Mrs. Northup
Mr. Murtha Mr. Packard
Mr. Obey Mr. Peterson
Mr. Olver Mr. Regula
Mr. Pastor Mr. Rogers
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Skeen
Mr. Price Mr. Tiahrt
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Walsh
Mr. Sabo Mr. Wamp
Mr. Serrano Mr. Wicker
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Wolf
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 roll
call 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. 3
Date: June 7, 2000.
Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Bill, FY 2001.
Motion by: Mr. Hinchey.
Description of Motion: To strike report language in the
Environmental Protection Agency's Hazardous Substance Superfund
account regarding dredging as a remediation tool for toxic
substances.
Results: Rejected 20 yeas to 30 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dixon Mr. Callahan
Mr. Edwards Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Forbes Mr. Dickey
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Goode
Ms. Kaptur Ms. Granger
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Hobson
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Kingston
Mrs. Meek Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Obey Mr. Latham
Mr. Olver Mr. Lewis
Mr. Pastor Mr. Miller
Mr. Price Mr. Nethercutt
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mrs. Northup
Mr. Sabo Mr. Packard
Mr. Serrano Mr. Peterson
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Porter
Mr. Regula
Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
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 roll
call 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. 4
Date: June 7, 2000.
Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Bill, FY 2001.
Motion by: Mr. Mollohan.
Description of Motion: To strike report language in the
Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Programs and
Management account regarding a prohibition on spending for
certain activities relating to the Kyoto Protocol, and insert
new language in lieu thereof.
Results: Rejected 19 yeas to 31 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dixon Mr. Callahan
Mr. Edwards Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Farr Mr. Dickey
Mr. Hoyer Mrs. Emerson
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Goode
Mrs. Meek Ms. Granger
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Hobson
Mr. Obey Mr. Kingston
Mr. Olver Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Pastor Mr. Kolbe
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Latham
Mr. Price Mr. Lewis
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Miller
Mr. Sabo Mrs. Northup
Mr. Serrano Mr. Packard
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Peterson
Mr. Porter
Mr. Regula
Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sununu
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
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 roll
call 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. 5
Date: June 7, 2000.
Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Bill, FY 2001.
Motion by: Mr. Mollohan.
Description of Motion: To increase funding for ten housing
and community programs by $1,834,000,000.
Results: Rejected 20 yeas to 29 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Edwards Mr. Dickey
Mr. Farr Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Goode
Ms. Kaptur Ms. Granger
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Hobson
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Istook
Mrs. Meek Mr. Kingston
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Obey Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Olver Mr. Latham
Mr. Pastor Mr. Lewis
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Miller
Mr. Price Mrs. Northup
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Packard
Mr. Sabo Mr. Peterson
Mr. Serrano Mr. Porter
Mr. Porter
Mr. Regula
Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sununu
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wolf
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 roll
call 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. 6
Date: June 7, 2000.
Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Bill, FY 2001.
Motion by: Mr. Obey.
Description of Motion: To increase funding for four
specific housing programs by $107,000,000.
Results: Rejected 20 yeas to 27 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Edwards Mr. Dickey
Mr. Farr Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Goode
Mr. Hoyer Ms. Granger
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Hobson
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Istook
Mrs. Meek Mr. Kingston
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Obey Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Olver Mr. Latham
Mr. Pastor Mr. Lewis
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Miller
Mr. Price Mrs. Northup
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Packard
Mr. Sabo Mr. Porter
Mr. Serrano Mr. Regula
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
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. 7
Date: June 7, 2000.
Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Bill, FY 2001.
Motion by: Mr. Mollohan.
Description of Motion: To strike bill and report language
regarding the Community Builders program within the Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
Results: Rejected 22 yeas to 23 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dixon Mr. Callahan
Mr. Edwards Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Farr Mr. Dickey
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Goode
Ms. Kaptur Ms. Granger
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Hobson
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Istook
Mrs. Meek Mr. Kingston
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Moran Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Obey Mr. Latham
Mr. Olver Mr. Lewis
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Miller
Mr. Price Mrs. Northup
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Packard
Mr. Sabo Mr. Porter
Mr. Serrano Mr. Regula
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sununu
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
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. 8
Date: June 7, 2000.
Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Bill, FY 2001.
Motion by: Mr. Mollohan.
Description of Motion: To increase funding for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's Science, Aeronautics and
Technology account by $322,700,000.
Results: Rejected 22 yeas to 23 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer Mr. Dickey
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Edwards Mr. Goode
Mr. Farr Mr. Hobson
Mr. Forbes Mr. Kingston
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Kolbe
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Latham
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Lewis
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Miller
Mrs. Meek Mrs. Northup
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Packard
Mr. Moran Mr. Petersen
Mr. Obey Mr. Porter
Mr. Olver Mr. Regula
Mr. Pastor Mr. Rogers
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Sununu
Mr. Price Mr. Taylor
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Walsh
Mr. Sabo Mr. Wamp
Mr. Serrano Mr. Wicker
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 roll
call 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. 9
Date: June 7, 2000.
Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Bill, FY 2001.
Motion by: Mr. Obey.
Description of Motion: To increase funding for each of the
National Science Foundation's five appropriations accounts by a
total of $508,100,000.
Results: Rejected 21 yeas to 25 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer Mr. Cunningham
Ms. DeLauro Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Edwards Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Farr Mr. Goode
Mr. Forbes Mr. Hobson
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Kingston
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Knollenberg
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Kolbe
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Latham
Mrs. Meek Mr. Lewis
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Miller
Mr. Moran Mrs. Northup
Mr. Obey Mr. Packard
Mr. Olver Mr. Peterson
Mr. Pastor Mr. Porter
Mr. Price Mr. Regula
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Rogers
Mr. Sabo Mr. Sununu
Mr. Serrano Mr. Taylor
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
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 roll
call 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. 10
Date: June 7, 2000.
Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Bill, FY 2001.
Motion by: Mr. Boyd.
Description of Motion: To increase funding for disaster
relief under the Federal Emergency Management Agency by
$2,609,220,000, to be designatged as an emergency appropriation
under the Budget Act.
Results: Rejected 22 yeas to 29 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Edwards Mr. Dickey
Mr. Farr Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Forbes Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Goode
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Granger
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Hobson
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Kingston
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Knollenberg
Mrs. Meek Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Latham
Mr. Moran Mr. Lewis
Mr. Obey Mr. Miller
Mr. Olver Mrs. Northup
Mr. Pastor Mr. Packard
Mr. Price Mr. Peterson
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Porter
Mr. Sabo Mr. Regula
Mr. Serrano Mr. Rogers
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sununu
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Young
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
While the VA-HUD subcommittee and its Chairman have done
the best they could within the budget limits imposed on the
subcommittee, the resulting bill falls far short of what is
needed to address national needs in most areas that it covers.
As with other domestic appropriations bills considered this
year, the Majority's insistence on using budget surpluses
primarily to cut taxes for the well off have left this bill and
its programs shortchanged.
The VA-HUD subcommittee made a number of laudable efforts
to deal with various critical needs as best they could, given
the inadequate resources available for this bill. However, that
lack of resources has produced serious shortcomings in the
bill:
The bill includes a substantial and welcome increase for
veterans medical care, but fails to adequately provide for
several other priorities for veterans. In particular, it
freezes funding for veterans medical research, cuts grants for
construction of state veterans homes $30 million below the
current year level, and provides $56 million less than
requested to improve processing of applications for benefits.
The bill once again seeks to completely eliminate the
AmeriCorps national service program.
It appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing
assistance vouchers proposed by the Administration. Rather, it
allows no more than 20,000 new vouchers, to be provided only if
extra recaptured funds become available in that program.
The bill cuts Community Development Block Grants $276
million below the current year level, and $395 million below
the President's request. It also cuts public housing programs
(including capital and operating grants and anti-drug programs)
$120 million below the current year and $314 million below the
request, and freezes funding for homeless assistance.
It completely rejects the President's proposal for $50
million for EPA to begin a major effort to clean up the Great
Lakes.
