- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 279
106th Congress Report
1st Session SENATE 106-161
======================================================================
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000
_______
September 16, 1999.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bond, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1596]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1596)
making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs
and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other
purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the
bill do pass.
Amount of new budget (obligational) authority
Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... $97,214,196,000
Amount of appropriations to date, 1999.................. 94,721,961,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2000........................ 99,676,504,000
Under estimates for 2000............................ -2,462,308,000
Above appropriations for 1999....................... +2,492,235,000
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs.......................... 6
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development............ 30
Title III--Independent agencies:
American Battle Monuments Commission......................... 64
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board............... 64
Department of the Treasury: Community development financial
institutions............................................... 66
Consumer Product Safety Commission........................... 67
Corporation for National and Community Service............... 67
U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals............................... 70
Department of Defense--Civil: Cemeterial expenses, Army...... 71
Environmental Protection Agency.............................. 71
Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and
Technology
Policy..................................................... 96
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental
Quality.................................................... 97
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector
General.................................................... 97
Federal Emergency Management Agency.......................... 98
General Services Administration: Consumer Information Center. 106
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................ 107
National Credit Union Administration......................... 126
National Science Foundation.................................. 127
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................ 135
Selective Service System..................................... 136
Title IV--General provisions..................................... 137
INTRODUCTION
The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2000 provides a total of $97,214,196,000, including
approximately $23,396,626,000 in mandatory spending. The
Committee did its best to meet all important priorities within
the bill, with the highest priority given to veterans programs
and section 8 contract renewals. Other priorities included
maintaining environmental programs at or above current year
levels, ensuring adequate funds for our Nation's space and
scientific research programs, and providing adequate funding
for emergency management and disaster relief.
As recommended by the Committee, this bill attempts to
provide a fair and balanced approach to the many competing
programs and activities under the VA-HUD subcommittee's
jurisdiction within the constraints imposed by a very tight
budget allocation, including constraints dictated by the 1997
budget agreement designed to result in a unified Federal budget
in fiscal year 2002.
The Committee recommendation provides $20,354,058,000 in
discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs,
an increase of $1,107,793,000 above the fiscal year 1999
enacted level and $1,164,000,000 above the budget request. The
Committee has made veterans programs the highest priority in
the bill. Increases in VA programs include $1,100,000,000 above
the budget request for medical care, $50,000,000 above the
request for the State home program, and $14,000,000 above the
request for the state cemetery grant program.
For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
Committee recommendation totals $27,155,816,000, an increase of
$2,486,483,000 over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The
Committee has provided fair and needed funding for all HUD
programs while also providing the needed funding for all
expiring section 8 contracts.
For the Environmental Protection Agency, the Committee
recommendation totals $7,322,378,000, a decrease of $26,974,000
below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and an increase of
$115,732,000 above the budget request. Major changes from the
President's request include an increase of $550,000,000 for
clean water State revolving funds and a decrease of
$100,000,000 below the request for Superfund.
The Committee recommendation includes $854,580,000 for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, including additional funds
for emergency food and shelter, anti-terrorism, and fire
program enhancements.
The Committee recommendation for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration totals $13,378,400,000. This amount is
the same as the President's request. The Committee
recommendation includes a restructuring of NASA's appropriation
accounts to ensure greater accountability of the international
space station program and to protect other vital NASA programs.
For the National Science Foundation, the Committee
recommendation totals $3,921,450,000, an increase of
$250,250,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The
Committee views NSF as a key investment in the future and this
funding is intended to reaffirm the strong and longstanding
leadership of this Committee in support of scientific research
and education.
The Committee strongly supports the Offices of Inspector
General [OIG] and their efforts to combat fraud, waste and
abuse, and promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness of
programs. Therefore, the Committee has provided significant
increases to the Offices of Inspector General wherever
necessary to enhance such activities. Increases over the fiscal
year 1999 level include $7,200,000 or 20 percent for the VA
OIG, $3,000,000 or 10 percent for the EPA OIG, and $2,615,000
or 48 percent for the FEMA OIG. The bill also includes a new
$10,000,000 audit account for the HUD IG to investigate
longstanding accounting deficiencies at HUD. The additional
resources will be focused on high priority concerns identified
by Congress, OMB, and the agencies.
Reprogramming and Initiation of New Programs
The Committee continues to have a particular interest in
being informed of reprogrammings which, although they may not
change either the total amount available in an account or any
of the purposes for which the appropriation is legally
available, represent a significant departure from budget plans
presented to the Committee in an agency's budget
justifications.
Consequently, the Committee directs the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and the
agencies funded through this bill, to notify the chairman of
the Committee prior to each reprogramming of funds in excess of
$250,000 between programs, activities, or elements unless an
alternate amount for the agency or department in question is
specified elsewhere in this report. The Committee desires to be
notified of reprogramming actions which involve less than the
above-mentioned amounts if such actions would have the effect
of changing an agency's funding requirements in future years or
if programs or projects specifically cited in the Committee's
reports are affected. Finally, the Committee wishes to be
consulted regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, and
activities prior to the planned implementation of such
reorganizations.
The Committee also expects the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, as well as the
Corporation for National and Community Service, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, to submit operating plans,
signed by the respective secretary, administrator, or agency
head, for the Committee's approval within 30 days of the bill's
enactment. Other agencies within the bill should continue to
submit operating plans consistent with prior year policy.
Government Performance and Results Act
The Committee remains very concerned regarding the
compliance of the major agencies within the jurisdiction of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent
Agencies with regard to the Government Performance and Results
Act [GPRA]. While each agency has made progress toward
compliance with GPRA, each has additional progress to make.
Each agency must do better at providing objective, measurable
goals for all program activities and projects, and each budget
justification must tie these goals into a coherent set of
funding requests.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Appropriations, 1999
$42,625,039,000
Budget estimate, 2000
42,586,684,000
Committee recommendation
43,750,684,000
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Veterans Administration was established as an
independent agency by Executive Order 5398 of July 21, 1930, in
accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 1016). This
act authorized the President to consolidate and coordinate
Federal agencies especially created for or concerned with the
administration of laws providing benefits to veterans,
including the Veterans' Bureau, the Bureau of Pensions, and the
National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers. On March 15,
1989, VA was elevated to Cabinet-level status as the Department
of Veterans Affairs.
The VA's mission is to serve America's veterans and their
families as their principal advocate in ensuring that they
receive the care, support, and recognition they have earned in
service to the Nation. The VA's operating units include the
Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Benefits
Administration, National Cemetery Administration, and staff
offices.
The Veterans Health Administration develops, maintains, and
operates a national health care delivery system for eligible
veterans; carries out a program of education and training of
health care personnel; carries out a program of medical
research and development; and furnishes health services to
members of the Armed Forces during periods of war or national
emergency. A system of 172 medical centers, 811 outpatient
clinics, 132 nursing homes, and 40 domiciliaries is maintained
to meet the VA's medical mission.
The Veterans Benefits Administration provides an integrated
program of nonmedical veteran benefits. This Administration
administers a broad range of benefits to veterans and other
eligible beneficiaries through 58 regional offices and the
records processing center in St. Louis, MO. The benefits
provided include: compensation for service-connected
disabilities; pensions for wartime, needy, and totally disabled
veterans; vocational rehabilitation assistance; educational and
training assistance; home buying assistance; estate protection
services for veterans under legal disability; information and
assistance through personalized contacts; and six life
insurance programs.
The National Cemetery Administration provides for the
interment in any national cemetery with available grave space
the remains of eligible deceased servicepersons and discharged
veterans; permanently maintains these graves; marks graves of
eligible persons in national and private cemeteries; and
administers the grant program for aid to States in
establishing, expanding, or improving State veterans'
cemeteries. The National Cemetery System includes 153
cemeterial installations and activities.
Other VA offices, including the general counsel, inspector
general, Boards of Contract Appeals and Veterans Appeals, and
the general administration, support the Secretary, Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretary for Health, Under Secretary for
Benefits, and the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $43,750,684,000 for the Department
of Veterans Affairs, including $23,396,626,000 in mandatory
spending and $20,354,058,000 in discretionary spending. The
amount provided for discretionary activities represents an
increase of $1,164,000,000 above the budget request and
$1,107,793,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The
Committee has given VA programs--especially medical care--the
highest priority in the bill. Increases above the President's
request are recommended for medical care, state home
construction grants, and state cemetery grants. The
appropriation for VA will ensure the highest quality care and
services to our Nation's veterans, and honor and dignity to
those who are deceased.
Veterans Benefits Administration
compensation and pensions
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1999
$21,857,058,000
Budget estimate, 2000
21,568,364,000
Committee recommendation
21,568,364,000
program description
Compensation is payable to living veterans who have
suffered impairment of earning power from service-connected
disabilities. The amount of compensation is based upon the
impact of disabilities on earning capacity. Death compensation
or dependency and indemnity compensation is payable to the
surviving spouses and dependents of veterans whose deaths occur
while on active duty or result from service-connected
disabilities. A clothing allowance may also be provided for
service-connected veterans who use a prosthetic or orthopedic
device.
Pensions are an income security benefit payable to needy
wartime veterans who are precluded from gainful employment due
to non-service-connected disabilities which render them
permanently and totally disabled. Under the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990, veterans 65 years of age or older
are no longer considered permanently and totally disabled by
law and are thus subject to a medical evaluation. Death
pensions are payable to needy surviving spouses and children of
deceased wartime veterans. The rate payable for both disability
and death pensions is determined on the basis of the annual
income of the veteran or his survivors.
This account also funds burial benefits and miscellaneous
assistance.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $21,568,364,000 for compensation
and pensions. This is a decrease of $288,694,000 below the
fiscal year 1999 enacted level and the same as the budget
estimate.
The estimated caseload and cost by program follows:
COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:
Compensation:
Veterans.................................... 2,273,901 2,267,620 -6,281
Survivors................................... 302,748 300,001 -2,747
Children.................................... 633 633 ..................
(Clothing allowance)........................ (76,627) (76,416) -211
Pensions:
Veterans.................................... 387,952 380,995 -6,957
Survivors................................... 282,715 267,945 -14,770
Minimum income for widows (non-add)......... (675) (670) -5
Vocational training (non- add).............. (15) (8) -7
Burial allowances............................... 92,310 91,380 -930
===========================================================
Funds:
Compensation:
Veterans.................................... $14,796,699,000 $15,119,868,000 +$323,169,000
Survivors................................... 3,470,343,000 3,570,531,000 +100,188,000
Children.................................... 7,463,000 7,684,000 +221,000
Clothing allowance.......................... 40,494,000 40,382,000 -112,000
Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508 and 102-568) 1,419,000 1,388,000 -31,000
Medical exams pilot program (Public Law 104-275) 17,152,000 20,147,000 +2,995,000
Pensions:
Veterans.................................... 2,366,613,000 2,419,078,000 +52,465,000
Survivors................................... 717,596,000 697,470,000 -20,126,000
Minimum income for widows................... 3,429,000 3,479,000 +50,000
Vocational training............................. 42,000 23,000 -19,000
Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508, 102-568, 9,552,000 9,344,000 -208,000
and 103-446)...................................
Payment to Medical Care (Public Laws 101-508 and 6,793,000 7,200,000 +407,000
102-568).......................................
Payment to Medical Facilities................... 4,676,000 2,436,000 -2,240,000
Burial benefits................................. 126,793,000 120,077,000 -6,716,000
Other assistance................................ 2,466,000 2,466,000 ..................
Contingency..................................... .................. .................. ..................
Unobligated balance and trans- fers............ 285,527,000 -453,208,000 -738,735,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation......................... \1\ 21,857,058,000 \1\ 21,568,365,000 \1\ -288,694,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals do not add down due to rounding.
The appropriation includes $38,079,000 in payments to the
``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' accounts
for expenses related to implementing provisions of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, the Veterans' Benefits Act
of 1992, the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, and
the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1996. The amount
also includes funds for a projected fiscal year 2000 cost-of-
living increase of 2.4 percent for pension recipients.
The bill includes language permitting this appropriation to
reimburse such sums as may be necessary, estimated at
$2,436,000, to the medical facilities revolving fund to help
defray the operating expenses of individual medical facilities
for nursing home care provided to pensioners, should
authorizing legislation be enacted.
The Committee has not included language proposed by the
administration that would provide indefinite fiscal year 2000
supplemental appropriations after June 30, 2000 for
compensation and pensions. The Committee has also rejected
proposed bill language to split this account into three
separate appropriation accounts.
readjustment benefits
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $1,175,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 1,469,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,469,000,000
program description
The readjustment benefits appropriation finances the
education and training of veterans and servicepersons whose
initial entry on active duty took place on or after July 1,
1985. These benefits are included in the All-Volunteer Force
Educational Assistance Program (Montgomery GI bill) authorized
under 38 U.S.C. 30. Eligibility to receive this assistance
began in 1987. Basic benefits are funded through appropriations
made to the readjustment benefits appropriation and transfers
from the Department of Defense. Supplemental benefits are also
provided to certain veterans and this funding is available from
transfers from the Department of Defense. This account also
finances vocational rehabilitation, specially adapted housing
grants, automobile grants with the associated approved adaptive
equipment for certain disabled veterans, and finances
educational assistance allowances for eligible dependents of
those veterans who died from service-connected causes or have a
total permanent service-connected disability as well as
dependents of servicepersons who were captured or missing in
action.
committee recommendation
The Committee has recommended the budget estimate of
$1,469,000,000 for readjustment benefits. The amount
recommended is an increase of $294,000,000 above the fiscal
year 1999 enacted level.
The estimated caseload and cost for this account follows:
READJUSTMENT BENEFITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of trainees:
Education and training: Dependents................. 44,100 45,600 +1,500
All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
Veterans and servicepersons.................... 289,000 281,000 -8,000
Reservists..................................... 74,200 73,000 -1,200
Vocational rehabilitation.......................... 51,440 50,726 -714
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 458,740 450,326 -8,414
========================================================
Funds:
Education and training: Dependents................. $132,182,000 $136,574,000 +$4,392,000
All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
Veterans and servicepersons.................... 904,665,000 896,804,000 -7,861,000
Reservists..................................... 105,876,000 107,986,000 +2,110,000
Vocational rehabilitation.......................... 403,206,000 405,855,000 +2,649,000
Housing grants..................................... 19,373,000 19,373,000 .................
Automobiles and other conveyances.................. 6,494,000 6,494,000 .................
Adaptive equipment................................. 26,600,000 31,700,000 +5,100,000
Work-study......................................... 34,500,000 39,900,000 +5,400,000
Payment to States.................................. 13,000,000 13,000,000 .................
Reporting fees..................................... ................. 3,600,000 +3,600,000
Unobligated balance and other adjustments.......... -470,896,000 -192,286,000 +278,610,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation............................ 1,175,000,000 1,469,000,000 +294,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
veterans insurance and indemnities
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $46,450,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 28,670,000
Committee recommendation................................ 28,670,000
program description
The veterans insurance and indemnities appropriation is
made up of the former appropriations for military and naval
insurance, applicable to World War I veterans; National Service
Life Insurance, applicable to certain World War II veterans;
Servicemen's indemnities, applicable to Korean conflict
veterans; and veterans mortgage life insurance to individuals
who have received a grant for specially adapted housing.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $28,670,000 for veterans
insurance and indemnities, as requested by the administration.
This is a decrease of $17,780,000 below the fiscal year 1999
enacted level. The Department estimates there will be 4,486,887
policies in force in fiscal year 2000 with a total value of
$459,619,000.
VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Program account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999.................. $300,266,000 $159,121,000
Budget estimate, 2000................. 282,342,000 156,958,000
Committee recommendation.............. 282,342,000 156,958,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides for all costs, with the
exception of the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program,
of VA's direct and guaranteed loans, as well as the
administrative expenses to carry out these programs, which may
be transferred to and merged with the general operating
expenses appropriation.
VA loan guaranties are made to service members, veterans,
reservists and unremarried surviving spouses for the purchase
of homes, condominiums, manufactured homes and for refinancing
loans. VA guarantees part of the total loan, permitting the
purchaser to obtain a mortgage with a competitive interest
rate, even without a downpayment if the lender agrees. VA
requires that a downpayment be made for a manufactured home.
With a VA guaranty, the lender is protected against loss up to
the amount of the guaranty if the borrower fails to repay the
loan.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends such sums as may be necessary for
funding subsidy payments, estimated to total $282,342,000, and
$156,958,000 for administrative expenses. The administrative
expenses may be transferred to the ``General operating
expenses'' account. Bill language limits gross obligations for
direct loans for specially adopted housing to $300,000.
education loan fund program account
(including transfer of funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999.................... $1,000 $206,000
Budget estimate, 2000................... 1,000 214,000
Committee recommendation................ 1,000 214,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
This appropriation covers the cost of direct loans for
eligible dependents and, in addition, it includes
administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct loan
program. The administrative funds may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for the general operating
expenses to cover the common overhead expenses.
committee recommendation
The bill includes $1,000 for funding subsidy program costs
and $214,000 for administrative expenses. The administrative
expenses may be transferred to and merged with the ``General
operating expenses'' account. Bill language is included
limiting program direct loans to $3,000.
vocational rehabilitation loans program account
(including transfer of funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999.................... $55,000 $400,000
Budget estimate, 2000................... 57,000 415,000
Committee recommendation................ 57,000 415,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
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 $827
(based on indexed chapter 31 subsistence allowance rate) are
available to service-connected disabled veterans enrolled in
vocational rehabilitation programs as provided under 38 U.S.C.
chapter 31 when the veteran is temporarily in need of
additional assistance. Repayment is made in 10 monthly
installments, without interest, through deductions from future
payments of compensation, pension, subsistence allowance,
educational assistance allowance, or retirement pay.
committee recommendation
The bill includes the requested $57,000 for program costs
and $415,000 for administrative expenses for the Vocational
Rehabilitation Loans Program account. The administrative
expenses may be transferred to and merged with the ``General
operating expenses'' account. Bill language is included
limiting program direct loans to $2,531,000. It is estimated
that VA will make 4,600 loans in fiscal year 2000, with an
average amount of $550.
native american veteran housing loan program account
(including transfer of funds)
Administrative
expenses
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $515,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 520,000
Committee recommendation................................ 520,000
program description
This program will test the feasibility of enabling VA to
make direct home loans to native American veterans who live on
U.S. trust lands. It is a pilot program that began in 1993 and
expires on December 31, 2001. Subsidy amounts necessary to
support this program were appropriated in fiscal year 1993.
committee recommendation
The bill includes the budget estimate of $520,000 for
administrative expenses associated with this program in fiscal
year 2000. These funds may be transferred to the ``General
operating expenses'' account.
GUARANTEED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOANS FOR HOMELESS VETERANS PROGRAM
ACCOUNT
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This program was established by Public Law 105-368, the
Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998. The program is a
pilot project designed to expand the supply of transitional
housing for homeless veterans and to guarantee up to 15 loans
with a maximum aggregate value of $100,000,000. Not more than
five loans may be guaranteed in the first 3 years of the
program. The project must enforce sobriety standards and
provide a wide range of supportive services such as counseling
for substance abuse and job readiness skills. Residents will be
required to pay a reasonable fee.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The bill includes the budget estimate of $48,250,000 for
program costs, and a loan limitation of $100,000,000.
Administrative expenses of the program, estimated at $750,000
for fiscal year 2000, will be borne by the ``Medical care'' and
``General operating expenses'' appropriations.
Veterans Health Administration
MEDICAL CARE
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $17,306,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 17,306,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 18,406,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] operates the
largest Federal medical care delivery system in the country,
with 172 medical centers, 40 domiciliaries, 132 nursing homes,
and 811 outpatient clinics which includes independent,
satellite, community-based, and rural outreach clinics.
This appropriation provides for medical care and treatment
of eligible beneficiaries in VA hospitals, nursing homes,
domiciliaries, and outpatient clinic facilities; contract
hospitals; State home facilities on a grant basis; contract
community nursing homes; and through the hometown outpatient
program, on a fee basis. Hospital and outpatient care also are
provided for certain dependents and survivors of veterans under
the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the VA [CHAMPVA].
The medical care appropriation also provides for training of
medical residents and interns and other professional
paramedical and administrative personnel in health science
fields to support the Department's and the Nation's health
manpower demands.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $18,406,000,000 for VA medical
care, an increase of $1,100,000,000 over the budget request and
the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. In addition, VA has
authority to retain third-party collections, estimated by the
Department to total $749,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
Therefore, the Committee's recommendation represents total
discretionary resources for medical care of $19,155,000,000.
The Committee recognizes that VA has been making
significant progress toward its goals of reducing per-patient
costs by 30 percent and increasing the number of new patients
by 20 percent by the fiscal year 2002, from 1997 levels. VA has
made great strides in streamlining its health care system,
shifting care to outpatient settings where appropriate, closing
unutilized inpatient beds, and eliminating wasteful practices.
While the Veterans Health Administration has been transforming
itself into a more modern and efficient, patient-focused health
care system, significant challenges remain. These include the
need to improve capital asset management so as to optimize the
use of VA health care dollars (this issue is addressed in the
``Construction, major projects'' and ``Capital Asset Fund''
accounts), maintain sufficient capacity to serve patients with
special disabilities, improve revenue collections, continue to
implement the recommendations of the Residency Realignment
Review Committee and adapt to changes in its relationships with
medical affiliates, and manage effectively the patient
enrollment system. These challenges will be magnified as VA
seeks to implement additional management efficiencies including
reductions in staff.
According to the budget justification, additional
streamlining and cost-cutting measures are planned for fiscal
year 2000; such ``management efficiencies'' would total
$1,145,326,000 in savings and a reduction of 6,949 FTE,
according to the President's budget. The Committee has not been
provided full details of these management efficiencies, and is
concerned that VA's budget request is insufficient to maintain
high quality medical care to our nation's veterans in view of
the magnitude of the proposed reductions.
The Committee notes that VA's budget was not predicated on
a detailed assessment of requirements, and no analysis of the
specific reductions which would occur under the budget proposal
were conducted prior to submission of the President's budget.
The Committee, during hearings on VA's fiscal year 2000 budget,
requested that such analysis be conducted. VA's recent field
survey indicated that the President's budget would actually
require a reduction of 13,000 FTEs, almost double that
suggested in the budget justification. Moreover, many of the
specific reductions being considered by the networks are
unacceptable.
The Committee notes that VA has some new demands on its
budget which were not envisioned at the time the ``30-20-10''
initiative was developed. In particular, VA faces a significant
new requirement associated with treating veterans suffering
from hepatitis C with a new and costly therapy. VA plans to
address aggressively this serious public health problem--an
approach strongly supported by the Committee--at an estimated
cost of approximately $350,000,000 in fiscal year 2000. In
addition, costs for pharmacy and prosthetics are anticipated to
be significantly higher than originally estimated. Yet the
administration has ignored these critical requirements.
For these reasons, the Committee has added $1,100,000,000
to the budget. The amount provided by the Committee ensures VA
will not be required to take untenable and inappropriate
personnel actions, restrict access to care, reduce services, or
implement closures or delays that would occur under the
President's budget. The Committee continues to support
strongly, however, continued improvements such as
standardization efforts which will reduce costs while improving
quality of care and access to medical services.
The Committee is extremely troubled by the fact the
administration refused to conduct a detailed assessment of the
requirements of the Veterans Health Administration, and is
saddened by the fact that the administration has not made a
higher priority of veterans' needs in its budget process. There
are approximately 3.4 million American veterans who depend on
VA for medical care services, and deserve the best possible
treatment. The Committee expects the administration's fiscal
year 2001 budget request will include a more appropriate and
realistic estimate of requirements for VA medical care,
accompanied by detailed analysis.
Cost collections.--The Committee continues to be troubled
by VA's poor performance in its medical collections program.
Funds made available through the cost recovery program are a
critical component of VA's budget. Unfortunately, collections
have consistently fallen behind targets. Last year, collections
were estimated at $598,000,000, with actual collections
totaling $560,096,498, a reduction of 6 percent. For fiscal
year 1999, a $50,500,000 shortfall below the original estimate
is anticipated. The Committee is concerned that VA will fail
again in fiscal year 2000 to meet its targets despite the
department's efforts to implement recommendations made by
Coopers & Lybrand to improve the cost recovery program. The
Committee believes VA should consider centralizing and/or
contracting out this function so as to maximize collections
potential. Therefore, the Committee directs VA to conduct a
study that examines the issues involved in outsourcing the
revenue process, including contracting out some or all of its
third and first-party revenue processes. The study should
identify key decision points and provide alternatives that will
result in the most revenues to the VA. VA shall report to the
Committee on the results of this study by October 30, 1999,
including a timeline for implementation during fiscal year
2000.
Long-term care issues.--In view of the growing demand for
long-term care services for veterans, the Committee supports
the Department's efforts to develop a long-term care strategy.
This strategy should include expanding options and services for
home and community-based care, making these services the
preferred placement site where clinically appropriate;
establishing systemwide care coordination processes; and
establishing a uniform VA-wide policy on the provision of
nursing home services. The Committee recognizes the importance
of the recommendations made by the Federal Advisory Committee
on the Future of VA Long-Term Care.
In keeping with this, the Committee stresses that long-term
care funds are not to be restricted to nursing homes, but shall
include other long-term care services as appropriate.
In addition, the Committee urges VA to undertake six long-
term care demonstration programs, separate from the community
nursing home contract, to test the impact of a mix of
approaches to care coordination and management on leveraging
limited VA resources to meet more veterans needs for long-term
care services. VA should plan and manage this program with the
assistance of an experienced contract coordinator and manager
of long-term care services. The program should be evaluated by
an independent entity, such as GAO, including an analysis of
clinical and cost outcomes, veteran and family satisfaction,
and effective management of a full continuum of services.
The Committee notes that the State Home Program could
provide an avenue of opportunity for VA to provide home-based
personal care services to those veterans in need of long-term
care who wish to remain in their own homes. VA should give
close consideration to utilizing the state home programs to
provide in-home health care services.
Mental illness.--The Committee urges VA to place veterans
who are diagnosed as chronically mentally ill in case
management programs to provide services with a scope and
intensity equivalent to case management services delivered to
patients with similar diagnoses in state public mental health
systems. Funds for this activity could come from funds which
have been saved from eliminating beds in inpatient psychiatric
facilities.
The Committee directs VHA to require each Veterans
Integrated Service Network to submit comprehensive written
reports regarding the consolidation or closure of psychiatric
programs for veterans with mental illness. These reports should
address how the VISN's will provide alternative community-based
mental health services and how dollars saved from cuts in
inpatient psychiatric facilities will be redirected toward
these services. Reports concerning previous and future
consolidations must be submitted by the VISN's to VHA by
December 31, 1999. A report is to be submitted to the Committee
by February 28, 2000.
Fee-basis cost containment.--The Committee notes that VA
currently spends nearly $500,000,000 annually on fee-basis and
other contract care, not including community nursing home and
CHAMPVA programs. VA may not be receiving the most favorable
competitive rates from community providers because it has not
negotiated volume discounts or used managed care programs to
bring costs down and manage utilization appropriately.
Additionally, VA does not coordinate care, use quality or
access measures, or have the ability to determine continuity or
appropriateness of care. Therefore, the Committee believes VA
should conduct a pilot program of managed care services in up
to four VISNs, using an experienced managed care coordinator
with an in-place, credentialed network of providers, for
patients receiving fee-basis and other contract care. The pilot
is to determine the extent to which VA could save resources;
achieve better coordination of contracted care; improve
quality, access and continuity of care; and create reliable and
available data.
Recovery audit program.--The Committee has included bill
language authorizing VA to conduct a recovery audit program for
the fee-basis and other contract medical programs. VA is to
select a contractor with experience in conducting similar
audits and recovery efforts to determine overpayments and
payments which were not authorized, and to take steps to
recover overpayments. VA could recover tens of millions of
dollars which would be returned to the medical care account for
services to veterans.
Alaska Health Care Partnership.--The Committee supports the
Alaska Federal Health Care Partnership's efforts to develop an
Alaska-wide telemedicine network to provide access to health
services and health education information in remote areas of
Alaska to the more than 200,000 Federal beneficiaries now
living in Alaska, including more than 65,000 veterans. The
partnership, a joint effort of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, Department of Defense, Coast Guard, and the Indian
Health Service, is creating 235 telemedicine health care access
sites over a 4-year period at VA, IHS, DOD, and Coast Guard
clinical facilities throughout Alaska, linking remote
installations and villages with tertiary health facilities
located in Anchorage and Fairbanks. It should serve as a model
for the use of telemedicine technology for the delivery of
health care services and health care education in remote and
inaccessible settings. The Committee anticipates that the
Alaska telemedicine network will generate substantial savings
by avoiding the high cost of transporting veterans from remote
villages to Anchorage or other hub medical facilities for
routine health problems and will result in a significantly
higher level of available health care for Alaska veterans
living in remote and inaccessible locations. The Committee
recommends funding of $750,000 for the Department of Veterans
Affairs to continue its participation in the partnership's
Alaska telemedicine project.
Ft. Howard VAMC transition plan.--The Committee is aware of
the VA's plan to transition the Ft. Howard VAMC to a mixed use
facility. The Committee expects VISN 5 to submit its business
plan to VA headquarters by January 15, 2000. The Committee
believes that public participation and input are critical to
any transitional plan. The Committee directs the VA to solicit
the input of the community, veterans and veterans service
organizations in Maryland prior to the submission of the
business plan. The business plan must include a rigorous
analysis of the proposed continuum of care and assisted living
model to ensure that the facility will be affordable and
valuable for veterans and the taxpayers. The plan also must
include a detailed analysis of the proposed management
structure and breakdown of responsibilities among the
participants. Furthermore, during any transitional phase at Ft.
Howard, the VA must maintain patient care and access to patient
care for veterans and their families. There cannot be any
interruption of medical care or changes in medical care that
pose an undue burden to the Ft. Howard staff, the veterans and
their families.
Hepatitis C.--The Committee reiterates its concern
regarding the disproportionately high prevalence of hepatitis C
among veterans. Caring for veterans with hepatitis C will lead
to significantly greater health care costs unless VA pursues a
vigorous program of testing and treatment. The Committee urges
VA to make testing for hepatitis C broadly available to
veterans, and to use all available therapies in the most
clinically appropriate and cost-effective manner.
Medication Prescription Authority.--On May 4, 1999, VA
issued a proposed rule that would permit ``other health care
professionals'' (non-physicians) to prescribe medications and
to conduct medication reviews. Subsequently, the VA withdrew
the proposed rule. Prior to any further consideration of such a
proposal, VA should conduct an internal review, including a
public hearing, to discuss the implications for patient safety
and to explore the specific role and legal responsibility of
physicians and non-physician health care professionals with
regard to prescription authority for patients in the VA health
care system. VA should consult with the American Medical
Association and other interested parties in conducting this
internal review and public hearing.
National Formulary.--The Committee notes that
pharmaceutical costs represent almost $2,000,000,000 of VA's
medical care budget. The Department's aggressive management of
pharmaceutical costs has saved hundreds of millions of dollars
over the past five years, allowing more dollars to be directed
to health care for veterans. Therefore, the Committee supports
implementation of the national formulary along with VA's waiver
policy to ensure the most cost-effective use of pharmaceutical
dollars while ensuring access to drugs not on the formulary
when appropriate.
Persian Gulf War Veterans.--The Committee notes that July
1999 submission of the National Academy of Sciences Institute
of Medicine's plan to review the scientific and medical
literature regarding adverse health effects associated with
exposures experienced during the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act
of 1998 (Section XVI of Public Law 105-277). This legislation
was intended to speed the long overdue relief owed to veterans
of the Persian Gulf War. Therefore, the Committee strongly
urges the Secretary in collaboration with the National Academy
of Sciences, to continue expeditiously the determination of
service-connection for ill veterans under the Persian Gulf War
Veterans Act of 1998.
Other issues.--The Committee is aware of the need for
community-based outpatient clincs in Beaufort, Sumter, and
Orangeburg, SC, which would improve services to over 150,000
veterans in 16 counties. The Committee urges VHA to accelerate
efforts by the Charleston and Columbia VAMC to promote these
valuable initiatives and keep the Committee apprised of its
progress.
The Committee directs the Department to continue the
demonstration project involving the Clarksburg VAMC and the
Ruby Memorial Hospital at West Virginia University.
The Committee also supports the continuation of the
inpatient services contracting demonstration program at the
Brevard VAMC.
The Committee supports VA's efforts to explore with the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention opportunities to
maximize the resources of both agencies to reduce complications
of diabetes through the CDC's prevention centers located at
schools of public health, and to expand this initiative to
include hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases.
The Committee supports VA's efforts to undertake a three-
year rural health care pilot program at the White River
Junction, VT, VAMC. The rural health care services delivery
model will explore new methods of optimizing surgical,
ambulatory and mental health care services in rural settings.
VA estimates this will cost approximately $7,000,000 in fiscal
year 2000.
The Committee is aware of commercially available clinical
guidance software tools that are being used by the Department
of Defense to assess the health of Persian Gulf servicemembers.
The Committee believes that such tools could deliver value to
the VA by identifying veteran medical problems and solutions
continuously, and creating standardized patient data to analyze
better how resources are being used. Accordingly, the Committee
directs that the VA report to the Committee by April 1, 2000,
on the efficacy of such tools, their applicability in the VA
system, and their compatibility with the Government
Computerized Medical Record.
The Committee urges VA to conduct a feasibility analysis of
a VA telemedicine project at the Honolulu VAMROC to assess the
value of telemedicine and telecommunications technologies to
deliver health care services to veterans residing throughout
the islands of the Pacific region.
The Committee continues to support the VA's efforts to
strengthen its psychology post-doctoral training program, and
requests a report on the program's progress, including the
number of training slots and their location, by March 1, 2000.
The Committee is also interested in the progress being made in
interdisciplinary training programs.
The Committee remains supportive of the VA/DOD distance
learning project designed to transition clinical nurse
specialists into roles as adult nurse practitioners. The
Committee requests a progress report by March 1, 2000.
The Committee urges VA to provide support to establish a
Veterans Intervention, Education, and Training Network at the
HAMMER Training and Education Center to work with the National
Veterans Foundation to provide crisis intervention and other
counseling to veterans.
The Committee urges VA to continue to work to establish a
partnership with the Garden State Cancer Center to make
radioimmunodetection and radioimmunotherapy technology
available to cancer afflicted veterans.
Colorectal cancer remains the second leading cause of
cancer-related deaths in the U.S. With early detection through
appropriate screenings, colorectal cancer also remains one of
the most curable forms of cancer. The Committee urges VA to
take all necessary steps to ensure that federal policy and
guidelines calling for regular screenings of all average risk
adults 50 years of age and older are being consistently applied
to VA's patient population. These guidelines call for yearly
fecal occult blood tests and flexible sigmoidoscopy conducted
every five years for average risk patients and surveillance of
the entire colon with colonoscopy for those patients considered
to be at high risk.
The Committee supports further deployment of the Joslin
Vision Network, which uses non-invasive diabetes screening to
detect diabetes earlier than other available tests, as well as
emphasizing preventive care and behavioral modifications.
The Committee has included bill language transferring not
to exceed $27,907,000 to the general operating expenses account
for expenses of the Office of Resolution Management
($26,111,000) and Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint
Adjudication ($1,796,000). The Committee directs that funds for
this activity be included in the general operating expenses
budget request for fiscal year 2001.
The Committee has included bill language delaying the
availability until August 1, 2000, of $635,000,000 in the
equipment, lands, and structures object classifications.
The Committee has included bill language, similar to that
proposed by the administration, to make available through
September 30, 2001, up to $900,000,000, approximately 5 percent
of the medical care appropriation. This provides flexibility to
the Department as it continues to implement significant program
changes.
medical and prosthetic research
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $316,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 316,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 316,000,000
program description
The ``Medical and prosthetic research'' account provides
funds for medical, rehabilitative, and health services
research. Medical research supports basic and clinical studies
that advance knowledge leading to improvements in the
prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases and
disabilities. Rehabilitation research focuses on rehabilitation
engineering problems in the fields of prosthetics, orthotics,
adaptive equipment for vehicles, sensory aids and related
areas. Health services research focuses on improving the
effectiveness and economy of delivery of health services.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget request of $316,000,000
for medical and prosthetic research. This is the same as the
fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The Committee remains highly
supportive of this program, and recognizes its importance both
in improving health care services to veterans and recruiting
and retaining high-quality medical professionals in the
Veterans Health Administration.
The Committee supports VA's efforts to address the
difficulty VA physician-investigators have finding time to
conduct research.
The Committee strongly supports the merit review process
for the allocation of VA research funds.
The Committee urges VA to establish a Triservice Nursing
Research Program to enhance nursing research initiatives and to
focus on specific health care needs of aging veterans.
Given the mounting evidence that Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is
a primary cause leading to the rising incidence of
hepatocellular carcinoma, the Committee urges VA to conduct
longitudinal studies to determine the clinical course of
Hepatitis C and factors resulting in the progression of HCV to
cirrhosis and liver cancer.
The Committee is concerned with the dramatic rise in the
incidence rates of lower esophageal and upper stomach cancers.
The Committee understands that experts believe there is a
strong and probable causal relationship between
gastroesophageal reflux and esophageal adenocarcinoma. The
Committee therefore urges VA to intensify research efforts on
the relationship between acid reflux and lower esophageal/upper
stomach cancer.
The Committee urges VA to consider working with its
affiliated schools of public health to conduct research to
develop population-based interventions and studies on health
problems that predominantly affect veterans. Population-based
health promotion research will aid VA as it continues its
transformation to a more comprehensive, cost-efficient health
care delivery system.
Recent research has documented the link between
neurofibromatosis and cancer, brain tumors and heart disease.
The Committee encourages the VA to increase its NF research
portfolio, in addition to continuing to collaborate with other
Federal agencies. In addition, the Committee requests that the
VA report on these efforts by March 1, 2000.
medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $63,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 61,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 60,703,000
program description
This appropriation provides funds for central office
executive direction (Under Secretary for Health and staff),
administration and supervision of all VA medical and
construction programs, including development and implementation
of policies, plans, and program objectives.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $60,703,000 for medical
administration and miscellaneous operating expenses, a decrease
of $2,297,000 below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The
reduction of $497,000 below the administration's request
reflects two technical adjustments requested by the Department,
one involving the funding mechanism for the Office of
Facilities Management and another involving the consolidation
of headquarters' public affairs activities. The amount provided
is sufficient to add 33 FTE to enhance the oversight of care
provided to our nation's veterans, including additional staff
in the Offices of the Medical Inspector, Performance and
Quality, and Patient Care Services.
The decrease in the MAMOE account from the fiscal year 1999
enacted level reflects the Committee's approval of VA's plans
to establish a reimbursement process between VHA, NCA, and VBA
for project technical and consulting services to be provided by
the Facilities Management Service Delivery Office. Bill
language has been included providing this transfer authority.
The estimated level of reimbursement to the MAMOE account in
fiscal year 2000 for facilities management support is
$7,100,000.
GENERAL POST FUND, NATIONAL HOMES
(Including Transfer of Funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Limitation on Administrative
account direct loans expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999............................................ $7,000 $70,000 $54,000
Budget estimate, 2000........................................... 7,000 70,000 54,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 7,000 70,000 54,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This program provides loans to nonprofit organizations to
assist them in leasing housing units exclusively for use as a
transitional group residence for veterans who are in (or have
recently been in) a program for the treatment of substance
abuse. The amount of the loan cannot exceed $4,500 for any
single residential unit and each loan must be repaid within 2
years through monthly installments.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the budget request of $7,000 for
the estimated cost of providing loans, $54,000 for
administrative expenses, and a $70,000 limitation on direct
loans. The administrative expenses may be transferred to and
merged with the general post fund.
Departmental Administration
general operating expenses
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $855,661,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 912,353,000
Committee recommendation................................ 912,594,000
program description
This appropriation provides for the administration of
nonmedical veterans benefits through the Veterans Benefits
Administration [VBA], the executive direction of the
Department, several top level supporting offices, of the Board
of Contract Appeals, and the Board of Veterans Appeals.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $912,594,000 for general operating
expenses, an increase of $56,933,000 above the fiscal year 1999
enacted level. The amount provided includes $706,365,000 for
the Veterans Benefits Administration and $206,229,000 for
general administration. In addition to this appropriation,
resources are made available for general operating expenses
through reimbursements totaling $343,128,000 for fiscal year
2000, with total estimated obligations of approximately
$1,255,722,000.
The Committee recommendation is $241,000 above the
administration's request, reflecting two technical adjustments
requested by the Department. VA has requested a change to the
funding mechanism for the Office of Facilities Management,
which requires an additional $104,000 in GOE and a commensurate
reduction in the MAMOE account. Also, VA plans to consolidate
headquarters' public affairs activities, requiring an
additional $137,000 in GOE, and a commensurate reduction in the
MAMOE and NCA accounts.
VBA funding levels, including reimbursements for credit
reform administrative costs, would total $859,832,000, an
increase of $49,524,000 over the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level. Most of the increase is dedicated to the compensation
and pension (C&P;) program. While the Committee supports ongoing
efforts to ``reengineer'' this program, and acknowledges the
difficulty and increasing complexity of VBA's workload, the
Committee believes inadequate progress has been made within the
last year to improve the timeliness and quality of claims
processing. The Committee has approved VA's proposal for a
total of 440 additional FTE for the C&P; program, and has
approved $44,800,000 for initiatives to achieve VBA's goals,
including information technology enhancements and training.
Given these additional resources, the Committee intends to hold
VBA fully accountable in meeting the C&P; goals it has set forth
for fiscal year 2000--including completing rating-related
actions in 95 days and achieving a national accuracy rate of 81
percent for core rating work--and directs VBA to submit a
quarterly progress report.
The Committee supports VA's ``one-VA philosophy'' and
believes the colocation of functions performed at the Hines
Benefits Delivery Center and the Austin Automation Center are
an important step in the integration of data systems, as well
as making more effective use of limited resources.
The Committee notes that the National Guard currently
administers some 3,000 armories located in all 50 states,
territories and the District of Columbia. Those facilities
could provide office space and infrastructure to support
veterans assistance counseling and claims processing. VA should
consider entering into a partnership with the National Guard
Bureau to conduct a pilot program to determine whether services
to veterans could be improved through sharing arrangements with
National Guard armories.
The Committee recommends the current level of $25,000 for
official reception and representation expenses.
Bill language has been included restricting travel expenses
in the immediate Office of the Secretary to $100,000.
national cemetery administration
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $92,006,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 97,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 97,256,000
program description
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 the remains of eligible deceased servicepersons and
discharged veterans, together with their spouses and certain
dependents, and permanently to maintain their graves; to mark
graves of eligible persons in national and private cemeteries;
to administer the grant program for aid to States in
establishing, expanding, or improving State veterans'
cemeteries; and to administer the Presidential Memorial
Certificate Program.
There are a total of 153 cemeterial installations in 39
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The
Committee's recommendation for the National Cemetery
Administration provides funds for all of these cemeterial
installations, including the Tahoma National Cemetery.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $97,256,000 for the National
Cemetery Administration. This is an increase of $5,250,000 over
the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The increase of $256,000
above the administration's request reflects two technical
adjustments requested by the Department involving the funding
mechanism for the Office of Facilities Management and the
consolidation of headquarters' public affairs activities.
The increase above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level would
fund 37 additional FTE, for a total of 1,406. This will allow
for growth in cemeterial interment workloads at existing
cemeteries, and for the activation of new national cemeteries
in the Cleveland, OH; Chicago, IL; Dallas/Ft. Worth; and
Albany, NY areas. In addition, funds are included to reduce the
equipment backlog.
The Committee has included bill language transferring not
to exceed $117,000 to the ``General operating expenses''
account for expenses of the Office of Resolution Management and
Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication. The
Committee directs that funds for this activity be included in
the general operating expenses budget request for fiscal year
2001.
office of the inspector general
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $36,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 43,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 43,200,000
program description
The Office of Inspector General was established by the
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for the audit
and investigation and inspections of all Department of Veterans
Affairs programs and operations.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget request of $43,200,000
for the inspector general. This is an increase of $7,200,000
above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The amount provided
will enable OIG to increase total staffing by 12 FTE, for a
total of 374. The Committee notes that the authorized level of
staffing is 417 FTE. The additional resources above the current
level will enable OIG to implement fully its Combined
Assessment Program, perform GPRA data reliability reviews to
ensure accuracy of data used to measure and report
accomplishments toward achieving goals, and undertake other new
initiatives.
The Committee has included bill language transferring not
to exceed $30,000 to the ``General operating expenses'' account
for expenses of the Office of Resolution Management and Office
of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication. The
Committee directs that funds for this activity be included in
the general operating expenses budget request for fiscal year
2001.
construction, major projects
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $142,300,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 60,140,000
Committee recommendation................................ 70,140,000
program description
The construction, major projects appropriation provides for
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of VA,
including planning, architectural and engineering services, and
site acquisition where the estimated cost of a project is
$4,000,000 or more.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $70,140,000
for construction, major projects, an increase of $10,000,000
above the budget request.
The following table compares the Committee recommendation
with the budget request.
CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available
Location and description through 2000 Committee
1999 request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Program:
Clinical improvements: ........... 13,000 13,000
Kansas City, MO, Surgical
suite....................
Clinical improvements: 24,000 17,500 17,500
Tampa, FL, Spinal cord
injury and energy center.
Patient environment: 1,300 12,700 12,700
Murfreesboro, TN,
Psychiatric patient
privacy..................
Advance planning fund: ........... 2,970 12,970
Various stations.........
Asbestos abatement: ........... 1,000 1,000
Various stations.........
Design fund: Various ........... 1,000 1,000
stations.................
Less: Design fund............. ........... -650 -650
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 25,300 47,520 57,520
=========================================
Veterans Benefits ........... 225 225
Administration: Advance
planning fund................
National Cemetery Program: ........... 11,900 11,900
Leavenworth, KS, Facility
right-sizing/gravesite
development..................
Advance planning fund: Various ........... 500 500
stations.....................
Less: Design fund............. ........... -595 -595
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal................ ........... 11,805 11,805
=========================================
Claims Analyses: Various ........... 590 590
stations.....................
=========================================
Total construction, 25,300 60,140 70,140
major projects.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has included language and $10,000,000 in
funding for capital asset realignment studies to allow VA to
comply with the recommendations contained in the General
Accounting Office's March 10, 1999, testimony entitled ``VA
Health Care--Capital Asset Planning and Budgeting Needs
Improvement.'' GAO concluded that VA does not systematically
evaluate veterans' or asset needs on a market or geographic
basis and could enhance its health care services by reducing
the level of resources spent on underused or inefficient
buildings. Currently, the advance planning fund is available to
develop and identify needs for traditional construction
proposals. The language would expand the activities of the
advance planning fund to include the awarding of contracts to
examine multiple or single health care markets to assess VA's
future health care requirements and whether other alternatives
such as contracting for services, sharing agreements, facility
leasing, partnering, asset replacements, or a combination
thereof, are best suited for providing health care to veterans
in various geographic areas. The Committee expects to be kept
apprised of the process to be followed and the criteria to be
used in conducting these capital asset realignment studies.
This issue is also discussed in the ``Capital Asset Fund''
account.
The Committee continues to support strongly a new national
cemetery in the Oklahoma City area. VA expects to award a
design contract for architectural and engineering services for
this project in October 1999, and the design should be
completed within a year of award. Therefore, the Committee
expects that the President's fiscal year 2001 budget submission
will include construction funds for this project so that the
project may be completed as expeditiously as possible.
CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $175,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 175,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 175,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The construction, minor projects appropriation provides for
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of VA,
including planning, architectural and engineering services, and
site acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is less
than $4,000,000.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $175,000,000 for minor
construction, the same as the current budget and the request.
Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends
$3,900,000 to convert unfinished space into research
laboratories at the ambulatory care addition of the Harry S.
Truman VAMC, consistent with VA's strategic plan.
The Committee concurs with GAO's assertion that VA needs to
improve the way it makes capital asset investment decisions,
including those for minor projects. Despite the significant
amount of resources involved, the current process for approving
minor projects is decentralized, inconsistent, and less
rigorous than that applied to major projects. The Committee
expects VA to follow GAO's recommendations to improve capital
investment decisionmaking.
The Committee notes that the Inspector General recently
completed an audit of the minor construction and nonrecurring
maintenance programs, and found that at least 6 of the 68
projects--9 percent--in their statistical sample of minor
construction projects were not justified or needed to be
reduced in scope. Based on the sample results, OIG projected
that at least $20,400,000 of construction items in the fiscal
year 1998 operating plan were not needed. The Committee intends
that VA implement the IG's recommendations to strengthen the
process used to assess project needs to ensure that funds are
allocated effectively and appropriately to the highest priority
projects.
The Committee urges VA to allocate sufficient funds to
address the research program's need for space.
parking revolving fund
program description
The revolving fund provides funds for the construction,
alteration, and acquisition (by purchase or lease) of parking
garages at VA medical facilities authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8109.
The Secretary is required under certain circumstances to
establish and collect fees for the use of such garages and
parking facilities. Receipts from the parking fees are to be
deposited in the revolving fund and would be used to fund
future parking garage initiatives.
committee recommendation
No new budget authority is requested by the administration
or provided for fiscal year 2000.
grants for construction of state extended care facilities
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $90,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 90,000,000
program description
This account is used to provide grants to assist States in
acquiring or constructing State home facilities for furnishing
domiciliary or nursing home care to veterans, and to expand,
remodel or alter existing buildings for furnishing domiciliary,
nursing home, or hospital care to veterans in State homes. The
grant may not exceed 65 percent of the total cost of the
project, and grants to any one State may not exceed one-third
of the amount appropriated in any fiscal year.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $90,000,000 for grants for the
construction of State extended care facilities, the same as the
fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The amount provided represents
an increase of $50,000,000 above the budget request. The
Committee notes there is a backlog of approximately
$100,000,000 in priority one projects from fiscal year 1999.
This program is a cost-effective means of meeting the long-term
health care needs of veterans.
The Committee expects to be kept apprised of changes in the
allocation methodology.
The Committee urges VA to provide funds to replace the
boiler plant and construct a dietary facility at the
Southeastern Veterans Center in Pennsylvania.
grants for the construction of state veterans' cemeteries
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 11,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,000,000
program description
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 costs
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.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for grants for
construction of State veterans' cemeteries in fiscal year 2000,
an increase of $15,000,000 over the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level and $14,000,000 above the budget request. These funds
will reduce the backlog of approximately $34,000,000 in State
cemetery grant applications.
The Committee notes the need for cemeteries in Bloomfield
and Jacksonville, MO. Pre-application for State cemetery grants
have already been approved by NCA for these important projects.
CAPITAL ASSET FUND
Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000................................... $10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
Program Description
The Capital Asset Fund would allow the Department on a
pilot basis to sell, transfer, or exchange excess and
underutilized properties and retain ninety percent of the
proceeds to invest in more appropriate capital to benefit
veterans. Under the administration proposal, ten percent of the
proceeds would be transferred to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development to assist in the funding of homeless
assistance groups in local areas. Of the amount retained by VA,
five percent of the net proceeds would be transferred into the
VA homeless program, and eighty-five percent would be used to
fund future VA asset disposal-related activities and other non-
recurring capital needs. Capital projects would include major
and minor construction, parking, non-recurring maintenance,
leasing, and equipment. The pilot would include up to 30
disposal projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has not recommended funds owing to the lack
of authorization. In addition, the Committee is concerned about
the proposal to transfer a portion of the proceeds to HUD.
However, the Committee recognizes the need to dispose of
unneeded facilities. According to the General Accounting
Office, fewer than 1,200 of VHA's 4,700 buildings are used to
deliver health care services to veterans; VA has over 5,000,000
square feet of vacant space, which can cost as much as
$35,000,000 a year to maintain. In Congressional testimony
earlier this year, GAO stated ``VHA has the opportunity to
reduce significantly the amount of funds used to operate and
maintain unneeded or inefficient health care delivery locations
and reinvest such savings to enhance care provided to
veterans.'' Over time VA could redirect hundreds of millions of
dollars to direct patient care activities if it sold,
transferred or exchanged unutilized or underutilized
properties. Therefore, upon enactment of authorizing
legislation, the Committee will review this proposal to provide
additional capital asset management tools to the Department.
administrative provisions
The Committee has included seven administrative provisions
carried in earlier bills. Included is a provision enabling VA
to use surplus earnings from the national service life
insurance, U.S. Government life insurance, and veterans special
life insurance programs to administer these programs. This
provision was included for the first time in fiscal year 1996
appropriations legislation. The Department estimates that
$36,754,000 will be reimbursed to the ``General operating
expenses'' account as a result of this provision.
The Committee has not included bill language requested by
the administration authorizing the reimbursement of the Office
of Resolution Management and the Office of Employment
Discrimination Complaint Adjudication for services provided,
from funds in any appropriation for salaries and other
administrative expenses. Instead, transfer authority totaling
up to $28,054,000 from the medical care, national cemetery
administration, and OIG appropriations has been provided. In
the future, resources for this activity are to be included in
the GOE budget request.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $24,659,378,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 28,048,478,000
Committee recommendation................................ 27,156,066,000
general description
The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was
established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public
Law 89-174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the
principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned
with the Nation's housing needs, fair housing opportunities,
and improving and developing the Nation's communities.
In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and
interests of the Nation's communities and of the people who
live and work in them, HUD administers mortgage and loan
insurance programs that help families become homeowners and
facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and
homeownership subsidy programs for low-income families who
otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat
discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair
housing opportunity; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate
supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid neighborhood
rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of
our urban centers from blight and decay.
HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the
marketplace and fosters programs and research that stimulate
and guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but
better communities and living environments.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$27,156,066,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. This is an increase of $2,486,688,000 above the
fiscal year 1999 enacted level.
The Committee continues to be concerned over the
Department's apparent lack of interest in working with the
Senate and House housing subcommittees in consolidating and
reforming HUD's primary programs. Instead, the Department's
continuing strategy is to seek authority for broad new
initiatives and programs through general appropriation language
and not seek concurrence with the authorizing committees. While
certain matters may be appropriate for the Appropriations
Committee's to address, HUD's apparent disregard for the
authorizing committees and primary focus on the appropriations
process is inappropriate. For example, proposals like HUD's
Regional Connections Initiative and America's Private
Investment Companies Initiative as well as new HUD proposals
for privatizing and sale of the Government National Mortgage
Association (GNMA) and for the restructuring of the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program are proposals which
raise many policy issues that require a complete public debate
and also require the development of a program structure that is
typical of authorizing legislation, not appropriations
legislation. This is an annual problem and the Committee
continues to be disappointed in HUD's lack of committment to a
dialogue on housing policy in the authorizing committees and
with the Congress as a whole.
The Committee urges the Department to continue its efforts
to reform its programs, especially the delivery system for
these programs. This is especially important since GAO again at
the beginning of 1999 designated HUD as a high risk area, as it
was in both 1995 and 1997. HUD is the only agency ever
designated as high risk on an agency-wide basis. Further, the
most recent audit of HUD's financial statements by the HUD
Inspector General revealed 6 material weaknesses and 11
reportable conditions. This is one more material weakness and
reportable condition than was identified in the 1998 audit.
This concern further is highlighted by recent audits that have
disclosed HUD loses some $900,000,000 annually through fraud
and neglect in its assisted housing programs.
In addition, HUD's budget includes, according to GAO, some
19 new programs and initiatives with funding of some
$731,000,000. The Committee believes HUD must focus its efforts
on its core programs rather than redirect HUD staffing and
expertise to new boutique programs and activities, especially
since many of these programs and activities can be achieved at
the discretion of states and localities under the existing
authority of programs such as CDBG and HOME. Because of recent
downsizing and restructuring, HUD is vulnerable to poor
management decisions, structural weaknesses and deficiencies in
its primary housing and community development programs. An
overload of new activities and programs can only further weaken
the Department.
The Committee also urges HUD to continue to redesign the
budget process to meet the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA). HUD must establish measures
and benchmarks to connect funding decisions with goals in a
manner consistent with GPRA. Again, unlike HUD's current
approach, consultation with Congress is critical to the success
of GPRA and the success of HUD.
housing certificate fund
(Including Transfer of Funds)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $10,326,542,000
Budget estimate, 2000.................................\1\ 11,522,095,215
Committee recommendation..............................\1\ 11,051,135,000
\1\ Includes an advance appropriation of $4,200,000 for fiscal year
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding for the section 8 programs,
including vouchers, certificates, and project-based assistance.
Section 8 assistance is the principal appropriation for Federal
housing assistance, with almost 3 million families assisted
under section 8. Under these programs, eligible low-income
families pay 30 percent of their adjusted income for rent, and
the Federal Government is responsible for the remainder of the
rent, up to the fair market rent or some other payment
standard.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$11,051,135,000, of which $10,855,135,000 shall be used to fund
expiring section 8 contracts including the costs of sticky or
enhanced vouchers for families that choose to continue to live
in multifamily housing in which a mortgage is refinanced and
the housing was previously eligible for the Preservation
Program, as well as in certain circumstances where owners of
assisted multifamily housing opt-out of the section 8 program.
In addition, this account includes the Administration's
recommendation for an advance appropriation of $4,200,000,000
for the remainder costs of contracts renewed in fiscal year
2000 for the months requiring section 8 assistance during
fiscal year 2001. The Committee has included $100,000,000 in
this account to cover the costs of renewing contracts for below
market section 8 projects up to market. An additional
$2,050,000,000 in recaptures, carryover from fiscal year 1999,
and transfers from the ``Annual Contributions for Assisted
Housing'' account also is expected to be available for section
8 contract renewals.
For projects facing displacement because of prepayment, HUD
is authorized to provide sticky or enhanced vouchers which
permit current residents of such a project to be subsidized
based on the market rent for a dwelling unit in the project.
Tenants shall remain eligible for sticky vouchers so long as
they continue to live in the same projects for which owners
have prepaid the mortgage, subject to a rent reasonableness
standard. This bill includes legal authority to allow HUD to
provide section 8 rental assistance up to the market rent of a
unit for low-income families where owners of projects assisted
with section 8 project-based assistance choose to not renew
their expiring section 8 contracts. In these cases, the tenant
is required to pay no greater than 30 percent of his or her
adjusted income. The Committee believes that HUD must first
make every effort to renew the expiring section 8 contracts
which are attached to this assisted housing, especially those
projects located in low vacancy areas, including those in high
cost urban areas and rural areas, and especially those projects
that serve the elderly and persons with disabilities.
Other activities eligible for funding under this account
include the conversion of section 23 projects to assistance
under section 8, the family unification program, and the
relocation of witnesses in connection with efforts to fight
crime in public and assisted housing pursuant to a law
enforcement or prosecution agency.
In addition, the Committee believes that section 8 tenant-
based assistance provides a needed opportunity for disabled
families to have a more diverse housing choice with an
opportunity to mainstream into a community of their choice. In
cases where elderly public housing and assisted housing
projects are designated as elderly-only, it is expected that up
to $40,000,000 be used to provide needed section 8 tenant-based
housing assistance for disabled families that would otherwise
be served by public and assisted housing.
Finally, the Committee reiterates its continuing and
growing concern over HUD's inadequate accounting procedures for
identifying excess section 8 contract reserves as well as
excess project-based section 8 assistance. While the Department
has made strides towards completing an overhaul of its section
8 accounting systems, there remains significant concerns over
the accuracy of its section 8 accounting. This is unacceptable
and the Department's continued failure to provide accurate
analysis of all accounts has resulted in a lack of credibility.
The Committee reminds HUD that an accurate fiscal forecast of
the funding in all HUD programs is critical to HUD's
credibility and is a requirement for a sound relationship with
this Committee.
The Committee also directs HUD to identify in its fiscal
year 2001 budget justification the renewal costs associated
with each project-based section 8 program, such as the section
8 moderate rehabilitation program and the section 515 program.
The Committee has not included any additional funds for
incremental section 8 assistance as requested by the
Administration. While the Committee understands there is demand
for additional section 8 assistance, the Administration's
budget projections and recommendations have created such
uncertainty over the ability or desire of the Administration to
meet its financial commitment to preserve and renew existing
section 8 contracts in future budgets that it would be very
ill-advised to add additional section 8 incremental assistance
at this time.
The Committee believes that the funding of any incremental
vouchers depends on a full and frank discussion of the actual
cost of section 8 assistance, including vouchers. While the
Committee supports section 8 rental assistance as the most
practical way to provide Federal housing assistance to low-
income families, the actual cost each year in outlays
approaches $20,000,000,000, with much of this cost hidden
within existing long-term section 8 project-based contracts.
The annual cost in budget authority will continue to increase
to match the $20,000,000,000 in outlays as these long-term
section 8 contracts expire. This means that the cost of
including new incremental vouchers will become an additional
annual competing cost against other budget priorities,
especially critical as the annual cost of renewing existing
expiring section 8 contracts continues to explode.
Also, very troubling are HUD audit findings from data
collected for calendar 1997 from families assisted under HUD
assisted housing programs that conclude that the Department
annually provides overpayments of some $900,000,000 in its
assisted housing programs. This is continuing problem that HUD
must address. In real terms, the loss of $900,000,000
represents an annual loss of section 8 housing assistance for
over 135,000 low-income families.
Moreover, the Congress and the Administration need to
address the concern that section 8 (tenant-based) vouchers do
not always provide real rental choice for assisted families.
Instead, because of market distortions in how section 8 rents
are calculated, families with vouchers often have little choice
in their rental decisions, leaving them often in low-income and
very low-income neighborhoods and living in substandard
housing. In a number of cases, families with vouchers are
unable to use their vouchers to obtain affordable housing. This
lack of choice also can result in de facto redlining which is
not acceptable.
Obviously, any change to provide more rental choice in the
section 8 voucher program could result in large additional
costs, and the Congress and HUD need to understand this cost,
as well as how to balance this cost with the need to ensure
that the section 8 voucher program provides real choice in the
selection of affordable housing.
The Committee has adopted the Administration's
recommendation to defer the appropriation on fiscal year 2000
section 8 funding with the greatest reluctance. This hard
choice had to be made since the Committee had to compensate for
other shortfalls generated by the Administration's fiscal year
2000 budget, including incomplete budget estimates generated by
OMB, especially with regard to our Nation's financial
commitment to the medical needs of our Veterans.
In addition, the Administration's recommendation that the
Congress defer payment of $4,200,000,000 on expiring section 8
contracts will help create a funding gap in fiscal year 2000 of
over $8,000,000,000 for the renewal of existing section 8
contracts in fiscal year 2001. The Committee advises that this
cost will be very difficult to meet under any budget
constraint. Even more troubling is the Administration's out-
year budget forecast that proposes flat funding for section 8
contracts of $11,500,000,000 for the next 10 years. This would
mean some 1.3 million families will lose their Federal housing
assistance over the next 10 years.
The Committee has not included the Administration's request
of $209,000,000 for Contract Administrators. While the
Committee supports contracting out of the administration of the
section 8 project-based contracts, it does not believe that a
specific set-aside is necessary. HUD also is encouraged to
expand the use of State and local housing finance agencies in
contracting out the administration of the section 8 project-
based program.
The Committee believes that the section 8 tenant-based
program could be run more cost-effectively and efficiently if
other public and public-private entities were allowed to
compete in administering the program. Currently, roughly 2,500
individual public housing authorities (PHA) operate section 8
tenant-based programs, of which 1,700 administer less than 250
contracts. The Committee believes that the Department should
evaluate consolidating the smaller jurisdictions into larger
regional or state jurisdictions for administering section 8.
The Committee is concerned that many administrators of the
section 8 tenant-based program are not adequately performing
their responsibilities and duties. Under the tenant-based
program, the administrators--who are typically local public
housing authorities (PHA)--are required to perform duties such
as determining ``rent reasonableness,'' ensuring that housing
units meet housing quality standards, and providing tenant
counseling and owner outreach functions. To improve the
performance of the section 8 contract administrative functions,
the Committee directs HUD to provide a proposal no later than
January 5, 2000 on competing the section 8 tenant-based program
upon contract expiration. The proposal should include details
on how HUD would be able to manage this competition, what kinds
of publicly accountable entities could compete (including
private-public joint ventures), and to what extent the Federal
government may be able to reduce administrative fees while
improving the administration of the program. Lastly, the
Department should submit any necessary legislative language in
order to carry out this activity.
HUD also is prohibited from using any funds under this
account for Regional Opportunity Counseling. To the extent that
families need counseling on making the best use of section 8
vouchers, it is expected that the availability of counseling
will be part of HUD's assessment in awarding the administration
of section 8 contracts.
PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $3,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 2,555,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,555,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding for modernization and capital
needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing
authorities), including management improvements, resident
relocation and homeownership activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,555,000,000
for the public housing capital fund, the same as the budget
request and $445,000,000 less than the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level.
The Committee directs HUD to report to the Committee no
later than May 15, 2000 on the status of all unexpended funds
appropriated under this account, including any actions taken by
HUD to ensure that all capital improvement activities are being
completed by public housing agencies in an expeditious manner.
HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account
as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937.
PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $2,818,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 3,003,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,900,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding for the payment of operating
subsidies to public housing authorities (except Indian housing
authorities) to augment rent payments by residents in order to
provide sufficient revenues to meet reasonable operating costs
as determined through the new formula funding system enacted as
part of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of
1998.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,900,000,000
for the public housing operating fund, $103,000,000 less than
the budget request. The Committee believes this reduction is
appropriate to reflect the increased flexibility provided in
the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill to public housing
authorities in administering their housing.
The Committee expects the new regulations governing the
payment of operating subsidies will reflect reduced costs
through increased flexibility as well as provide incentives
that will reduce the cost of public housing to the Federal
government while increasing the habitability of this housing
for the residents. The public housing system has been stagnant
for far too long. In addition, the Committee directs HUD to
collect from each public housing authority a summary of all
salary information as well as a summary of all other annual
operating expenses, and provide this information to the
Committee by May 15, 2000.
The Committee also is very concerned over reports that the
Department is freezing the availability of operating funds
where there is an outstanding complaint under the Fair Housing
Act against a public housing authority. This action by the
Department presumes that a public housing authority has acted
improperly whenever there is a complaint under the Fair Housing
Act and interferes with the ability of a public housing
authority to meet its legal responsibilities to its tenants and
for operating its housing. This action by HUD also raises
serious constitutional issues and damages the ability of the
parties to resolve fairly the complaint in a manner consistent
with the Fair Housing Act.
HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account
as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937.
Because the activities in this account are now governed
through new legal authority under the Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act of 1998, enacted as part of the fiscal year
1999 VA/HUD appropriations bill, the Committee directs HUD to
report on any shortfall in funds or lack of legal authority for
prior activities handled under this account.
The Committee is troubled by the Department's development
and implementation of the new ``Public Housing Assessment
System'' (PHAS). While the Committee agrees completely with the
Department's goal of measuring whether a public housing
authority (PHA) is providing decent, safe, and sanitary housing
for its residents, the Committee wants to ensure that the
standards are fair, measurable, objective, and understandable.
Unfortunately, HUD has instead created an overly complex,
incomplete, and costly system based on the preliminary
evaluations performed. Accordingly, the Committee directs HUD
to consider the preliminary evaluations and ensure that the
final rule is fair and less costly than its currently devised
system. The Department should consult with all affected
parties, such as PHAs, before issuing its final rule.
Drug Elimination Grants for Low-Income Housing
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $310,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 310,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 310,000,000
Program Description
Drug elimination grants are provided to public and Indian
housing agencies to combat drug-related crime in and around
public housing developments.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $310,000,000
for drug elimination grants for low-income housing, of which
$10,000,000 shall be awarded for technical assistance grants,
$10,000,000 shall be appropriated to fund Operation Safe House
which is administered by the HUD inspector general, $10,000,000
for administrative costs of the HUD inspector general
associated with Operation Safe House, and $20,000,000 for
competitive grants under the New Approach Anti-Drug Program.
The Committee is very concerned about HUD using this
program to create new special programs or set-asides out of
this account which are not provided for in law. This program is
intended to be driven by local needs and local decisionmaking.
For example, while the Committee supports the use of these drug
elimination grant funds for youth anti-drug activities, the
Committee believes that the public housing authorities have the
authority to use these funds for youth anti-drug activities and
have a better understanding of their tenants needs and their
community in prioritizing the use of these funds. HUD also is
prohibited from making any substantive changes to this program
unless the changes have been subject to normal notice and
comment rulemaking.
The Committee also is concerned that HUD has not monitored
adequately the use of funds under the Drug Elimination Grant
program or established baseline criteria to understand the
effectiveness of this program. HUD, therefore, is directed to
identify in the fiscal year 2001 budget justification the goals
for the program and the actual performance of the grantees in
meeting the goals.
Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing
[HOPE VI]
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $625,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 625,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 500,000,000
Program Description
The ``Revitalization of severely distressed public
housing'' account is intended to make awards to public housing
authorities on a competitive basis to demolish obsolete or
failed developments or to revitalize, where appropriate, sites
upon which these developments exist. This is a focused effort
to eliminate public housing which was, in many cases, poorly
located, ill-designed, and not well constructed. Such
unsuitable housing has been very expensive to operate, and not
possible to manage in a reasonable manner due to multiple
deficiencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $500,000,000
for the ``HOPE VI'' account, $125,000,000 less than the budget
request and the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The Committee
urges the Department to continue funding innovative projects
that work both as public and mixed-income housing as well as
building blocks to revitalizing neighborhoods.
The Committee is concerned about the future of this program
once the Department meets its goal of demolishing 100,000
public housing units by the end of 2003. The Department is
directed to advise the Committee on what form this program
should take after 2003.
The Committee also is aware of the success of the
Neighborhood Networks Initiative in bridging the information
technology gap in communities by creating residential computing
centers in HUD-assisted housing. The Committee directs that all
future HOPE VI grantees include a Neighborhood Networks center
in each project implementation plan from within the HOPE VI
supportive service funds, beginning in fiscal year 2000. The
Neighborhood Networks Initiative has successfully opened over
500 residential computing centers by leveraging local
businesses, community organizations, residents and other
partners since 1995. These centers have helped hundreds of
residents improve computer technology skills, which in turn has
increased job and education opportunities. The Committee
believes that the opportunity to bridge the digital divide
should also be available to HOPE VI residents. The Committee
directs the Department to make available technical assistance
for HOPE VI projects through the Neighborhood Networks
Initiative. The Committee further directs the Department to
report to the Committee on the status of its efforts to
implement the Neighborhood Networks Initiative in HOPE VI
communities no later than June 30, 2000.
NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $620,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 620,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 620,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account funds the native American housing block grants
program, as authorized under title I of the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996
(NAHASDA). This program provides an allocation of funds on a
formula basis to Indian tribes and their tribally designated
housing entities to help them address the housing needs within
their communities. Under this block grant, Indian tribes will
use performance measures and benchmarks that are consistent
with the national goals of the program, but can base these
measures on the needs and priorities established in their own
Indian housing plan.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $620,000,000 for the native
American housing block grant, of which $6,000,000 is set aside
for a credit subsidy for a demonstration of the section 601
Loan Guarantee Program. The Committee recommendation is the
same as the budget request.
The Committee remains concerned about the implementation by
the administration of the native American housing block grant
and the potential risk of problems within such a new and
complex program. The Committee reminds HUD that it is required
to report on the implementation of this program to the
Committee on a semi-annual basis, including recommendations to
ensure that the native American housing block grant program
meets the needs of this population.
The Committee is concerned about HUD's capacity and
commitment to provide adequate training and technical
assistance in support of the implementation of NAHASDA. The
Committee, therefore, is reducing the amount of technical
assistance provided to the Department to assist in the
implementation of NAHASDA from $6,000,000 to $2,000,000.
Instead, the National American Indian Housing Council is
provided the additional $4,000,000 under this account to
provide a comprehensive training and technical assistance
program to ensure effective implementation of NAHASDA.
INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This program provides access to private financing for
Indian families, Indian tribes and their tribally designated
housing entities who otherwise could not acquire housing
financing because of the unique status of Indian trust land. As
required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account
includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees
authorized under this program.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 in program subsidies to
support a loan guarantee level of $71,956,000. This is the same
as the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and the fiscal year 2000
budget request. The Committee requests HUD to provide a status
report on the program by June 1, 2000, assessing the success of
the program in providing homeownership opportunities for native
Americans, a breakdown on the use of the program by State and
tribal area, and recommendations for program improvement.
office of rural housing and economic development
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,000,000
program description
The Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development was
established to ensure that the Department has a comprehensive
approach to rural housing and rural economic development
issues. The account includes funding for technical assistance
and capacity building in rural, underserved areas, and grants
for Indian tribes, State housing finance agencies, State
economic development agencies, rural nonprofits and rural
community development corporations to pursue strategies
designed to meet rural housing and economic development needs.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Office of
Rural Housing and Economic Development for fiscal year 2000 to
support housing and economic development in rural communities
as defined by USDA and HUD.
Of the $25,000,000 under this account, no less than
$23,000,000 is intended to be awarded to Indian tribes, State
housing finance agencies, State community and/or economic
development agencies, local rural nonprofits, and rural
community development corporations to support innovative
economic development and housing initiatives in rural
communities. Up to $2,000,000 is targeted to be used by HUD to
maintain a clearinghouse of ideas for innovative strategies for
developing rural housing, for rural economic development and
revitalization, and to provide competitive grants directly to
local rural nonprofits and community development corporations
to support capacity building and technical assistance in rural
underserved areas. The Committee expects HUD to use this office
to coordinate all rural housing and economic development policy
within the Department. Moreover, to ensure the best use of
these funds, HUD is directed to cooperate and collaborate in
the implementation of this program with the Department of
Agriculture, whenever possible, including the award of grants.
Community Planning and Development
community development grants
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $4,750,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 4,775,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,800,000,000
program description
Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award
block grants to units of general local government and States
for the funding of local community development programs. A wide
range of physical, economic, and social development activities
are eligible with spending priorities determined at the local
level, but the law enumerates general objectives which the
block grants are designed to fulfill, including adequate
housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic
opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate
income. Grant recipients are required to use at least 70
percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit
low- and moderate-income persons.
Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community
development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective
formulas, one of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age
of housing stock. Seventy percent of appropriated funds are
distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are
distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting
designated amounts for special purpose grants and Indian
tribes. Pursuant to the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act, Indian tribes are eligible to receive 1 percent of
the total CDBG appropriation, on a competitive basis.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,800,000,000
for the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] Program in
fiscal year 2000. This is an increase of $25,000,000 above the
budget request for fiscal year 2000.
Set-asides under CDBG include $67,000,000 for native
Americans; $3,000,000 for the Housing Assistance Council;
$1,800,000 for the National American Indian Housing Council;
$2,000,000 to support Alaska Native Serving Institutions and
Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions; $42,500,000 for
Youthbuild; $25,000,000 for the National Community Development
Initiative and $41,500,000 for section 107 grants, including
$3,000,000 for community development work study, $10,000,000
for historically black colleges and universities, $7,000,000
for insular areas and $6,500,000 for Hispanic-serving
institutions.
In addition, this legislation includes a set-aside of
$110,000,000 within the CDBG program for the Economic
Development Initiative (EDI) to finance efforts that promote
economic and social revitalization.
At a minimum, the Secretary is directed to fund the
following grants as part of the economic development
initiative:
$100,000 to the St. Louis County Port Authority for the
remediation of the National Lead Site.
$500,000 to St. Louis County for the Lemay Early
Childhood and Family Center expansion.
$400,000 for the City of Union for infrastructure
improvements to the Union Corporate Center, MO.
$1,000,000 for City of Knoxville, Tennessee for economic
development training for low-income people.
$700,000 for the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for the
preservation of federally assisted low-income housing
at risk of being lost as affordable housing.
$1,700,000 for the Sheldon Jackson College Auditorium in
Sitka, Alaska for refurbishing.
$500,000 for the Community Builders of Kansas City, MO
for the development of low-income housing.
$250,000 for Northern Initiatives in the Upper Peninsula
of Michigan for the capitalization of a training
endowment fund.
$900,000 for Focus HOPE for the expansion of its
Machinist Training Institute in Detroit, Michigan.
$900,000 for the City of Hot Springs, Arkansas for the
construction of a parking facility.
$1,000,000 for the construction of a fire station project
in Logan, Utah.
$900,000 for Ogden, Utah for downtown redevelopment.
$750,000 for Billings, Montana for the redevelopment of
the Billings Depot.
$900,000 for Libby, Montana for the construction of a
community center.
$1,000,000 for Mississippi State University for the
renovation of buildings.
$1,200,000 for the City of Madison, Mississippi to
renovate a gateway to historic downtown Madison.
$900,000 for Providence, Rhode Island for the renovation
of the Providence Performing Arts Center.
$1,000,000 for the Bidwell Industrial Development
Corporation the Harbor Gardens development project.
$250,000 for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for the expansion
of the Pennsylvania Convention Center.
$1,000,000 for the City of Jackson, Mississippi to create
a housing rehabilitation program.
$650,000 for Monessen, Penn. For the development of a
business development and support facility.
$800,000 for the City of Wilkes-Barre for downtown
revitalization.
$500,000 for the Friends of the Capitol Theater for the
renovation of the Capitol Theater in Dover, Delaware.
$2,000,000 for the Idaho Bureau of Disaster Services for
the restoration of Milo Creek.
$300,000 for the Clearwater Economic Development
Association for planning for the Lewis and Clark
Bicentennial celebration.
$900,000 for the Developmental Disabilities Resource
Center to provide services to persons with disabilities
in the Front Range area of Colorado.
$300,000 for the City of Montrose, Colorado to develop
affordable, low-income housing.
$1,400,000 for the Columbia/Adair County Industrial
Development Authority in Kentucky for infrastructure
development for the Columbia/Adair County Industrial
Park Development.
$800,000 for the University of Findlay in Ohio to expand
its National Center for Excellence in Environmental
Management facility.
$500,000 for MSU-Billings in Billings, Montana for the
development of a business development and support
facility.
$500,000 for the City of Brookhaven, Mississippi to
renovate historic Whitworth College buildings and
related improvements.
$1,500,000 for the Bethel Pre-Maternal Home in Bethel,
Alaska for expansion.
$3,500,000 for the University of Alaska Fairbanks Museum
in Fairbanks, Alaska.
$800,000 for Forum Health of Youngstown, Ohio for a
hospital conversion project.
$2,200,000 for the Pacific Science Center for the
construction of the Mercer Slough Environmental
Education Center.
$800,000 for the Tacoma Art Museum in Tacoma, Washington
for expansion.
$300,000 for the Portsmouth, NH City Housing Authority
for the development of a multiple use recreation and
learning center.
$300,000 for the City of Concord for community and
neighborhood improvements.
$100,000 for the City of Nashua, NH for a river front
project.
$75,000 for the Manchester Neighborhood Housing Services
in Manchester, NH.
$200,000 for Vergennes, Vermont for the renovation and
expansion of the Vergennes Opera House.
$1,000,000 for the renovation and expansion of the Flynn
Theatre in Burlington, Vermont.
$75,000 for the French Hill Neighborhood Housing Services
in Nashua, NH.
$75,000 for the Concord Area Trust for Community Housing
in Concord, NH.
$375,000 for the Town of Winchester, NH to tear down an
old leather tannery.
$2,500,000 for the Kansas City Liberty Memorial
renovation and restoration.
$1,500,000 for the American National Fish and Wildlife
Museum in Springfield, Missouri for construction.
$100,000 for the City of Claremont, NH to upgrade and
repair their public parks service.
$75,000 for the Laconia Area Community Land Trust in
Laconia, NH.
$200,000 for the Town of Barre, Vermont for the
construction of a business incubator building in the
Wilson Industrial Park.
$300,000 for Housing Vermont to construct affordable
housing in Bellows Falls, Vermont.
$200,000 for the Vermont Center for Independent Living
for its Home Access program.
$100,000 for the Bennington Museum in Bennington,
Vermont.
$500,000 for the Vermont Rural Fire Protection Task Force
for the purchase of equipment.
$900,000 for the Home Repair Collaborative in
Indianapolis, Indiana for the repair of low-income
housing.
$1,900,000 for the City of Montgomery, Alabama for the
redevelopment of its riverfront area.
$1,000,000 for the planning and construction of a
regional learning center at Spring Hill College in
Montgomery, Alabama.
$1,500,000 for the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center
for the development of a greenhouse complex.
$500,000 for the Grand Rock Community Development
Corporation Center in St. Louis, MO for the
construction of a community center.
$500,000 for Calhoun Community College, Advance
Manufacturing Center in Decatur, Alabama for the
development of an advanced manufacturing center.
$300,000 for the Clay County Courthouse rehabilitation
project in Clay County, Alabama.
$1,800,000 for the renovation of Bates Mill in Lewiston,
Maine.
$800,000 for Coastal Enterprises, Inc for rural economic
development and housing initiatives in Kennebec and
Somerset Counties.
$1,300,000 for the City of Fort Worth, Texas for building
renovation associated with the development of the Fort
Worth Medtech Center.
$1,000,000 for the Southwest Collaborative for Community
Development for low-income housing and economic
development in the southwest border area of Texas.