While the measure provides an increase for research at the
National Science Foundation, it falls short of the President's
request in this area by $508 million.
The bill also underfunds the President's request for NASA
science and technology programs by $323 million.
Finally, it appropriates only $300 million of the $2.9
billion requested by the Administration for FEMA's Disaster
Relief Fund, thereby jeopardizing FEMA's ability to respond
quickly and adequately to natural disasters.
Although the official tables suggest that this bill
contains a $4.9 billion increase over the current fiscal year,
that increase is illusory. Of the increase, $4.2 billion
results from an ``advance appropriation'' for FY 2001 made last
year--a device that simply shifted $4.2 billion of FY 2000
costs to FY 2001. The advance appropriation helped fit last
year's bill into that year's artificial budget constraints, but
it leaves this year's bill with an automatic $4.2 billion
increase.
In fact, disregarding all of the offsets, timing shifts,
and other budget gimmicks done this year or last, the actual
programmatic increase provided by the FY 2001 bill totals just
$256 million--an increase of three-tenths of one percent. In
the same programmatic terms, the bill is $6.4 billion below the
President's proposal for FY 2001.
Considering the very important needs covered by the VA-HUD
bill--veterans health care, environmental protection,
scientific research, housing assistance, and emergency
preparedness and disaster relief--it is most unfortunate that
all the Majority's budget plan could provide was a 0.3 percent
increase for programs over the prior year. It is particularly
ironic that this anemic funding comes not at a time of budget
deficits and economic crisis, but rather at a time of rising
budget surpluses and the strongest economy we've seen in
decades. If at this time of great prosperity the Majority still
insists that we cannot afford to increase our investment
inresearch or reduce unmet housing needs, when--if ever--do they
believe we will be able to afford these things?
Despite rising surpluses, the Majority's budget plan does
not allow any significant increases for domestic appropriations
because the Majority's highest budget priority is tax cuts--
targeted to the high end of the income scale. The shortcomings
of this VA-HUD appropriations bill are one of the many direct
consequences of those tax cuts. The alternative budget offered
by Democrats in the House, like the President's budget, calls
for considerably smaller tax cuts. With its smaller tax cuts,
the Democratic budget would have allowed an additional $20
billion in domestic appropriations for FY 2001. Had that budget
been adopted, this would be a far better bill.
During committee consideration of this legislation,
Democrats offered several amendments to alleviate its
shortcomings in areas like veterans medical research, housing
assistance, and science. All were defeated on party line votes,
with the Majority insisting that, while increases might be
desirable, those increases simply could not be fit within
Majority's budget plan. The debate graphically illustrates the
fundamental problems with that budget plan and the upper-income
tax cuts that drive it. All of the amendments offered to this
bill by Democrats could readily be accommodated within the
Democratic budget alternative with its smaller tax cuts, or
within the President's budget totals.
Following are additional details regarding the shortcomings
of this VA-HUD appropriations bill and Democratic efforts to
improve the bill.
department of veterans affairs
The Chairman is to be commended for making veterans
programs a priority within a budget allocation which many
members on both sides of the aisle find inadequate. In
particular, approval of the President's $1.4 billion increase
for the Medical Care account is a significant move towards
addressing the essential health care needs of the growing
population of older, disabled and indigent veterans. This
includes fully funding the expanded long term care and
emergency services authorized last year under the Veterans
Millenium Health Care Act. Beyond providing for medical care,
however, we believe there are several weaknesses that Congress
still must address before this bill can be described as
adequate in terms of providing for veterans.
First, we believe that failing to increase funding for
medical research, which is frozen in the bill at $321 million,
is a missed opportunity to invest in high quality research at a
time when Congress appears to recognize the potential of such
investments in other agencies such as the National Institutes
of Health. This research encourages top medical schools to work
with the VA and attracts leading physicians to VA hospitals to
help care for veterans with state-of-the-art medical science.