$750,000 for Houston, Texas to establish a Distance
Learning Center as part of a ``campus park''
redevelopment in the Stella Link community.
$1,650,000 for Farmington, New Mexico for the renovation
of Ricketts Field.
$1,000,000 for New Mexico Highlands University for it
Science and Engineering Complex.
$800,000 for the National Institute for Community
Empowerment for its capacity building efforts in
underserved communities.
$200,000 for the University of Charleston in West
Virginia for a basic skills and assessment lab.
$600,000 for Shepherd College in Shepherdstown, West
Virginia for the renovation of Scarborough Library.
$1,500,000 for the Center for the Arts&Science; of West
Virginia for the construction of a theater/planetarium.
$4,000,000 for Wheeling Jesuit University in Wheeling,
West Virginia for the construction of a science/
computer teaching center.
$500,000 for the Town of Kimball, West Virginia for the
restoration of the Kimball War Memorial.
$150,000 for the County of Maui, Hawaii to assist the
Island of Molokai for capacity development related to
its status as an Enterprise Community.
$1,000,000 for Honolulu, Hawaii to implement the Kahuku
Drainage Plan.
$250,000 for the Maui Family Support Services, Inc for
the creation of an early childhood center in Maui
County, Hawaii.
$400,000 for Wailuku, Hawaii for revitalization efforts.
$300,000 for Bethany College in Bethany, West Virginia
for the creation of a health and wellness center.
$200,000 for West Virginia State College to assist in
creating a computer library.
$2,000,000 for the Spartanburg School for the Deaf and
the Blind in Spartanburg, South Carolina for a new
dormitory.
$500,000 for the University of South Carolina School of
Public Health to consolidate its programs in a new
central location.
$500,000 for Chittenden County, Vermont for the
development of affordable low-income housing.
$650,000 for Burlington, Vermont for downtown
redevelopment.
$500,000 for the development of the Kellog-Hubbard
Library in Montpelier, VT.
$350,000 for Brattleboro, Vermont for downtown
redevelopment.
$250,000 for Willingboro, New Jersey for the
revitalization of the Central Business Center.
$500,000 for Plainfield, New Jersey for the redevelopment
of the Teppers building.
$200,000 for Trenton, New Jersey for the renovation of
the YWCA's indoor swimming pool.
$500,000 for the Affordable Housing Project in Waterloo,
Iowa for the development of affordable, low-income
housing.
$500,000 for Des Moines, Iowa for south of downtown
redevelopment.
$500,000 for the Muscatine Center for Strategic Action
for the operation of a nonprofit modular housing
factory.
$1,000,000 for New Jersey Community Development
Corporation for the construction of the New Jersey
Community Development Corporation's Transportation
Opportunity Center.
$500,000 for the Sioux City Stockyards in Sioux City,
Iowa for redevelopment.
$1,250,000 for the University of Maryland-Eastern Shore
for the development of a Coastal Ecology Teaching and
Research Center.
$1,250,000 for Prince Georges County for the
revitalization of the Route 1 corridor.
$750,000 for the Patterson Park Community Development
Corporation to establish a revolving fund to acquire
and rehabilitate properties in East Baltimore,
Maryland.
$1,750,000 for the University of Nevada in Reno, Nevada
for the Structures Laboratory.
$250,000 for Henderson, Nevada for downtown
redevelopment.
$200,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Las Vegas, Nevada
for the renovation and expansion of existing
facilities.
$500,000 for the City of Green Bay, Wisconsin for
Broadway Street revitalization.
$500,000 for Milwaukee, Wisconsin for its Metcalfe
Neighborhood Redevelopment Initiative.
$500,000 for the Fremont Public Association in Seattle,
Washington for construction costs related to its
Community Resource Center.
$250,000 for the Puget Sound Center for Teaching,
Learning and Technology in Seattle, Washington.
$500,000 for the First AME Church in Los Angeles for the
development of a business incubator.
$500,000 for the City of Riverside, California for the
development of Citrus Park.
$750,000 for the Mitchell Development Corporation for
economic development activities in Mitchell, S.D.
$750,000 for South Dakota State University in Brookings,
South Dakota.
$500,000 for the City of Inglewood, California for the
construction of a senior center.
$250,000 for the City of Beloit, Wisconsin for urban
renewal activities.
$500,000 for Milwaukee, Wisconsin for redevelopment
activities in the Menominee River Valley.
$500,000 for the City of Yankton, South Dakota for the
restoration of the downtown area and the development of
the Fox run industrial Park.
$100,000 for Hot Springs, South Dakota for redevelopment.
$100,000 for Sisseton, South Dakota to make
infrastructure improvements at an industrial site in
the community.
$125,000 for Dillard University in New Orleans, LA for
assisting persons in the transition from welfare to
work.
$125,000 for Audubon Institute Living Sciences Museum for
the restoration of a New Orleans customhouse.
$750,000 for the New York Public Library's Library for
the Performing Arts for renovations.
$250,000 for the Southside Institutions Neighborhood
Alliance in Hartford, Conn. for downtown renovation.
$250,000 for the University of Connecticut for the
construction of a biotechnology facility.
$250,000 for the City of Aberdeen, South Dakota for a
community child day care center.
$100,000 for North Sioux City Economic Development
Corporation for the construction of an industrial park.
$250,000 for the City of San Francisco, CA for the
redevelopment of the Laguna Honda Assisted Living/
Housing for Seniors.
$250,000 for the National Center for the Revitalization
of Central Cities for the development of redevelopment
strategies.
$300,000 for the Esperanza Domestic Violence Shelter in
northern New Mexico for homeless services.
$300,000 for the Court Youth Center in Dona Ana County,
New Mexico for renovation of their youth center.
$250,000 for Belen, New Mexico for the development of a
recreation center.
$500,000 for the Accomack-Northampton Planning District
Commission for economic development on the Eastern
Shore of Virginia.
$250,000 for the City of Santa Ana, CA for the
establishment of the IDEA Center.
$250,000 for the Hampden/Hampshire Housing Partnership
Loan Fund in western Massachusetts for the development
of affordable housing.
$250,000 for Lowell, Mass for downtown redevelopment.
$250,000 for Lawrence, Mass for the City of Lawrence Loan
and Investment Program.
$250,000 for For An Achievable Dream in Newport News,
Virginia to help at-risk youth.
$500,000 for the Research Development Enterprise for the
advancement of university research activities.
$500,000 for Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia for
renovation of the Spelman College Science Center.
$1,000,000 for Children's House Hackensack University
Medical Center in Hackensack, NJ for expansion.
$1,000,000 for Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones in
ND.
$250,000 for Turtle Mountain Economic Development and
Education Complex in ND.
$500,000 for the Panhandle Community Service in
Scottsbluff, NE for the construction of an early
childhood development center.
$150,000 for Southwest Virginia Governor's School for
Science, Mathematics and Technology for improvements.
For each of the aforementioned EDI grants, HUD shall
conduct a close-out review of each grant within 5 years to
ensure the funds are used for the purpose specified. Any grants
not obligated within 5 years shall be rescinded and reallocated
within the next round of CDBG funds.
In addition, HUD is required to report on all projects
funded under any EDI grants awarded independently by HUD,
identifying the purpose of the project, the funding structure
of the project, the economic impact and social utility of the
project, and the lessons learned from the project that can be
applied as a model throughout the country.
The Committee includes $42,500,000 for the Youthbuild
program, of which $2,500,000 is for capacity building in
underserved areas. Because of concerns over HUD's failure to
provide adequate oversight of its programs, the Department is
required to audit the Youthbuild program to ensure that funds
are being used in a manner consistent with program
requirements. As part of this audit, HUD shall review all
expenses associated with this program, including a review of
all the salaries of employees, the costs associated with
travel, and the use of any funds for purposes of lobbying the
Congress. HUD is directed to report on this audit no later than
May 15, 2000. The Committee also has required all grantees to
contribute a 25 percent local match to be eligible for funds.
The Committee has included up to $45,000,000 for supportive
service contracts, a critical activity. However, the Committee
is concerned that the Secretary has imposed conditions in
connection with the award of congregate services and service
coordinator funding that have unduly impeded the full and
timely distribution of this funding to grantees for the
purposes intended by the Congress. The Committee has therefore
included language in this Act that prohibits the Secretary from
conditioning the award of funds on prior year spend-out. Also,
the Committee has included language clarifying the
Congressional intent that where federal funding for these
purposes to a grantee is delayed and the grantee continues a
congregate services or service coordinator program with its own
funds, or other funds, grant funding provided by the Secretary
may later be used to reimburse the grantee for the costs so
incurred.
In addition, $29,000,000 is provided for the cost of
guaranteed loans, as authorized under section 108 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, to subsidize a
total loan principal not to exceed $1,261,000,000.
HUD is prohibited from awarding any grants under the CDBG
program until it transfers the small cities component of the
CDBG program to the State of New York.
The Committee rejects the Administration's proposals to
establish a number of boutique programs within the CDBG
program, including the Metro Job Links program, Homeownership
Zones, Citizens Volunteer Housing Corps and Empowerment Zones
Planning and Implementation grants. These proposals should be
addressed through the authorization committee.
In addition, the Committee has concerns about HUD's
implementation and oversight of the empowerment zone
designations. A recent HUD Inspector General Audit Report,
HUD's Oversight of the Empowerment Zone Program (March 30,
1999), highlighted the fact that HUD does not have an adequate
system of oversight and control for the Empowerment Zone
program and has not effectively assessed the program and status
of Empowerment Zones. In particular, 4 cities reviewed by the
HUD IG provided inaccurate information to HUD for 61 of the 64
activities (95.3 percent) evaluated from the June 30, 1997
Performance Reviews. In addition, the audit indicates that the
cities reviewed inaccurately reported the actual status and
progress for 35 of the activities and incorrectly reported 26
projects as Empowerment Zone activities when they were not. HUD
needs to establish appropriate oversight requirements before
additional funds can be considered.
home investment partnerships program
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $1,600,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 1,610,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,600,000,000
program description
Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as
amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.
This program provides assistance to States and units of local
government for the purpose of expanding the supply and
affordability of housing. Eligible activities include tenant-
based rental assistance, acquisition, and rehabilitation of
affordable rental and ownership housing and, also, construction
of housing. To participate in the HOME Program, State and local
governments must develop a comprehensive housing affordability
strategy [CHAS]. There is a 25-percent matching requirement for
participating jurisdictions which can be reduced or eliminated
if they are experiencing fiscal distress.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,600,000,000
for the HOME Investment Partnership Program. This amount is the
same as the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and $10,000,000 less
than the budget request.
homeless assistance
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $975,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 1,020,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,020,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The ``Homeless Assistance Grants Program'' account is
intended to fund the emergency shelter grants program, the
supportive housing program, the section 8 moderate
rehabilitation single-room occupancy program, and the shelter
plus care program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,020,000,000 for homeless
assistance grants. The amount recommended is $45,000,000 above
the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and the same as the budget
request for fiscal year 2000. The Committee remains concerned
about the funding structure of the McKinney homeless assistance
grants programs and the overall direction of HUD's
administration of the program. The Committee believes that
there is a need for a strong continuum of care approach which
results in permanent and stable housing, not a revolving door.
There is a particular need to stabilize homeless persons with
mental disabilities to avoid this revolving door syndrome as
well as the destabilizing impact this population can have on
the effectiveness of local continuum of care strategies.
Therefore, the Committee is including again this year a
requirement that 30 percent of funds be allocated to permanent
housing.
In addition, there is a 25-percent match requirement for
services to maintain a balance between homeless services and
the development of transitional and permanent housing.
The Committee also believes that HUD has created
significant funding pressures on a number of local homeless
initiatives through the poor planning of grant awards. The
Committee is troubled particularly by HUD's decision to shift
some $23,000,000 plus from the fiscal year 1999 appropriation
funds to fund supportive housing applications submitted as part
of the fiscal year 1998 funding process. This shifting of funds
was conducted without the consultation of Congress and this
action is inappropriate, likely illegal, and undermines the
credibility of HUD's budget request for homeless programs for
fiscal year 2000.
HUD also is directed to work with other Federal agencies,
such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of
Health and Human Services in developing a comprehensive Federal
approach to homeless issues. A comprehensive Federal approach
will make HUD's continuum of care more effective in meeting the
needs of homeless persons.
To the extent that State and local jurisdictions receive
homeless assistance, HUD is directed to ensure that these
jurisdictions pass on at least 50 percent of all administrative
funds to the nonprofits administering the homeless assistance
programs.
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA]
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $225,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 240,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 225,000,000
Program Description
The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA]
Program is designed to provide States and localities with
resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive
strategies for meeting the housing needs of persons living with
HIV/AIDS and their families.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $225,000,000
for this program, the same as the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level and $15,000,000 less than the budget request. This
Committee remains concerned about HUD's management of this
program as well as the increased costs of this program. Of
particular note, the budget for HOPWA currently exceeds the
annual budget request of $194,000,000 for the section 811
Housing for Persons with Disabilities program, a program
designed to provide housing assistance for all people with
disabilities, including those with AIDS.
The Committee also requires HUD to allocate these funds in
a manner designed to preserve existing HOPWA programs to the
extent those programs are determined to be meeting the needs of
persons with AIDS in a manner consistent with the requirements
of the HOPWA program.
Housing Programs
Housing for special Populations
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $854,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 854,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 904,000,000
Program Description
This account consolidates the housing for the elderly under
section 202; housing for the disabled under section 811; and
public housing for Indian families. Under these programs, the
Department provides capital grants to eligible entities for the
acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing.
Twenty-five percent of the funding provided for housing for the
disabled is available for tenant-based assistance under section
8.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $904,000,000
for development of additional new subsidized housing. Included
in this recommendation is $710,000,000 for capital advances for
housing for the elderly (section 202 housing) and $194,000,000
for capital advances for housing for the disabled (section 811
housing). These amounts include the fiscal year 1999 funding
level for section 811 housing and provide an increase of
$50,000,000 above the fiscal year 1999 level for section 202
housing. Up to 25 percent of the funding allocated for housing
for the disabled can be used to fund section 8 assistance for
the disabled.
The section 202 funding includes $100,000,000 for the
conversion of Assisted Living Facilities and for service
coordinators and congregate services, including $50,000,000 in
new funds. Of this amount, $50,000,000 is for the conversion of
section 202 housing to Assisted Living Facilities. It is
expected that HUD will establish a number of new requirements
to ensure the Assisted Living Facilities meet the needs of the
frail elderly, as part of a continuum of care to ensure the
dignity and independence of this population and to provide an
opportunity for these persons to age in place. Also,
$50,000,000 would be available to fund congregate services and
service coordinators for the section 202 program. Congregate
services and service coordinators are critical to a successful
continuum of care approach that promotes the independence and
personal dignity of our elderly citizens. Services include
congregate meals, housekeeping, transportation, personal
emergency response systems, case management and preventative
health care programs.
federal housing administration
fha--mutual mortgage insurance program account
(including transfer of funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999................................ $100,000,000 $110,000,000,000 $328,888,000
Budget estimate, 2000............................... 50,000,000 120,000,000,000 330,888,000
Committee recommendation............................ 100,000,000 120,000,000,000 330,888,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fha--general and special risk program account
(including transfer of funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999...................... $50,000,000 $18,100,000,000 $211,455,000 $153,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000..................... 50,000,000 18,100,000,000 211,455,000 153,000,000
Committee recommendation.................. 50,000,000 18,100,000,000 211,455,000 153,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the
mortgage and loan insurance activity of about 40 HUD mortgage/
loan insurance programs which are grouped into the mutual
mortgage insurance [MMI] fund, cooperative management housing
insurance [CMHI] fund, general insurance fund [GI] fund, and
the special risk insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and
accounting control purposes, these are divided into two sets of
accounts based on shared characteristics. The unsubsidized
insurance programs of the mutual mortgage insurance fund and
the cooperative management housing insurance fund constitute
one set; and the general risk insurance and special risk
insurance funds, which are partially composed of subsidized
programs, make up the other.
The amounts for administrative expenses are to be
transferred from the FHA program accounts to the HUD ``Salaries
and expenses'' accounts.
Language is proposed to provide a commitment limitation
amounting to $120,000,000,000 in the ``MMI/CMHI'' account and
$18,100,000,000 in the ``GI/SRI'' account.
committee recommendation
The Committee has included the requested amounts for the
``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program'' account: a limitation on
guaranteed loans of $120,000,000,000, a limitation on direct
loans of $100,000,000, and an appropriation of $330,888,000 for
administrative expenses. For the GI/SRI account, the Committee
recommends $18,100,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans,
a limitation on direct loans of $50,000,000, and $211,455,000
for administrative expenses. The administrative expenses
appropriation will be transferred and merged with the sums in
the Department's ``Salaries and expenses'' account.
In addition, the Committee directs HUD to continue direct
loan programs in 1999 for multifamily bridge loans and single
family purchase money mortgages to finance the sale of certain
properties owned by the Department. Temporary financing would
be provided for the acquisition and rehabilitation of
multifamily projects by purchasers who have obtained
commitments for permanent financing from another lender.
Purchase money mortgages would enable governmental and
nonprofit intermediaries to acquire properties for resale to
owner-occupants in areas undergoing revitalization.
HUD is directed to report to the Committee by May 15, 2000
on the implementation of the FHA single family property
disposition program, enacted as part of the VA/HUD fiscal year
1999 Appropriations bill, including the status of the program
and an analysis of all savings achieved to date and anticipated
to be achieved over the next 5 years.
The Committee also is concerned about new proposed
guidelines for appraisals, as provided in HUD's Homebuyer
Protection Plan. Among the issues that have been raised are
significant cost concerns where a purchaser with FHA mortgage
insurance may have to pay two or three times the typical cost
for an appraisal. In addition, it has been suggested that these
new appraisal standards will encourage the use of FHA mortgage
insurance in newer suburbs as opposed to making an investment
in our older communities and inner-city neighborhoods. The
Committee directs HUD to work with all interested parties to
ensure that the final guidelines in the Homebuyer Protection
Plan are fair, make sense and assist in creating additional
homeownership opportunities.
Government National Mortgage Association
guarantees of mortgage-backed securities
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1999:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
$150,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
9,383,000
Budget estimate, 2000:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
200,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
15,383,000
Committee recommendation:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
200,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
15,383,000
program description
The Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA],
through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees
privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. GNMA
is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United
States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed
generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as amended.
GNMA is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to guarantee
the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that
are based on and backed by a trust, or pool, composed of
mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the Federal
Housing Administration, the Farmers Home Administration, or the
Department of Veterans Affairs. GNMA's guarantee of mortgage-
backed securities is backed by the full faith and credit of the
United States.
In accord with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990 [OBRA] requirements for direct and guaranteed loan
programs, the administration is requesting $15,383,000 for
administrative expenses in the mortgage-backed securities
program. Amounts to fund this direct appropriation to the ``MBS
program'' account are to be derived from offsetting receipts
transferred from the ``Mortgage-backed securities financing''
account to a Treasury receipt account.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments of
mortgage-backed securities of $200,000,000,000. This amount is
the same level as proposed by the budget request. The Committee
also has included $15,383,000 for administrative expenses, the
same as the budget request.
Policy Development and Research
research and technology
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $47,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 35,000,000
program description
Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970,
as amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to undertake programs of research,
studies, and reports relating to the Department's mission and
programs. These functions are carried out internally and
through grants and contracts with industry, nonprofit research
organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements
with State and local governments and other Federal agencies.
The research programs focus on ways to improve the efficiency,
effectiveness, and equity of HUD programs and to identify
methods to achieve cost reductions. Additionally, this
appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation and monitoring
activities and to conduct housing surveys.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for research and
technology activities in fiscal year 2000. This amount is
$12,500,000 less than the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and
$15,000,000 less than the budget request. In addition, because
HUD in the past has used this office's broad authority to
administer new and unauthorized programs, this office is denied
demonstration authority except where approval is provided by
Congress in response to a reprogramming request.
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
fair housing activities
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $40,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 47,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,000,000
program description
The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding
for both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the
Fair Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP].
The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local
agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968, as amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale,
rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of
brokerage services. The major objective of the program is to
assure prompt and effective processing of title VIII complaints
with appropriate remedies for complaints by State and local
fair housing agencies.
The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by
section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1987, as amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed
to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to
public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating
or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair
housing opportunities.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommendation provides $40,000,000, of which
$25,000,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP]
and no more than $15,000,000 is for the fair housing
initiatives program [FHIP].
The Committee is concerned that State and local agencies
under FHAP should have the primary responsibility for
identifying and addressing discrimination in the sale, rental,
and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage
services. It is critical that consistent fair housing policies
be identified and implemented to insure continuity and
fairness, and that States and localities continue to increase
their understanding, expertise, and implementation of the law.
The Committee remains concerned that the HUD Office of Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity continues to pursue regulatory
authority over the property insurance industry through the Fair
Housing Act. This activity is not within the ambit of the law.
Moreover, while HUD has indicated that it does not intend to
focus its regulatory authority over the property insurance
requirements, the Committee reminds the Department that the
McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 explicitly states that, ``unless
a Federal law specifically relates to the business of
insurance, that law shall not apply where it would interfere
with State insurance regulation.'' HUD assertion of authority
regarding property insurance regulation contradicts this
statutory mandate.
Moreover, HUD's insurance-related activities duplicate
State regulation of insurance. Every State and the District of
Columbia have laws and regulations addressing unfair
discrimination in property insurance and are actively
investigating and addressing discrimination where it is found
to occur. HUD's activities in this area create an unwarranted
and unnecessary layer of Federal bureaucracy.
The Committee reaffirms the intent of the Fair Housing Act
and the goal of housing for the disabled and is interested in
the most effective use of funding for this program. However,
the Committee is concerned with ongoing enforcement actions
relating to disabled accessibility provisions of the Fair
Housing Act. There is ongoing concern over certain HUD Fair
Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) grantees filing
discrimination claims against builders, architects, and
developers with regard to the Fair Housing Accessibility
Guidelines clarified in the 1998 HUD Fair Housing Act Design
Manual. The Committee expects reasonable enforcement of the
Fair Housing laws, taking into account the information
available to, and the reasonable understanding on the part of,
the parties expected to comply with the law.
The Department should be on notice that funding decisions
are not separated from equitable enforcement of, and education
about, the law. The Committee directs that more emphasis be
given in the grant process to educational and outreach
proposals specifically targeted to facilitate compliance with
multi-family accessibility design and building industry
professionals, such as architects, builders, developers, and
local building code officials, with a preference given to
applications demonstrating a collaborative educational
approach. Clearly, HUD has an obligation to explain complex and
confusing rules to those most involved in the construction of
affordable housing in this country and expected to comply with
those rules. ``Enforcement'' action should not be misconstrued
or mischaracterized as an ``educational'' effort on the part of
FHIP grantees. Grants should be awarded, and other enforcement
activities by HUD should be pursued with the principal goal of
ensuring accessible housing for people with disabilities. The
Committee believes that settlement terms requiring advertising
or the purposeful dissemination of the admission of wrongdoing
with the intent to embarrass or harass should not occur.
The Committee directs HUD to report to the Committee, no
later than concurrently with the fiscal year 2001 budget
submission, on the following:
(1) The number, nature, and status of complaints to HUD
regarding application of guidelines;
(2) The use of funds and efforts made with regard to
educational and technical assistance;
(3) The number and nature of complaints, cases, or
enforcement actions in which HUD or a grantee has sought or
achieved specific penalties or settlements for the denial of
accessible housing to disabled persons other than remediation
of the specific lack of accessibility; and
(4) The number and nature of complaints, cases, or
enforcement actions initiated by grantees on a basis other than
the actual denial of accessible housing to a disabled
individual.
Office of Lead Hazard Control
LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $80,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 80,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 80,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992 established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act under which HUD is authorized to make grants to
States, localities and native American tribes to conduct lead-
based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities in
private low-income housing. This has become a significant
health hazard, especially for children. According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], some 890,000
children have elevated blood levels, down from 1.7 million in
the late 1980s. Despite this improvement, lead poisoning
remains a serious childhood environmental condition, with some
4.4 percent of all children aged 1 to 5 years having elevated
blood lead levels. This percentage is much higher for low-
income children living in older housing.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for lead-based paint
hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2000.
This is the same as the President's budget request for fiscal
year 2000 and the same as the fiscal year 1999 appropriation
level. Of this amount, HUD may use up to $10,000,000 for the
Healthy Homes Initiative under which HUD conducts a number of
activities designed to identify and address housing-related
illnesses. The Committee expects HUD to become more aggressive
in addressing the threat of lead-related health hazards in
rental housing supported with section 8 voucher assistance.
Where these risks are high, vouchers should not be permitted.
Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring
The Committee is aware of the efforts the Department has
made to bridge the growing digital divide between information
technology ``haves'' and ``have nots'' through its Neighborhood
Networks initiative. This initiative leverages local
businesses, community organizations, local residents and other
partners to provide residential computing centers to HUD-
assisted housing throughout the country which in turn provide
computer and job training, senior and youth programs and a
variety of other supportive services at almost no direct cost
to the Department. The Committee directs the Department to
submit a report no later than June 30, 2000 which details and
evaluates: the goals and progress of the initiative; strategies
to sustain resident involvement in the program and to overcome
other potential obstacles, which the report should identify;
future areas of opportunity for the program, including possible
partnerships with non-profit organizations and other Federal
agencies; and the effectiveness of the initiative relative to
the mission and goals of the Department as specified in the
strategic and annual operating plan.
Management and Administration
salaries and expenses
(including transfers of funds)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHA funds GNMA CGDB
Appropriation by funds by funds by Title VI Indian Total
transfer transfer transfer transfer housing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999........... 456,843 528,000 9,383 1,000 150 200 985,826
Budget estimate, 2000.......... 502,000 518,000 9,383 1,000 200 400 1,030,733
Committee recommendation....... 414,000 518,000 9,383 1,000 150 200 942,733
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The recommendation includes a single ``Salaries and
expenses'' account to finance all salaries and related expenses
associated with administering the programs of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. These include the following
activities:
Housing and mortgage credit programs.--This activity
includes staff salaries and related expenses associated with
administering housing programs, the implementation of consumer
protection activities in the areas of interstate land sales,
mobile home construction and safety, and real estate settlement
procedures.
Community planning and development programs.--Funds in this
activity are for staff salaries and expenses necessary to
administer community planning and development programs.
Equal opportunity and research programs.--This activity
includes salaries and related expenses associated with
implementing equal opportunity programs in housing and
employment as required by law and Executive orders and the
administration of research programs and demonstrations.
Departmental management, legal, and audit services.--This
activity includes a variety of general functions required for
the Department's overall administration and management. These
include the Office of the Secretary, Office of General Counsel,
Office of Chief Financial Officer, as well as administrative
support in such areas as accounting, personnel management,
contracting and procurement, and office services.
Field direction and administration.--This activity includes
salaries and expenses for the regional administrators, area
office managers, and their staff who are responsible for the
direction, supervision, and performance of the Department's
field offices, as well as administration support in areas such
as accounting, personnel management, contracting and
procurement, and office services.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $985,826,000
for salaries and expenses. This amount is the same as the
fiscal year 1999 enacted level and the budget request. The
appropriation includes the requested amount of $518,000,000
transferred from various funds from the Federal Housing
Administration, $9,383,000 transferred from the Government
National Mortgage Association, $1,000,000 from the community
development block grant funds, $150,000 from title VI, and
$200,000 from the native American housing block grant.
In addition, the Department is prohibited from employing
more than 77 schedule C and 20 noncareer senior executive
service employees.
The Committee is very disappointed in the growth of the
Community Builders program, from a fledgling thought to a full-
blown program of some 800 staff, including a new class of 400
high-paid contract employees whose primary job is to
communicate HUD programs to local governments and communities.
Unfortunately, there is no valid evidence that these community
builders are communicating HUD programs effectively or
providing a link for the delivery of program services, and much
of the activity seems to be primarily for public relations. In
many cases, the Community Builders do not appear to act like
HUD staff, but instead seemingly act in the capacity of
lobbyists for a particular community or group. The Committee
also is concerned that the growth of this program is occurring
at a time when HUD is committed to reducing career staff from
the current level of 9,300 to 7,500 in 2002. The Committee
believes that HUD needs to build from within through a
committed staff of HUD professionals who can serve as a vital
link in a continuum of care for the delivery of HUD programs.
Therefore, the Committee is terminating the program beginning
on February 1, 2000 for all external community builders, with
the expectation that these contract employees can transition to
new work by that time. The Committee also expects HUD to
refocus on redeveloping the Department from the inside with an
emphasis on program delivery, not public relations.
The Department also is prohibited from employing more than
9,300 FTEs, including all OMHAR employees and any contract
employees working on-site in a position which would normally be
occupied by an FTE. In addition, HUD is prohibited from
employing more than 200 external community builders. HUD also
is prohibited from employing more than 14 FTEs in the Office of
Public Affairs.
The Committee is concerned that HUD's request for salaries
and expenses do not reflect the Secretary's implementation of
the HUD 2020 management reform plan. The Committee directs HUD
to submit to the Committee by April 15, 2000, an analysis of
the HUD budget request for salaries and expenses for fiscal
year 1999, including all projected savings from the Secretary's
reform efforts. The report should include a breakdown of all
salaries and expenses and staff by program, office, and grade,
including all staffing costs in the field. All expenses, other
than staffing costs, such as travel costs and public relations
costs, within this account also should be clearly identified.
In addition, the Committee is troubled that the
Department's justification for the Office of Multifamily
Housing Assistance Restructuring's (OMHAR) salaries and
expenses are not adequately justified. According to preliminary
GAO results, HUD's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal for OMHAR
to hire 101 full-time equivalent staff lacks adequate
documentation and justification. Neither HUD nor OMHAR have
been able to explain the need or rationale for this staffing
level or its suggested structural plans for field offices.
The Committee is further concerned that the Department's
staffing justification for OMHAR does not reflect its roles and
responsibilities as envisioned by the ``mark-to-market''
legislation. OMHAR and HUD have not provided the Committee any
convincing evidence that 101 staff is needed to run a program
that was envisioned to be implemented primarily by publicly
accountable third parties, namely qualified State and local
housing finance agencies. While the Committee appreciates
OMHAR's efforts to ensure public accountability, the Committee
is concerned that the procedures and processes in place may be
overly prescriptive and potentially result in delaying the
completion of transactions. The intent of mark-to-market was to
provide as much flexibility as possible within reasonable
parameters to allow the third parties to perform its duties in
an efficient and effective manner. The role of OMHAR was to
ensure that proper procedures were in place, qualified and
publicly accountable entities were selected to act on behalf of
the Federal government, and to perform post-audit oversight
duties after a reasonable period of time and number of deals
were completed. It is not evident that HUD and OMHAR have
structured the program to meet the intent of the law.
Due to the Committee's many concerns, the Department is
directed to hire no more than 50 employees for OMHAR until it
is able to provide to the Committee an adequate justification
for its staffing and field office needs. This justification
should include a workload analysis, a detailed plan on the use
of any outside assistance such as contractors and consultants,
and a breakdown by position and explanation for its funding
needs for salaries and expenses, contract services, and travel.
Further, OMHAR is directed to provide the Committee quarterly
reports on the status of the program, including number of
properties and units whose rents have been restructured, the
costs of refinancing the mortgages, and the amount of section 8
cost savings. The first report should be provided to the
Committee by no later than January 5, 2000.
Office of Inspector General
(including transfer of funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug
FHA funds by elimination
Appropriation transfer grants Total
transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999............................ $49,657,000 $22,343,000 $10,000,000 $81,910,000
Budget estimate, 2000........................... 38,000,000 22,343,000 10,000,000 70,343,000
Committee recommendation........................ 54,657,000 22,343,000 10,000,000 95,910,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
This appropriation would finance all salaries and related
expenses associated with the operation of the Office of the
Inspector General [OIG].
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends a funding level of $95,910,000 for
the Office of Inspector General. This amount is $4,000,000
above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and $15,567,000 more
than the budget request. This funding level includes
$22,343,000 by transfer from various FHA funds and $10,000,000
from drug elimination grants, the same level as proposed in the
budget request.
This account includes an additional $10,000,000 for the HUD
IG to contract with independent auditors and investigators,
especially in circumstances where special expertise is needed.
For example, the Department has struggled for years to provide
Congress with an accurate and reliable accounting of its
section 8 funds. The results have been mixed at best, where the
Department has in just the last 5 years identified over
$10,000,000,000 in excess section 8 funds available for
rescission. Nevertheless, the status of appropriated section 8
funds remains unclear. The Committee expects the HUD IG to
contract for a financial audit of all section 8 funds. Because
of the difficulty of this undertaking, the Committee requests
that the HUD IG advise the Committee on the proposed scope of
the audit, the costs and a reasonable date for submission. The
Committee directs the HUD IG to consult with Congress on all
proposals for additional audits.
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $16,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 19,493,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,000,000
program description
This appropriation funds the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight [OFHEO], which was established in 1992 to
regulate the financial safety and soundness of the two housing
Government sponsored enterprises [GSE's], the Federal National
Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation. The Office was authorized in the Federal Housing
Enterprise Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also
instituted a three-part capital standard for the GSE's, and
gave the regulator enhanced authority to enforce those
standards.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is $3,493,000 less
than the budget request. The Committee appreciates that OFHEO
has issued draft risk-based capital standards for the GSE's, as
required by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.
These regulations are long overdue.
Administrative Provisions
Sec. 201. Financing adjustment factors. Provides an
incentive for refinancing projects financed with FAF bonds to
lower the cost of section 8 assistance.
Sec. 202. Fair housing and free speech. Prohibits
prosecution of persons under the Fair Housing Act where person
is engaged in lawful activity.
Sec. 203. Enhanced Disposition Authority. Provides HUD
flexibility in disposing of HUD-owned and HUD-held properties.
Sec. 204. HOPWA grants. Technical correction to HOPWA.
Sec. 205. FHA multifamily mortgage credit demonstrations.
Extends HUD's multifamily mortgage insurance risk-sharing
programs through fiscal year 1999.
Sec. 206. Clarification of owner's right to prepay.
Clarifies owners right to prepay certain mortgages.
Sec. 207. Funding of certain public housing funding.
Prohibits HUD from funding state-assisted housing.
Sec. 208. FHA administrative contract expense authority.
Defines nonadministrative FHA expenses.
Sec. 209. Full payment of claims. Technical correction to
Mark-to-Market authority.
Sec. 210. Availability of income matching information.
Extends income matching procedures to assisted multifamily
housing.
Sec. 211. Elimination of Public Housing Set-Aside.
Eliminates HUD's ability to use public housing capital and
operating funds.
Sec. 212. Technical correction to mark-to-market program.
Technical correction to preserve state-financed multifamily
housing in a manner consistent with financing agreements or
law.
Sec. 213. Technical correction to FHA. Makes technical
correction to FHA program.
Sec 214. Limitation on compensation for public housing.
Limits compensation for public housing employees to $125,000
except where the HUD Secretary certifies that a higher salary
is warranted due to special purposes. Because public housing is
funded entirely by Federal funds, the Committee wants to ensure
that compensation is reasonable and consistent with Federal
salary guidelines. Further this section is not intended to be
used to increase salaries. In addition, this section also
recognizes in certain circumstances where there are significant
and complex issues such as issues associated with the
receivership of a troubled large PHA, additional compensation
may be warranted.
Sec. 215. Limitation on compensation for Youthbuild. Limits
compensation for Youthbuild employees to $125,000, except where
HUD certifies a higher salary is appropriate. Because the
Youthbuild program is funded substantially by Federal funds,
the Committee wants to ensure that compensation is reasonable
and consistent with Federal salary guidelines. Further, this
section is not intended to be used to increase salaries.
Sec. 216. Adjustments to income for unusually high or low
income families in assisted housing. Permits HUD to make
adjustments to income for unusually high or low income families
in assisted housing.
Sec. 217. GAO reimbursement. Requires GAO to certify
quarterly on the cost of time attributable to the failure of
HUD to cooperate with any GAO investigation and to reimburse
GAO for these costs.
Sec. 218. HOME technical correction. Authorizes the use of
HOME funds for the preservation of multifamily housing assisted
or previously assisted with section 8 assistance. This section
clarifies the flexibility of using HOME funds in preserving
section 8 housing, especially housing where the owner has opted
out of the section 8 program and has declined to renew the
expiring section 8 contract. This authority will allow
localities to assist in the purchase of this housing by
nonprofits and resident groups or assist in supplementing the
rental assistance where new rents may be higher than the
section 8 ``fair market rents''.
Sec. 219. Exemption for Alaska and Mississippi from
requirement of resident on board. Exempts public housing in
Alaska and Mississippi from the requirement of having a public
housing resident on the board of directors of PHAs for fiscal
year 2000.
Sec. 220. Administration of the CDBG program by the State
of New York. Requires HUD to transfer the administration of the
Small Cities component of the CDBG program to the State of New
York. This transfer is at the request of Governor Pataki of New
York. The Committee understand that New York State elected to
administer the Small Cities component of the CDBG program in
September, 1996 and that HUD has failed to make the requested
transfer despite the fact that the CDBG program is designed to
allow states and localities to have block grant funds to meet
local needs. New York is only one of two states to have their
state CDBG program administered by the federal government.
Sec. 221. Renewal of section 8 project-based contracts.
Authorizes HUD to renew expiring section 8 project-based
contracts up to market rents. This section restates current
authority that HUD may renew section 8 project-based contracts
up to the market rents, and requires HUD to offer market rents
to properties that are in a low vacancy area or where a
predominant number of units are occupied by elderly families,
disabled families, or elderly and disabled families.
Sec. 222. Enhanced vouchers for residents of projects with
expiring section 8 contracts. Authorizes HUD to provide
``sticky'' or enhanced vouchers for tenants of section 8
project-based housing where the owners of such housing have
rejected the renewal of the section 8 contracts. This section
will allow tenants to continue to maintain their homes where
the owners of their rental units have raised rents after
rejecting the renewal of project-based contracts. This
especially is important where the tenants are elderly or
persons with disabilities, and want to age in place. HUD must
make every effort to renew expiring section 8 project-based
contracts before making sticky vouchers available.
Sec. 223. Housing finance agencies. Authorizes HUD to
contract with State housing finance agencies for determining
the market rent associated with units with expiring section 8
project-based contracts for purposes of renewing these
contracts.
Sec. 224. Section 202 Exemption. Provides limited age
exemption to single 202 project.
Sec. 225. Darlinton Preservation Amendment. Assists a
section 236 project.
Sec. 226. Section 236 IRP Reform. Modest program reform to
section 236 program.
Sec. 227. Risk-sharing priority. Provides a priority for
risk-sharing mortgage insurance for mark-to-market
transactions.
TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $26,431,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 26,467,000
Committee recommendation................................ 26,467,000
program description
The American Battle Monuments Commission [ABMC] is
responsible for the maintenance and construction of U.S.
monuments and memorials commemorating the achievements in
battle of our Armed Forces since April 1917; for controlling
the erection of monuments and markers by U.S. citizens and
organizations in foreign countries; and for the design,
construction, and maintenance of permanent military cemetery
memorials in foreign countries. The Commission maintains 24
military memorial cemeteries and 23 monuments, memorials, and
markers in 15 countries around the world. In addition, the
Commission administers four large memorials on U.S. soil. It is
presently charged with erecting a World War II Memorial in the
Washington, DC, area.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget request of $26,467,000
for the American Battle Monuments Commission, which is $36,000
over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The Committee also is
providing the ABMC authority to borrow up to $65,000,000 from
the United States Treasury in order to begin the construction
of the World War II Memorial in fiscal year 2000. The Committee
expects to include in conference comprehensive legislation to
ensure appropriate requirements are met in the funding of any
loan.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $6,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 7,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,500,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
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
damage. It became operational in fiscal year 1998.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $6,500,000 for the Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board, the same as the fiscal year
1999 enacted level and a decrease of $1,000,000 below the
budget request.
The Committee is troubled that the Board has not been
making the most effective use of its resources. The agency has
a disproportionate number of staff devoted to external affairs
activities; a disproportionate amount of contract funds going
to activities which are not directly related to accident
investigations; no criteria to select and prioritize
investigations; and significant contracts management problems
including the lack of formal, written procedures for its staff
to follow in awarding and managing contracts. Ineffective use
of resources resulted in an announcement earlier this year that
the Board would not begin any new investigations this fiscal
year, when the year was only half over.
The Committee also notes the agency has failed to meet the
expectations it set forth in its August 1997 business plan,
including the fact that the Board has completed and reported
the results for only two investigations since commencing
operations in January 1998.
The Committee respects the challenges of creating a new
organization, and is encouraged that the three reports produced
by the Board this year have been well received. Nevertheless,
the Committee believes that the Board has put too much emphasis
on external affairs and information management, and too little
on investigation and reporting. The Committee is also concerned
that the Board seems to be pursuing activities that go beyond
its mission of investigating and preventing catastrophic
chemical incidents.
The Committee directs the Board to complete an updated
business plan, formal written procedures for awarding and
managing contracts, and formal written procedures for selecting
and performing investigations by December 31, 1999. The
Committee directs the Board not to fill any more positions in
the areas of External Relations or Information Technology and
directs the Board to spend the preponderance of its contract
resources on investigations and safety, rather than on external
affairs or information technology.
The Committee directs that no funds be expended to develop
software for vulnerability assessments. This is not an
effective allocation of resources.
The Committee does not intend to augment the Board's
resources until it is confident that appropriate management
practices have been implemented and resources are being
effectively allocated to chemical accident investigations where
the Board can make useful recommendations with broad
application.
The Committee has again included bill language limiting the
number of career senior executive service positions to three.
Department of the Treasury
Community Development Financial Institutions
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Program Account
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $95,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 125,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 80,000,000
Program Description
The Community Development Financial Institutions [CDFI]
fund provides grants, loans, and technical assistance to new
and existing community development financial institutions such
as community development banks, community development credit
unions, revolving loan funds, and microloan funds. Recipient
institutions are required to support mortgage, small business,
and economic development lending in currently underserved,
distressed neighborhoods.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for CDFI, $15,000,000
below the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level as provided in
the Fiscal Year 1999 VA-HUD Appropriations Act and $45,000,000
below the administration's request. This funding level is
provided due to continuing concerns raised by the Senate
Banking Committee about the Fund's ability to manage its
current program responsibilities. Further, the Committee does
not recommend funding for a new microenterprise lending program
proposed by the Administration due to the lack of authorization
and concerns about duplicating existing microenterprise
efforts. According to the General Accounting Office, there are
already seven other federal agencies and 20 specific federal
programs that support microenterprise development. The Small
Business Administration currently provides significant funding
for microenterprise technical assistance and capacity building.
Further, some states and private foundations provide support
for these types of microenterprise efforts.
The Committee is concerned that the CDFI does not
adequately provide capital in low-population rural states. In
fact, less than 11 percent of the CDFI core component awards
granted between 1996 and 1998 were provided to states with
populations less than 2 million people. The Committee directs
the CDFI Fund to improve its efforts in making funding
available to entities in states with populations of less than 2
million people. Further, the Fund is required to submit a
report to the Committee by March 15, 2000 on its progress in
addressing the economic development needs of small rural areas.
In its report, the Fund should analyze the feasibility of
considering additional objective measures of economic distress,
such as underemployment and gradual outmigration over an
extended time period.
Consumer Product Safety Commission
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $47,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 50,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 49,500,000
program description
The Commission is an independent regulatory agency that was
established on May 14, 1973, and is responsible for protecting
the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer
products; assisting consumers to evaluate the comparative
safety of consumer products; developing uniform safety
standards for consumer products and minimizing conflicting
State and local regulations; and promoting research and
investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related
deaths, illnesses, and injuries.
In carrying out its mandate, the Commission establishes
mandatory product safety standards, where appropriate, to
reduce the unreasonable risk of injury to consumers from
consumer products; helps industry develop voluntary safety
standards; bans unsafe products if it finds that a safety
standard is not feasible; monitors recalls of defective
products; informs and educates consumers about product hazards;
conducts research and develops test methods; collects and
publishes injury and hazard data, and promotes uniform product
regulations by governmental units.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $49,500,000 for the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, a decrease of $1,000,000 below the
budget estimate and an increase of $2,500,000 above the fiscal
year 1999 enacted level. The decrease is to be taken at the
agency's discretion, subject to normal reprogramming
guidelines.
Corporation for National and Community Service
national and community service programs
operating expenses
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $435,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 545,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 423,500,000
program description
The Corporation for National and Community Service, a
Corporation owned by the Federal Government, was established by
the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 (Public
Law 103-82) to enhance opportunities for national and community
service and provide national service educational awards. The
Corporation makes grants to States, institutions of higher
education, public and private nonprofit organizations, and
others to create service opportunities for a wide variety of
individuals such as students, out-of-school youth, and adults
through innovative, full-time national and community service
programs. National service participants may receive educational
awards which may be used for full-time or part-time higher
education, vocational education, job training, or school-to-
work programs.
The Corporation is governed by a board of directors and
headed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation. Board
members and the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation are
appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed
by the Senate.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $423,500,000
for the Corporation for National and Community Service. Of this
amount, $70,000,000 is for educational awards; $224,500,000 is
for grants under the National Service Trust, including the
AmeriCorps program; $7,500,000 is for the Points of Light
Foundation; $18,000,000 is for the Civilian Community Corps;
$43,000,000 is available for school-based and community-based
service-learning programs; $28,500,000 is for quality and
innovation activities; $27,000,000 is for administrative
expenses; and $5,000,000 is for audits and other evaluations.
The total amount is $12,000,000 less than the fiscal year 1999
enacted level.
Despite the unqualified opinion rendered by the independent
auditor on the Corporation's Statement of Financial Position,
the Committee remains extremely troubled by the Corporation's
inability to operate its activities with adequate
responsibility and accountability. To illustrate these
problems, the auditors were unable to render an opinion on the
Corporation's Statement of Operations and Changes in Net
Position, and the Statement of Cash Flows. This was due to the
Corporation's financial systems and management's inability to
explain certain adjustments made to the accounting records. A
major reason for this disclaimer was the Corporation's
inability to explain $31,000,000 worth of expenditures.
Further, an additional two material weaknesses in the
Corporation's financial operations were identified in the
audit.
While the Committee appreciates the Corporation's attempts
to repair its well-documented operational problems, the
Committee is extremely troubled by the Corporation's inability
to explain $31,000,000 in expenditures as disclaimed by the
independent auditors. This error not only highlights the
significant and continuous problems in the Corporation's
financial operations but also severely undermines its
credibility with this committee. The Committee urges the
Corporation to identify what these funds were spent on and
whether they represent inappropriate or possibly illegal
expenditures.
Another problem identified by the Inspector General was the
existence of a large surplus of funds in the National Service
Trust account. The IG found a surplus of approximately
$100,000,000 in excess funds in the Trust account to fund its
existing liabilities. The Committee, however, is very concerned
that the Corporation may be requesting more funds than is
necessary to meet its liabilities for its AmeriCorps program;
thus, accordinlgy, bill language is included to rescind
$80,000,000 in surplus funds. The Committee also directs the
Corporation to report in its fiscal year 2001 budget request
and operating plan the status of its Trust fund reserve
including the award usage rate and the number of participants
in the program.
The Committee continues its strong support for the
Corporation's literacy and mentoring efforts and the AmeriCorps
participation in helping homeless veterans and directs the
Corporation to increase its support in these areas.
Specifically, the Committee is providing $40,000,000 for the
``America Reads'' literacy and mentoring program. The Committee
also directs the Corporation to submit a report by March 15,
2000 on its literacy and mentoring activities and funding
support.
The Committee is also providing $5,000,000 for the Girl
Scouts of America, Inc. ``P.A.V.E. (Project Anti-Violence
Education) the Way'' project, which is a youth anti-violence
program based on girls working in partnership with adult
volunteers to meet community needs. This funding will be used
to create and implement comprehensive violence prevention and
intervention programs.
The Committee directs the Corporation to provide $250,000
directly to the Shelby County Commission's RSVP Program in
Alabama. The Corporation is directed to allow the Shelby County
Commission to operate its program separately from the existing
multi-county consortium.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
Program Description
The Office of Inspector General within the Corporation for
National and Community Service is authorized by the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended. The goals of the Office are to
increase organizational efficiency and effectiveness and to
prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. The Office of Inspector
General within the Corporation for National and Community
Service was transferred to the Corporation from the former
ACTION agency when ACTION was abolished and merged into the
Corporation in April 1994.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for
the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This is a $2,000,000
increase over the amount appropriated for this Office in fiscal
year 1999 and the budget request.
The Committee is providing an additional $2,000,000 in
fiscal year 2000 funds to the OIG for the purpose of reviewing
and auditing the State Commissions of the Corporation for
National and Community Service.
Over the past five years, the OIG has reported numerous
instances of mismanagement and fraud in AmeriCorps programs.
These problems range from inadequate record-keeping, to
improper counting of service hours by AmeriCorps members and
programs, to outright fraud and abuse. In addition, OIG has
reported that most phases of the AmeriCorps grant program, as
operated by the Corporation, are flawed, from the review of
grant proposals and the pre-award process, the awarding and
monitoring of grantees, and the close-out and follow-up of
grants.
Recent events, including the convictions of two AmeriCorps
administrators for fraud, underscore the need for better
monitoring and oversight. The most recent matter to reach the
press is equally disheartening, and concerns two Indiana
programs that apparently directed AmeriCorps members to engage
in activities which are clearly not appropriate under the
National and Community Service Act, as amended, and the
Corporation's regulations, and should not be counted toward
service hours required to earn an award. These abuses, reported
on July 29, 1999, by the Indiana State Auditor, indicate that
the State Commissions themselves might be inadequate to the
task of monitoring and overseeing the program sites. It would
appear that the Corporation has done little, if anything, to
review the ability of the State Commissions to monitor the
activities of the programs sites.
Given the context, the Committee is firm in its belief that
a more directed effort is appropriate. In response to
previously-voiced Congressional concerns, the OIG, in fiscal
year 1999, developed a financial review methodology and began
the review of 18 of 50 State Commissions. OIG's intent is to
review and assess all State Commissions' fiscal operations and
monitoring of AmeriCorps programs. Based on these results, the
OIG plans to audit the state commissions.
U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $10,195,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 11,450,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,450,000
program description
The Court of Veterans Appeals was established by the
Veterans' Judicial Review Act. The court has exclusive
jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans'
Appeals. It has the authority to decide all relevant questions
of law, interpret constitutional, statutory, and regulatory
provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the
terms of an action by the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is
authorized to compel action by the Department unlawfully
withheld or unreasonably delayed. It is authorized to hold
unlawful and set-aside decisions, findings, conclusions, rules
and regulations issued or adopted by the Department of Veterans
Affairs or the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget estimate of $11,450,000
for the Court of Veterans Appeals, an increase of $1,255,000
above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and the same as the
fiscal year 2000 budget request. The recommendation includes
$910,000 for the pro bono representation program.
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $11,666,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 12,473,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,473,000
program description
Responsibility for the operation of Arlington National
Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery is
vested in the Secretary of the Army. As of September 30, 1998,
Arlington and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries
contained the remains of 272,195 persons and comprised a total
of approximately 628 acres. There were 3,604 interments and
2,034 inurnments in fiscal year 1997; 3,600 interments and
2,100 inurnments are estimated for the current fiscal year; and
3,700 interments and 2,150 inurnments are estimated for fiscal
year 1999.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget request of $12,473,000
for the Army's cemeterial expenses. This amount is $807,000
above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and the same as the
fiscal year 2000 budget request.
Environmental Protection Agency
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $7,590,352,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 7,206,646,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,322,378,000
general description
The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] was created
through Executive Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 designed to
consolidate certain Federal Government environmental activities
into a single agency. The plan was submitted by the President
to the Congress on July 8, 1970, and the Agency was established
as an independent agency in the executive branch on December 2,
1970, by consolidating 15 components from 5 departments and
independent agencies.
A description of EPA's pollution control programs by media
follows:
Air.--The Clean Air Act Amendments [CAA] of 1990 authorize
a national program of air pollution research, regulation,
prevention, and enforcement activities.
Water quality.--The Clean Water Act [CWA], as amended in
1977, 1981, and 1987, provides the framework for protection of
the Nation's surface waters. The law recognizes that it is the
primary responsibility of the States to prevent, reduce, and
eliminate water pollution. The States determine the desired
uses for their waters, set standards, identify current uses
and, where uses are being impaired or threatened, develop plans
for the protection or restoration of the designated use. They
implement the plans through control programs such as permitting
and enforcement, construction of municipal waste water
treatment works, and nonpoint source control practices. The CWA
also regulates discharge of dredge or fill material into waters
of the United States, including wetlands.
Drinking water.--The Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] of
1974, as amended in 1996, charges EPA with the responsibility
of implementing a program to assure that the Nation's public
drinking water supplies are free of contamination that may pose
a human health risk, and to protect and prevent the
endangerment of ground water resources which serve as drinking
water supplies.
Hazardous waste.--The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 [RCRA] mandated EPA to develop a regulatory program
to protect human health and the environment from improper
hazardous waste disposal practices. The RCRA Program manages
hazardous wastes from generation through disposal.
EPA's responsibilities and authorities to manage hazardous
waste were greatly expanded under the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984. Not only did the regulated universe of
wastes and facilities dealing with hazardous waste increase
significantly, but past mismanagement practices, in particular
prior releases at inactive hazardous and solid waste management
units, were to be identified and corrective action taken. The
1984 amendments also authorized a regulatory and implementation
program directed to owners and operators of underground storage
tanks.
Pesticides.--The objective of the Pesticide Program is to
protect the public health and the environment from unreasonable
risks while permitting the use of necessary pest control
approaches. This objective is pursued by EPA under the Food
Quality Protection Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act [FIFRA] and the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act [FFDCA] through three principal means: (1) review
of existing and new pesticide products; (2) enforcement of
pesticide use rules; and (3) research and development to
reinforce the ability to evaluate the risks and benefits of
pesticides.
Radiation.--The radiation program's major emphasis is to
minimize the exposure of persons to ionizing radiation, whether
from naturally occurring sources, from medical or industrial
applications, nuclear power sources, or weapons development.
Toxic substances.--The Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA]
establishes a program to stimulate the development of adequate
data on the effects of chemical substances on health and the
environment, and institute control action for those chemicals
which present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment. The act's coverage affects more than 60,000
chemicals currently in commerce, and all new chemicals.
Multimedia.--Multimedia activities are designed to support
programs where the problems, tools, and results are cross media
and must be integrated to effect results. This integrated
program encompasses the Agency's research, enforcement, and
abatement activities.
Superfund.--The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 [CERCLA] established a
national program to protect public health and the environment
from the threats posed by inactive hazardous waste sites and
uncontrolled spills of hazardous substances. The original
statute was amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 [SARA]. Under these authorities,
EPA manages a hazardous waste site cleanup program including
emergency response and long-term remediation.
Leaking underground storage tanks.--The Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 [SARA] established
the leaking underground storage tank [LUST] trust fund to
conduct corrective actions for releases from leaking
underground storage tanks that contain petroleum or other
hazardous substances. EPA implements the LUST response program
primarily through cooperative agreements with the States.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends a total of $7,322,378,000 for EPA.
This is an increase of $115,732,000 above the budget request
and a decrease of $267,974,000 below the fiscal year 1999
enacted level.
The Committee believes EPA's state revolving funds
represent a critical investment in our nation's water quality.
With the significant unmet need in water infrastructure
financing, the Committee has made the state revolving fund
programs a high priority and has restored the President's
reduction of $550,000,000 to the clean water SRF.
The Committee has also sought to protect funding levels for
the core EPA programs, including the NPDES permit program,
pesticides registration and reregistration, RCRA corrective
action, and compliance assistance activities. Also, the
Committee has made a priority of science and technology to
provide research and information leading to the most effective
approaches to protecting the environment. The Committee did not
fund new unauthorized programs, and eliminated or reduced lower
priority activities. The Committee has not provided for any
growth in EPA staffing, and notes there has been significant
growth in EPA's workforce in the past five years.
In fiscal year 1999 EPA is implementing a new budget
structure for the first time. EPA developed this budget
structure to comply with the Government Performance and Results
Act. EPA's strategic plan, with its 10 goals and myriad of
objectives and subobjectives, is the basis for the new
structure. While the Committee notes the difficulty of
transitioning to a new budget structure and acknowledges the
agency's efforts in attempting to comply with the Results Act,
there are several major concerns. First, the Committee is very
troubled that program information is very difficult to identify
within the various goals and objectives, and funding for key
programs often is divided into several goals or objectives with
little rationale for how the funding is allocated. Many program
activities easily could be justified under several goals or
objectives, leading to serious questions about budget
accountability.
Also, the Committee is concerned that in executing the
budget, agency activities may not be conforming with the budget
approved by the Congress. While the agency has been attempting
to ferret out inconsistencies--as demonstrated in a major
reprogramming request for fiscal year 1999 which realigns
dollars with actual activities in myriad objectives--the
Committee is concerned there continues to be a lack of
accountability within programs and regions for funds
appropriated. The Committee will be monitoring this issue
closely and directs that the Inspector General make
recommendations for improving budget accountability.
The agency is directed to notify the Committee prior to
each reprogramming in excess of $500,000 between objectives,
when those reprogrammings are for different purposes. The
exceptions to this limitation are as follows: (1) for the
``Environmental programs and management'' account, Committee
approval is required only above $1,000,000; and (2) for the
``State and tribal assistance grants'' account, reprogramming
of performance partnership grant funds is exempt from this
limitation.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $660,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 642,483,000
Committee recommendation................................ 642,483,000
program description
EPA's ``Science and technology'' account provides funding
for the scientific knowledge and tools necessary to support
decisions on preventing, regulating, and abating environmental
pollution and to advance the base of understanding on
environmental sciences. These efforts are conducted through
contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with
universities, industries, other private commercial firms,
nonprofit organizations, State and local government, and
Federal agencies, as well as through work performed at EPA's
laboratories and various field stations and field offices.
Trust Fund resources are transferred to this account directly
from the Hazardous Substance Superfund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the budget request of $642,483,000
for science and technology, a decrease of $17,517,000 below the
enacted level. In addition, the Committee recommends the
transfer of $38,000,000 from the Superfund account, for a total
of $680,483,000 for science and technology.
The Committee has made the following changes to the budget
request:
+$2,900,000 for drinking water research, to ensure the best
available science needed for upcoming regulatory
requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments.
+$1,500,000 for the National Jewish Medical and Research
Center for research on the relationship between indoor
and outdoor pollution and the development of
respiratory diseases.
+$1,800,000 for the National Environmental Respiratory Center
at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute. The
research should be coordinated with EPA's overall
particulate matter research program and consistent with
the recommendations set forth by the National Academy
of Sciences report on PM research.
+$1,250,000 for the Center for Air Toxics Metals at the
Energy and Environmental Research Center.
+$1,500,000 for the Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics
Research Center.
+$250,000 for acid rain research at the University of
Vermont.
+$2,500,000 for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research
Center.
+$1,500,000 for the National Decentralized Water Resources
Capacity Development Project.
+$2,500,000 for the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research.
+$750,000 for the Institute for Environmental and Industrial
Science at Southwest Texas State University.
+$1,000,000 for the Integrated Public/Private Energy and
Environmental Consortium [IPEC] to develop cost-
effective environmental technology, improved business
practices, and technology transfer for the domestic
petroleum industry.
+$1,000,000 for the University of South Alabama, Center for
Estuarine Research.
+$6,000,000 for the Mine Waste Technology Program and the
Heavy Metal Water Program at the National Environmental
Waste Technology, Testing, and Evaluation Center.
+$3,000,000 for the Water Environment Research Foundation.
+$350,000 for the Consortium for Agricultural Soils
Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases.
+$250,000 to continue the work of the Environmental
Technology Development and Commercialization Center at
the Texas Regional Institute for Environmental Studies.
+$750,000 for the Geothermal Heat Pump (GHP) Consortium. GHP
conserves energy, reduces harmful emissions into the
atmosphere and decreases energy costs. Continued
federal support is needed to ensure successful
deployment of this new technology.
-$900,000 from the EMPACT program.
-$7,000,000 from the new RTP lab project.
-$20,000,000 from the climate change technology initiative.
-$900,000 from various lower priority facility repair and
improvement projects.
The Committee supports no less than the administration's
request of $7,000,000 for the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation [SITE] program, no less than $4,000,000 for the
Clean Air Status and Trends Network [CASTNet], and the current
funding level of $1,000,000 for each of the Hazardous Substance
Research Centers.
The Committee is concerned about the accuracy of
information contained in the Integrated Risk Information System
[IRIS] database which contains health effects information on
more than 500 chemicals. The Committee directs the Science
Advisory Board to examine a representative sample of IRIS
health assessments completed before the IRIS Pilot Project, as
well as a representative sample of assessments completed under
the project, to assess the extent to which they incorporate all
relevant data, including the most current data; employ current
methodologies; and document the range of uncertainty and
variability of the data. SAB is to report to the Committee
within 6 months of enactment of this Act on its findings.
The Committee notes EPA plans to expand asthma research and
its children's health centers in fiscal year 2000. In
implementing these efforts the Committee urges EPA to utilize
through a competitive solicitation, accredited schools of
public health which have expertise in such areas as
epidemiology, toxicology and risk assessment.
Bill language is included, as requested by the
administration, regarding the liquidation of obligations made
in fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
The Committee has not included proposed bill language
relative to the environmental services fund.
environmental programs and management
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $1,846,700,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 2,046,993,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,885,000,000
program description
The Agency's ``Environmental programs and management''
account includes the development of environmental standards;
monitoring and surveillance of pollution conditions; direct
Federal pollution control planning; technical assistance to
pollution control agencies and organizations; preparation of
environmental impact statements; enforcement and compliance
assurance; and assistance to Federal agencies in complying with
environmental standards and insuring that their activities have
minimal environmental impact. It provides personnel
compensation, benefits, and travel expenses for all agency
programs except hazardous substance Superfund, LUST, Science
and Technology, Oil Spill Response, and OIG.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $1,885,000,000 for environmental
programs and management, an increase of $38,300,000 above the
1999 level and a decrease of $161,993,000 below the budget
request.
The Committee has made the following changes to the budget
request:
+$2,000,000 to validate screens and tests required by the
Food Quality Protection Act to identify hormone-
disrupting chemicals, for a total of $9,700,000.
+$1,500,000 for training grants under section 104(g) of the
Clean Water Act.
+$8,500,000 for the National Rural Water Association.
+$2,300,000 for the Rural Community Assistance Program.
+$650,000 for the Groundwater Protection Council.
+$1,000,000 for the National Environmental Training Center at
West Virginia University.
+$1,550,000 for the Small Flows Clearinghouse.
+$1,250,000 for the national onsite and community wastewater
treatment demonstration project through the Small Flows
Clearinghouse.
+$1,500,000 for local source water protection efforts in each
state, utilizing the existing infrastructure for
grassroots/wellhead protection where appropriate.
+$4,000,000 under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for state
participation in multi-state planning efforts on
regional haze, including aiding in the development of
emissions inventories, quantification of natural
visibility conditions, monitoring and other data
necessary to define reasonable progress and develop
control strategies.
+$2,000,000 for the Southwest Center for Environmental
Research and Policy.
+$500,000 for the Small Public Water System Technology Center
at Western Kentucky University.
+$400,000 for Small Water Systems Technology Assistance
Center at the University of Alaska-Sitka.
+$500,000 for the Small Public Water System Technology Center
at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
+$500,000 for the Southeast Center for Technology Assistance
for Small Drinking Water Systems at Mississippi State
University.
+$500,000 to assist communities in Hawaii to meet
successfully the water quality permitting requirements
for rehabilitating native Hawaiian fishponds.
+$5,000,000 under section 104(b) of the Clean Water Act for
America's Clean Water Foundation for implementation of
onfarm environmental assessments for hog production
operations, with the goal of improving surface and
ground water quality.
+$500,000 for the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program
through the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
+$500,000 for the Ohio River Watershed Pollutant Reduction
Program, to be cost-shared.
+$1,500,000 to continue the sediment decontamination
technology demonstration in the New York-New Jersey
Harbor.
+$1,500,000 for the National Alternative Fuels Vehicle
Training Program.
+$2,500,000 for King County, WA, molten carbonate fuel cell
demonstration project.
+$1,000,000 for the Frank Tejeda Center for Excellence in
Environmental Operations to demonstrate new technology
for water and wastewater treatment.
+$800,000 for the National Center for Vehicle Emissions
Control and Safety for onboard diagnostic research.
+$750,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants
Program.
+$1,250,000 for the Lake Champlain management plan.
+$400,000 for the Long Island Sound Program Office.
+$500,000 for the Environmentors project.
+$1,500,000 for the Food and Agricultural Policy Research
Institute's Missouri watershed initiative project to
link economic and environmental data with ambient water
quality.
+$500,000 for the Small Business Pollution Prevention Center
at the University of Northern Iowa.
+$750,000 for the painting and coating compliance enhancement
project through the Iowa Waste Reduction Center.
+$2,000,000 for the Michigan Biotechnology Institute for
development and demonstration of environmental cleanup
technologies.
+$500,000 for the final year of funding for the Ala Wai Canal
watershed improvement project.
+$200,000 for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the
University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture
and Human Resources to continue developing
agriculturally based remediation technologies.
+$1,000,000 for the Animal Waste Management Consortium
through the University of Missouri, acting with Iowa
State University, North Carolina State University,
Michigan State University, Oklahoma State University,
and Purdue University to supplement ongoing research,
demonstration, and outreach projects associated with
animal waste management.
+$1,500,000 for the University of Missouri Agroforestry
Center to support the agroforestry floodplain
initiative on nonpoint source pollution.
+$1,000,000 for the Columbia basin ground water management
assessment.
+$1,500,000 for a cumulative impacts study of North Slope oil
and gas development. The Committee expects the
Administrator to contract for the full amount with the
National Academy of Sciences through the National
Research Council's Board on Environmental Studies and
Toxicology to perform the study which shall be
completed within 2 years of contract execution. The
Council shall seek input from federal and state
agencies, Native organizations, non-governmental
entities, and other interested parties. Pending
completion of the NRC study, the Committee directs that
federal agencies shall not, under any circumstances,
rely upon the pendency of the study to delay, suspend,
or otherwise alter federal decision-making and NEPA
compliance for any existing or proposed oil and gas
exploration, development, production or delivery on the
North Slope.
+$750,000 for an expansion of EPA's efforts related to the
Government purchase and use of environmentally
preferable products under Executive Order 13101. This
includes up to $200,000 for University of Missouri-
Rolla to work with the Army to validate soysmoke as a
replacement for petroleum fog oil in obscurant smoke
used in battlefield exercises.
+$200,000 to complete the development of a technical guidance
manual for use by permit reviewers and product
specifiers (Government and private sector) to ensure
appropriate uses of preserved wood in applications
including housing, piers, docks, bridges, utility
poles, and railroad ties.
+$500,000 for a watershed study for northern Kentucky,
including the development and demonstration of a
methodology for implementing a cost-effective program
for addressing the problems associated with wet weather
conditions on a watershed basis.
+$1,750,000 for the Kansas City Riverfront project to
demonstrate innovative methods of removing contaminated
debris.
+$250,000 for the Maryland Bureau of Mines to design and
construct a Kempton Mine remediation project to reduce
or eliminate the loss of quality water from surface
streams into the Kempton Mine complex.
+$1,000,000 for the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management water and wastewater training programs.
+$900,000 to continue the National Biosolids Partnership.
+$250,000 for the Vermont Department of Agriculture to work
with the conservation districts along the Connecticut
River in Vermont to reduce nonpoint source pollution.
+$75,000 for the groundwater protection/wellhead protection
project, Nez Perce Indian Reservation in Idaho.
+$500,000 for the Water Systems Council to assist in the
effective delivery of water to rural citizens
nationwide.
+$500,000 to complete the Treasure Valley Hydrologic Project.
+$800,000 for the Wetland Development project in Logan, UT.
+$500,000 for Envision Utah sustainable development
activities.
+$550,000 for the Idaho Water Initiative.
+$1,000,000 for the Northeast Environmental Enforcement
Project, the Southern Environmental Enforcement
Network, the Midwest Environmental Enforcement
Association, and the Western States Project, which
serve as a central point of contact for environmental
enforcement training, networking, and information.
+$750,000 for the Resource and Agricultural Policy Systems
Project.
+$200,000 for the Vermont Small Business Development Center
to assist small businesses in complying with
environmental regulations.
+$750,000 to continue the Urban Rivers Awareness Program at
the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia for its
environmental science program.
+$500,000 for the Kenai River Center for research on
watershed issues and related activities.
+$300,000 for the restoration of the Beaver Springs Slough.
+$750,000 for the New Hampshire Estuaries Project management
plan implementation.
+$200,000 for the Fairmount Park Commission to identify,
design, implement, and evaluate environmental education
exhibits.
+$100,000 to continue the Design for the Environment for
Farmers Program to address the unique environmental
concerns of the American Pacific area through the
adoption of sustainable agricultural practices.
-$94,000,000 from the climate change technology initiative
[CCTI], including elimination of funds for the
Transportation Partners program. GAO found that EPA
provided no justification for the requested increase
for CCTI.
-$3,000,000 from the environmental monitoring for public
access and community tracking [EMPACT] program. The
amount provided is the same as the current level for
this program.
-$21,000,000 from the Montreal protocol fund. Over
$93,000,000 has been appropriated in EPA funding since
fiscal year 1991.
-$2,000,000 from environmental education.
-$4,700,000 from sustainable development challenge grants.
-$5,000,000 from international capacity building.
-$5,200,000 from the new RTP lab project.
-$35,000,000 from payroll costs.
-$60,468,000 from contracts and grants.
The Committee directs that no reductions be taken below the
President's request from pesticides registration or
reregistration activities, the NPDES permit backlog, compliance
assistance activities, RCRA corrective action, or data quality/
information management activities related to the reorganization
of the Office of Information Management.
The Committee supports the President's full request for the
south Florida ecosystem restoration project, the National
Estuary Program, the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, and the
water quality monitoring program along the New Jersey-New York
shoreline. The Committee supports no less than fiscal year 1999
funding levels for the Great Lakes National Program Office, and
for the environmental finance centers.
The Committee directs that compliance assistance and
centers activities within the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance be funded at no less than $25,000,000.
Compliance assistance should be an essential element of EPA
regulatory policy.
EPA Staffing.--The Committee is very concerned about the
significant growth in EPA's workforce over the past decade,
during a time when the states have taken on increasing
responsibility for environmental programs. More than 70 percent
of programs which can be delegated by EPA are now being run by
the States. In the past decade, there has been a significant
increase in the number of staff in state environmental agencies
devoted to carrying out EPA mandates. Therefore, the Committee
has put a prohibition on the growth of EPA staff for fiscal
year 2000, and notes that the General Accounting Office has
been asked to review and make recommendations on EPA staffing
issues. Bill language has been included limiting personnel
compensation and benefits funded under this account to
$900,000,000 for fiscal year 2000. Workyears to be funded by
this account are not to exceed 11,250 FTEs. Priority areas
identified above by the Committee are to receive FTE increases
by shifting FTE from lower priority areas. No reductions-in-
force will be precipitated by this cap.
Environmental Data Management.--The Committee notes that
the Inspector General has once again listed environmental data
information systems as a major area of concern at EPA,
including concerns about the accuracy, timeliness and
usefulness of EPA data. Given that one of EPA's ten goals
includes ``Expansion of Americans' Right to Know About Their
Environment,'' and in view of the Government Performance and
Results Act which requires that EPA rely on environmental data
to assess its progress, it is imperative that EPA give top
priority to addressing this management weakness. While EPA has
taken the important first step of establishing a new
information office to consolidate and provide uniformity in
EPA's approach to information management, much remains to be
done.
EPA, in the last several years, has disseminated large
volumes of environmental data to the public, relying heavily on
the development of new information products for its Internet
web site. While government agencies should be sharing important
information with the public, agencies must exercise the new
powers afforded by Internet disclosure of data in a fair and
responsible manner. The Committee is concerned that EPA has not
always provided adequate opportunities for public involvement
in the development, maintenance and refinement of the many
information products that have been placed in the public domain
during the last several years. Accordingly, the Committee is
establishing the following expectations for EPA's information
management activities.
First, EPA shall establish an agenda of information
products, published on a semi-annual basis, that would identify
the information products EPA is preparing for the public,
providing a brief description of each product, the schedule for
its release and a contact person for further information. The
agenda should encompass all products being prepared or funded
by EPA, at the headquarters or regional level.
Second, EPA shall establish procedures to engage the public
in the development, maintenance and modification of information
products it offers to the public. These procedures should allow
the public a timely opportunity to comment on all aspects of a
new information product, including issues concerning data
quality, analytical methodology, public presentation of data
and the use of data for a purpose that differs from the
original purpose for which it was collected. At a minimum,
these procedures shall include the process EPA and the states
will use to assure prompt correction of data errors in existing
EPA Internet resources. These procedures shall also be
consistent with EPA's obligations under the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
Third, the Committee believes that the recent controversy
under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, over the
availability of ``offsite consequence analysis'' information to
potential terrorists underscores the need for a more systematic
process to consider the security implications of information
dissemination. EPA shall consult with the Department of
Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other
appropriate national security and law enforcement agencies to
define the decisionmaking process and criteria the government
will use to provide the proper balance between the disclosure
of environmental information and protection of public security.
Fourth, the Committee is concerned about EPA's ability to
protect confidential business information. The Agency has
established a series of policies, grounded in various
environmental statutes, that curtail the ability of data
submitters to make confidentiality claims that would otherwise
be allowable under the Freedom of Information Act. Accordingly,
EPA shall report to Congress, by March 1, 2000, on the elements
of its policies that prevent claims of confidentiality,
including those claims that are based on the argument that
multiple pieces of publicly available data can be used to
reveal a ``mosaic'' picture of a trade secret. This report
shall clarify where existing statutes explicitly mandate
disclosure and where EPA has created policies or provided
interpretations of statutes that require disclosure.
Fifth, the Committee is concerned, based on a report by the
EPA Inspector General, that the Agency's computer security
system is inadequate. EPA shall provide a report to the
Committee, with the concurrence of the EPA Inspector General,
that EPA has taken adequate steps to install a full firewall
system to protect EPA information systems against intrusion, to
assure that all EPA program offices have the hardware, trained
staff and management commitment to provide computer security,
and to test the integrity of the computer security measures on
a periodic basis.
Sixth, the Committee is concerned that the Administration
is pursuing legal positions that would have the effect of
insulating its information dissemination activities from all
forms of judicial review. The Committee believes that the
availability of judicial review is an important means to
provide redress for those who might be harmed by government
action and to provide the proper incentives for care in the use
of information by government agencies. The Committee directs
EPA to establish a cooperative agreement with an institution
with strong credentials in administrative law to consult with a
cross-section of legal experts and provide the Congress with
recommendations on when judicial review should be allowed for
government dissemination of information, by electronic or other
means. This evaluation should consider the Constitution, the
Administrative Procedure Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act, the
Freedom of Information Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act and any
other federal statute concerning information management or
government liability.
With respect to the new Office of Information Management,
the Committee expects the office will be fully operational
prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2000, will be vested with
adequate authority to ensure that all EPA offices follow the
policies and procedures it sets forth, and will promptly follow
through on meeting prior data quality/information management
commitments such as those made for the Reinventing
Environmental Information initiative.
Finally, the Committee notes that $10,000,000 has been
provided in the STAG account for a competitive grant program
for seed money for states to enhance environmental data quality
through integrated information systems.
Enforcement Statistics Project.--The Committee believes it
is in the public interest to have access to accurate, credible,
and consistent statistics about federal and state environmental
enforcement actions. The current system is not meeting those
standards. Therefore, the Committee directs EPA to provide
$300,000 to the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) and
$200,000 to the National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA) for the following purposes. ECOS is to analyze state
enforcement and compliance statistics; identify the sources of
any inconsistencies among the states and EPA in data
collection, reporting, or definitions; and gather and make
available to Congress and the public a national summary of
state enforcement and compliance activities. NAPA is to provide
an independent evaluation of the state and federal enforcement
data, including the national summary prepared by ECOS and
comparable reports of EPA enforcement activities, and to
recommend to Congress, EPA and the states such actions as would
be needed to ensure public access to accurate, credible and
consistent enforcement data. EPA is to award funds for this
project within 60 days of enactment of this Act. The project is
to be completed by April, 2001.
Grants Management.--The Committee is very concerned about
EPA oversight of its grants and assistance agreements. The
Committee notes that in 1996 EPA designated oversight of
assistance agreements as a material management control weakness
and it remains a material weakness at this time. Also, the
Inspector General has for the past two years, included concerns
about the grants program as one of the top ten management
challenges facing EPA. The Committee expects EPA will make
reforms in this area a high priority, and provide a report to
the committee by March 31, 2000, on actions taken and those
planned for the future so that it can be taken off the list of
agency material weaknesses.
Government Performance and Results Act.--The Committee is
concerned that EPA continues to measure its progress under the
Results Act primarily through the use of ``output'' measures,
rather than performance measures. Less than 15 percent of EPA's
measures are true environmental indicators and EPA continues to
rely heavily on traditional output measures such as the number
of permits it plans to issue. The Committee fully expects that
the fiscal year 2001 budget will include a much larger
percentage of environmental indicators as performance measures.
Reinvention.--The Committee remains concerned that the
Agency's efforts to develop more flexible, effective approaches
to address environmental problems are having little impact on
the agency's core programs. In particular, the Committee is
concerned about the hesitant steps that the agency has taken to
providing such flexibility to states through performance
partnerships. A recent GAO report raised concerns about the
effectiveness of EPA's implementation of the National
Performance Environmental Partnership system, and made
recommendations to improve NEPPS. Also, the Committee looks
forward to the publication in May 2000 of the report of the
National Academy of Public Administration, which will assess
efforts at the agency and in states to improve core programs
and will recommend how the agency can build an effective
capacity to test and learn from innovations.
Kyoto Protocol.--Bill language has been included, as in the
current year, prohibiting EPA from spending funds to implement
the Kyoto Protocol. The Committee notes that this restriction
on the use of funds shall not apply to the conduct of education
activities and seminars by the agency.
The conferees note that some EPA programs involve research
or other activities that are associated with climate change. To
the extent that the Committee has funded this work, it has done
so based on the program's individual merits of contributing to
issues associated with energy efficiency and cost savings,
related environmental assessments, and general energy emission
improvements. The bill language is intended to prohibit funds
provided in this bill from being used to implement actions
solely under the Kyoto Protocol, prior to its ratification.
The Byrd-Hagel resolution which passed in 1997 remains the
clearest statement of the will of the Senate with respect to
the Kyoto Protocol, and the Committee is committed to ensuring
that the administration not implement the Kyoto Protocol
without Congressional consent. The Committee recognizes,
however, that there are also longstanding programs which have
goals and objectives that, if met, could have positive effects
on energy use and the environment. The Committee does not
intend to preclude these programs from proceeding, provided
they have been funded and approved by Congress.
To the extent future funding requests may be submitted
which would increase funding for climate change activities
prior to Senate consideration of the Kyoto Protocol (whether
under the auspices of the Climate Change Technology Initiative
or any other initiative), the Administration must do a better
job of explaining the components of the programs, their
anticipated goals and objectives, the justification for any
funding increases, a discussion of how successes will be
measured, and a clear definition of how these programs are
justified by goals and objectives independent of implementation
of the Kyoto Protocol. The conferees expect these items to be
included as part of the fiscal year 2000 budget submission for
all affected agencies.
Last year, the Committee directed the Administration to
include these items in the fiscal year 2000 budget submission.
The Committee is concerned that several agencies are tardy in
doing so. The Committee expects the EPA's report to be
consistent with the observations of the July 14, 1999, General
Accounting Office (GAO) Report to the Senate (B-283052). Three
agencies did not submit reports until April 9 or later, and one
submitted its report one day before this hearing. According to
the GAO, both the timing and the content of these submissions
made it more difficult for Congress to assess Administration
proposals.
With regard to these submissions, the Committee expects all
affected agencies to comply fully with the letter and spirit of
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). The
GAO is directed to prepare a report that evaluates the Agency's
completed plan and submit its report to the Appropriations
Committee 90 days after receipt of the Agency's plan.
Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations
Cost and Capability Assessment.--The Committee directs EPA to
conduct with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a cost
and capability assessment of the Unified National Strategy for
Animal Feeding Operations and report the results to the
Congress by May 15, 2000. The assessment will be conducted as a
pilot project in affected states and shall determine the costs,
both public and private, to plan, implement, monitor and
enforce the Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding
Operations, with a focus on Comprehensive Nutrient Management
Plans (CNMP). EPA and USDA shall work with local committees
including conservation districts, state agencies, producers and
public interest groups, which will provide the local oversight
and guidance to making the cost and capability determinations.
The results of this pilot project shall be summarized by the
committees and included in the final report which the EPA and
USDA will prepare and submit to the Congress.