Research at these institutions, whether on diseases of great
urgency for veterans such as Alzheimer's disease, diabetes or
substance abuse, or on health outcomes/services improvements
such as its medical errors initiative, benefit not only
veterans but the general public. Unfortunately the amendment
offered by Rep. Price to increase funding for VA medical
research was not adopted (see roll call number 1).
Second, we believe that the reduction of $30 million in
grants to States for construction of extended care facilities
is short sighted and ignores the high demand for such services,
especially among the WW II generation of veterans. As a minimum
$90 million, the same amount as provided this year, should be
allocated in fiscal year 2001.
Third, we regret that funding for general operations
expenses was reduced by $56 million below the request. The
increase requested by the Administration is targeted at
reducing the unacceptable delays in processing initial benefit
applications as well as in resolving appeals. Currently it
takes approximately 160 days to process an initial claim and
close to two years for an appeal. These delays are not
acceptable. While the Majority attempted to partially fund
these initiatives, we believe the full amount requested by the
President should have been approved.
department of housing and urban development
In this bill most HUD programs are either frozen at the FY
2000 level, with no increases for inflation or anything else,
or are actually cut below FY 2000. Shortages of affordable
housing are reaching crisis proportions in some areas of the
country, but the bill makes no new commitments and provides no
additional resources toward addressing those problems. Compared
to the President's request, the bill makes cuts totaling
between $2.2 and 2.5 billion (with the exact figure depending
on whether offsets are counted or disregarded).
While the bill appears to provide a $4.1 billion increase
for HUD programs, as with the bill as a whole the increases are
largely illusory. The illusion of increases results from
peculiarities of accounting for the cost of the section 8
housing assistance program, and from the subcommittee's
inability to repeat some one-time offsets used to reduce the
apparent cost of last year's bill. The ``increases'' in the
bill do not translate into housing assistance for more families
or more resources for housing providers. In programmatic terms,
the bill mainly produces small cuts, not increases.
One reason for the apparent year-to-year increase is that
last year's bill rescinded $2.3 billion in balances of budget
authority at HUD that were not expected to be needed in FY
2000. For FY 2001, however, the subcommittee was able to
identify only about $275 million to rescind. Because
rescissions are counted as offsets to the appropriations made
by the bill (i.e., they count as ``negative spending''), this
$2 billion decrease in rescissions makes it appear that
appropriations have gone up by the same amount. However, these
rescissions have no effect on actual spending for HUD
programs--at least not in the year they are made.
The second major reason for the apparent increase in HUD
appropriations is the $2.5 billion increase provided for the
section 8 housing assistance program (which provides subsidies
to landlords or vouchers to tenants to help low-income people
afford to rent housing on the private market). During the 1970s
and 1980s, section 8 housing assistance was provided under
long-term contracts (often 20 or 30 years in duration), funded
in advance through appropriations made before the contracts
were entered into. While these long-term contracts are in
effect, no additional appropriations are usually needed.
However, the old long-term contracts have been expiring, and
new appropriations are needed to renew them. (Budget
constraints have recently limited these renewals to one year at
a time). Thus, as old long-term contracts expire and more units
are added to the annual renewal pool each year, the amount of
appropriations needed for section 8 assistance goes up.
However, these renewals just provide the same assistance under
essentially the same terms to roughly the same number of
people.
These two factors more than account for the entire increase
provided for HUD under this bill. Leaving aside the decrease in
rescissions and the increased appropriations needed for section
8 contract renewals, everything else in HUD is either flat or
reduced below FY 2000. In several cases, appropriations are
actually lower than they were six years ago.
This is unfortunate, because needs for federal housing
assistance are growing, not shrinking. While the economy may be
booming and employment and incomes rising, in many areas rents
are rising even faster. Finding a place to live is a growing
problem for many working families with modest incomes or
elderly people trying to live on Social Security and small
pensions. HUD's latest report on housing conditions tells us
that there are 5.4 million very low-income households with
``worst case'' housing needs--that is, households with incomes
below 50 percent of the local median who are paying more than
half of their income for rent and receiving no housing
assistance whatsoever. The fastest growing segment of that
group is people working full time.