Reuse of industrial packages.--While EPA has a number of
programs designed to promote pollution prevention and recycling
in industrial processes, few resources have been directed at
the reuse of materials. One example is the reuse of industrial
packages which include packages used for the transportation or
storage of commodities, the contents of which are not meant for
retail sale without being repackaged. The Committee urges EPA
to investigate and promote opportunities for the reuse of
industrial packages in their original intended form through
reconditioning and remanufacture by working with private sector
organizations whose primary purposes include education and
research in the field of reusable industrial packages. EPA
should also consider developing a pilot project on the reuse of
industrial packages as an environmentally preferable product.
HPV Challenge Program.--The Committee is concerned about
EPA's implementation of the High Production Volume (HPV)
Chemical Challenge Program. To ensure EPA will be able to
manage effectively the large influx of data which will be
generated by this program, EPA should consider upgrading its
software to a more internationally useable system such as the
International Uniform Chemical Information Database (IUCLID).
The Committee understands that IUCLID would allow the input of
data in one format for all venues.
Lead-based paint pre-renovation education rule.--The
Committee is concerned that EPA's lead-based paint pre-
renovation education rule, specifically as it relates to multi-
family housing, may create confusion for property owners and
tenants and may not be the most effective way to achieve the
child health protections intended under section 1018 of Title X
of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act. The
Committee believes EPA should meet with multi-family property
owners to consider the practical effects of the regulations and
to discuss how burdens can be minimized in conformance with the
statutory direction of child health protection. EPA should
consider amending the final rule to facilitate implementation
of the rule. EPA is to report to the Committee by June 1, 2000
on the efforts it has taken to streamline the paperwork burden
for small businesses.
Tier II/Low Sulfur Rule.--The Committee is concerned that
as part of the proposed Tier II/low sulfur rule, the Agency may
have failed to conduct sufficient analyses of the potential
negative health impacts and the potential costs of imposing new
controls on vehicles and fuels to reduce NOX
emissions, including the effect of reducing NOX
emissions in areas of the country that are VOC-limited, such
that ozone levels respond more to reductions in VOCs than to
NOX reductions. The Committee directs EPA to
undertake an analysis of the potential disbenefits of
reductions in NOX emissions, using the latest
modeling technology, and to report to the Committee as soon as
possible but no later than March 1, 2000 on the areas of the
country and the number of people in those areas where ozone
levels may increase as a result of implementing the Tier II/low
sulfur rule. In addition, the Committee is also concerned that
the Agency has failed to evaluate the full impact of the low-
sulfur rule on the refining industry in light of the health of
the industry and other regulatory requirements affecting the
industry. Therefore, the Committee requests the EPA, working
with the Department of Energy, conduct a full analysis of the
potential impact of the many regulatory requirements facing the
industry in light of current and anticipated market conditions
and trends, and to report to the Committee no later than August
1, 2000. Given the complexity of the Tier II/low sulfur rule
and the need for full public scrutiny of the many issues
involved, the Committee also requests that the Administrator
report to the Committee within 30 days on whether all of the
underlying data relating to potential costs and health benefits
as well as disbenefits, have been released to the public for
review and comment.
Other issues.--The 2002 Winter Olympics may provide a
unique opportunity to showcase sustainable building
technologies including renewable and energy efficient building
materials and energy efficient design technologies. EPA is
encouraged to work with the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for
the Olympic Winter Games to develop a program in which
sustainable building technologies may be incorporated into
appropriate Olympic facilities, with particular emphasis on the
Oquirrh Park Service District.
The Committee strongly encourages EPA to continue the Big
Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility Observational Study.
The Committee believes EPA should develop a comprehensive
plan to guide its efforts to establish an air toxics monitoring
program, including how the data generated from the program will
be used to guide decisionmaking.
The Committee urges EPA to accelerate completion of the
lead safety sampling technician course to meet the urgent need
for individuals trained to perform visual inspections and
sample dust, soil, and paint chips in high risk housing and as
needed for clearance after repainting and remodeling.
The Committee believes EPA should increase its support to
$60,000 for the Tri-State Implementation Council, which is
implementing the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed Management
Plan.
The Committee understands that advancements in fuel
catalysts could prolong the effectiveness of catalytic
converters and achieve reductions in airborne emissions of
hydrocarbons, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxide. Such reductions could significantly improve air quality
and aid in attaining air quality standards. The Committee
encourages EPA to identify and test these catalysts in non-
attainment areas.
The Committee urges EPA to consider favorably a proposal
from the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center to establish
a Center for Sustainable Manufacturing that would assist small
and medium-sized manufacturers in improving their economic
performance while reducing toxic emissions and hazardous
wastes.
The Committee urges EPA to continue its support to the
Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association to address
multimedia and multi-jurisdictional issues in waste management,
site cleanup and pollution prevention.
The Committee urges EPA to continue an ongoing project by
the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning to phase-out
leaded gasoline internationally. Approximately $500,000 is
needed to complete this important project.
The Committee supports and acknowledges the need and public
benefit of integrating regulatory and technical assistance
programs between federal agencies. The Committee recognizes the
Earth Sciences and Resources Institute at the University of
South Carolina is developing a geographic information decision
support system to facilitate the cost-effective planning,
management and regulation of animal feeding operations and
associated comprehensive nutrient management plans. The
decision support system can serve as a framework for federal
efforts to link important water quality and agricultural
conservation issues.
The Committee recognizes the unique program developed by
the University of Kentucky Transportation Center and the
Calspan University of Buffalo Research Center to develop on-
board, real-time computing capability to monitor the emissions
of commercial vehicles. The Committee encourages EPA to find
the necessary resources to fund a pilot program.
Bill language has been included, as requested by the
administration, clarifying EPA's grant making authorities under
section 20 of FIFRA.
Bill language is included, as requested by the
administration, regarding liquidating obligations made in
fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
The Committee has not included proposed bill language
relative to the environmental services fund.
office of inspector general
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $31,154,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 29,409,000
Committee recommendation................................ 32,409,000
program description
The Office of Inspector General provides EPA audit and
investigative functions to identify and recommend corrective
actions of management, program, and administrative deficiencies
which create conditions for existing or potential instances of
fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
Trust fund resources are transferred to this account
directly from the hazardous substance Superfund.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $32,409,000 for the Office of
Inspector General, an increase of $3,000,000 above the budget
request. In addition, the budget request of $10,753,000 will be
available by transfer from the Superfund account, for a total
of $43,162,000. The trust fund resources will be transferred to
the inspector general ``General fund'' account with an
expenditure transfer.
The Committee has added $3,000,000 for the Office of
Inspector General to address major problems at EPA and to form
a new program evaluation unit to analyze environmental outcomes
more effectively. Funds are included for additional audits of
grants and assistance agreements, which represent a major
portion of EPA's budget and which EPA has identified as a
material management control weakness. The IG will assess
whether a systemic problem exists within EPA's grants
management and oversight responsibilities, including whether
EPA is using the grants process in lieu of the more appropriate
contracting process for certain procurements, whether there is
adequate competition in awarding grants, whether quantifiable
deliverables are being obtained, and whether adequate oversight
is being conducted by EPA.
In addition, the IG is expected to continue audits of
computer security, which also has been identified as a material
weakness, and related activities to protect computer systems.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $56,948,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 62,630,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,930,000
program description
The appropriation for buildings and facilities at EPA
covers the necessary major repairs and improvements to existing
installations which are used by the Agency. This appropriation
also covers new construction projects when appropriate.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $25,930,000 for buildings and
facilities. The Committee recommendation does not include,
without prejudice, the administration request of $36,700,000
for the Research Triangle Park laboratory construction project
owing to budget constraints.
hazardous substance superfund
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $1,500,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 1,500,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,400,000,000
program description
On October 17, 1986, Congress amended the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
[CERCLA] through the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 [SARA]. SARA reauthorized and expanded the
hazardous substance Superfund to address the problems of
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and spills. Specifically,
the legislation mandates that EPA: (1) provide emergency
response to hazardous waste spills; (2) take emergency action
at hazardous waste sites that pose an imminent hazard to public
health or environmentally sensitive ecosystems; (3) engage in
long-term planning, remedial design, and construction to clean
up hazardous waste sites where no financially viable
responsible party can be found; (4) take enforcement actions to
require responsible private and Federal parties to clean up
hazardous waste sites; and (5) take enforcement actions to
recover costs where the fund has been used for cleanup.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $1,400,000,000 for Superfund, a
decrease of $100,000,000 below the budget request and fiscal
year 1999 enacted level. The amount provided includes
$700,000,000 from general revenues, and the balance from the
trust fund.
The amount recommended includes the following:
$913,647,000 for the response program. This includes the
President's full request for brownfields.
$145,000,000 for enforcement.
$38,000,000 for research and development.
$125,000,000 for management and support.
$70,000,000 for the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, including up to $2,500,000 for the
Great Lakes fish consumption study and up to $2,000,000
for ATSDR to complete the exposure assessment,
community and health provider outreach, exposure dose
reconstruction, other measures necessary to complete
the Dover Township, New Jersey Case Control Study, and
the multistate Childhood Brain Cancer Case Control
Study. The Committee directs that the reduction from
the fiscal year 1999 enacted level for ATSDR be taken
from health assessments, consistent with GAO's March
1999 report which recommended against conducting
detailed health assessments at each site proposed for
the NPL. Bill language has been included to relieve
ATSDR from the requirement that full health assessments
be conducted at all sites proposed for the NPL within
one year, and to enable ATSDR to conduct other
appropriate health studies, evaluations, or activities,
in lieu of health assessments.
$58,000,000 for the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences, including $23,000,000 for worker
training grants and $35,000,000 for research.
$39,600,000 for other Federal agencies.
$10,753,000 for the inspector general.
The Committee continues to be concerned with EPA's
management of the Superfund program, which has been listed by
the General Accounting Office as a high risk program subject to
fraud, waste and abuse for a decade. Recently GAO reported that
EPA may be retaining more contract capacity than it needs to
conduct its Superfund cleanup work, leading to excessive
program support costs. GAO also has raised concerns about EPA's
inconsistent use of independent cost estimates to control
contractor costs, as well as EPA's cost-recovery practices.
In addition, all of Superfund's performance measures
required by the Results Act are process-oriented; there are no
measures that directly address reduction of risk to human
health and the environment. The Committee expects that in the
fiscal year 2001 budget, EPA will include environmental
indicators as in the RCRA corrective action program.
Given these concerns, along with the need for
reauthorization, the constraints imposed by the budget
allocation, and the need to prioritize spending according to
risk, the Committee has reduced Superfund spending by
$100,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee directs
that funds for sites where remedies are yet to be selected be
primarily allocated on the basis of risk, ensuring that those
sites posing the most significant risk to human health and the
environment will be addressed first.
In view of the fact that almost half of the NPL sites are
now on the construction completion list, it is expected that
the Superfund program will be ramping down within the next five
to ten years. Given the need to have solid and independently
verified estimates of the cost to implement and phase down this
program, the Committee directs that within 45 days of enactment
of this Act, EPA award a cooperative agreement for an
independent analysis of the projected costs over the 10-year
period of fiscal years 2000-2010 for implementation of the
Superfund program under current law, including the annual and
cumulative costs associated with administering CERCLA
activities at National Priority List (NPL) sites. It shall
identify sources of uncertainty in the estimates. The analysis
shall model (1) costs for completion of all sites currently
listed on the NPL, (2) costs associated with additions to the
NPL anticipated for fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2009,
(3) costs associated with Federal expenditures for the
operations and maintenance at both existing and new NPL sites,
(4) costs for emergency removals, (5) non-site-specific costs
assigned to other activities such as research, administration,
and interagency transfers, and (6) costs associated with 5-year
reviews at existing and new NPL sites and associated
activities. For purposes of this analysis, costs associated
with assessment, response and development of brownfields, and
Federal facility sites are not to be included. The analysis
shall be conducted by Resources For the Future. The results of
the analysis are to be transmitted in a report to Congress by
December 31, 2000.
The Committee notes that King County and the City of
Seattle are working together to encourage reuse of contaminated
industrial land by facilitating cleanup and redevelopment.
Also, the Port of Ridgefield, WA, is working to clean up
contamination at that site including the removal of an
underground plume. The Committee encourages EPA to give
favorable consideration to grant applications under the
Brownfields program for these projects.
The Committee is aware there is significant interest in
resolving and settling the Natural Resource Damage suit in the
Silver Valley of Idaho. The Committee is concerned the federal
agencies involved in the suit appear to be more interested in
protracted litigation than in a timely and equitable resolution
of the NRD claims in the Coeur d'Alene Basin. It is the
Committee's expectation that EPA will work to assure there is
such a resolution within this fiscal year.
The Committee directs that Superfund FTE's not exceed 3,300
in fiscal year 2000.
The Committee has included bill language delaying the
availability of $100,000,000 until September 1, 2000.
leaking underground storage tank trust fund
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $72,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 71,556,000
Committee recommendation................................ 71,556,000
program description
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizations Act of 1986
[SARA] established the leaking underground storage tank [LUST]
trust fund to conduct corrective actions for releases from
leaking underground storage tanks containing petroleum and
other hazardous substances. EPA implements the LUST program
through State cooperative agreement grants which enable States
to conduct corrective actions to protect human health and the
environment, and through non-State entities including Indian
tribes under section 8001 of RCRA. The trust fund is also used
to enforce responsible parties to finance corrective actions
and to recover expended funds used to clean up abandoned tanks.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget request of $71,556,000
for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, a decrease of
$944,000 below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The
Committee directs that not less than 85 percent of these funds
be provided to the States and tribal governments.
In light of widespread contamination of drinking water by
the gasoline additive MTBE from leading underground petroleum
storage tanks, the Committee urges EPA in undertaking
corrective actions and enforcement to give high priority to
releases that pose the greatest threat to human health and the
environment.
oilspill response
(including transfer of funds)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 15,618,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,000,000
program description
This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1987 and amended by the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, provides funds for preventing and responding to
releases of oil and other petroleum products in navigable
waterways. EPA is responsible for: directing all cleanup and
removal activities posing a threat to public health and the
environment; conducting inspections, including compelling
responsible parties to undertake cleanup actions; reviewing
containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency
plans; pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed cleanups; and
conducting research of oil cleanup techniques. Funds are
provided through the oilspill liability trust fund established
by the Oil Pollution Act and managed by the Coast Guard.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the oilspill
response trust fund, the same as the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level and a decrease of $618,000 below the budget request.
state and tribal ASSISTANCE grants
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $3,408,050,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 2,837,957,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,250,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The ``State and tribal assistance grants'' account funds
grants to support the State revolving fund programs; State,
tribal, regional, and local environmental programs; and special
projects to address critical water and waste water treatment
needs.
This account funds the following infrastructure grant
programs: State revolving funds; United States-Mexico Border
Program; colonias projects; and Alaska Native villages.
It also contains the following environmental grants, State/
tribal program grants, and assistance and capacity building
grants: (1) Nonpoint source (sec. 319 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act); (2) water quality cooperative
agreements (sec. 104(b)(3) of FWPCA; (3) public water system
supervision; (4) air resource assistance to State, local, and
tribal governments (secs. 105 and 103 of the Clean Air Act);
(5) radon State grants; (6) water pollution control agency
resource supplementation (sec. 106 of the FWPCA); (7) wetlands
State program development; (8) underground injection control;
(9) Pesticides Program implementation; (10) lead grants; (11)
hazardous waste financial assistance; (12) pesticides
enforcement grants; (13) pollution prevention; (14) toxic
substances enforcement grants; (15) Indians general assistance
grants; and, (16) underground storage tanks. The funds provided
in this account, exclusive of the funds for the SRF and the
special water and waste water treatment projects, may be used
by the Agency to enter into performance partnerships with
States and tribes rather than media-specific categorical
program grants, if requested by the States and tribes. The
performance partnership/categorical grants are exempt from the
congressional reprogramming limitation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,250,000,000
for State and tribal assistance grants, an increase of
$412,043,000 over the budget request and a decrease of
$158,050,000 below the fiscal year 1999 enacted level.
The Committee's recommendation includes the following:
$885,000,000, the budget request, for performance
partnership/categorical grants and associated program
support. Clean Lakes program activities are to be
funded through the sec. 319 nonpoint source grant
program. The Committee suggests that 5 percent of the
section 319 funds be allocated to clean lakes, and that
EPA better integrate the Clean Lakes and section 319
programs by incorporating the section 314 guidance into
the 319 guidance.
$10,000,000 for competitive grants to States and
federally-recognized Indian Tribes 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
environmental 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. EPA
will address any of its own internal funding needs
associated with this effort through a redirection of
funding during the fiscal year 2000 operating plan
process.
$825,000,000 for drinking water State revolving funds, an
increase of $50,000,000 over fiscal year 1999 and the
same as the budget request.
$1,350,000,000 for clean water State revolving funds, an
increase of $550,000,000 above the budget request.
$50,000,000 for water and wastewater projects on the
United States-Mexico border. The Committee directs that
of the funds provided for U.S./Mexico border projects,
$3,000,000 shall be for the El Paso-Las Cruces
Sustainable Water Project and $2,000,000 shall be for
the Brownsville water supply project.
$30,000,000 for rural and Alaskan Native villages to
address the special water and wastewater treatment
needs of thousands of households that lack basic
sanitation, including $2,000,000 for training and
technical assistance. The State of Alaska will provide
a match of 25 percent.
$100,000,000 for special needs infrastructure grants, as
follows:
$2,700,000 for the Pownal, VT wastewater treatment
project.
$2,000,000 for the Fall River/New Bedford, MA combined
sewer overflow and wastewater treatment system.
$3,000,000 for the central metropolitan interceptor
improvement project in Milwaukee, WI.
$4,000,000 for the Lockwood, MT, water and sewer district
for implementation of its wastewater collection,
treatment and disposal plan.
$2,000,000 for the Ogden, UT, water, sewer and stormwater
improvements.
$2,800,000 to complete the Hogg Creek Interceptor Project
to improve wastewater disposal in Jackson, MS.
$5,000,000 for the upgrade of sewage treatment facilities
in Cambridge and Salisbury, MD.
$3,000,000 for the Mitchell, SD, water system.
$1,300,000 for the Cabot, VT, wastewater treatment
project.
$1,500,000 for the Big Timber, MT wastewater treatment
facility.
$1,800,000 for the City of Blackfoot, ID, for wastewater
treatment plant improvements.
$5,000,000 for the City of Welch, WV, for water/sewer
improvements.
$2,300,000 for the Shulerville--Honey Hill, SC, water
extension project.
$1,000,000 for the Big Haynes Creek, GA, stormwater basin
retention and reuse project.
$2,000,000 for the Sacramento, CA, sewer overflow
upgrade.
$1,500,000 for the Southeastern Oakland County, MI, sewer
overflow modification project.
$1,500,000 for the City of Montrose, CO, wastewater
treatment plant upgrade.
$500,000 for Dell Rapids, SD, wastewater treatment
facility upgrade.
$5,500,000 for the State of Missouri Department of
Natural Resources for phosphorous removal efforts in
southwestern Missouri communities under 50,000,
including but not limited to Nixa, Ozark, Kimberling
City, Reeds Spring, and Galena wastewater treatment
facilities discharging into the Table Rock Lake
watershed.
$3,300,000 for the Missouri Division of State Parks water
and sewer improvements needs including the state parks
of Meramec, Roaring River, Lake of the Ozarks, Knob
Noster, Cuivve River, Mark Twain, and Trail of Tears.
$500,000 for the Clovis, NM emergency repair of a
wastewater effluent holding pond and renovation of its
wastewater treatment plant.
$3,000,000 for a grant to the Arizona Water
Infrastructure Financing Authority for making a loan to
the city of Safford, AZ to address the city's
wastewater needs, which will be repaid by the city to
the Arizona Clean Water Revolving fund established
under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended.
$1,000,000 for Vinalhaven, ME, municipal sewer system.
$600,000 for the cities of Jerome and Dietrich, ID, to
upgrade local water facilities.
$2,000,000 for the Berlin, NH, water infrastructure
improvements.
$3,000,000 for North Jessamine County, KY, wastewater
system improvements.
$2,300,000 for the Moapa Valley Water District, NV,
wastewater treatment expansion.
$3,750,000 for water/sewer improvements for the City of
Valdez, AK.
$3,600,000 to address water and wastewater deficiencies
in the North and South Valley areas of the city of
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, NM ($3,100,000) and
Espanola, NM ($500,000).
$3,750,000 for water/sewer improvements in the Chugiak
area of Anchorage, AK.
$3,000,000 for the Grand Forks, ND, water treatment
plant.
$3,000,000 for a surface water treatment plant in
Franklin County, AL.
$500,000 for Lafayette, AL, water system project.
$1,000,000 for combined sewer overflow projects in
Lynchburg and Richmond, VA.
$2,000,000 for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration
Project, PA.
$2,500,000 for the Metaline Falls water system
improvements in Pend Oreille County, WA.
$500,000 for the Springettsbury, Township, PA, regional
sewer project.
$600,000 for the city of Bremerton, WA, combined sewer
overflow project.
$500,000 for the city of Sitka, AK, water/sewer
improvements.
$1,500,000 for the North Hudson, NJ, Sewerage Authority
combined sewer overflow initiative.
$1,500,000 for the Passaic Valley, NJ, Sewerage Combined
Sewer Overflow initiative.
$5,200,000 for the Jackson, MS, water and wastewater
system rehabilitation.
$1,500,000 for the County of Kauai, HI, for the Lihue
wastewater treatment plant.
$1,500,000 for the Doan Brook watershed project in
Cleveland, OH, to alleviate sanitary sewer
contamination.
EPA is to work with the grant recipients on appropriate
cost-share arrangements consistent with past practice.
The Committee notes that EPA is in the process of revising
upward its estimate of clean water infrastructure financing. It
is expected that EPA's updated estimate of the 20 year-
requirement will be approximately $200,000,000,000--compared to
EPA's 1996 needs survey estimate of roughly $140,000,000,000--
excluding replacement costs and operations and maintenance.
There currently is an annual gap of almost $6,000,000,000
between capital needs and total federal, state and local
expenditures on wastewater infrastructure, including
replacement costs. Given these needs, the Committee is
perplexed with EPA's decision to cut funding dramatically for
the clean water state revolving fund program. This program has
proven to be an effective state-federal partnership, with
significant leveraging of federal funds and strong state cost-
sharing. The Committee believes the SRF program will continue
to play a critical role in meeting water infrastructure
financing requirements, and expects EPA to request an
appropriate level of funding for this critical program in its
fiscal year 2001 budget request. The Committee urges EPA to
initiate a dialog to determine how much additional SRF funding
is needed to address the long term water quality needs of the
nation.
The Committee has not included bill language requested by
the administration authorizing a set-aside of up to 20 percent
of state revolving funds for nonpoint source grants. The
Committee notes it has recommended $200,000,000 in section 319
grants for nonpoint source controls. In view of the need for
wastewater infrastructure financing, the Committee cannot
support the administration's proposal.
The Committee has provided no funds for the
administration's proposal for a new $200,000,000 clean air
partnership grant program. This program is not specifically
authorized and cannot be supported in view of the many higher
priority agency activities. Further, according to GAO, EPA did
not perform any analysis to justify establishing this program
or its cost.
The Committee is concerned with the length of time it has
taken EPA to close out the construction grants for Gary and
Indianapolis, IN, which were awarded under the Clean Water Act
during the 1970's with work completed during the 1980's. The
Committee expects EPA to settle all outstanding audit disputes
with these cities by November 1, 1999, giving due deference to
decision documents from EPA or the relevant delegated agency
which indicate that a ``hard look'' or other review was
conducted in determining whether costs are eligible or
allowable.
The Committee has included bill language, which has been
carried for several years, clarifying that drinking water
health effects research is to be funded out of the science and
technology account only.
Bill language has been included, as in fiscal year 1999,
which allows states in fiscal year 2000 and hereafter to
include as principal, amounts considered to be the cost of
administering SRF loans to eligible borrowers.
Bill language is included, as the administration requested,
regarding section 319 grants to Indian tribes.
Finally, bill language is included making technical
corrections to fiscal year 1999 appropriation language related
to water infrastructure grants for Alaska and Utah.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
The Committee has included bill language which prohibits
the EPA Administrator from awarding any funds to a non-profit
organization unless such organization has certified that it has
not used federal funds to engage in litigation against the
United States.
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $5,026,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 5,201,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,201,000
program description
The Office of Science and Technology Policy [OSTP] was
created by the National Science and Technology Policy,
Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-238)
and coordinates science and technology policy for the White
House. OSTP provides authoritative scientific and technological
information, analysis, and advice for the President, for the
executive branch, and for Congress; participates in
formulation, coordination, and implementation of national and
international policies and programs that involve science and
technology; maintains and promotes the health and vitality of
the U.S. science and technology infrastructure; and coordinates
research and development efforts of the Federal Government to
maximize the return on the public's investment in science and
technology and to ensure Federal resources are used efficiently
and appropriately.
OSTP provides support for the National Science and
Technology Council [NSTC].
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,201,000 for
the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This amount is the
same as the budget request and $175,000 above the fiscal year
1999 enacted level.
The Committee is concerned about recent actions taken by
the European Union with respect to the safety of agricultural
commodities produced in part through the use of biotechnology.
The Committee believes that there is a clear need to provide
impartial scientific analysis of the use of these new
technologies and methods to maintain public confidence in the
nation's food supply. Therefore, the Committee directs OSTP to
organize a special working group with participation from other
federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation,
Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and
Environmental Protection Agency to study and provide
recommendations to the Committee on how to address this issue.
This report should be submitted to the Committee by June 15,
2000.
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $2,675,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 3,020,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,675,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Council on Environmental Quality/Office of
Environmental Quality was established by the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental Quality
Improvement Act of 1970. The Council serves as a source of
environmental expertise and policy analysis for the White
House, Executive Office of the President agencies, and other
Federal agencies. CEQ promulgates regulations binding on all
Federal agencies to implement the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act and resolves interagency
environmental disputes informally and through issuance of
findings and recommendations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has provided $2,675,000 for the Council on
Environmental Quality, the same as the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level.
Bill language relative to the use of detailees has been
continued again this year.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Office of Inspector General
(Transfer of Funds)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $34,666,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 33,666,000
Committee recommendation................................ 34,666,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Prior to 1998, the FDIC inspector general's budgets have
been approved by the FDIC's Board of Directors from deposit
insurance funds as part of FDIC's annual operating budget that
is proposed by the FDIC Chairman. A separate appropriation more
effectively ensures the independence of the OIG.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $34,666,000 for the FDIC inspector
general, which are to be derived by transfer from the bank
insurance fund, the savings association insurance fund, and the
FSLIC resolution fund.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $2,640,254,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 921,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 854,580,000
general description
FEMA is responsible for coordinating Federal efforts to
reduce the loss of life and property through a comprehensive
risk-based, all hazards emergency management program of
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $854,580,000 for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. The amount provided includes
$300,000,000 in disaster relief expenditures and $554,580,000
for other programs. Despite severe budget constraints, the
Committee has accommodated some increases for priority
initiatives such as counter-terrorism, fire program
enhancements, and emergency food and shelter.
disaster relief
Appropriations, 1999..................................\1\ $2,113,745,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... \2\ 300,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 300,000,000
\1\ Includes $1,806,000,000 in supplemental appropriations.
\2\ The administration requested an additional $2,480,425,000 in
contingency funds, for a total of $2,780,425,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
Through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), FEMA provides a
significant portion of the total Federal response to victims in
Presidentially declared major disasters and emergencies. Major
disasters are declared when a State requests Federal assistance
and has proven that a given disaster is beyond the State's
capacity to respond. Under the DRF, FEMA provides three main
types of assistance: individual and family assistance; public
assistance, which includes the repair and reconstruction of
State, local and non-profit infrastructure; and hazard
mitigation.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget request of $300,000,000
for FEMA disaster relief, a decrease of $7,000,000 below the
fiscal year 1999 enacted level, excluding contingency funds.
The Committee has not included the administration's request of
$2,480,425,000 for disaster relief contingency funds.
The Committee continues to be concerned about expenditures
in the disaster relief program. While the Committee supports
FEMA's efforts to close out old disasters--some dating back to
1989--FEMA is incurring obligations to the disaster relief fund
at a much faster rate than in previous years. As a result, the
fund faced a potential shortfall earlier this year, resulting
in the need for an unanticipated supplemental appropriation to
replenish it. The Committee is concerned about whether FEMA, in
expediting the close-out of old disasters, is ensuring that the
Congress has accurate and timely information concerning the
status of fund balances and whether FEMA is ensuring that
closeouts are occurring in such a way that project eligibility
requirements are being met consistently. The Committee requests
that the General Accounting Office review how FEMA is tracking
disaster relief requirements and the status of disaster relief
fund balances, as well as how FEMA ensures that disaster
assistance dollars are used effectively and efficiently, and
consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements.
The Committee commends FEMA for its rule, published
September 1, 1999, listing the factors it considers when
evaluating a Governor's request for a major disaster
declaration, including State per capita damage; the severity,
magnitude and impact of the disaster; insurance coverage;
hazard mitigation measures; recent disaster history; and
programs of other Federal assistance. The Committee is
concerned, however, that these indicators are no more stringent
than those used in the past. Moreover, traditionally FEMA has
not been consistent in its application of these criteria. The
Inspector General recently found that forty percent of the 192
declarations it examined in the 10-year period October 1988-
September 1998 were declared with a state per capita damage
figure under $1, while FEMA used a $1 per capita damage
threshold as one of its disaster criteria. The Committee
expects that FEMA will apply the criteria it has published in a
consistent manner, and will look to strengthening the criteria
over time, while recognizing the need to maintain some
flexibility for unique circumstances.
The Committee continues to have concerns about FEMA's
implementation of the hazard mitigation grant program
authorized by section 404 of the Stafford Act. FEMA has been
exempting several categories of projects from benefit-cost
analysis, including property acquisitions, hazard research, and
mitigation planning efforts; 14 percent of the projects
reviewed by GAO had been exempted from benefit-cost analysis.
While the Committee recognizes the need for some flexibility in
selecting projects under this program, it is imperative that
funds be allocated to those projects which will yield the
greatest opportunities to reduce risk. The General Accounting
Office conducted a review of this program and made
recommendations to ensure that funded projects are cost-
effective. The Committee expects FEMA to follow these
recommendations, while also ensuring that funds are obligated
more expeditiously. Currently there is approximately
$400,000,000 in unobligated 404 funds, dating back to 1994.
The Committee strongly supports FEMA's efforts to require
adequate insurance for public buildings. This is integral to
ensuring that state and local governments are taking all steps
possible to prepare for disaster events. The rule should
correct a disincentive against insurance caused by the existing
regulatory interpretation of the Stafford Act, reward
communities and States for having insurance, save Federal
disaster costs, and enhance preparedness.
Bill language has been included, as requested by the
administration, authorizing the transfer of $2,900,000 from the
disaster relief fund to emergency management planning and
assistance for the consolidated emergency management
performance grant. The funds to be transferred represent the
authorization for disaster preparedness improvement grants.
The Committee recognizes the State of Texas has formed
Texas Task Force 1 (TxTF-1), the Texas Urban Search and Rescue
Team, through the National Emergency Response and Rescue
Training Center located in College Station, Texas. The
Committee notes that TxTF-1 is a fully operational team,
strategically located in the Central and Southeastern part of
the nation on the Gulf Coast. The Committee also notes the
State of Texas has invested $2,000,000 to equip fully and train
this team which has already been deployed in several natural
disasters. Therefore, the Committee suggests FEMA do a full
evaluation of TxTF-1 and report back to the Committee as to
whether it should be included in the national Urban Search and
Rescue System.
PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION FUND
Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000................................... $30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Under this initiative, FEMA provides funds for community-
identified mitigation projects that reduce the exposure to
disaster losses. These funds are expected to leverage private
sector resources. Of the total amount requested, $2,600,000
will be transferred to the Emergency Management Planning and
Assistance appropriation into the consolidated emergency
management performance grants to support Project Impact
mitigation activities at the State level.
COMMITTEE DESCRIPTION
The Committee recommends funds for this activity under the
``Emergency management planning and assistance'' account, in
lieu of a separate account as proposed by the administration.
disaster assistance direct loan program account
(limitation on direct loans)
STATE SHARE LOAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999.................... $1,355,000 $440,000
Budget estimate, 2000................... 1,295,000 420,000
Committee recommendation................ 1,295,000 420,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Disaster assistance loans authorized by the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. are loans to States for the non-Federal portion of
cost sharing funds and community disaster loans to local
governments incurring substantial loss of tax and other
revenues as a result of a major disaster. The funds requested
for this program include direct loans and a subsidy based on
criteria including loan amount and interest charged.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
For the State Share Loan Program, the Committee has
provided $25,000,000 in loan authority and $420,000 in
administrative expenses. For the cost of subsidizing the
appropriation, the bill includes $1,295,000.
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 1999....................................\1\ $174,779,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 189,720,000
Committee recommendation................................ 180,000,000
\1\ Includes $3,641,000 in Y2K emergency contingency funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
Program Support.--This activity provides the necessary
resources to administer the Agency's various programs at
headquarters and in the regions.
Executive Direction.--This activity provides for the
general management and administration of the Agency in legal,
congressional, government, and media affairs, and financial and
personnel management, as well as the management of the Agency's
national security program.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $180,000,000 for FEMA salaries and
expenses. This is a decrease of $9,720,000 below the request
and an increase of $5,221,000 above the fiscal year 1999
enacted level. Owing to severe budget constraints, the
Committee was not able to fund fully the budget estimate. The
Committee did not fund 49 workyears lost to unbudgeted
increases in fiscal year 1999, or 20 new workyears for
administrative support for Project Impact. However, the
Committee recommendation does accommodate additional resources
for counterterrorism/anti-terrorism activities and for
enhancements to the fire prevention and training program.
office of the inspector general
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $5,400,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 8,015,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,015,000
program description
This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and
investigative functions to identify and correct management and
administrative deficiencies, which create conditions for
existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and
mismanagement. The audit function provides internal audit,
contract audit, and inspection services. Contract audits
provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on
accounting and financial matters relative to the negotiation,
award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts.
Internal audits review and evaluate all facets of agency
operations.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget request of $8,015,000
for the Office of the Inspector General, an increase of
$2,615,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level.
emergency management planning and assistance
Appropriations, 1999....................................\1\ $244,535,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 250,850,000
Committee recommendation................................ 255,850,000
\1\ Includes $3,711,000 in Y2K conversion emergency funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The emergency management planning and assistance
appropriation provides resources for the following activities:
response and recovery; preparedness; information technology
services; fire prevention and training; operations support;
policy and regional operations; mitigation programs; and
executive direction. Flood plain management activity and flood
insurance operations are funded by transfer from the national
flood insurance fund in fiscal year 1994.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget estimate of
$255,850,000 for emergency management planning and assistance.
This is an increase of $10,026,000 above the fiscal year 1999
level and $5,000,000 above the budget request.
The Committee has included funds for the predisaster
mitigation program in this account, rather than in a separate
account as proposed by the administration. The Committee has
recommended $25,000,000 for this program. The administration
had proposed $30,000,000.
The Committee has taken a reduction of $4,500,000 from the
consolidated emergency management performance grant (EMPG),
owing to budget constraints. However, funding under the EMPG
would increase $7,950,000 over the current level.
The Committee approves of FEMA's proposal for consolidated
emergency management performance grants and has included
necessary bill language requested by FEMA. This mechanism will
allow increased flexibility for states to allocate funds
according to risk. The Committee notes, however, that FEMA
initiated performance partnership grants several years ago,
which had the same stated purpose but did not result in
significant changes to the allocation of funds. Also, FEMA did
not adequately integrate risk information into the performance
partnership grant process, or demonstrate that states were
being held more accountable in exchange for the increased
flexibility.
The Committee expects the new emergency management grant
will incorporate increased accountability--including using
performance measures that clearly demonstrate accountability--
and that FEMA will implement incentives and/or disincentives to
ensure states meet performance goals. Finally, the Committee
expects FEMA will update and refine the state capability
assessment for readiness (CAR) to lessen its subjectivity,
provide more reliable information on state capability, and
include an assessment of local governments' capabilities.
The Committee notes the cost-share developed for the EMPG
is a composite cost-share based on cost-share policies for the
funding sources contributing to the EMGP.
The Committee supports FEMA's anti-terrorism activities,
and has included requested funding of $30,800,000 (including
$4,688,000 in salaries and expenses). However, the Committee is
concerned about the need to coordinate better the roles and
responsibilities of the myriad federal agencies involved in
anti-terrorism training, equipment and response planning. Over
the past two years, the General Accounting Office has been
assessing various aspects of the federal government's efforts
to combat terrorism, and has raised serious concerns about
potentially overlapping programs, and inadequate management and
coordination of crosscutting programs. Given that the President
has requested approximately $10,000,000,000 for these efforts
government-wide in fiscal year 2000, the Committee strongly
suggests the administration closely consider the findings and
recommendations made by GAO to ensure we are allocating
counterterrorism/anti-terrorism funds in the most effective
manner possible. The Committee notes that GAO recently was
tasked with evaluating the first-responder training programs
for anti-terrorism. Given that FEMA plays a critical role in
this area, the Committee looks forward to receiving GAO's
recommendations for how the federal government could provide
first responder training more effectively and economically.
The Committee supports FEMA's efforts to enhance the U.S.
Fire Administration consistent with the recommendations of the
Blue Ribbon Panel review of USFA, and requests a report within
90 days of enactment of this Act on FEMA's plans and progress
in implementing the recommendations.
Full funding of $5,500,000 has been provided for the dam
safety program. Full funding has also been provided for the
Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium. In distributing the general
reduction within this account, no funds should be taken from
these programs.
The Committee recognizes that investing in mitigation will
yield reductions in future disaster losses, and that mitigation
should be strongly promoted. However, an analytical assessment
is needed to support the degree to which mitigation activities
will result in future ``savings.'' Therefore, the Committee
directs FEMA to fund an independent study to assess the future
savings resulting from the various types of mitigation
activities.
The Committee has added bill language ensuring that prior
year appropriations for the Jones County, MS, emergency
operating center will remain available until September 30,
2001. This is necessitated by protracted decision-making
related to floodplain determinations.
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND
The Radiological Emergency Preparedness [REP] Program
assists State and local governments in the development of
offsite radiological emergency preparedness plans within the
emergency planning zones of commercial nuclear power facilities
licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC].
The fund is financed from fees assessed and collected from
the NRC licensees to cover the cost of the REP program.
Estimated collections for fiscal year 2000 are $13,460,000.
emergency food and shelter
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $100,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 125,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 110,000,000
program description
The Emergency Food and Shelter Program originated as a one-
time emergency appropriation to combat the effects of high
unemployment in the emergency jobs bill (Public Law 98-8) which
was enacted in March 1983. It was authorized under title III of
the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, Public
Law 100-177.
The program has been administered by a national board and
the majority of the funding has been spent for providing
temporary food and shelter for the homeless, participating
organizations being restricted by legislation from spending
more than 2 percent of the funding received for administrative
costs. The administrative ceiling was increased to 5 percent
under the McKinney Act. However, subsequent appropriation acts
limited administrative expenses to 3.5 percent.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $110,000,000 for the Emergency
Food and Shelter Program, an increase of $10,000,000 above the
fiscal year 1999 level and a reduction of $15,000,000 below the
budget request. The additional funds will provide for more than
8 million meals at soup kitchens, food pantries and food banks;
46,000 more bed-nights through vouchers at hotels and motels;
336,000 more bed-nights at mass shelters; 14,000 fewer
evictions; and 18,000 fewer utility cut-offs.
FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND
Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000................................... $5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
FEMA requests a one-time appropriation of $5,000,000 to be
supplemented with $58,000,000 in collections from a proposed
$15 mortgage transaction fee that will support a multi-year
effort to update and modernize FEMA's inventory of over 100,000
flood maps. The maps are used to provide accurate and complete
flood hazard information for the nation in a readily available
format.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recognizes the importance of updating and
modernizing FEMA flood maps. However, FEMA's proposal to
implement a mortgage transaction fee to finance this initiative
has not garnered support, and budgetary constraints prevent the
Committee from funding this multi-year $900,000,000 requirement
through discretionary appropriations. The Committee understands
FEMA is exploring other options for financing this initiative.
Therefore, the Committee has deferred action on the
administration's request for a one-time appropriation of
$5,000,000 to start up the flood map modernization fund.
national flood insurance fund
(transfers of funds)
program description
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
authorizes the Federal Government to provide flood insurance on
a national basis. Flood insurance may be sold or continued in
force only in communities which enact and enforce appropriate
flood plain management measures. Communities must participate
in the program within 1 year of the time they are identified as
flood-prone in order to be eligible for flood insurance and
some forms of Federal financial assistance for acquisition or
construction purposes. In 2000, the budget assumes collection
of all the administrative and program costs associated with
flood insurance activities from policyholders.
Under the Emergency Program, structures in identified
flood-prone areas are eligible for limited amounts of coverage
at subsidized insurance rates. Under the regular program,
studies must be made of different flood risks in flood prone
areas to establish actuarial premium rates. These rates are
charged for insurance on new construction. Coverage is
available on virtually all types of buildings and their
contents in amounts up to $350,000 for residential and
$1,000,000 for other types.
committee recommendation
The Committee has included bill language, providing up to
$24,333,000 for administrative costs from the Flood Insurance
Program for salaries and expenses. The Committee has also
included bill language providing up to $78,710,000 for flood
mitigation activities including up to $20,000,000 for expenses
under section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act.
The Committee has included requested bill language which
extends the authorization through fiscal year 2000 for
borrowing from the Treasury up to $1,000,000,000, and for flood
mapping studies.
NATIONAL INSURANCE DEVELOPMENT FUND
The National Insurance Development Fund (NIDF) was
established from the proceeds of the Riot Reinsurance Program,
which was terminated by the Congress on November 30, 1983. It
was also used as the vehicle for funding the Federal Crime
Insurance Program (FCIP), and it received deposits from crime
insurance premiums and other receipts. The authorization for
the FCIP expired September 30, 1995.
The Committee has included language, as requested by the
administration, that forgives outstanding borrowings of the
NIDF and cancels the interest on the borrowings. This
effectively eliminates the FCIP as a federally-sponsored
government program.
NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND
Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000................................... $12,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Through fee-generated funds transferred from the National
Flood Insurance Fund, this fund would support activities to
eliminate pre-existing, at-risk structures that are
repetitively flooded, and provides flood mitigation assistance
planning support to States.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee does not recommend funds for this new
initiative, owing to budget constraints. The Committee
recognizes the need to eliminate repetitive loss structures and
acknowledges that buyouts are a way to accomplish this goal.
Eliminating these properties would lower the net subsidy
required to operate the NFIP, reduce claims on the Disaster
Relief Fund, and reduce the number of individuals living in
areas at significant risk of flooding. The Committee urges the
Director to undertake changes through the regulatory process to
reduce costs to the federal government associated with
repetitive loss structures.
General Services Administration
consumer information center
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $2,619,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 2,622,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,622,000
program description
The Consumer Information Center [CIC] was established
within the General Services Administration [GSA] by Executive
Order on October 26, 1970, to help Federal departments and
agencies promote and distribute consumer information collected
as a byproduct of the Government's program activities.
The CIC promotes greater public awareness of existing
Federal publications through wide dissemination to the general
public of the Consumer Information Catalog. The catalog lists
both sales and free publications available from the Government
Printing Office [GPO] distribution facility in Pueblo, CO.
Distribution costs of the free publications are financed by
reimbursements from the Federal agencies to the Consumer
Information Center.
Public Law 98-63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a
revolving fund for the CIC. Under this fund, CIC activities are
financed from the following: annual appropriations from the
general funds of the Treasury, reimbursements from agencies for
distribution of publications, user fees collected from the
public, and any other income incident to CIC activities. All
are available as authorized in appropriation acts without
regard to fiscal year limitations.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $2,622,000 for the Consumer
Information Center, the same as the budget estimate and the
enacted level.
The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from
Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications,
user fees from the public, and other income. CIC's anticipated
obligations for fiscal year 2000 will total approximately
$6,289,000.
CIC expects to distribute approximately 7,600,000
publications in fiscal year 2000, the same level projected for
the current year. In addition, CIC estimates there will be
7,500,000 public accesses of CIC electronic information
products.
The Committee recognizes that the appropriation for CIC
will result in a CIC fund balance of $230,000 by the end of
fiscal year 2000. The fund balance has been steadily declining
as CIC program expenses have exceeded income from
appropriations, user fees, agency reimbursements and other
income. The Committee believes the Fund balance should be
stabilized and directs the administration to submit a budget
for fiscal year 2001 that achieves a better balance between
annual income and expenses.
The Committee believes that the position of director of the
CIC may warrant conversion to a permanent career reserved
Senior Executive Service level position, in view of the
mission, mandate, responsibility, budget authority, and status
of the Consumer Information Center. Therefore, the Committee
supports actions by the General Services Administration and the
Office of Personnel Management to achieve this end.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Appropriations, 1999
$13,646,700,000
Budget estimate, 2000
13,578,400,000
Committee recommendation
13,578,400,000
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
1958 to conduct space and aeronautical research, development,
and flight activities for peaceful purposes designed to
maintain U.S. preeminence in aeronautics and space. These
activities are designed to continue the Nation's premier
program of space exploration and to invest in the development
of new technologies to improve the competitive position of the
United States. The NASA program provides for a vigorous
national program ensuring leadership in world aviation and as
the preeminent spacefaring nation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the budget request of
$13,578,400,000 for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for fiscal year 2000.
The Committee strongly supports NASA's many activities and
programs that underlie its mission of promoting civilian space
flight, exploration, scientific advancement, and the
development of next-generation technologies. NASA's success is
highlighted through missions that allow us to picture the far
reaches of the universe, to see the birth of stars and
galaxies, and to imagine the possibility of life existing
throughout the universe. NASA also is beginning the first
stages of the construction in orbit of the International Space
Station with the successful launch of the first 3 elements of
the station, including the successful assembly of the Russian
Zarya and the U.S. Unity pressurized node.
Nevertheless, the Committee continues to be very troubled
by cost overruns and unrealistic budgeting by NASA, especially
those associated with the development and construction of the
Space Station. This concern was highlighted most significantly
by the independent cost assessment and validation [CAV] report
issued last year by a review team headed by Jay Chabrow. The
CAV report estimated that the final cost of the space station
will be some $24,700,000,000, instead of the NASA estimate of
$17,400,000,0000 and will take up to 38 months longer to build
than previous NASA estimates. Many of these additional costs
have been unfairly borne through budget reductions in other
NASA programs and activities, most particularly programs and
activities designed to add to our understanding of the space
and earth sciences.
Because of these concerns, and as provided in the fiscal
year 1999 VA/HUD appropriations conference report (House Report
105-769), the Committee has established a separate account for
the International Space Station and an account for space
shuttle activities. All activities related to the International
Space Station will be funded under the ``International Space
Station'' account, whereas the space shuttle activities,
including upgrades, will be funded under the ``Launch Vehicles
and Payload Operations'' account. Additional authority is
provided to allow NASA to reprogram funding from the
International Space Station account to the space shuttle
program to ensure the availability of adequate funds for any
needed safety upgrades. The Committee expects NASA to have
resolved any financial accounting concerns associated with this
restructuring during the last year.
As is discussed throughout this report, the Committee
believes that NASA must articulate a comprehensive agenda and
strategy through an agency performance plan for each of NASA's
primary centers that identifies a linkage between resources and
activities in a way that guarantees an advanced technology
strategy that will ensure the preeminence of NASA in the area
of space transportation, the earth and space sciences, and
aerospace technology, including aeronautical research and
technology. The Committee expects a preliminary action plan on
this agenda and strategy no later than April 15, 2000 with the
plan targeted to the activities of NASA through the first
decade of the next century. Moreover, it is expected that each
primary center be vested with specific responsibilities and
activities, and that these specific responsibilities and
activities be clearly articulated. Within this plan, NASA
should identify where a center has or is expected to develop
the same or similar expertise and capacity as another center,
including the justification for this need. The plan should also
include a specific 10-year profile of flight missions,
identifying the time frames for core missions and core mission
elements. This profile should identify the primary NASA center
responsible for each flight's mission management. The profile
also clearly should articulate the criteria that is used and/or
will be used to permit missions to be built intramurally, as
well as the strategy for using industry and leading academic
laboratories for mission development and execution.
The Committee remains interested in the implementation of
the Office of Management and Budget initiative to implement
full cost accounting in all NASA programs and directs NASA to
consult regularly with the Committee on all critical issues as
well as the status of this initiative.
As part of the Committee's efforts to understand NASA's
long-term budgeting, the Committee is concerned about the
varying cost structures among the NASA space centers. The
Committee is aware that NASA's space centers have different
cost structures. Full-time equivalent costs and the built-in
overhead costs seem to vary from center to center. As NASA
moves to full cost accounting, the Committee needs to have a
better understanding of NASA's cost structures among the space
centers. It also is expected that the costs of personnel and
equipment among the centers reflect a comparable cost to NASA.
The Committee directs the Administrator to report back to the
Committee by April 1, 2000 with an analysis and comparison of
the full-time equivalent and overhead costs at all of the space
centers.
The Committee also seeks to get a clearer picture about
NASA's budget in the outyears. The Committee directs that NASA
include the outyear budget impacts on all reprogramming
requests and include the outyear budget impact of all missions
in the annual operating plan. The budget also should include an
accounting of all program/mission reserves.
The Committee also expects NASA to continue to refine its
implementation of the Government Performance and Reports Act
[GPRA]. NASA needs to provide more coherence to its performance
goals and the benchmarks it will use to assess its performance.
In addition, because of the Committee's substantial concern
regarding the need of all Federal agencies, as well as the
private sector, to address fully the year 2000 computer crisis,
the Committee directs NASA to continue to consult with the
Committee on a regular basis regarding the status of NASA's
efforts to resolve the year 2000 computer crisis. While the
Committee understands NASA has made substantial progress
towards completing this goal, the Committee remains concerned
particularly with NASA's efforts because of the significant and
complex technological nature of its activities and the
international character of its varied missions. NASA is
directed to consider this area a priority until such time as
this issue is resolved fully.
The Committee remains committed to promoting cost
efficiencies within NASA's programs and activities through the
commercialization of certain activities and programs. Part of
this effort is reflected in the cost-saving potential of the
Consolidated Space Operations Contract [CSOC]. The Committee
expects NASA to report no later than April 30, 2000 on the
progress made in implementing this program, and identifying
other activities within NASA for commercialization, including
estimates for savings. In particular, NASA also is expected to
develop commercialization plans for all communication
activities within NASA no later than August 30, 1999.
The Committee remains very concerned about past reports and
evidence as well as continuing risks regarding the illegal
transfer and theft of sensitive technologies that can be used
in the development of weapons by governments, entities and
persons who may be hostile to the United States. While the
Committee has confidence in NASA's and the NASA Inspector
General's committement to ensure that NASA-related sensitive
technologies will not be illegally transferred, the Committee
believes that any risk of an illegal transfer must be
eliminated. This is especially troubling since NASA, in
developing and implementing space missions as an international
program, has a difficult responsibility for ensuring sensitive
technology does not end up in hostile hands.
For example, there is the risk that Russia may be
transferring sensitive missile technology to countries like
Iraq, Iran and Communist China. Therefore, the Committee
directs NASA, in conjunction with the NASA Inspector General,
to conduct an annual assessment and report to the Congress on
all procedures, protocols and policies governing the export or
transfer of NASA-related technologies and to determine the
extent to which NASA and NASA contractors are carrying out
activities in compliance with Federal export control laws. The
Committee also applauds the NASA IG's efforts in this area
through its Technology Oversight Project.
Moreover, the Committee directs NASA, in conjunction with
the NASA IG, to report on an annual basis on any
vulnerabilities within NASA to hostile attacks.
HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $5,480,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 5,638,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
Because of significant and continuing concerns with cost
overruns, last year's conference report (House Report 105-769)
required NASA to include a separate account for the
International Space Station. These concerns continue and,
therefore, the Committee has not provided funds for the ``Human
space flight'' account. Instead, the Committee has created two
new accounts, detailed below.
International Space Station
Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $2,482,700,000
program description
NASA's ``International space station'' account provides
funding for the continued development of the space station and
activities which support utilization of the space station, as
well as advanced technology projects and engineering technical
base support for the field centers supporting space station
activities.
committee recommendation
The Committee has provided $2,482,700,000 for the
International Space Station program. This amount is consistent
with the President's request for these activities in fiscal
year 2000.
The Committee continues its strong support of the
International Space Station as a permanent space laboratory for
the research of space and earth science and for unique
investigations for humans living for long durations in a micro
gravity environment. We expect the station to provide
unparalled scientific research opportunities as well as
permanent crew habitability by international teams in an
advanced research facility located in the near zero-gravity
environment of space. The results of this research are critical
to our understanding of how to live and work in space, and will
provide tangible benefits to us through advances in all aspects
of science.
Nevertheless, as previously discussed in this report, the
Committee has established a new funding account for all
activities related to the construction of the International
Space Station because of continued concerns over cost overruns
and unrealistic accounting. These concerns were highlighted by
last year's release of the report issued by the independent
cost assessment and validation team headed by Jay Chabrow. This
report estimated that the final cost of the space station will
be $24,700,000,000 instead of $17,400,000,000, as originally
estimated by NASA, and will take up to 38 months longer to
build than previous NASA estimates.
The Committee understands that the nature of exploring
space is an unprecedented and unpredictable activity, and that
the costs associated with this activity also are uncertain and
often subject to overruns. Nevertheless, NASA has 40 years of
experience in leading mankind from the earth to the stars, and
this Committee expects NASA to provide better estimates of
costs, including the costs associated with reserves, to ensure
that the success of its missions can be funded within
understandable and realistic budgets.
In the past, NASA has responded to the funding needs of the
space station by raiding other important NASA programs for any
needed funding. While NASA has allowed the space station to
overshadow its other programs and activities, the Committee
believes these other programs and activities are equally
exciting, rewarding and unique, and remains concerned that
these programs have been diminished for the benefit of the
Space Station.
The Committee also supports the international character of
the Space Station as a symbol and tool for international
cooperation and partnership. Nevertheless, the Committee
continues to have substantial concerns regarding the ability of
Russia to meet its financial commitment and partnership
obligations to the Space Station.
While the Committee has requested NASA to reduce reliance
on Russia to meet the schedule for construction of the Space
Station, it does not expect NASA to duplicate every activity
which is the responsibility of Russia, even those in the
critical path. This is not practical or responsible. The
Committee is troubled especially by reports that currently
estimate that the cost to protect against Russian
nonperformance will be some $1,200,000,000. The Committee,
therefore, directs NASA to identify and report to the Congress
quarterly on each space station activity that is the
responsibility of Russia, its status, the associated cost, and
alternative options to ensure the timely completion of the
activity per the schedule.
The Committee is concerned about recent reports that
international contributions with regard to hardware supporting
external payloads may fall short of the original schedule and
requirements. The Committee directs NASA to contract
domestically for these external components, unless NASA can
demonstrate with substantial certainty that the international
partner can meet all schedule and hardware requirements.
Further, NASA is directed to provide the Committee with a
summary of all external hardware components needed for the
Space Station that have been contracted for internationally,
the schedule for delivery of these components, and the current
status of each component with regard to completion and
delivery.
The Committee also is concerned about continuing cost
overruns in the domestic component of the space station
program. The Committee directs NASA through an independent
committee to review and report to the Committee on a quarterly
basis on the status of the Space Station consistent with the
current schedule as proposed in the fiscal year 2000 NASA
budget justifications. The report shall include a review of all
increased costs associated with the Space Station, the reason
for the costs, and an assessment of any unnecessary expenses.
The Committee expects NASA to live within its budget and
constrain major new and unnecessary expenses, such as those
which would be associated with an inflatable habitation module.
Because of these continuing and increasing concerns
regarding cost overruns and the failure of Russia to meet its
financial and mission commitments, the Committee directs NASA
to undertake the recovery of additional cost savings within the
International Space Station development and operations program.
The Committee believes that NASA should accelerate the
privatization and commercial development of the Space Station
to generate long-term cost-savings so that the Space Station
does not continue to impact negatively the rest of the NASA
budget. The Committee, therefore, directs NASA to develop a
plan to outsource the responsibility for Space Station
communications, logistics and resupply services, and science
facility and services to the extent these logistic needs can be
provided effectively by the private sector and will result in
savings. The Committee also expects that NASA use fixed price
contracting instead of cost-plus contracting in contracting for
these requirements. This action plan should be submitted to the
Congress by March 1, 2000, and include a projection of all
savings.
This account includes legislative language that will permit
NASA to seek reprogramming of Space Station funds to meet any
safety requirements for the space shuttle deemed necessary and
critical by NASA during fiscal year 2000. Since it is not
likely that NASA nor the space industry will be able to provide
cost-effective alternatives to the shuttle until late in the
first decade of the 21st century, NASA may need to rephase its
scheduled upgrades for the shuttle to meet a longer term
commitment. Moreover, the United Space Alliance, the private
contractor responsible for the administration of the shuttle
program, has identified certain upgrades to improve safety and
reliability, including such improvements as electric auxiliary
power units, a Space Shuttle main engines advanced health
management system, main propulsion system electromechanical
actuators, and proton exchange membrane fuel cells. To the
extent these upgrades are deemed appropriate and necessary for
safety reasons, NASA is authorized to seek a reprogramming from
the Space Station account to meet these needs. Further, the
Committee understands that the Space Station funding for fiscal
year 2000 can absorb these costs without a negative impact on
the current Space Station construction schedule.
The Committee also recognizes the funds appropriated by
this Act for the development of the International Space Station
may not be adequate to cover all potential contractual
commitments should the program be terminated for the
convenience of the Government. Accordingly, if the Space
Station is terminated for the convenience of the Government,
additional appropriated funds may be necessary to cover such
contractual commitments. In the event of such termination, it
would be the intent of the Committee to provide such additional
appropriations as may be necessary to provide fully for
termination payments in a manner which avoids impacting the
conduct of other ongoing NASA programs.
launch vehicles and payload operations
Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $3,156,000,000
Program Description
NASA's ``Launch vehicles and payload operations'' account
provides funding to maintain space transportation capabilities,
flight and other activities required for the continued safe
operation of the space shuttle, and funding for the support of
payloads flying on the shuttle and space lab, as well as
advanced technology projects and engineering technical base
support for the field centers supporting space shuttle
activities.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,156,000,000
for the space shuttle and payload utilization activities. This
amount is $700,000 above the President's budget request for
these activities, and includes $2,986,700,000 for space shuttle
operations and $169,100,000 for payload utilization and
operations.
This account includes all funding for safety and
performance upgrades as well as the funds previously provided
within the Payload and Utilization Operations Program component
of the ``Human Space Flight'' account. The Committee remains
concerned about safety upgrades as well as technological
upgrades that will enhance the use of the shuttle and reduce
costs over time. This concern must be highlighted since NASA
recently acknowledged that it would be unable to meet the
decisionmaking requirements associated with any transition to a
reusable launch vehicle. The likely result is that the shuttle
will be needed as the primary vehicle for manned space flight
until at least late in the first decade of the 21st century.
The Committee frequently has raised concerns about the need
for NASA to make a longer commitment to the shuttle as the
primary vehicle for manned space flight. NASA recently has
raised concerns informally that additional funds may be needed
for shuttle upgrades, including safety upgrades, beyond the
amount requested in the budget request. The Committee expects
NASA to provide a report by November 1, 1999 on any needed
upgrades associated with the shuttle, including all costs and a
proposed schedule for implementation. NASA also is expected to
submit by May 15, 2000 a comprehensive report on a 10-year
funding profile on shuttle costs, including upgrades and safety
needs. As previously discussed, the Committee also has provided
NASA with the authority to seek reprogramming from the
``International Space Station'' account to pay for any needed
safety upgrades for the shuttle.
Eight flights have been planned for fiscal year 2000,
including seven flights for the assembly of the International
Space Station and one for the repair of the Hubble space
telescope (Hubble). NASA expects to add another shuttle flight
to complete repairs and improvements of the Hubble during
fiscal year 2000. While the Committee supports this additional
flight, the Committee remains concerned about the poor planning
at NASA for Hubble needs and its cavalier use of Hubble
reserves to pay for cost overruns associated with the Advanced
X-Ray Astrophysics Facility (Chandra; AXAF). The Committee also
expects NASA to add an additional shuttle research mission in
fiscal year 2000, as required in the VA/HUD fiscal year 1999
conference report.
The Committee expects NASA to provide more accurate
budgeting for all programs, including adequate reserve needs
for contingencies. As a result, the Committee is including a
legislative provision terminating all programs and activities
which exceed either their overall budget or their annual budget
by 15 percent. The International Space Station, the biggest
offender of cost overruns and poor budgeting, will not be
subject to this provision because of the sunk costs of this
project and because the project is in its final stages.
SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, and TECHNOLOGY
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $5,653,900,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 5,424,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,424,700,000
Program Description
NASA's ``Science, aeronautics and technology'' account
provides funding for science, research and development programs
to extend knowledge of the Earth, its space environment, and
the universe; to expand the practical applications of aerospace
technology, launch services, and advanced space transportation
technology; to promote and expand aeronautical research and
technology; and to fund academic and education programs.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $5,424,700,000 for the Science,
Aeronautics and Technology account, the same as the President's
request and $229,200,000 below the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level. This funding recommendation includes $2,076,600,000 for
Space Science, $256,200,000 for Life and Microgravity Sciences
and Applications, $1,459,100,000 for Earth Science,
$1,106,500,000 for Aero-Space Technology, $406,300,000 for
Mission Communication Services, and $120,000,000 for Academic
Programs. NASA is directed to make adjustments within each of
the six identified enterprises within this account to
accommodate the stated funding priorities and submit these
adjustments as part of its fiscal year 2000 operating plan.
Space Science.--The Committee has provided $2,076,600,000
for space science activities. This amount is $120,000,000 less
than the President's budget request and $42,600,000 less than
the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level.
NASA's Space Science program seeks to answer fundamental
questions concerning the galaxy and the universe; the
connection between the Sun, Earth, and heliosphere; the origin
and evolution of planetary systems; and the origin and
distribution of life in the universe. The Space Science program
is comprised of a base program of research and development
activities, including research and flight mission activities
and major flight missions which provide major space-based
facilities.
The Committee supports the Space Science program and
recognizes the many contributions this mission has made to our
understanding of the universe and the solar system.
Nevertheless, the program has been subject to some mixed
successes and some outright failures, most recently the WIRE
mission. Another issue of concern is the failure of NASA to
control cost overruns and program delays in the Chandra
program, and the current need to add an additional shuttle
repair mission to the Hubble Space Telescope at a cost of some
$136,000,000 estimated to be incurred during the fiscal years
1999 through 2003 period.
In addition, the Committee has become concerned that the
drive to promote missions has not been balanced with a
commensurate investment in the availability and analysis of the
data collected under the various science missions, resulting in
what has been called data mortuaries. Therefore, the Committee
requests the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to
assess the usefulness and the availability of the data
collected from the Space Science missions, and report to the
Committee by June 15, 2000 on the assessment, including
recommendations to ensure that space science data is being made
available to maximize its usefulness. OSTP and NASA should
consider whether a data warehouse or data library should be
developed as a way to ensure the availability and use of the
space science data.
The Committee also requests that NASA advise it on how
missions are prioritized and whether they are prioritized based
on benchmarks associated with the usefulness of the data being
collected. The Committee also expects NASA to develop goals and
benchmarks for its missions in a manner consistent with the
Results Act.
The Committee remains strongly supportive of continued
investments in space science and its multi-disciplinary
approach to scientific discovery and technological advancement.
The Committee is concerned, however, about the need for the
appropriate balance among the four themes in terms of future
flight missions and advanced technology development [ATD]. The
Committee directs the agency to submit a report on the global
space science budget detailing: all flight projects in either
phase B or phase C/D status; all mission operations and data
analysis funding; all advanced technology funding by sub-
program activity and future flight project; and all civil
service costs, including salary and expense costs charged
against individual flight programs or technology budgets at the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1998 Statement of
Managers (House Report 105-297) outlined a critical change in
the allocation of advanced technology development [ATD] funding
for space science so that 75 percent of all such funding would
be done competitively through the announcement of opportunity
[AO] process. Despite nearly two years since that guidance,
NASA has failed to issue its first competitive comprehensive
ATD. The Committee wishes to make clear its strong desire to
see the Congress' earlier directive implemented, without
deviation or further delay. For this reason, the Committee
expects the fiscal year 1999 AO to be issued shortly and for
the Agency to report to the Committee by December 1, 1999 on
how it intends to comply with the directives specified in H.
Rpt. 105-297 for both fiscal year 1999 and 2000 at that time.
The Committee strongly supports the Hubble Space Telescope
as one of the most rewarding missions ever launched by NASA.
Despite some serious problems with the primary mirror
identified soon after the Hubble launch in 1990, the Hubble has
provided almost a decade of exciting pictures and data
regarding the formation and early development of the universe.
While the Committee is very disappointed by the failure of NASA
to budget and plan adequately for the current failures in the
Hubble's gyroscope system, the Committee supports both the
repair mission and the upgrade mission, both scheduled for
fiscal year 2000. The Committee, therefore, includes an
additional $26,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 for costs
associated with the mission to replace the gyroscopes in the
Hubble Space Telescope, thereby enabling the observatory to
keep operating without interruption.
The Committee includes an additional $21,000,000 for Sun-
Earth Connections [SEC], including an additional $15,000,000
for STEREO to guarantee a 2003 launch and an additional
$6,000,000 for SEC advanced technology for post-STEREO
missions. In addition, the Committee directs NASA to provide a
long-term plan that provides funding for a robust SEC program
in its fiscal year 2001 budget request. This plan should assume
a continuous profile of launches on an 18-month time scale, the
creation of an applications and space weather program that
addresses all appropriate elements of space weather-related
phenomena, and an SEC ATD profile to enable the development of
new technologies for small, affordable spacecraft for future
missions.
NASA is directed to submit a report to the Committee by May
1, 2000 detailing the extent to which lunar missions are being
planned, including an assessment to what extent scientific
exploration, both manned and unmanned, of the moon should be
considered a priority. The Committee believes that a
significant lunar initiative could result in a substantial
contribution to space science and be a stepping stone to future
planetary initiatives.
The Committee recommendation supports the President's full
budget request for the space infrared telescope facility
[SIRTF].
The Committee recommendation includes an additional
$3,000,000 for the development of an electrodynamic tether
facility to place and manipulate satellites in their orbits
without the use of chemical propellants. To the extent this is
a viable and useful technology, it is expected that NASA will
include the necessary funds in the fiscal year 2001 budget.
The Committee recommendation also has provided $1,000,000
for an astronomical satellite telescope operated at Western
Kentucky University. This will complete the funding needed for
this telescope.
The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 in support
of a hands-on science center at Huntsville, AL.
Earth Science.--The Committee has provided $1,459,100,000
for Earth science activities. This amount is the same as the
President's budget request.
The objective of NASA's Earth Science Program is to
understand the total Earth system and the effects of natural
and human-induced changes on the global environment. Earth
science has three broad goals: to expand scientific knowledge
of the Earth using NASA's unique capabilities from the vantage
points of space, aircraft, and in other such platforms; to
disseminate information about the Earth system; and to enable
productive use of Earth science and technology in the public
and private sectors.
The Committee also directs NASA and OSTP to assess and
report on the rate of collection and use of data associated
with Earth Science missions to identify whether ``data
mortuaries'' are being created. The Committee requests NASA and
OSTP assess the usefulness and the availability of the data
collected from the Space Science missions, and report to the
Committee by June 15, 2000. Again, OSTP and NASA should
consider whether a data warehouse or data library should be
developed as a way to ensure the availability and usefulness of
the data. The Committee requests that NASA advise it on how
missions are prioritized and whether they are prioritized based
on benchmarks associated with the usefulness of the data being
collected. The Committee also expects NASA to develop goals and
benchmarks for its missions in a manner consistent with the
Results Act.
The Committee recognizes the unique role that the Goddard
Space Flight Center plays in earth and space science. The
EOSDIS program is NASA's most ambitious data gathering program.
While progress has been made in improving NASA's ability to
analyze EOSDIS data, the Committee believes NASA should place a
greater emphasis on commercializing EOSDIS data. Given the
unprecedented amount of data that will be collected and the
potential benefits from commercialization, the Committee
directs NASA to report back to the Committee by March 15, 2000
with a plan to commercialize EOSDIS data that specifies the
role of Goddard Space Flight Center in implementing a
commercialization plan.
The Committee believes that NASA and its Office of Earth
Science must articulate in the near term a comprehensive, post-
EOS agenda that guarantees, through its vision and the
commitment of budgetary resources, that NASA will have a robust
flight profile and advanced technology strategy to maintain its
preeminence in the earth sciences. For this reason, the
Committee expects an EOS-II strategy by February 1, 2000 that
articulates in detail the Agency's earth science plans through
fiscal year 2010.
The strategy should determine how the Agency intends to
capitalize on the $6,600,000,000 investment in the EOS-I series
of missions, including the ground system developed to handle
data for these initial spacecraft, so as to minimize a plan
that ``reinvents the wheel'' on a wide range of systems and
technologies.
The Committee is interested in the development of a more
focused applications effort that seeks to utilize fully the
investment to date in the EOSDIS Core System (ECS) ground
system and its network of distributed archive centers, and the
newly created regional earth science applications centers, in
developing new cutting-edge, higher level uses of earth science
data for particular user groups like U.S. agriculture, forestry
and natural resources, water resource management, disaster
preparation and mitigation, and state and local government.
The bill includes $32,000,000 for the EOSDIS core system
(ECS) only, to supplement delivery of a full scale ECS to meet
requirements that NASA and the ECS contractor have agreed to
provide the EOS programs' eight distributed active archive
centers (DAAC) and to cover costs necessary to guarantee the
viability of flight operations software (FOS) developed for
Landsat 7 and Terra spacecraft. The Committee also provides
$7,000,000 to develop additional uses for NASA's earth
observing system to make data more readily available for
potential user communities. The Committee believes that the
long-term utility of NASA's earth science program lies in
identifying additional uses for data obtained by NASA's EOS
program. Therefore, the Committee has provided sufficient
funding to analyze data/service needs for the various EOS data
user communities, including assessments of commercial viability
or cost/benefit analysis for government entities. For the most
promising candidate application, funding is included to
identify existing technologies that would simplify the
implementation of the required data mart, work with partners to
develop the data mart, and develop the necessary interfaces to
enable EOSDIS to act as the direct ``pipeline'' for the data.
The Committee believes that the current ATD structure used
by the Office of Earth Science is too disjointed and that the
new millennium program (NMP) in particular has concentrated
technology efforts at a single NASA center, discouraging
competition among a broad range of institutions. The Committee
reiterates that the ATP maintain the same threshold of true
competition (75 percent) in earth science ATD via announcements
of opportunity, including the NMP. Further, any remaining non-
competed funds should be distributed among NASA centers and
academic laboratories in a manner to ensure that the nation has
access to the best paths of technological advancement and
discovery. Innovative management strategies, such as
cooperative agreements and new center partnerships with
academic labs or the private sector should be included in the
ATD strategy as well.
The Committee recommends up to $5,000,000 for NASA's
LightSAR program to continue U.S. investment in this program,
where appropriate, to help preserve the usefulness of this
technology. While NASA is looking to terminate this program
because of a lack of interest by private industry in the
current structure of the program, LightSAR continues to have
tremendous potential for a number of practical applications as
spaceborne synthetic aperture radars [SARs] provide all-weather
methods for remote sensing/monitoring of the earth's surface.
This technology includes the capacity to monitor crops and
natural vegetation, natural hazards, soil moisture, snow cover,
land use, topographic mapping, oil/mineral exploration,
oilspill detection, environmental monitoring, ocean waves and
winds as well as ice on the seas, lakes and glaciers.
The Committee also continues to support the specific
programs aimed at fostering the development of a viable U.S.
commercial remote sensing industry, including cooperative
sponsored research projects with other Federal agencies and
market-focused applications projects with commercial partners
such as Mississippi State University, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the commercial sector for remote sensing
applications in agriculture and forestry which are being
carried out at Stennis Space Center, NASA's lead center for
commercial remote sensing. The Committee continues to support
the Commercial Remote Sensing program at Stennis and the
Commercial Remote Sensing Partnership including research and
cooperative research being conducted at Mississippi State
University and the University of Mississippi.
Because of the tremendous potential of the remote sensing
industry for commercial applications and the wide variety of
proposed projects and technologies currently becoming
available, NASA is directed to host a forum, in conjunction
with the National Science Foundation, on the challenges facing
this industry as well as to make recommendations as to the role
of the Federal/private partnership in developing these
technologies and the manner in which these technologies should
be supported by the Federal government. This forum also shall
include state and local government participation in order to
examine the usefulness of these technologies in land use
planning, resources management and transportation
infrastructure planning. In addition, NASA is directed to work
(1) with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to develop a
demonstration program for the use of these technologies in the
mapping of flood plains, (2) with the Environmental Protection
Agency to establish a demonstration program for monitoring and
assessing water quality, soil erosion and vegetative
biodiversity. The Committee directs these agencies to report to
the Congress by April 15, 2000 on the structure of these
demonstrations, including the resources to be committed by each
agency.
The Committee includes $2,000,000 for the Advanced
Fisheries Management Information System (AFMIS) program at the
University of Massachusetts and Dartmouth University, of which
$500,000 is to be used to develop a companion program at the
University of Alaska in Fairbanks. This funding will fund this
vital research for the next three years.
The Committee commends NASA's support of the Upper Midwest
Aerospace Consortium (UMAC) in delivering practical benefits of
the space program to farmers, ranches, educators and
businesses, and urges NASA to consider a permanent and ongoing
NASA-supported center to continue and expand UMAC's activities.
Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications.--The
Committee has provided $256,200,000 for Life and Microgravity
Sciences and Applications. This amount is the same as the
President's budget request.
The Life and Microgravity Science Program uses the
microgravity environment of space to conduct basic and applied
research to understand the effect of gravity on living systems
and to conduct research in the areas of fluid physics,
materials science, and biotechnology. The Life and Microgravity
Science Program will conduct research, and provide the
opportunity to refine the definition, design, and development
of experimental hardware planned for the International Space
Station.
The Committee supports the Administration's budget request
for the Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications mission
since much of the research associated with these activities are
targeted to the International Space Station.
The Committee recommendation has provided $2,000,000 for a
center on life in extreme thermal environments at Montana State
University in Bozeman. It is expected that NASA will include
funding for this research as part of the fiscal year 2001
Budget.
Aero-Space Technology.--The Committee has provided
$1,106,500,000 for Aero-Space Technology. This amount is
$100,000,000 above the President's budget request.
The objective of the Aero-Space Technology Mission is to
pioneer long-term, high-risk, high-payoff technologies that are
effectively transferred to industry and Government. The
program's technology goals are grouped into three areas to
reflect the national priorities for aeronautics and space:
global civil aviation; revolutionary technology leaps; and
access to space. The Aeronautics and Space Transportation
Technology Program includes: Aeronautics, that addresses
critical aeronautical safety, environmental, airspace
productivity, and aircraft performance needs at national and
global levels; space transportation technology, that will
develop technology for the next generation space transportation
system, with a target of reducing vehicle development and
operational costs dramatically; and commercial technology, that
consists of conducting a continuous inventory of newly
developed NASA technologies, maintaining a searchable data base
of this inventory, assessing the commercial value of each
technology, disseminating knowledge of these NASA technology
opportunities to the private sector, and supporting an
efficient system for licensing NASA technologies to private
companies. This program also includes the operation of the
Small Business Innovation Research Program which is designed to
enhance NASA's use of small business technology innovators.
While the Committee supports NASA's budget for the
Aeronautical Research and Technology mission, the Committee is
concerned with the termination of the High-Speed Research and
Advanced Subsonic Technology programs and requests that the
Office of Science and Technology Policy independently review
this decision and report to the Committee no later than July 1,
2000 on the impact these terminations will have on aviation
safety and the aviation industry in the United States. NASA
also is directed to report to the Committee on what steps NASA
is taking to ensure that the information gained in these
programs is preserved and not lost because of these
terminations.
The Committee urges NASA to work with the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Airworthiness Assurance Center for
Excellence (AACE) on the use of composite materials in
aircraft. Because of the increasing use of composite materials
in aircraft, it is important to increase our understanding of
structural degradation due to long-term use and aging.
The Committee also is concerned about the potential safety
risks of poor aircraft cabin air quality on flight crews,
particularly as air contamination stemming from neurotoxins
found in lubricants and hydraulic fluids affects a pilot's
ability to operate safely commercial aircraft. Therefore, the
Committee has provided $500,000 to conduct a study of aircraft
cabin air quality at the Education and Research Center for
Occupational Safety and Health in Baltimore, Maryland. In
addition, the Committee directs NASA to work with the Center to
expand the Aviation Safety Reporting System to include data on
health complaints related to air travel. The Committee expects
NASA to include funding for continuation of this important
study in its fiscal year 2001 budget request.
The Committee intends that the Ultra Efficient Engine
Technology program be funded at the President's budget.
The Committee includes $3,000,000 for enhanced visions
system technology development.
The Committee recommendation supports the President's
budget request for the independent verification and validation
[IV&V;] facility and $7,200,000 for the National Technology
Transfer Center.
Beyond the key issue of safety for all astronauts in NASA's
Space Shuttle program, the highest priority at NASA must be the
development of new aero-space technologies that will allow
inexpensive access to space, and move NASA closer to a true
partnering with the private sector that will allow for the
commercialization of space. Within the Advanced Space
Transportation Technology program, NASA is developing new
technologies in conjunction with the aerospace industry to
reduce dramatically launch costs, improve the safety and
reliability of current launch vehicles as well as expand our
concepts of next generation launch vehicles, and improve the
performance of in-space transportation systems to reduce the
cost of space missions.
NASA is currently working with industry to develop a
reusable launch vehicle (RLV) program that would be considered
as a replacement program for the shuttle. Nevertheless, because
of set-backs within this program, NASA has been unable to make
a decision on the future of the shuttle, with the shuttle now
expected to remain the primary manned space vehicle through at
least the end of the first decade of the 21st century.
Nevertheless, the Committee is encouraged by NASA's and
industry's efforts to develop alternate space transportation
technologies that will move us past the frontier of space. And
despite the challenges of the X-33 and X-34 programs, the
Committee supports these programs as well as the other X
vehicle programs.
Moreover, the Committee is aware that, over the last
decade, the United States commercial space launch industry has
lost its technological advantage, and now holds only 30 percent
of the worldwide space launch market. This reduction in the use
of U.S. launch capability is the direct result of the high cost
of U.S. commercial space transportation relative to subsidized
foreign competition. The growth of commercial space
opportunities will be critical to our Nation's economic health
and national security in the next millennium. NASA's Future
Planning strategy envisions a reduction in space transportation
costs by at least ten-fold in 10 years, and up to one hundred-
fold within 25 years. In order to reach the factor of a one
hundred-fold reduction in the cost of space access, important
investments must be made now in leap-ahead technologies,
detailed hardware design and facility enhancements. These leap-
ahead technology investments will be incorporated into NASA's
Space Transportation Architecture Roadmap to support future
decisions on third- and fourth-generation reusable launch
vehicle technologies. To support these efforts and related
activities, the Committee directs NASA to provide an additional
$110,000,000 for the Aero-Space Technology Program for the
design, development and testing of future launch technologies,
including ultra-efficient engines and advanced structures and
materials.
The Committee urges NASA to continue support of the
Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST)
program, including the solar-electric airplane program
(Centurion/Helios). The technologies obtained through these
aircraft will assist in reducing the cost of access to space.
The Committee urges NASA to continue its flight testing
missions of the solar electric aircraft in Hawaii at the
Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMFR). Existing infrastructure
at the PMFR, the Maui High Performance Computing Center, the
Pacific Disaster Center, the Air Force Maui Optical Site, the
University of Hawaii and others, are well suited to support
collaborative efforts with NASA toward opening new air and
space frontiers.
NASA has determined that facilities located in New Mexico
are well-suited for the unpowered vehicle flights and
stationary vehicle propulsion testing of the X-34 program. NASA
plans to conduct five unpowered X-34 flights at White Sands to
validate key X-34 control systems. These flights will be
entirely within White Sands air space. The differential Global
Positioning System (GPS) ground stations supporting planned X-
34 tests will remain at White Sands Space Harbor (WSSH) for use
in later programs. Horizontal stationary propulsion system
firings of the X-34 Main Propulsion System will be conducted at
the Horizontal Test Facility at Holloman Air Force Base (HAFB).
Two X-34 vehicles will be tested--first the A-2, and later the
A-3. Horizontal Test Facility upgrades at HAFB will also remain
at that location.
The HAFB runway will be used only for the L-1011 takeoff
and landings, whereas all X-34 landings will be at WSSH. White
Sands will be included as an alternative in the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) addressing proposed X-34 powered flights
that NASA is preparing. The EIS will document the environmental
impacts of X-34 powered flights for the alternatives
considered. The EIS may also constitute a step towards
establishing the feasibility and desirability of flight testing
other future NASA experimental vehicles in New Mexico.