One thing that would help meet affordable housing needs is
to increase the number of families and individuals receiving
section 8 housing assistance vouchers. Last year, 60,000
``incremental'' (i.e., additional) vouchers were funded. This
year, the Administration proposed 120,000 incremental vouchers.
The bill, however, provides no appropriation at all for
additional vouchers. All it does is allow HUD to provide up to
20,000 new vouchers from any extra amounts that become
available from recaptures of previously awarded funds. However,
HUD does not believe there will be any recaptures beyond those
already built into their budget request.
There is also an urgent need for further assistance to help
foster production of housing that can be afforded by low-income
families. In fact, in some areas people are having real
difficulty using vouchers because they can't find any
apartments to rent that are affordable even with a voucher.
However, the Federal Government currently does relatively
little to assist with production of new low income housing, and
this bill reduces that commitment a little further.
For example, the bill freezes appropriations for
development of housing for low-income elderly and disabled
people (the section 202 and 811 programs), providing no
increases to cover rising costs or to increase the number of
units produced. The FY 2001 appropriation of $911 million
represents a 45 percent cut from the $1.7 billion appropriated
for FY 1995 (the last appropriation enacted while Democrats
held a majority in Congress). A second example is the HOME
program, which is a flexible block grant program used by local
governments to expand the supply of low-income housing. Instead
of an increase for HOME to at least cover rising costs, the
bill actually cuts HOME $15 million below FY 2000 (and $65
million below the President's request). To give another
example, this year the Administration proposed to combine
10,000 new vouchers with the low-income housing tax credit
program, in order to provide a subsidy sufficient to produce
housing affordable at low income levels. As already noted, this
bill fails to provide appropriations for new vouchers,
including these ``housing production'' vouchers.
Another major element of the federal housing strategy is
public housing--that is, financial support for low-income
housing owned and operated by local housing authorities. This
bill cuts capital grants for public housing $100 million below
the current year level, freezes operating assistance (thus
providing no increases to cover higher costs for salaries,
utilities, or anything else), and cuts drug elimination grants
and ``HOPE VI'' grants for revitalization of severely
distressed public housing by $10 million each below FY 2000.
Appropriations for these four accounts together are #314
million below the President's request.
The bill also cuts Community Development Block Grants by
$276 million below the current year's level and $395 million
below the request. The bill's $4.505 billion appropriation for
CDBG is actually $95 million less than the dollar level
appropriated for FY 1995. In terms of purchasing power, CDBG
will have lost roughly 15 percent since that time.
For Homeless Assistance Grants, the bill freezes
appropriations at the FY 2000 level of $1.02 billion, rejecting
the $120 million increase proposed by the President. This is
yet another area where appropriations have declined in actual
dollar terms over the past six years--the bill's level for
homeless assistance is $100 million less than appropriated in
FY 1995.
There are several other areas of concern in the HUD title
of the bill. For example, the bill freezes funding for Housing
Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA), rather than
providing the $28 million increase proposed by the President.
It cuts the HUD rural housing program $5 million below last
year and also cuts brownfields redevelopment $5 million. It
provides no funding for the America's Private Investment
Companies (APIC) initiative, despite the agreement between
President Clinton and Speaker Hastert to fund this item. And it
provides none of the increases requested by the President for
fair housing programs, and in fact actually cuts one of these
programs--the Fair Housing Initiatives Program--$2 million
below FY 2000.
During consideration of the bill by the Appropriations
Committee, Rep. Mollohan offered an amendment to increase
funding for ten housing programs by a total of $1.834 billion.
The Mollohan amendment would have funded 102,000 incremental
section 8 housing vouchers, and provided increases (relative to
amounts in the bill) for public housing capital grants (+$200
million), public housing operating subsidies (+$127 million),
Native American Housing Block Grants (+$30 million), Housing
Opportunities for People with AIDS (+$43 million), CDBG (+$395
million), HOME (+$215 million), Homeless Assistance Grants
(+$80 million), and Housing for the Elderly and Disabled (+$114
million). Finally, it would have funded APIC at the President's
request of $37 million. The amendment was defeated on a party-
line vote, however (roll call number 5).