Mission Communications Services and Academic Programs.--The
Committee has included $1,500,000 for ongoing NASA aerospace
projects at MSE-Technology Applications, Western Environmental
Technology Office, Butte, MT, to allow the continuation of
ongoing research and development projects on high-priority
aerospace technology; and $2,000,000 for MSU in Bozeman, MT, to
carry out research into advanced hardware and software
technologies for development of advanced optoelectronic
materials. The Committee expects NASA to include these research
endeavors to be included in the fiscal year 2001 budget.
The Committee has provided $120,000,000 for academic
programs. This amount is $20,000,000 above the President's
budget request.
The objective of NASA's academic programs is to promote
excellence in America's education system through enhancing and
expanding scientific and technological competence. Activities
conducted within academic programs capture the interest of
students in science and technology, develop talented students
at the undergraduate and graduate levels, provide research
opportunities for students and faculty members at NASA centers,
and strengthen and enhance the research capabilities of the
Nation's colleges and universities. NASA's education programs
span from the elementary through graduate levels, and are
directed at students and faculty. Academic programs includes
the Minority University Research Program, which expands
opportunities for talented students from underrepresented
groups who are pursuing degrees in science and engineering, and
to strengthen the research capabilities of minority
universities and colleges.
The Committee has included $19,100,000 for the National
Space Grant College and Fellowship Program. This funding is the
same as the fiscal year 1999 level, but $5,600,000 more than
the President's request for fiscal year 2000. This program is a
valuable tool in developing educational partnerships in support
of science, mathematics, technology, engineering and geography.
NASA is directed to priortize funding to lower tier ``phase 2''
programs to enable these programs to meet ``designated''
status.
The Committee recommendation has included $12,000,000 for
the NASA EPSCoR Program, $7,400,000 above the budget request
and $2,000,000 over the fiscal year 1999 level. The Committee
expects NASA to conduct a new solicitation in fiscal year 2000.
It also expects NASA EPSCoR to support a broad range of
research areas in each EPSCoR State, drawn from Earth science,
space science, aeronautics and space transportation technology,
and human exploration and development of space, and to
distribute the awards, competitively, to the largest number of
eligible States possible.
The Committee has provided $36,200,000 for NASA's minority
university research and education activities. This amount is
the same as the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and $8,200,000
above the President's budget request. These funds should be
allocated in the same proportion as last year's funds were
allocated in order to strengthen graduate science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology education at historically black
colleges and universities. The Committee notes that African-
Americans are severely underrepresented at the doctoral level
in many sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology
fields.
The Committee recommendation has provided $2,000,000 for
the NASA International Earth Observing System [EOS] Natural
Resource Training Center at the University of Montana,
Missoula, MT; $1,500,000 for the Franklin Institute to develop
a national model planetarium for Fels planetarium; $2,300,000
for the Jason Foundation for the development of an education
program for school children on the exploration of space;
$2,000,000 for the institute for research in commercial remote
sensing applications at the University of Missouri-Columbia;
$2,500,000 for the Bishop Museum/Mauna Kea Astronomy Education
Center; $2,500,000 for the completion of a science learning
center in Kenai, AK; $5,000,000 for the National Center for
Space Research and Technology, a continuing partnership between
NASA and the University of Alabama at Huntsville; the full-
budget request of $2,000,000 for the classroom of the future;
$1,000,000 for the pipelines project at Iowa State University/
Southern University--Baton Rouge; $1,000,000 for the Chabot
Observatory and Science Center, Oakland, CA; $4,000,000 for an
education and visitor center for the Green Bank Radio Astronomy
Observatory; $14,000,000 for infrastructure needs for the Life
Sciences building at the University of Missouri-Columbia;
$1,000,000 for the development of the Spelman College Science
Center; and $1,000,000 for the Field Museum for the
``Underground Adventure,'' an outreach exhibit using satellite
and internet communication to educate schools and communities
about soil ecosystems, soil conservation, and sustainable
agriculture; and the full budget request of $2,000,000 for the
Classroom of the Future. NASA is directed to make appropriate
adjustments within each of the six identified enterprises
within this account to accommodate the stated funding
priorities in this paragraph and submit these adjustments as
part of its fiscal year 2000 operating plan.
The Committee includes $2,000,000 for the Lewis and Clark
Rediscovery Web Technology Project which will provide K-12 and
university level teachers in internet and interactive web
teaching technologies through a partnership between the
University of Idaho, Wheeling Jesuit College and the University
of Montana.
MISSION SUPPORT
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $2,511,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 2,494,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,495,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides for mission support including
safety, reliability, and mission assurance activities
supporting agency programs; space communications services for
NASA programs; salaries and related expenses in support of
research in NASA field installations; design, repair,
rehabilitation and modification of institutional facilities,
and construction of new institutional facilities; and other
operations activities supporting conduct of agency programs.
Funds provided in the ``Mission support'' account pay for
NASA civil service salary and related expenses, travel,
construction of facilities, and research operations support
[ROS] contractors.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has provided $2,495,000,000 for mission
support activities. This amount is $100,000 above the
President's budget request for these activities.
The Committee supports the budget request for test facility
modernization and other enhancements at Stennis as a center of
excellence for propulsion testing in support of growing test
requirements of both government and commercial propulsion
programs. Also supported is funding for modifications to the A-
2 test stand at Stennis in support of the Space Shuttle Main
Engine program, for modernizing and improving data acquisition
and control systems, critical spare valves and other components
at Stennis, and for upgrading and maintaining test support
infrastructure.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 20,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Inspector General was established by the
Inspector General Act of 1978. The Office is responsible for
providing agencywide audit and investigative functions to
identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies
which create conditions for existing or potential instances of
fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2000,
$800,000 below the President's budget request. The Committee
believes that the NASA IG must be much more proactive in
identifying areas of concern at NASA as well as alerting
Congress with regard to these concerns. The Committee directs
the NASA IG to prioritize its activities to ensure the security
of NASA programs and technologies and to ensure the appropriate
use of funds by NASA contractors and grantees. In particular,
there are significant costs overrun and expensing issues
associated with the International Space Station as well as a
number of other programs. It is critical that controls be
instituted that ensure that all costs are appropriate and that
NASA is receiving an adequate return on these taxpayer
investments.
Administrative Provisions
The Committee recommendation includes a series of
provisions, proposed by the administration, which are largely
technical in nature, concerning the availability of funds.
These provisions have been carried in prior-year appropriation
acts.
National Credit Union Administration
central liquidity facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct loan Administrative
limitation expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999.............. $600,000,000 $176,000
Budget estimate, 2000............. 600,000,000 257,000
Committee recommendation.......... ................. 257,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The National Credit Union Administration [NCUA] Central
Liquidity Facility [CLF] was created by the National Credit
Union Central Liquidity Facility Act (Public Law 95-630) as a
mixed-ownership Government corporation within the National
Credit Union Administration. It is managed by the National
Credit Union Administration Board and is owned by its member
credit unions.
The purpose of the facility is to improve the general
financial stability of credit unions by meeting their seasonal
and emergency liquidity needs and thereby encourage savings,
support consumer and mortgage lending, and provide basic
financial resources to all segments of the economy. To become
eligible for facility services, credit unions invest in the
capital stock of the facility, and the facility uses the
proceeds of such investments and the proceeds of borrowed funds
to meet the liquidity needs of credit unions. The primary
sources of funds for the facility are the stock subscriptions
from credit unions and borrowings.
The facility may borrow funds from any source, with the
amount of borrowing limited by Public Law 95-630 to 12 times
the amount of subscribed capital stock and surplus.
Loans are available to meet short-term requirements for
funds attributable to emergency outflows from managerial
difficulties or local economic downturns. Seasonal credit is
also provided to accommodate fluctuations caused by cyclical
changes in such areas as agriculture, education, and retail
business. Loans can also be made to offset protracted credit
problems caused by factors such as regional economic decline.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget request of limiting
administrative expenses for the Central Liquidity Fund [CLF] to
$257,000 in fiscal year 2000. This legislation does not provide
a limitation on the principal amount of new direct loans to
member credit unions since the cap was increased to
$18,600,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 in the fiscal year 1999
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. The cap was lifted
in that bill solely to provide adequate time for planning and
available funds to address any Y2K concerns, however unlikely.
National Science Foundation
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $3,671,200,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 3,921,450,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,921,450,000
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The National Science Foundation was established as an
independent agency by the National Science Foundation Act of
1950 (Public Law 81-507) and is authorized to support basic and
applied research, science and technology policy research, and
science and engineering education programs to promote the
progress of science and engineering in the United States.
The Foundation supports fundamental and applied research in
all major scientific and engineering disciplines, through
grants, contracts, and other forms of assistance, such as
cooperative agreements, awarded to more than 2,000 colleges and
universities, and to nonprofit organizations and other research
organizations in all parts of the United States. The Foundation
also supports major national and international programs and
research facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $3,921,450,000 for the National
Science Foundation for fiscal year 2000. This amount is
$250,250,000 more than the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and
the same as the budget request.
RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $2,770,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 3,004,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,007,300,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The research and related activities appropriation addresses
Foundation goals to enable the United States to uphold world
leadership in all aspects of science and engineering, and to
promote the discovery, integration, dissemination, and
employment of new knowledge in service to society. Research
activities will contribute to the achievement of these goals
through expansion of the knowledge base; integration of
research and education; stimulation of knowledge transfer among
academia and the public and private sectors; and bringing the
perspectives of many disciplines to bear on complex problems
important to the Nation.
The Foundation's discipline-oriented research programs are:
biological sciences; computer and information science and
engineering; engineering; geosciences; mathematical and
physical sciences; and social, behavioral and economic
sciences. Also included are U.S. polar research programs, U.S.
antarctic logistical support activities, and the Science and
Technology Policy Institute.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,007,300,000
for research and related activities. This amount is
$237,300,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and
$3,300,000 more than the budget request. The Committee
recommendation also includes $55,000,000 for the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, which is transferred
from the Education and Human Resources account.
The Committee commends the agency for establishing national
goals in the areas of information technology, biocomplexity,
and education. The Committee also applauds NSF's recent efforts
to provide a budget justification for fiscal year 2000 that
meets the requirements of the Government Performance and
Results Act. NSF should continue these efforts by working with
the Office of Inspector General and General Accounting Office
to ensure full compliance with the Results Act.
While the Committee has been a consistent strong supporter
of NSF's role in advancing computer and information science
engineering research and development, the Committee has
numerous concerns about the Administration's information
technology initiative dubbed ``Information Technology for the
21st Century'' or IT\2\. This six-agency initiative where NSF
has been designated as the lead agency would significantly
boost the federal government's funding for software research,
terascale computing equipment development, and understanding
the social, economic, and workforce impact of information
technologies. The Committee is concerned about creating a major
new structure within NSF when the agency already has existing
structures that can be used to boost information technology
research. NSF's involvement in information technology
activities totaled almost $700,000,000 in fiscal year 1999
alone. Many of the activities proposed under IT\2\ are already
currently funded through existing federal programs such as the
Next Generation Initiative (NGI), High Performance Computing
and Communications (HPCC) initiative, NSF's Knowledge and
Distributed Intelligence (KDI) program, and other activities
under NSF's Computer and Information Science and Engineering
(CISE) directorate.
The Committee is also concerned about investing in research
and development activities that the private sector may be
involved in. The President's Information Technology Advisory
Committee (PITAC) recently noted that ``Federal R&D; programs
must be well designed and must not subsidize activities best
left to the private sector.'' It is unclear how the
Administration's initiative would address these concerns.
Lastly, the Committee is concerned about NSF's ability to
administer a major multiagency initiative. As part of a recent
``management challenges'' letter, the NSF Inspector General
(IG) raised concerns about substantially increasing the role of
NSF in administering new programs such as IT\2\. The IG also
raised concerns about the ability of NSF program staff to
fulfill its oversight responsibilities due to the high workload
and lack of adequate travel funds. While the Committee does not
have any significant concerns about NSF's ability to manage its
current activities and believes that NSF's financial operations
are sound, the Committee believes that NSF needs to review
carefully its current management structure, staff resources,
and support needs such as travel funds before embarking on
major new initiatives such as IT\2\.
Given the budget constraints and the Committee's concerns
about the information technology initiative, no funding is
provided for IT\2\ in fiscal year 2000. The Committee, however,
remains very supportive of NSF's current basic research efforts
in the information technology area and recommends an additional
$100,000,000 to enhance NSF's computer and information science
and engineering activities consistent with the PITAC
recommendations in its February 1999 report. The Committee
expects NSF to use these additional funds in the area of
software research and scalable information infrastructure, such
as the Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative. NSF also
should use these additional funds for fundamental research on
software design, stability, security, and reliability and for
acquiring high-end computing equipment. The Committee
recommends that NSF utilize its existing Partnerships for
Advanced Computational Infrastructure (PACI) program in
developing new computer hardware equipment and for testing new
software designs. The Committee also encourages NSF to continue
its efforts under the NGI program in providing high-speed
networking access to remote and hard to reach areas such as
those in Alaska, Hawaii, and rural states like Montana and
Missouri.
The Committee expects the Foundation's fiscal year 2000
operating plan will outline the distribution of these
additional resources within the existing subactivities of the
computer and information science and engineering activity in a
manner that is consistent with the PITAC report.
The Committee also supports NSF funding of longer term and
larger sized grants than what is typically funded. Many
investigators have complained about the size of NSF research
grants and the administrative burden associated with grant
applications. Further, PITAC has raised concerns that
``promising long-term research is being passed over in order to
meet the goals of short-term technology development.''
Therefore, the Committee expects NSF to address these concerns
by using at least 25 percent of these additional funds for
grants that are of a minimum of 3 years in duration and a
minimum funding level of $750,000 per grant and to focus these
grants on long-term research and technology development. The
Committee further directs NSF to provide an update on the types
of research funded by the CISE directorate, including the KDI
program, the impact of providing these longer term and larger
size grants, and a five-year strategic plan detailing the
information technology areas of research and estimated funding
needs. This report should be provided by January 21, 2000.
The Committee is also concerned about the impact of
information technology on society and the economy. While it is
clear that there are significant benefits to on-going advances
in information technology, the incredible pace of new
technologies may create problems that we have yet to identify.
For example, one area identified by PITAC is privacy. As noted
by the PITAC report, personal information can be beneficial to
various service providers but its benefits can be severely
limited if individuals cannot be guaranteed that their
information is truly protected. The Committee is providing an
additional $5,000,000 to the CISE Directorate's existing
``Computing and Social Impact'' program to study privacy and
access to information and to further our understanding of the
impact information technology advances have on issues that are
of significant societal, ethical, and economical importance.
Since its inception in fiscal year 1998, the Plant Genome
Research Program has already made great advances in
understanding the structure, organization, and function of the
genomes of economically significant plants that are important
to our economic and environment interests. The Committee has
been a strong supporter of this important program and commends
the Administration for its continued support. Data from NSF has
revealed a growing interest and competition in the plant genome
program. Further, the number and quality of grant proposals
seem to be higher according to NSF. For fiscal year 1999, 72
full proposals requesting approximately $339,000,000 have been
received by NSF for this program. Due to the growing interest
and success of this program, the Committee has included an
additional $10,000,000 to the program to meet this important
need. This would boost program funding to a total of
$60,000,000.
To complement the plant genome program and the growth and
advances in biotechnology, the Committee is also supportive of
NSF's ``biocomplexity in the environment'' activities in
fostering research in environmental science, engineering, and
education. NSF's proposal to expand this focused multi-
disciplinary initiative is of great interest to the Committee.
This field of research may help advance our understanding of
environmental systems and its role in vital natural resources.
An interdisciplinary approach that encompasses a wide range of
fields such as biology, chemistry, and engineering greatly
enhances our ability to understand the makeup of plants and may
lead to new biotechnology advances that will help transform
crops into hardier, pest-resistant crops. The Committee has
included $50,000,000 for the biocomplexity initiative as
requested by the Administration. The Committee expects NSF to
work with institutions that have close ties to the
biotechnology industry and evidence of interdisciplinary
efforts in the molecular biosciences.
As discussed in previous years, the Committee is concerned
about how NSF funds are distributed to universities and
colleges, as well as to various areas of the country. A recent
NSF survey of Federal research and development funds indicated
that the top 50 recipients of university-based research
received about 60 percent of all available Federal research
dollars. These large institutions also received a large amount
of federal funds to manage research and development centers for
various Federal agencies. PITAC's recent report raised the
importance of promoting the full participation of institutions
and individuals that are underrepresented in research
opportunities. For example, high-speed network connections to
advanced technology resources was cited as a way of assisting
underrepresented areas and institutions participate in research
partnerships. While the agency has done a commendable job in
delivering high-speed network connections to underrepresented
areas, the Committee encourages NSF to continue these efforts.
Accordingly, the Committee has included a provision to
create a focal point for support and outreach to institutions
that do not normally fall in the top 50 in federal research and
development support. This new office, which will include the
highly successful Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR), is to focus on increasing the Foundation's
competitive, merit-based support and outreach to these smaller
institutions. The Committee expects NSF to build on its current
programmatic and outreach efforts to improve the participation
of these institutions and states. The Committee expects the
Foundation to submit a detailed proposal for the innovation
partnership activity as part of the fiscal year 2000 operating
plan.
To startup this new office, the Committee has provided
$10,000,000 to this new entity and $55,000,000 to the EPSCoR
program. The Committee also supports the co-funding proposal of
the Foundation in which the EPSCoR funding is leveraged with an
additional $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 from within the
disciplinary research programs of the Foundation.
The Committee remains committed to the U.S. Arctic Research
Program and recommends $25,000,000 for arctic logistics needs.
These funds are to be provided directly to the Arctic Research
Commission, which will be responsible for allocating arctic
logistics funds. The Committee expects NSF to build on the
funding increases in fiscal year 1999 and complement the
logistical and science support provided from the agency's Polar
Programs and other NSF activities. The Committee also expects
NSF to continue its funding in arctic logistics and research
needs that are consistent with the 1997 U.S. Arctic Research
Commission report, Logistics Recommendations for an Improved
U.S. Arctic Research Capability.
The Committee strongly supports NSF's participation in the
National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP). The
Committee recommends that up to $5,000,000 be made available
for NOPP-related activities for fiscal year 2000. The Committee
also recommends that NSF and other NOPP partner agencies
continue to provide an appropriate level of operational support
for meritorious ocean science research projects, including
NOPP-related activities.
The Committee continues to be a strong supporter of NSF's
astronomical sciences research program and supports the
Administration's budget requests of $32,500,000 for the
National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) and $29,700,000 for
the National Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO). The
Committee supports NSF's proposal to use the NRAO funds to
enhance support for operations and maintenance and development
of new instrumentation at the Very Large Array and the Very
Long Baseline Array in New Mexico and to continue the
construction of the Greenbank Telescope in West Virginia. The
Committee also supports NSF's plans to use the requested NOAO
funds for the National Solar Observatory at Sacramento Peak,
New Mexico.
The Committee remains concerned about NSF's merit-review
process and directs NSF to provide $750,000 to the National
Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to carry out a review
of the merit-review process. The Committee further directs NAPA
to consult with the Committee in establishing the parameters of
this review. NSF is directed to cooperate fully with NAPA to
meet these parameters.
While the Committee recognizes the many benefits from NSF
funded research in the social, behavioral, and economic (SBE)
sciences area, the Committee is concerned about funding certain
activities that may be duplicating research more appropriately
funded by other agencies. The Committee is especially concerned
about funding research in economic and related fields that is
also funded by agencies devoted to studies of the economy, such
as the Federal Reserve Board. A recent study found that
economists who received NSF funding published no more new
articles than their peers who did not receive NSF funding. The
study did recognize that the productivity of investigators
early in their careers seemed to increase with NSF funding and
the Committee urges NSF to support these young investigators.
The Committee encourages NSF to review its SBE research
activities and to focus its funding towards activities more
directly related to NSF's core mission of promoting an
understanding of the physical sciences. The Committee
recognizes the promise of breakthroughs in a number of
particular behavioral and social science areas such as learning
and memory, visual and auditory perception, behavioral and
cognitive neuroscience, social cognition, decision making, and
human development and strongly supports NSF's proposed plans to
increase funding for this area. The Committee directs NSF to
provide a report on the status of its social, behavioral, and
economic sciences research by February 3, 2000.
The Committee is aware that in March 2002 the lease for the
R/V Nathaniel B. Palmer, an Antarctic research vessel, will
terminate. As such, a procurement for its possible replacement
will need to take place in fiscal year 2000. The Committee has
included bill language that will ensure a fair competition with
respect to this upcoming procurement. The language is similar
to provisions enacted previously by the Congress concerning the
procurements of the R/V Nathaniel B. Palmer and the R/V
Laurence M. Gould.
Finally, the Committee notes that the National Science
Board has recently formed a task force that will, among other
things, review the NSF role in fostering international
cooperation in fundamental science and engineering research and
education. The Committee believes that fostering international
cooperation in science and engineering is an important issue,
and looks forward to reviewing the Board's recommendations for
the Foundation when they are ultimately released. In the
meantime, the Committee urges NSF to look for ways to
strengthen its activities with respect to international
cooperation in research and education.
MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $90,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 85,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 70,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The major research equipment activity will support the
acquisition, construction and procurement of unique national
research platforms, research resources and major research
equipment. Projects supported by this appropriation will push
the boundaries of technological design and will offer
significant expansion of opportunities, often in new
directions, for the science and engineering community.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $70,000,000
for major research equipment. This amount is $20,000,000 less
than the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and $15,000,000 below
the budget request.
The Committee has provided the request for the continued
polar support aircraft upgrades and south pole station
modernization efforts. The Committee has also provided funding
for the Large Hadron Collider and the Millimeter Array. The
Committee has also provided $21,000,000 for Terascale Computing
Systems and $7,700,000 for the Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation.
EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $662,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 678,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 688,600,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Education and human resources activities provide a
comprehensive set of programs across all levels of education in
science, mathematics, and technology. At the precollege level,
the appropriation provides for new instructional material and
techniques, and enrichment activities for teachers and
students. Undergraduate initiatives support curriculum
improvement, facility enhancement, and advanced technological
education. Graduate level support is directed primarily to
research fellowships and traineeships. Emphasis is given to
systemic reform through components that address urban, rural,
and statewide efforts in precollege education, and programs
which seek to broaden the participation of States and regions
in science and engineering.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $688,600,000
for education and human resources (EHR). This amount is
$26,600,000 more than the fiscal year 1999 level and
$10,600,000 more than the budget request. The Committee also
notes that NSF expects to receive an additional $30,000,000
from the H-1B Visa account which will further supplement its
EHR activities.
The Committee is troubled by the latest NSF report on
women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and
engineering. While the report cites some significant progress
in some areas such as women receiving engineering doctoral
degrees, there continues to be a concern with minority women in
science and engineering fields. The Committee encourages NSF to
address these problems.
The Committee has been a strong supporter of historically
black colleges and universities and continues its support by
providing $8,000,000 for grants to these institutions under the
underrepresented population undergraduate reform initiative.
These funds are to be matched by an additional $2,000,000 in
funds from the research and related activities account for a
total funding level of $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
The Committee also supports NSF's programs targeted to aid
minority students entering the fields of mathematics, science
and engineering. The Committee urges NSF to provide adequate
funding for the following programs: Louis Stokes Alliance for
Minority Participation; the Border Rural Systemic Initiative;
the Regional Alliance for Science, Engineering, and Mathematics
for Students with Disabilities; and the Collaborative for
Excellence in Teacher Preparation Program.
The Committee also strongly supports the informal science
education (ISE) program. This program has acted as a catalyst
for increasing the public's appreciation and understanding of
science and technology in settings such as science centers,
museums, zoos, aquariums, and public television. The ISE
program has also been involved in the professional development
of science teachers. The Committee supports NSF's continued
support for this program and its fiscal year 2000 focus on
increasing access to informal learning opportunities in inner
cities and rural areas that have not been exposed to science
and technology. The Committee continues its support for this
program by providing $50,000,000 and urges NSF to expand its
program to underserved areas.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $144,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 149,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 150,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The salaries and expenses appropriation provides for the
operation, management, and direction of all Foundation programs
and activities and includes necessary funds to develop and
coordinate NSF programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $150,000,000
for salaries and expenses. The increase of $1,000,000 above the
budget request is provided in response to concerns raised by
the IG regarding the lack of available travel funds for NSF
program officers in overseeing grant awards effectively. The
Committee directs NSF to fund program travel only from its
salaries and expenses account and not use program funds for
travel purposes.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $5,200,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 5,450,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,550,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Inspector General appropriation provides
audit and investigation functions to identify and correct
deficiencies which could create potential instances of fraud,
waste, or mismanagement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,550,000 for
the Office of Inspector General in fiscal year 2000. This
amount is $350,000 more than the fiscal year 1999 enacted level
and $100,000 more than the budget request. The Committee is
providing these additional funds to support the work of the
Office of Inspector General in the areas of cost-sharing,
indirect costs, and misconduct in scientific research.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $90,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 90,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 60,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by
the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public
Law 95-557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment helps
local communities establish working partnerships between
residents and representatives of the public and private
sectors. The partnership-based organizations are independent,
tax-exempt, nonprofit entities: often known as Neighborhood
Housing Services [NHS] or mutual housing associations.
Collectively, these organizations are known as the
NeighborWorks network.
Nationally, the 184 NeighborWorks organizations
serve 825 communities in 45 states. Of the neighborhoods, 70
percent of the people served are in the very low and low-income
brackets.
The NeighborWorks network improves the quality of
life in distressed neighborhoods for current residents,
increases homeownership through targeted lending efforts,
exerts a long-term, stabilizing influence on the neighborhood
business environment, and reverses neighborhood decline.
NeighborWorks organizations have been positively
impacting urban communities for over two decades, and more
recent experience is demonstrating the success of this approach
in rural communities when adequate resources are available.
Neighborhood Reinvestment will continue to provide grants
to Neighborhood Housing Services of America [NHSA], the
NeighborWorks network's national secondary market.
The mission of NHSA is to utilize private sector support to
replenish local NeighborWorks organizations'
revolving loan funds. These loans are used to back securities
which are placed with private sector social investors.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for the Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation, $30,000,000 less than the budget
request and the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. This
recommendation matches the Corporation's fiscal year 1998
funding level prior to the initiation of two demonstration
programs that were to be completed by the end of fiscal year
1999.
Selective Service System
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $24,176,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 25,250,000
Committee recommendation................................ 25,250,000
Program Description
The Selective Service System [SSS] was reestablished by the
Selective Service Act of 1948. The basic mission of the System
is to be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces
adequate to ensure the security of the United States during a
time of national emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have
relied on volunteers to fill military manpower requirements.
However, the Selective Service System remains the primary
vehicle by which men will be brought into the military if
Congress and the President should authorize a return to the
draft.
In December 1987, Selective Service was tasked by law
(Public Law 100-180, sec. 715) to develop plans for a
postmobilization health care personnel delivery system capable
of providing the necessary critically skilled health care
personnel to the Armed Forces in time of emergency. An
automated system capable of handling mass registration and
inductions is now complete, together with necessary draft
legislation, a draft Presidential proclamation, prototype forms
and letters, et cetera. These products will be available should
the need arise. The development of supplemental standby
products, such as a compliance system for health care
personnel, continues using very limited existing resources.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,250,000
for the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as
the budget request for fiscal year 2000 and an increase of
$1,074,000 over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee recommends inclusion of 25 general provisions
previously enacted in the 1999 appropriations act. They are
standard limitations which have been carried in the VA, HUD,
and Independent Agencies appropriations bill in the past. There
is an additional requirement that HUD operate within its budget
estimates and its appropriation. There also are two amendments
to the Fair Housing Act that would give publications 72 hours
to take remedial action where a published item is alleged to be
discriminatory. After 72 hours, civil or administrative
enforcement may be pursued. In addition, the bill prohibits the
use of funds for litigation or lobbying. Finally, a provision
would exempt state and local law enforcement agencies from
responsibility for the clean-up of methamphetamine sites.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of Rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Housing Certificate Fund: $11,051,135,000.
Fair housing activities: $40,000.
HOME Investment Partnerships Program: $1,600,000.
Indian housing loan guarantee fund: $6,000.
Government National Mortgage Association (credit
limitation): $200,000,000,000.
Homeless assistance grants: $1,020,000,000.
Community development block grants: $4,800,000,000.
Rural housing and economic development: $25,000,000.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund:
$80,000,000.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
Salaries and expenses: $49,500,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental programs and management: $1,885,000,000.
Science and technology: $642,483,000.
State and tribal assistance grants: $3,240,000,000.
Superfund: $1,400,000,000.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Salaries and expenses: $180,000,000.
Emergency management planning and assistance: $250,850,000.
Emergency food and shelter: $100,000,000.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Consumer Information Center: $2,622,000.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
International space station: $2,482,700,000.
Launch vehicles and payload operations: $3,156,000,000.
Science, aeronautics, and technology: $5,424,700,000.
Mission support: $2,495,000,000.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee
ordered reported, S. 1596, an original Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies appropriations bill, 2000 and subject to amendment and
subject to its budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 28-0,
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Kyl
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
As otherwise discussed, the dramatic and unprecedented
constraints on domestic discretionary spending has made
necessary inclusion of a considerable volume of legislative
reforms and other changes in existing statutes in the Committee
recommendation. This is particularly in evidence in title II,
the Department of Housing and Urban Development portion of this
bill, in which cost-saving and cost-avoidance measures for
discretionary housing and community development activities
require modification of programs governed a large body of
detailed and complex statutory provisions.
The Committee has included substantial explanatory material
in this report which attempts to detail fully both the intent
and practical effect of these statutory provisions. In view of
the extensive nature of these changes, however, preparation of
a comparative print detailing each of these statutory
amendments would delay prompt availability of this report. In
the opinion of the Committee, it is necessary to dispense with
the requirements of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI to expedite the
business of the Senate.
TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 42--LOW-INCOME HOUSING PRESERVATION AND RESIDENT HOMEOWNERSHIP
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--PREPAYMENT OF MORTGAGES INSURED UNDER NATIONAL HOUSING
ACT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4113. Assistance for displaced tenants
(a) Section 1437f assistance
* * * * * * *
(e) Regional pools
* * * * * * *
(f) Enhanced Voucher Assistance for Certain Tenants.--
(1) Authority.--In lieu of benefits under
subsections (b), (c), and (d), and subject to the
availability of appropriated amounts, each family
described in paragraph (2) shall be offered enhanced
voucher assistance under section 8(t) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(t)).
(2) Eligible families.--A family described in this
paragraph is a family that is--
(A) a low-income family or a moderate-
income family;
(B) an elderly family, a disabled family,
or residing in a low-vacancy area; and
(C) residing in eligible low-income housing
on the date of the prepayment of the mortgage
or voluntary termination of the insurance
contract.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 45--FAIR HOUSING
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3610. Administrative enforcement; preliminary matters
(a) Complaints and answers
(1)(A)(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(iii) The Secretary may also investigate housing practices
to determine whether a complaint should be brought under this
section. Before filing a complaint arising under section
3604(c) of this Act, a prospective complainant shall serve on
each prospective respondent a written notice that identifies
the alleged violation in sufficient detail to allow remedial
action by the prospective respondent. If the prospective
respondent acts to cease publication of the alleged item in
violation within 72 hours of receipt of the notice or prior to
the next publication, whichever is greater, no administrative
action arising from section 3606(c) may be brought by the
prospective complainant, acting for himself or on behalf of an
aggrieved person.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3613. Enforcement by private persons
(a) Civil action
(1)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) An aggrieved person may not commence a civil action
under this subsection with respect to an alleged discriminatory
housing practice which forms the basis of a charge issued by
the Secretary if an administrative law judge has commenced a
hearing on the record under this subchapter with respect to
such charge.
(4) An aggrieved person may not commence a civil action
arising from Section 3604(c) unless the prospective
complainant, acting for himself or on behalf of an aggrieved
person, serves written notice on the prospective respondent
identifying the alleged violation in sufficient detail to allow
remedial action by the prospective respondent and the
prospective respondent failed to take remedial action within 72
hours of receipt of the notice or prior to the next
publication, whichever is greater.
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ACT OF 1968
TITLE XIII--NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER I--THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
* * * * * * *
financing
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,
[1999] 2000, 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.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1376. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary through [September 30, 1999] September 30,
2000, for studies under this title.
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--HOUSING RENOVATION AND MODERNIZATION
administrative provisions
Section 1. The powers conferred by this Act shall be
exercised by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Secretary'').
In order to carry out the provisions of this title and
titles II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and XI, the Secretary may
establish such agencies, accept and utilize such voluntary and
uncompensated services, utilize such Federal officers and
employees, and, with the consent of the State, such State and
local officers and employees, and appoint such other officers
and employees as he may find necessary, and may prescribe their
authorities, duties, responsibilities, and tenure and fix their
compensation. The Secretary may delegate any of the functions
and powers conferred upon him under this title and titles II,
III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and XI, to such officers, agents,
and employees as he may designate or appoint and may make such
expenditures (including expenditures for personal services and
rent at the seat of government and elsewhere for law books and
books of reference, and for paper, printing, and binding) as
are necessary to carry out the provisions of this title and
titles II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and XI without regard to
any other provisions of law governing the expenditure of public
funds. All such compensation, expenses, and allowances shall be
paid out of funds made available by this Act: Provided, That,
notwithstanding any other provisions of law except provisions
of law hereafter enacted expressly in limitation hereof, all
expenses of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in
connection with the examination and insurance of loans or
investments under any title of this Act, all properly
capitalized expenditures, and other necessary expenses not
attributable to general overhead in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles shall be considered
nonadministrative and payable from funds made available by this
Act, except that, unless made pursuant to specific
authorization by the Congress therefor, expenditures made in
any fiscal year pursuant to this proviso, other than the
payment of insurance claims and other than expenditures
(including services on a contract or fee basis, but not
including other personal services) in connection with the
acquisition, protection, completion, operation, maintenance,
improvement, or disposition of real or personal property of the
Department acquired under authority of this Act, shall not
exceed 35 per centum of the income received by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development from premiums and fees during
the preceding fiscal year. The Secretary shall, in carrying out
the provisions of this title and titles II, III, V, VI, VII,
VIII, IX, and XI be authorized, in his official capacity to sue
and be sued in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or
Federal. For the purposes of this section, the term
``nonadministrative'' shall not include contract expenses that
are not capitalized or routinely deducted from the proceeds of
sales, and such expenses shall not be payable from funds made
available by this Act.
* * * * * * *
insurance of mortgages
Sec. 203. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(A) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) 87 percent of the dollar
amount limitation determined under
section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation Act for a
residence of the applicable size;
except that the dollar amount
limitation in effect for any area under
this subparagraph may not be less than
the greater of the dollar amount
limitation in effect for the area on
the date of enactment of the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations
Act, 1999 48 percent of the dollar
limitation determined under section
305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation Act for a
residence of the applicable size; and
* * * * * * *
RENTAL AND COOPERATIVE HOUSING FOR LOWER INCOME FAMILIES
Sec. 236. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) The project owner shall, as required by the
Secretary, accumulate, safeguard, and periodically pay the
Secretary or such other entity as determined by the Secretary
and upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems
appropriate, all rental charges collected on a unit-by-unit
basis in excess of the basic rental charges. Unless otherwise
directed by the Secretary, such excess charges shall be
credited to a reserve used by the Secretary to make additional
assistance payments as provided in paragraph (3) of subsection
(f). Notwithstanding any other requirements of this subsection,
an owner of a project with a mortgage insured under this
section, or a project previously assisted under subsection (b)
but without a mortgage insured under this section if the
project mortgage was insured under section 207 of this Act
before July 30, 1998 pursuant to section 223(f) of this Act and
assisted under subsection (b), or a project owner with a
mortgage formerly insured under this section (if such mortgage
is held by the Secretary and such project owner is current with
respect to the mortgage obligation), may retain some or all of
such excess charges for project use if authorized by the
Secretary and upon such terms and conditions as established by
the Secretary.
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATIONS
* * * * * * *
[partial payment of claims on multifamily housing projects and health
care facilities] partial payment of claims on defaulted mortgages and
in connection with mortgage restructuring
Sec. 541. (a)* * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Existing Mortgages.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary, in connection with a mortgage
restructuring under section 514 of the Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997, may make a one
time, nondefault [partial payment of the claim under the
mortgage insurance contract] partial or full payment of claim
under one or more mortgage insurance contracts, which shall
include a determination by the Secretary or the participating
administrative entity, in accordance with the Multifamily
Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997, of the
market value of the project and a restructuring of the
mortgage, under such terms and conditions as are permitted by
section 517(a) of such Act.
* * * * * * *
United States Housing Act of 1937, Public Law 93-383
TITLE I--GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING
* * * * * * *
lower income housing assistance
Sec. 8. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(s) In selecting families for the provision of assistance
under this section (including subsection (o)), a public housing
agency may not exclude or penalize a family solely because the
family resides in a public housing project.
(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) subject only to subparagraph (D), the
assisted family shall pay as rent no less than
the amount the family was paying on the date of
the eligibility event for the project in which
the family was residing on such date;
(B) during any period that the assisted
family continues residing in the same unit 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);
(C) subparagraph (B) of this paragraph
shall not apply and the payment standard for
the dwelling unit occupied by the family shall
be determined in accordance with subsection (o)
if--
(i) the assisted family moves, at
any time, from such project; or
(ii) the voucher is made available
for use by any family other than the
original family on behalf of whom the
voucher was provided; and
(D) if the income of the assisted family
declines to a significant extent, the
percentage of income paid by the family for
rent shall not exceed the greater of 30 percent
or the percentage of income paid at the time of
the eligibility event for the project.
(2) Eligibility event.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``eligibility event'' means, with
respect to a multifamily housing project, the
prepayment of the mortgage on such housing project, the
voluntary termination of the insurance contract for the
mortgage for such housing project, or the termination
or expiration of the contract for rental assistance
under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of
1937 for such housing project, that, under paragraphs
(3) and (4) of section 515(c) or section 524(b) of the
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability
Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note) or section 223(f) of
the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident
Homeownership Act of 1990 (12 U.S.C. 4113(f)), results
in tenants in such housing project being eligible for
enhanced voucher assistance under this subsection.
(3) Treatment of enhanced vouchers provided under
other authority.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any enhanced voucher
assistance provided under any authority
specified in subparagraph (D) shall be treated,
and subject to the same requirements, as
enhanced voucher assistance under this
subsection.
(B) Identification of other authority.--The
authority specified in this subparagraph is the
authority under--
(i) the 10th, 11th, and 12th
provisos under the ``Preserving
Existing Housing Investment'' account
in title II of the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law
104-204; 110 Stat. 2884), pursuant to
such provisos, the first proviso under
the ``Housing Certificate Fund''
account in title II of the Departments
of Veterans Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998
(Public Law 105-65; 111 Stat. 1351), or
the first proviso under the ``Housing
Certificate Fund'' account in title II
of the Departments of Veterans Affairs
and Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-276; 112
Stat. 2469); and
(ii) paragraphs (3) and (4) of
section 515(c) of the Multifamily
Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C.
1437f note), as in effect before the
enactment of this Act.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 such sums as may be
necessary for enhanced voucher assistance under this
subsection.
* * * * * * *
eligibility for assisted housing
Sec. 16. (a) Income Eligibility for Public Housing.--
(1) Income mix within projects.--A public housing
agency may establish and utilize income-mix criteria
for the selection of residents for dwelling units in
public housing projects, subject to the requirements of
this section
(2) PHA income mix.--
(A) Targeting.--Except as provided in
paragraph (4), of the public housing dwelling
units of a public housing agency made available
for occupancy in any fiscal year by eligible
families, not less than 40 percent shall be
occupied by families whose incomes at the time
of commencement of occupancy do not exceed 30
percent of the area median income, as
determined by the Secretary with adjustments
for smaller and larger families; except that
the Secretary may establish income ceilings
higher or lower than 30 percent of the area
median income on the basis of the Secretary's
findings that such variations are necessary
because of unusually high or low family
incomes.
* * * * * * *
(c) Income Eligibility for Project-Based Section 8
Assistance.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Targeting.--For each project assisted under a
contract for project-based assistance, of the dwelling
units that become available for occupancy in any fiscal
year that are assisted under the contract, not less
than 40 percent shall be available for leasing only by
families whose incomes at the time of commencement of
occupancy do not exceed 30 percent of the area median
income, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments
for smaller and larger families; except that the
Secretary may establish income ceilings higher or lower
than 30 percent of the area median income on the basis
of the Secretary's findings that such variations are
necessary because of unusually high or low family
incomes.
* * * * * * *
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101-625
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--INVESTMENT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--HOME Investment Partnerships
* * * * * * *
SEC. 212. ELIGIBLE USES OF INVESTMENT.
(a) Housing Uses.--
(1) In general.--Funds made available under this
subtitle may be used by participating jurisdictions to
provide incentives to develop and support affordable
rental housing and homeownership affordability through
the acquisition, new construction, reconstruction, or
moderate or substantial rehabilitation of affordable
housing, including real property acquisition, site
improvement, conversion, demolition, and other
expenses, including financing costs, relocation
expenses of any displaced persons, families,
businesses, or organizations, to provide for the
payment of reasonable administrative and planning
costs, to provide for the payment of operating expenses
of community housing development organizations, to
preserve housing assisted or previously assisted with
section 8 assistance, and to provide tenant-based
rental assistance. For the purpose of this subtitle,
the term ``affordable housing'' includes permanent
housing for disabled homeless persons, transitional
housing, and single room occupancy housing.
* * * * * * *
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101-625
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 854. GENERAL AUTHORITY.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Allocation of Resources.--
(1) Formula allocation.--The Secretary shall
allocate 90 percent of the amounts approved in
appropriation Acts under section 863 among States and
cities whose most recent comprehensive housing
affordability strategy (or abbreviated strategy) has
been approved by the Secretary under section 105 of
this Act. Such amounts shall be allocated as follows:
(A) 75 percent among--
(i) cities that are the most
populous unit of general local
government in a metropolitan
statistical area having a population
greater than 500,000 and more than
1,500 cases of acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome; and
(ii) States with more than 1,500
cases of acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome outside of metropolitan
statistical areas described in clause
(i), or States that received an
allocation under this clause in a prior
fiscal year; and
(B) 25 percent among cities that (i) are
the most populous unit of general local
government in a metropolitan statistical area
having a population greater than 500,000 and
more than 1,500 cases of acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome, and (ii) have a
higher than average per capita incidence of
acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
A single city may receive assistance allocated under
subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (B). For purposes of
allocating amounts under this paragraph for any fiscal
year, the number of cases of acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome shall be the number of such cases reported to
and confirmed by the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control of the Public Health Service as of
March 31 of the fiscal year immediately preceding the
fiscal year for which the amounts are appropriated and
to be allocated.
[(2) Minimum grant.--Subject only to the
availability of amounts pursuant to appropriations Acts
under section 863, for each fiscal year each eligible
grantee under paragraph (1) shall receive funding
according to its proportionate share of the total,
except that each entity shall receive a minimum
allocation of $200,000 from subparagraphs (A) and (B)
of paragraph (1) combined, and any increase this
entails from the formula amount will be deducted from
all other allocations exceeding $200,000 on a pro rata
basis. If allocation under subparagraph (A) of
paragraph (1) would allocate less than $200,000 for any
State, the allocation for such State shall be $200,000
and the amount of the increase under this sentence
shall be deducted on a pro rata basis from the
allocations of the other States, except that a
reduction under this subparagraph may not reduce the
amount allocated to any eligible entity to less than
$200,000.]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 856. RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRANTEES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Administrative Expenses.--
(1) Grantees.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this subtitle, each grantee may use not more than 3
percent of the grant amount for administrative costs
relating to administering grant amounts and allocating
such amounts to project sponsors.
(2) Project sponsors.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subtitle, each project sponsor
receiving amounts from grants made under this title may
use not more than 7 percent of the amounts received for
administrative costs relating to carrying out eligible
activities under section 855, including the costs of
staff necessary to carry out eligible activities.
(h) Environmental Review.--For purposes of environmental
review, decisionmaking, and action pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other provisions of law
that further the purposes of such Act, 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 (42 U.S.C. 3547), and
shall be subject to the regulations issued by the Secretary to
implement such section.
* * * * * * *
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550
TITLE V--MORTGAGE INSURANCE AND SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Improvement of Financing for Multifamily Housing
SEC. 541. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Multifamily Housing
Finance Improvement Act''.
SEC. 542. [12 U.S.C. 1707 NOTE] MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE CREDIT
DEMONSTRATIONS.
(a) * * *
(b) Risk-Sharing Pilot Program.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) Funding.--Using any authority provided in
appropriation Acts to insure loans under the National
Housing Act, the Secretary may enter into commitments
under this subsection for risk sharing with respect to
mortgages on not more than 7,500 units [during fiscal
year 1999] in each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000. The
demonstration authorized under this subsection shall
not be expanded until the reports required under
subsection (d) are submitted to Congress.
* * * * * * *
(c) Housing Finance Agency Pilot Program.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Limitation on insurance authority.--Using any
authority provided by appropriations Acts to insure
mortgages under the National Housing Act, the Secretary
may enter into commitments under this subsection with
respect to mortgages on not more than 12,000 units
[during fiscal year 1999] in each of fiscal years 1999
and 2000 and not more than an additional 7,500 units
during fiscal year 1997. The demonstration authorized
under this subsection shall not be expanded until the
reports required under subsection (d) are submitted to
the Congress.
* * * * * * *
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, Public Law 104-204
* * * * * * *
administrative provisions
Sec. 204. Flexible Authority.--During [fiscal years 1997,
1998 and 1999] fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and fiscal years
thereafter, the Secretary may manage and dispose of multifamily
properties owned by the Secretary and multifamily mortgages
held by the Secretary on such terms and conditions as the
Secretary may determine, notwithstanding any other provision of
law.
* * * * * * *
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law 105-65
* * * * * * *
SEC. 514. MORTGAGE RESTRUCTURING AND RENTAL ASSISTANCE SUFFICIENCY
PLAN.
(a) In General.--
* * * * * * *
(h) Exemptions From Restructuring.--The following
categories of projects shall not be covered by a mortgage
restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency plan--
[(1) the primary financing or mortgage insurance
for the multifamily housing project that is covered by
that expiring contract was provided by a unit of State
government or a unit of general local government (or an
agency or instrumentality of a unit of a State
government or unit of general local government);]
(1) the primary financing for the project was
provided by a unit of State government or a unit of
general local government (or an agency or
instrumentality of either) and the primary financing
involves mortgage insurance under the National Housing
Act, such that the implementation of a mortgage
restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency plan
under this Act would be in conflict with applicable law
or agreements governing such financing;
* * * * * * *
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Public Law 105-65
TITLE V--HUD MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REFORM
* * * * * * *
SEC. 510. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997''.
Subtitle A--FHA-Insured Multifamily Housing Mortgage and Housing
Assistance Restructuring
* * * * * * *
SEC. 515. SECTION 8 RENEWALS AND LONG-TERM AFFORDABILITY COMMITMENT BY
OWNER OF PROJECT.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(4) Rents for families receiving tenant-based
assistance.--
[(A) In general.--Notwithstanding
subsection (c)(1) or (o)(1) of section 8 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937, in the case
of any family described in paragraph (3) that
resides in a project described in section
512(2)(B) in which the reasonable rent (which
rent shall include any amount allowed for
utilities and shall not exceed comparable
market rents for the relevant housing market
area) exceeds the fair market rent limitation
or the payment standard, as applicable, the
amount of assistance for the family shall be
determined in accordance with subparagraph (B).
[(B) Maximum monthly rent; payment
standard.----With respect to the certificate
program under section 8(b) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, the maximum monthly rent
under the contract (plus any amount allowed for
utilities) shall be such reasonable rent for
the unit. With respect to the voucher program
under section 8(o) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937, the payment standard shall be
deemed to be such reasonable rent for the
unit.]
(4) Assistance through enhanced vouchers.--In the
case of any family described in paragraph (3) that
resides in a project described in section 512(2)(B),
the tenant-based assistance provided shall be enhanced
voucher assistance under section 8(t) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(t)).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 517. RESTRUCTURING TOOLS.
(a) Mortgage Restructuring.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) * * *
(6) The second mortgage under this section may be a
first mortgage if no restructured or new first mortgage
will meet the requirement of paragraph (1)(A).
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Mortgage insurance.--providing FHA multifamily
mortgage insurance, reinsurance or other credit
enhancement alternatives, including multifamily risk-
sharing mortgage programs, as provided under section
542 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992. The Secretary shall give a priority to risk-
shared financing under section 542(c) of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1992 for any mortgage
restructuring, rehabilitation financing, or debt
refinancing included as part of a mortgage
restructuring and rental assistance sufficiency plan if
the terms and conditions will result in reduced risk of
loss to the federal government. Any limitations on the
number of units available for mortgage insurance under
section 542 shall not apply to eligible multifamily
housing projects. Any credit subsidy costs of providing
mortgage insurance shall be paid from the Liquidating
Accounts of the General Insurance Fund or the Special
Risk Insurance Fund and shall not be subject to any
limitation on appropriations;
* * * * * * *
SEC. 524. SECTION 8 CONTRACT RENEWALS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Enhanced Voucher Assistance for Covered Residents.--
(1) In general.--In the case of a contract for
project-based assistance under section 8 for a covered
project that is not renewed under subsection (a) of
this section (or any other authority), to the extent
that amounts for assistance under this subsection are
provided in advance in appropriation Acts, upon the
date of the expiration of such contract the Secretary--
(A) shall make enhanced voucher assistance
under section 8(t) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(t)) available on
behalf of each covered resident of the covered
project; and
(B) may make enhanced voucher assistance
under such section available on behalf of any
other low-income family who, upon the date of
such expiration, is residing in an assisted
dwelling unit in the covered project.
(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection,
the following definitions shall apply:
(A) Assisted dwelling unit.--The term
``assisted dwelling unit'' means a dwelling
unit that--
(i) is in a covered project; and
(ii) is covered by rental
assistance provided under the contract
for project-based assistance for the
covered project.
(B) Covered project.--The term ``covered
project'' means any housing that--
(i) consists of more than 4
dwelling units;
(ii) is covered in whole or in part
by a contract for project-based
assistance under--
(I) the new construction or
substantial rehabilitation
program under section 8(b)(2)
of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (as in effect
before October 1, 1983),
(II) the property
disposition program under
section 8(b) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937,
(III) the moderate
rehabilitation program under
section 8(e)(2) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (as
in effect before October 1,
1991);
(IV) the loan management
assistance program under
section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937,
(V) section 23 of the
United States Housing Act of
1937 (as in effect before
January 1, 1975),
(VI) the rent supplement
program under section 101 of
the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1965, or
(VII) section 8 of the
United States Housing Act of
1937, following conversion from
assistance under section 101 of
the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1965,
which contract will under its own terms
expire during the period consisting of
fiscal years 2000 through 2004;
(iii) is not housing for which
residents are eligible for enhanced
voucher assistance pursuant to section
223(f) of the Low-Income Housing
Preservation and Resident Homeownership
Act of 1990 (12 U.S.C. 4113(f)); and
(iv) is not housing for which
residents are eligible for enhanced
voucher assistance pursuant to
paragraphs (3) and (4) of section
515(c) of the Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of
1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
(C) Covered resident.--The term ``covered
resident'' means a family who--
(i) upon the date of the expiration
of the contract for project-based
assistance for a covered project, is
residing in an assisted dwelling unit
in the covered project; and
(ii) as a result of a rent increase
occurring after the date of such
contract expiration is subject to a
rent for such unit that exceeds 30
percent of adjusted income.
* * * * * * *
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-276
TITLE V--PUBLIC HOUSING AND TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE REFORM
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--General Provisions
* * * * * * *
SEC. 508. DETERMINATION OF ADJUSTED INCOME AND MEDIAN INCOME.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) * * *
* * * * * * *
(1) * * *
``(f) Availability of Income Matching Information.--
``(1) Disclosure to pha.--A public housing agency,
or the owner responsible for determining the
participant's eligibility or level of benefits, shall
require any family described in paragraph (2) who
receives information regarding income, earnings, wages,
or unemployment compensation from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development pursuant to income
verification procedures of the Department to disclose
such information, upon receipt of the information, to
the public housing agency that owns or operates the
public housing dwelling unit in which such family
resides or that provides the housing assistance under
this Act on behalf of such family, as applicable, or to
the owner responsible for determining the participant's
eligibility or level of benefits.
``(2) Families covered.--A family described in this
paragraph is a family that resides in a dwelling unit--
``(A) that is a public housing dwelling
unit; [or]
``(B) for which tenant-based assistance is
provided under section 8[.], or''.
``(C) for which project-based assistance is
provided under section 8, section 202, or
section 811.''
(2) Protection of applicants and participants.--
Section 904 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 3544) is
amended--
* * * * * * *
``(4) only in the case of an applicant or
participant that is a member of a family described in
section 3(f)(2) of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(f)(2)), sign an agreement under
which the applicant or participant agrees to provide to
the appropriate public housing agency, or the owner
responsible for determining the participant's
eligibility or level of benefits, the information
required under section 3(f)(1) of such Act for the sole
purpose of [the public housing agency verifying income]
verifying income information pertinent to the
applicant's or participant's eligibility or level of
benefits, and comply with such agreement.''
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Public Housing
PART 1--CAPITAL AND OPERATING ASSISTANCE
* * * * * * *
SEC. 519. PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL AND OPERATING FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Section 9 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 9. PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL AND OPERATING FUNDS.
``(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[``(k) Emergency Reserve and Use of Amounts.--
[``(1) Set-asides.--In each fiscal year after
fiscal year 1999, the Secretary shall set aside, for
use in accordance with this subsection, not more than 2
percent of the total amount made available to carry out
this section for such fiscal year. In addition to
amounts set aside under the preceding sentence, in each
fiscal year the Secretary may set from the total amount
made available to carry out this section for such
fiscal year not more than $20,000,000 for the Operation
Safe Home program administered by the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, for law enforcement efforts to
combat violent crime on or near the premises of public
and federally assisted housing.
[``(2) Use of funds.--Amounts set aside under
paragraph (1) shall be available to the Secretary for
use for assistance, as provided in paragraph (3), in
connection with--
[``(A) emergencies and other disasters; and
[``(C) housing needs resulting from any
settlement of litigation; and
[``(3) Eligible uses.--In carrying out this
subsection, the Secretary may use amounts set aside
under this subsection to provide--
[``(A) assistance for any eligible use
under the Operating Fund or the Capital Fund
established by this section; or
[``(B) tenant-based assistance in
accordance with
section 8.
[``(4) Limitation.--With respect to any fiscal
year, the Secretary may carry over not more than a
total of $25,000,000 in unobligated amounts set aside
under this subsection for use in connection with the
activities described in paragraph (2) during the
succeeding fiscal year.
[``(5) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish
the use of any amounts allocated under this subsection
relating to emergencies (other than disasters and
housing needs resulting from any settlement of
litigation) in the Federal Register.]
``[(l)] (k) Treatment of Nonrental Income.--A public
housing agency that receives income from nonrental sources (as
determined by the Secretary) may retain and use such amounts
without any decrease in the amounts received under this section
from the Capital or Operating Fund. Any such nonrental amounts
retained shall be used only for low-income housing or to
benefit the residents assisted by the public housing agency.
``[(m)] (l) Provision of Only Capital or Operating
Assistance.--
``(1) Authority.--In appropriate circumstances, as
determined by the Secretary, a public housing agency
may commit capital assistance only, or operating
assistance only, for public housing units, which
assistance shall be subject to all of the requirements
applicable to public housing except as otherwise
provided in this subsection.
``(2) Exemptions.--In the case of any public
housing unit assisted pursuant to the authority under
paragraph (1), the Secretary may, by regulation, reduce
the period under subsection (d)(3) or (e)(3), as
applicable, during which such units must be operated
under requirements applicable to public housing. In
cases in which there is commitment of operating
assistance but no commitment of capital assistance, the
Secretary may make section 8 requirements applicable,
as appropriate, by regulation.
``[(n)] (m) Treatment of Public Housing.--
``(1) Certain state and city funded housing.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this section--
``(i) for purposes of determining
the allocations from the Operating and
Capital Funds pursuant to the formulas
under subsections (d)(2) and (e)(2) and
determining assistance pursuant to
section 519(e) of the Quality Housing
and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 and
under section 9 or 14 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (as in
effect before the date of the enactment
of this Act), for any period before the
implementation of such formulas, the
Secretary shall deem any covered
locally developed public housing units
as public housing units developed under
this title and such units shall be
eligible for such assistance; and
``(ii) assistance provided under
this section, under such section
518(d)(3), or under such section 9 or
14 to any public housing agency may be
used with respect to any covered
locally developed public housing units.
``(B) Covered units.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `covered locally developed
public housing units' means--
``(i) not more than 7,000 public
housing units developed pursuant to
laws of the State of New York and that
received debt service and operating
subsidies pursuant to such laws; and
``(ii) not more than 5,000 dwelling
units developed pursuant to section 34
of chapter 121B of the General Laws of
the State of Massachusetts.
``(2) Reduction of asthma incidence.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
the New York City Housing Authority may, in its sole
discretion, from amounts provided from the Operating
and Capital Funds, or from amounts provided for public
housing before amounts are made available from such
Funds, use not more than exceeding $500,000 per year
for the purpose of initiating, expanding or continuing
a program for the reduction of the incidence of asthma
among residents. The Secretary shall consult with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
identify and consider sources of funding for the
reduction of the incidence of asthma among recipients
of assistance under this title.
``(3) Services for elderly residents.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
the New York City Housing Authority may, in its sole
discretion, from amounts provided from the Operating
and Capital Funds, or from amounts provided for public
housing before the amounts are made available from such
Funds, use not more than $600,000 per year for the
purpose of developing a comprehensive plan to address
the need for services for elderly residents. Such plan
may be developed by a partnership created by such
Housing Authority and may include the creation of a
model project for assisted living at one or more
developments. The model project may provide for
contracting with private parties for the delivery of
services.
``(4) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply
to fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter.''.
* * * * * * *
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
Resolution for 2000: Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies:
General purpose discretionary........................... 69,633 69,618 82,545 \1\ 82,291
Violent crime reduction fund............................ ........... ........... ........... ...........
Mandatory............................................... 21,713 21,307 21,496 21,140
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2000.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 52,822
2001.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 22,378
2002.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 7,171
2003.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,882
2004 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,719
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2000 NA 24,998 NA 4,426
in bill....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2000
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
Committee compared with (+ or -)
Item 1999 appropriation Budget estimate recommendation ---------------------------------------
1999 appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
Compensation and pensions........................... 21,857,058 21,568,364 21,568,364 -288,694 ..................
Readjustment benefits............................... 1,175,000 1,469,000 1,469,000 +294,000 ..................
Veterans insurance and indemnities.................. 46,450 28,670 28,670 -17,780 ..................
Veterans housing benefit program fund program 300,266 282,342 282,342 -17,924 ..................
account (indefinite)...............................
(Limitation on direct loans).................... (300) (300) (300) .................. ..................
Administrative expenses......................... 159,121 156,958 156,958 -2,163 ..................
Education loan fund program account................. 1 1 1 .................. ..................
(Limitation on direct loans).................... (3) (3) (3) .................. ..................
Administrative expenses......................... 206 214 214 +8 ..................
Vocational rehabilitation loans program account..... 55 57 57 +2 ..................
(Limitation on direct loans).................... (2,401) (2,531) (2,531) (+130) ..................
Administrative expenses......................... 400 415 415 +15 ..................
Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account 515 520 520 +5 ..................
Guaranteed Transitional Housing Loans for Homeless .................. 48,250 48,250 +48,250 ..................
Veterans program account...........................
(Limitation on direct loans).................... .................. (100,000) (100,000) (+100,000) ..................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Veterans Benefits Administration....... 23,539,072 23,554,791 23,554,791 +15,719 ..................
Veterans Health Administration
Medical care........................................ 16,528,000 16,671,000 17,771,000 +1,243,000 +1,100,000
Delayed equipment obligation.................... 778,000 635,000 635,000 -143,000 ..................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 17,306,000 17,306,000 18,406,000 +1,100,000 +1,100,000
(Transfer to general operating expenses)........ (-27,420) .................. (25,930) (+53,350) (+25,930)
Medical care cost recovery collections:
Offsetting receipts............................. -583,000 -608,000 -608,000 -25,000 ..................
Appropriations (indefinite)..................... 583,000 608,000 608,000 +25,000 ..................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total available............................... (17,889,000) (17,914,000) (19,014,000) (+1,125,000) (+1,100,000)
Medical and prosthetic research..................... 316,000 316,000 316,000 .................. ..................
Medical administration and miscellaneous operating 63,000 61,200 60,703 -2,297 -497
expenses...........................................
General Post Fund, National Homes:
Loan program account (by transfer).............. (7) (7) (7) .................. ..................
(Limitation on direct loans).................... (70) (70) (70) .................. ..................
Administrative expenses (by transfer)........... (54) (54) (54) .................. ..................
General post fund (transfer out).................... (-61) (-61) (-61) .................. ..................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Veterans Health Administration......... 17,685,000 17,683,200 18,782,703 +1,097,703 +1,099,503
Departmental Administration
General operating expenses.......................... 855,661 912,353 912,594 +56,933 +241
Offsetting receipts............................. (38,960) (36,754) (36,754) (-2,206) ..................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Program Level.......................... (894,621) (949,107) (949,348) (+54,727) (+241)
(Transfer from medical care).................... (27,420) .................. .................. (-27,420) ..................
(Transfer from national cemetery)............... (90) .................. .................. (-90) ..................
(Transfer from inspector general)............... (30) .................. .................. (-30) ..................
National Cemetery Administration.................... 92,006 97,000 97,256 +5,250 +256
(Transfer to general operating expenses)........ (-90) .................. .................. (+90) ..................
Office of Inspector General......................... 36,000 43,200 43,200 +7,200 ..................
(Transfer to general operating expenses)........ (-30) .................. .................. (+30) ..................
Construction, major projects........................ 142,300 60,140 70,140 -72,160 +10,000
Construction, minor projects........................ 175,000 175,000 175,000 .................. ..................
Grants for construction of State extended care 90,000 40,000 90,000 .................. +50,000
facilities.........................................
Grants for the construction of State veterans 10,000 11,000 25,000 +15,000 +14,000
cemeteries.........................................
Capital asset fund.................................. .................. 10,000 .................. .................. -10,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental Administration............ 1,400,967 1,348,693 1,413,190 +12,223 +64,497
===================================================================================================
Total, title I, Department of Veterans Affairs 42,625,039 42,586,684 43,750,684 +1,125,645 +1,164,000
(By transfer)............................. (61) (61) (25,991) (+25,930) (+25,930)
(Limitation on direct loans).............. (2,774) (102,904) (102,904) (+100,130) ..................
===================================================================================================
Consisting of:
Mandatory............................. (23,378,774) (23,396,626) (23,396,626) (+17,852) ..................
Discretionary......................... (19,246,265) (19,190,058) (20,354,058) (+1,107,793) (+1,164,000)
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Public and Indian Housing
Housing Certificate Fund............................ 10,326,542 7,322,095 6,851,135 -3,475,407 -470,960
(By transfer)................................... .................. (183,000) (183,000) (+183,000) ..................
Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001......... .................. 4,200,000 4,200,000 +4,200,000 ..................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total funding................................. 10,326,542 11,522,095 11,051,135 +724,593 -470,960
Housing set-asides:
Expiring section 8 contracts.................... (9,600,000) (10,640,135) (10,855,135) (+1,255,135) (+215,000)
Section 8 relocation assistance................. (433,542) (156,000) (156,000) (-277,542) ..................
Regional opportunity counseling................. (10,000) (20,000) .................. (-10,000) (-20,000)
Welfare to work housing vouchers................ (283,000) (144,400) .................. (-283,000) (-144,400)
Contract administration......................... .................. (209,000) .................. .................. (-209,000)
Incremental vouchers............................ .................. (346,560) .................. .................. (-346,560)
Administrative fee change....................... .................. (6,000) .................. .................. (-6,000)
Voucher for disabled............................ (40,000) .................. (40,000) .................. (+40,000)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................................... (10,366,542) (11,522,095) (11,051,135) (+684,593) (-470,960)
Section 8 (rescission).......................... -1,650,000 .................. .................. +1,650,000 ..................
Public housing capital fund......................... 3,000,000 2,555,000 2,555,000 -445,000 ..................
Public housing operating fund....................... 2,818,000 3,003,000 2,900,000 +82,000 -103,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................................... 5,818,000 5,558,000 5,455,000 -363,000 -103,000
Drug elimination grants for low-income housing...... 310,000 310,000 310,000 .................. ..................
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing 625,000 625,000 500,000 -125,000 -125,000
(HOPE VI)..........................................
Indian housing block grant.......................... 620,000 620,000 620,000 .................. ..................
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account.. 6,000 6,000 6,000 .................. ..................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)................ (68,881) (71,956) (71,956) (+3,075) ..................
Community Planning and Development
Rural housing and economic development.............. 25,000 20,000 25,000 .................. +5,000
Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS......... 225,000 240,000 225,000 .................. -15,000
Additional provisions--Division A, Public Law 10,000 .................. .................. -10,000 ..................
105-277........................................
Community development block grants.................. 4,750,000 4,775,000 4,800,000 +50,000 +25,000
Emergency funding............................... 250,000 .................. .................. -250,000 ..................
Section 108 loan guarantees:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)................ (1,261,000) (1,261,000) (1,261,000) .................. ..................
Credit subsidy.................................. 29,000 29,000 29,000 .................. ..................
Administrative expenses......................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 .................. ..................
Brownfields redevelopment........................... 25,000 50,000 25,000 .................. -25,000
Regional connections................................ .................. 50,000 .................. .................. -50,000
Regional empowerment zone initiative................ .................. 50,000 .................. .................. -50,000
Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities 45,000 .................. .................. -45,000 ..................
Additional provisions--Division A, Public Law 105-
277................................................
America's private investment companies:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)................ .................. (1,000,000) .................. .................. (-1,000,000)
Credit subsidy.................................. .................. 37,000 .................. .................. -37,000
Redevelopment of abandoned buildings initiative..... .................. 50,000 .................. .................. -50,000
HOME investment partnerships program................ 1,600,000 1,610,000 1,600,000 .................. -10,000
Homeless assistance grants.......................... 975,000 1,020,000 1,020,000 +45,000 ..................
Homeless assistance demonstration project........... .................. 5,000 .................. .................. -5,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Community planning and development..... 7,935,000 7,937,000 7,725,000 -210,000 -212,000
===================================================================================================
Total, Public and Indian Housing (excl 23,990,542 22,378,095 21,467,135 -2,523,407 -910,960
advances)....................................
Housing Programs
Housing for special populations..................... 854,000 854,000 904,000 +50,000 +50,000
Housing for the elderly......................... (660,000) (660,000) (710,000) (+50,000) (+50,000)
Housing for the disabled........................ (194,000) (194,000) (194,000) .................. ..................
Federal Housing Administration
FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)................ (110,000,000) (120,000,000) (120,000,000) (+10,000,000) ..................
(Limitation on direct loans).................... (100,000) (50,000) (100,000) .................. (+50,000)
Administrative expenses......................... 328,888 330,888 330,888 +2,000 ..................
Offsetting receipts............................. -529,000 .................. .................. +529,000 ..................
Administrative contract expenses................ .................. 160,000 160,000 +160,000 ..................
Additional contract expenses.................... .................. 4,000 4,000 +4,000 ..................
FHA--General and special risk program account:
Program costs................................... 81,000 .................. .................. -81,000 ..................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)................ (18,100,000) (18,100,000) (18,100,000) .................. ..................
(Limitation on direct loans).................... (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) .................. ..................
Administrative expenses......................... 211,455 64,000 64,000 -147,455 ..................
Administrative expenses (unobligated balances).. .................. (147,000) (147,000) (+147,000) ..................
Subsidies for fiscal year 1999.................. -125,000 .................. .................. +125,000 ..................
Negative subsidy................................ .................. -75,000 -75,000 -75,000 ..................
Subsidy (unobligated balances).................. .................. (153,000) (153,000) (+153,000) ..................
Non-overhead administrative expenses............ .................. 144,000 144,000 +144,000 ..................
Additional contract expenses.................... .................. 7,000 7,000 +7,000 ..................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Housing Administration......... -32,657 634,888 634,888 +667,545 ..................
Government National Mortgage Association
Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan
guarantee program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)................ (150,000,000) (200,000,000) (200,000,000) (+50,000,000) ..................
Administrative expenses......................... 9,383 15,383 15,383 +6,000 ..................
Offsetting receipts............................. -370,000 -422,000 -422,000 -52,000 ..................
Policy Development and Research
Research and technology............................. 47,500 50,000 35,000 -12,500 -15,000
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Fair housing activities............................. 40,000 47,000 40,000 .................. -7,000
Office of Lead Hazard Control
Lead hazard reduction............................... 80,000 80,000 80,000 .................. ..................
Management and Administration
Salaries and expenses............................... 456,843 502,000 457,093 +250 -44,907
(By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds) (518,000) (518,000) (518,000) .................. ..................
(By transfer, GNMA)............................. (9,383) (9,383) (9,383) .................. ..................
(By transfer, Community Planning and (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) .................. ..................
Development)...................................
(By transfer, Title VI)......................... (200) (150) (150) (-50) ..................
(By transfer, Indian Housing)................... (400) (200) (200) (-200) ..................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses.................. (985,826) (1,030,733) (985,826) .................. (-44,907)
Y2K conversion (emergency funding).............. 12,200 .................. .................. -12,200 ..................
Office of Inspector General......................... 49,567 38,000 63,567 +14,000 +25,567
(By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds) (22,343) (22,343) (22,343) .................. ..................
(By transfer from Drug Elimination Grants)...... (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) .................. ..................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of Inspector General............ (81,910) (70,343) (95,910) (+14,000) (+25,567)
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight...... 16,000 19,493 16,000 .................. -3,493
Offsetting receipts............................. -16,000 -19,493 -16,000 .................. +3,493
Administrative Provisions
Single Family Property Disposition.................. -400,000 .................. .................. +400,000 ..................
Sec. 212, calculation of downpayment................ 15,000 .................. .................. -15,000 ..................
FHA increase in loan amounts........................ -83,000 .................. .................. +83,000 ..................
GSE user fee........................................ .................. -10,000 .................. .................. +10,000
Sec. 214, general transfer authority................ .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................
Sec. 208 FHA........................................ .................. -319,000 -319,000 -319,000 ..................
Annual contribution (transfer out).................. .................. (-79,000) (-79,000) (-79,000) ..................
Annual contributions (transfer out)................. .................. (-104,000) (-104,000) (-104,000) ..................
Section 236(g) amendment........................ .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, administrative provisions.............. -468,000 -329,000 -319,000 +149,000 +10,000
===================================================================================================
Total, title II, Department of Housing and 24,669,378 28,048,366 27,156,066 +2,486,688 -892,300
Urban Development............................
Current year, fiscal year 2000............ (24,669,378) (23,848,366) (22,956,066) (-1,713,312) (-892,300)
Appropriations........................ (26,057,178) (23,848,366) (22,956,066) (-3,101,112) (-892,300)
Rescission............................ (-1,650,000) .................. .................. (+1,650,000) ..................
Emergency appropriations.............. (262,200) .................. .................. (-262,200) ..................
Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001... .................. (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (+4,200,000) ..................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......... (279,361,000) (340,361,000) (339,361,000) (+60,000,000) (-1,000,000)
(Limitation on corporate funds)........... (561,326) (561,076) (561,076) (-250) ..................
===================================================================================================
TITLE III
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission
Salaries and expenses............................... 26,431 26,467 26,467 +36 ..................
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Salaries and expenses............................... 6,500 7,500 6,500 .................. -1,000
Department of the Treasury
Community Development Financial Institutions
Community development financial institutions fund 80,000 110,000 80,000 .................. -30,000
program account....................................
Microenterprise technical assistance............ .................. 15,000 .................. .................. -15,000
Additional provisions--Division A, Public Law 15,000 .................. .................. -15,000 ..................
105-277........................................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 95,000 125,000 80,000 -15,000 -45,000
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Salaries and expenses............................... 47,000 50,500 49,500 +2,500 -1,000
Corporation for National and Community Service
National and community service programs operating 425,500 545,500 423,500 -2,000 -122,000
expenses...........................................
Additional provisions--Division A, Public Law 10,000 .................. .................. -10,000 ..................
105-277........................................
Rescission...................................... .................. .................. -80,000 -80,000 -80,000
Office of Inspector General......................... 3,000 3,000 5,000 +2,000 +2,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 438,500 548,500 348,500 -90,000 -200,000
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Salaries and expenses............................... 10,195 11,450 11,450 +1,255 ..................
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
Salaries and expenses............................... 11,666 12,473 12,473 +807 ..................
Environmental Protection Agency
Science and Technology.............................. 650,000 642,483 642,483 -7,517 ..................
Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund..... 40,000 37,271 38,000 -2,000 +729
Additional provisions--Division A, Public Law 10,000 .................. .................. -10,000 ..................
105-277........................................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science and Technology.............. 700,000 679,754 680,483 -19,517 +729
Environmental Programs and Management............... 1,846,700 2,046,993 1,885,000 +38,300 -161,993
Office of Inspector General......................... 31,154 29,409 32,409 +1,255 +3,000
Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund..... 12,237 10,753 10,753 -1,484 ..................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, OIG................................. 43,391 40,162 43,162 -229 +3,000
Buildings and facilities............................ 56,948 62,630 25,930 -31,018 -36,700
Hazardous Substance Superfund....................... 1,400,000 1,500,000 1,300,000 -100,000 -200,000
Delay of obligation............................. 100,000 .................. 100,000 .................. +100,000
Transfer to Office of Inspector General......... -12,237 -10,753 -10,753 +1,484 ..................
Transfer to Science and Technology.............. -40,000 -37,271 -38,000 +2,000 -729
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Hazardous Substance Superfund....... 1,447,763 1,451,976 1,351,247 -96,516 -100,729
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program............ 72,500 71,556 71,556 -944 ..................
Oil spill response.................................. 15,000 15,618 15,000 .................. -618
State and Tribal Assistance Grants.................. 2,506,750 1,953,000 2,355,000 -151,750 +402,000
Categorical grants.............................. 880,000 884,957 895,000 +15,000 +10,043
Additional provisions--Division A, Public Law 20,000 .................. .................. -20,000 ..................
105-277........................................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, STAG................................ 3,406,750 2,837,957 3,250,000 -156,750 +412,043
===================================================================================================
Total, EPA.................................... 7,589,052 7,206,646 7,322,378 -266,674 +115,732
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy............. 5,026 5,201 5,201 +175 ..................
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 2,675 3,020 2,675 .................. -345
Environmental Quality..............................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 7,701 8,221 7,876 +175 -345
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Office of Inspector General (transfer).............. (34,666) (33,666) (34,666) .................. (+1,000)
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Disaster relief..................................... 307,745 300,000 300,000 -7,745 ..................
(Transfer out).................................. .................. (-2,900) (-2,900) (-2,900) ..................
Emergency funding............................... 906,000 2,480,425 .................. -906,000 -2,480,425
Pre-disaster mitigation............................. .................. 30,000 .................. .................. -30,000
(Transfer out).................................. .................. (2,500) .................. .................. (-2,500)
Disaster assistance direct loan program account:
State share loan................................ 1,355 1,295 1,295 -60 ..................
(Limitation on direct loans)................ (25,000) (25,000) (25,000) .................. ..................
Administrative expenses......................... 440 420 420 -20 ..................
Salaries and expenses............................... 171,138 189,720 180,000 +8,862 -9,720
Y2K conversion (emergency funding).............. 3,641 .................. .................. -3,641 ..................
Office of Inspector General......................... 5,400 8,015 8,015 +2,615 ..................
Emergency management planning and assistance........ 240,824 250,850 255,850 +15,026 +5,000
(By transfer)................................... .................. (5,400) (2,900) (+2,900) (-2,500)
Y2K conversion (emergency funding).............. 3,711 .................. .................. -3,711 ..................
Radiological emergency preparedness fund............ 12,849 .................. .................. -12,849 ..................
Collection of fees.............................. -12,849 .................. .................. +12,849 ..................
New language.................................... .................. -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 ..................
Emergency food and shelter program.................. 100,000 125,000 110,000 +10,000 -15,000
Flood map modernization fund........................ .................. 5,000 .................. .................. -5,000
National insurance development fund................. .................. (3,730) (3,730) (+3,730) ..................
National Flood Insurance Fund (limitation on
administrative expenses):
Salaries and expenses........................... (22,685) (24,131) (24,333) (+1,648) (+202)
Flood mitigation................................ (78,464) (78,912) (78,710) (+246) (-202)
(Transfer out).................................. .................. (-20,000) (-20,000) (-20,000) ..................
National flood mitigation fund...................... .................. 12,000 .................. .................. -12,000
(By transfer)................................... .................. (20,000) (20,000) (+20,000) ..................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Emergency Management Agency.... 1,740,254 3,401,725 854,580 -885,674 -2,547,145
Appropriations............................ (826,902) (921,300) (854,580) (+27,678) (-66,720)
Emergency funding......................... (913,352) (2,480,425) .................. (-913,352) (-2,480,425)
General Services Administration
Consumer Information Center Fund.................... 2,619 2,622 2,622 +3 ..................
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Human space flight.................................. 5,480,000 5,638,000 .................. -5,480,000 -5,638,000
International Space Station......................... .................. .................. 2,482,700 +2,482,700 +2,482,700
Launch vehicles and payload operation............... .................. .................. 3,156,000 +3,156,000 +3,156,000
Science, aeronautics and technology................. 5,653,900 5,424,700 5,424,700 -229,200 ..................
Mission support..................................... 2,511,100 2,494,900 2,495,000 -16,100 +100
Office of Inspector General......................... 20,000 20,800 20,000 .................. -800
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NASA................................... 13,665,000 13,578,400 13,578,400 -86,600 ..................
National Credit Union Administration
Central liquidity facility:
(Limitation on direct loans).................... (600,000) (600,000) .................. (-600,000) (-600,000)
(Limitation on administrative expenses, (176) (257) (257) (+81) ..................
corporate funds)...............................
Revolving loan program.......................... 2,000 .................. .................. -2,000 ..................
National Science Foundation
Research and related activities..................... 2,770,000 3,004,000 3,007,300 +237,300 +3,300
Major research equipment............................ 90,000 85,000 70,000 -20,000 -15,000
Education and human resources....................... 662,000 678,000 688,600 +26,600 +10,600
Salaries and expenses............................... 144,000 149,000 150,000 +6,000 +1,000
Office of Inspector General......................... 5,200 5,450 5,550 +350 +100
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NSF.................................... 3,671,200 3,921,450 3,921,450 +250,250 ..................
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation 90,000 90,000 60,000 -30,000 -30,000
Selective Service System
Salaries and expenses............................... 24,176 25,250 25,250 +1,074 ..................
Y2K conversion (emergency funding).............. 250 .................. .................. -250 ..................
Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2001........ .................. 25,250 .................. .................. -25,250
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 24,426 50,500 25,250 +824 -25,250
===================================================================================================
Total, title III, Independent agencies........ 27,427,544 29,041,454 26,307,446 -1,120,098 -2,734,008
Appropriations............................ (26,513,942) (26,561,029) (26,307,446) (-206,496) (-253,583)
Rescission............................ .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................
Emergency funding......................... (913,602) (2,480,425) .................. (-913,602) (-2,480,425)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)... (101,149) (103,043) (103,043) (+1,894) ..................
(Limitation on direct loans).............. (625,000) (625,000) (25,000) (-600,000) (-600,000)
(Limitation on corporate funds)........... (176) (257) (257) (+81) ..................
===================================================================================================
Grand total................................... 94,721,961 99,676,504 97,214,196 +2,492,235 -2,462,308
Current year, fiscal year 2000............ (94,721,961) (95,476,504) (93,014,196) (-1,707,765) (-2,462,308)
Appropriations........................ (96,846,159) (92,970,829) (93,094,196) (-3,751,963) (+123,367)
Rescission............................ (-1,650,000) .................. .................. (+1,650,000) ..................
Emergency funding..................... (1,175,802) (2,480,425) .................. (-1,175,802) (-2,480,425)
Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001... .................. (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (+4,200,000) ..................
(By transfer)............................. (34,727) (236,727) (263,657) (+228,930) (+26,930)
(Transfer out)............................ (-61) (-198,061) (-203,061) (-203,000) (-5,000)
(Limitation on administrative expenses)... (101,149) (103,043) (103,043) (+1,894) ..................
(Limitation on direct loans).............. (846,655) (899,860) (349,860) (-496,795) (-550,000)
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......... (279,361,000) (340,361,000) (339,361,000) (+60,000,000) (-1,000,000)
(Limitation on corporate funds)........... (561,502) (561,333) (561,333) (-169) ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