After defeat of the Mollohan amendment, Rep. Obey offered a
more limited amendment in which the proposed additions were
fully offset by other savings (since one of the Majority's main
stated objections to the Mollohan amendment was that it did not
contain offsets). The Obeyamendment would have added $78
million to Housing for the Elderly and Disabled (to bring it up to the
President's request), $20 million for Homeless Assistance Grants, and
$9 million for HOPWA. These increases were offset by provisions taken
from a House-passed authorization bill (H.R. 1776) which expanded FHA
lending activity and thereby produced increases in receipts from FHA
loan guarantee fees. This amendment, too, was defeated on a party-line
vote (roll call number 6).
environmental protection agency
While the Committee's total allocation to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is essentially at the level requested
by the President, the allocation of funds among programs
includes specific reductions that we believe will hamper the
Agency's ability to protect the public health and the
environment as well as the ability of local communities to
address critical water and sewage facility problems. The 10%
reduction in the request for the Agency's Operating Program,
which funds the Agency's basic environmental and public health
programs, will affect millions of Americans--the air they
breathe, the water they drink, the quality of their lives. The
Committee's cut to the Agency's enforcement programs will
escalate the level of non-compliance with environmental laws,
thus exacerbating the problems many Americans face from
increased pollution. No funds have been provided to address the
hundreds of requests from members for specific grants for water
and sewer repair and upgrades in communities in their
districts.
In addition, severe reductions to other targeted programs
continue to restrict EPA's ability to fulfill its mandates. The
Committee's action to reduce the Superfund program by $66
million below last year's level will eliminate many new
construction starts next year. Important Administration
initiatives have been totally eliminated. The Great Lakes grant
program, which would have addressed contaminated ``areas of
concern'' in the crown jewels of our nation's waterways, and
the Integrated Information Initiative, which would have moved
environmental information management to a new plane, have been
totally eliminated.
Finally, the bill includes legislative riders which would
impede the Agency's ability to meet its legal requirements. For
example, Committee report language directs, for the first time,
severe restrictions on the clean up of contaminated sediments
in scores of water bodies nationwide. In addition the Majority
has included new report language related to the Kyoto Protocol
and its impact on EPA's activities under existing environmental
laws. While the bill language is identical to previous years,
this new report language goes beyond a conference agreement
which was carefully negotiated in 1998, a compromise which
should not be modified through a report which the House is not
able to vote on.
It is time for the Committee to provide EPA with sufficient
resources to enforce the environmental laws passed by Congress.
Congress must also stop efforts to change these laws through
the appropriations process and to allow the Agency to fulfill
its promise to the American people of a safe, clean environment
for all Americans.
national science foundation
In the past decade, research by the National Science
Foundation (NSF) has helped fuel the growth of the economy
including two of its most vital sectors: information technology
and biotechnology. Yet, at a critical juncture for these
burgeoning industries and other NSF-supported areas, the
committee has cut $508 million from the President's requested
budget. While the committee's effort to add $167 million in
total funding over FY 2000 levels is laudable, the shortfall
from the proposed budget represents a crucial missed
opportunity to invigorate and enhance the nation's
technological capacity. The NSF's track record in stimulating
new technology is impressive. Fifteen years ago, NSF funds
created the Internet backbone, which later became the
cornerstone of today's $16 billion online retail industry. At
the same time, NSF researchers made the key discovery that
helped launch the biotechnology revolution, creating new drugs
and techniques like DNA fingerprinting. How many scientific and
economic breakthroughs will be lost in the coming years if
needed funding is diminished?
The recommended $90 million reduction in Computer and
Information Science and Engineering will seriously hinder the
NSF'scutting-edge initiative in information technology. Ongoing
work of this kind could be vital to the future of computing and the
Internet. The reduction of $30 million in Undergraduate Education is
tremendously shortsighted at a time when the nation is starved for
high-skill technical workers and Congress is considering increased
immigration to bring in skilled workers from abroad. Moreover, while
the Committee is ``concerned with the lack of research addressing
linkages between human health and the world's oceans,'' and urges new
initiatives in this area, the recommended appropriation in Geosciences
for FY 2001 is $59.2 million below the President's request--hardly an
impetus for new or expanded initiatives. Overall, the committee's
funding reduction will mean that 4000 less grants will be funded
involving 18,000 researchers and science educators. We believe this is
a short sighted recommendation at a time when our economy, and our
country, needs them most. Unfortunately the amendment proposed by Rep.
Obey to restore funding for NSF to the level requested by the President
was rejected by the Committee (roll call number 9).
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
While two of NASA's three main accounts are funded at the
President's request, once again the bill provides less than
requested for the other account, which funds scientific
research and technology development programs at NASA. Under the
bill, this Science, Aeronautics, and Technology account
receives a very small (one half of one percent) increase over
the current fiscal year, but $323 million less than requested
by the President.
In particular, the measure provides none of the $20 million
requested for ``Living with a Star''--a new NASA initiative
(building on existing programs) to improve understanding of the
Sun and its impact on the Earth's environment, and to help
provide early warning against solar events that can damage
communications and power systems on earth and in space.
Further, the bill provides none of the $290 million
requested for the Space Launch Initiative, which is NASA's
program to develop the next generation of reusable launch
vehicles--i.e., the vehicles that would replace or augment the
Space Shuttle. By doing so, it eliminates all funding for
advanced technology research, on-going work on two experimental
vehicles (the X-34 and X-37), and the ``alternate access to the
space station'' initiative which is intended to help stimulate
development of launch vehicles by small and emerging companies.
The bill also greatly reduces appropriations for on-going
research and development to improve air traffic control and
traffic management and reduce airport and airspace congestion.
The President requested $59.2 million for this ``Aviation
Systems Capacity'' program, but the bill provides just $10.1
million.
During committee consideration of the bill, Rep. Mollohan
offered an amendment to add $322.7 million to the Science,
Aeronautics and Technology account, to bring the level in the
bill up to the amount requested by the President. That
amendment, however, was defeated on a party-line vote (roll
call number 8).
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
The bill provides only $300 million of the $2.9 billion
requested by the President to replenish FEMA's Disaster Relief
Fund. The President's request was intended just to cover the
cost of an ``average'' year of natural disasters.
(Specifically, the request is based--as is the usual practice--
on the average cost of disaster assistance over the preceding
five years, excluding the unusually high costs associated with
the Northridge Earthquake.) It is necessary to maintain
adequate balances in the Disaster Relief Fund so that FEMA can
respond quickly to needs resulting from hurricanes, tornadoes,
floods, earthquakes, and other disasters, rather than having to
wait many months until Congress is able to provide supplemental
appropriations. If Congress were to adjourn without having
provided any funding beyond the $300 million in this bill,
FEMA's ability to meet emergency needs would be placed at risk.
During committee consideration of the bill, Rep. Boyd
offered an amendment to provide an additional $2.6 billion in
emergency appropriations for FEMA Disaster Relief, in order to
fully fund the President's request. The amendment was defeated
on a party line vote (roll call number 10).
CONCLUSION
Thus, the bill falls short of what is needed in a wide
range of areas. It represents a series of missed opportunities
to take action to alleviate affordable housing shortages,
expand scientific research, meet needs of veterans, and prepare
for natural disasters.
In saying this, we mean no criticism of the Chairman of the
VA-HUD subcommittee or anyone else who was involved in putting
together this bill. On the contrary, they did the best they
could with the allocation they were given. In several cases,
they did some useful and creative things to stretch dollars as
far as possible and improve programs.
The fundamental problem, however, is the Majority party's
overall budget strategy, which seeks to actually shrink
domestic appropriations in order to finance their agenda of tax
cuts targeted to the well off. This bill with all its
shortcomings is a direct consequence of that budget strategy.
Alan B. Mollohan.
Dave Obey.
