Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                       Calendar No. 801
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     106-410

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



 
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001

                                _______
                                

               September 13, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 4635]

    The Committee on Appropriations to which was referred the 
bill (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for 
sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, 
and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and 
for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.



Amount of new budget (obligational) authority

Amount of bill as recommended in House..................$101,269,836,000
Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... 107,507,953,000
Amount of appropriations to date, 2000..................  99,190,610,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2001........................ 109,781,099,000
    Under estimates for 2001............................   2,273,146,000
    Above appropriations for 2000.......................   8,317,343,000


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

  Division A--VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations, Fiscal 
                               Year 2001

Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs..........................     5
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development............    31
Title III--Independent agencies:
    American Battle Monuments Commission.........................    68
    Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board...............    68
    Department of the Treasury: Community development financial 
      institutions...............................................    69
    Consumer Product Safety Commission...........................    71
    Corporation for National and Community Service...............    71
    U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims....................    75
    Department of Defense--Civil: Cemeterial expenses, Army......    76
    Environmental Protection Agency..............................    76
    Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and 
      Technology 
      Policy.....................................................   102
    Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental 
      Quality....................................................   104
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector 
      General....................................................   104
    Federal Emergency Management Agency..........................   104
    General Services Administration: Consumer Information Center.   112
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration................   113
    National Credit Union Administration.........................   127
    National Science Foundation..................................   128
    Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................   136
    Selective Service System.....................................   137
Title IV--General provisions.....................................   139

               Division B--The Housing Needs Act of 2000

Title I--Production of new housing for low and very low-income 
  families.......................................................   140
Title II--Section 8 success program..............................   140
Title III--Preservation of low-income housing....................   140
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   142
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   143
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   143

                               DIVISION A

                              INTRODUCTION

    The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2001 provides a total of $107,507,953,000 in budget 
authority, including approximately $24,581,866,000 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.
    The Committee recommendation provides $22,379,717,000 in 
discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
an increase of $1,521,178,000 above the fiscal year 2000 
enacted level and $17,178,000 above the budget request. The 
Committee has made veterans programs the highest priority in 
the bill. Increases in VA programs above the budget request are 
recommended for medical research and the State home program.
    For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 
Committee recommendation totals $30,633,726,000, an increase of 
$4,754,778,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The 
Committee has provided significant funding for all HUD programs 
while also providing the needed funding for all expiring 
section 8 contracts. The Committee believes a balanced approach 
to the funding of housing programs is key to meeting the 
housing needs of low-income families.
    For the Environmental Protection Agency, the Committee 
recommendation totals $7,534,190,000, a decrease of $28,621,000 
below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and an increase of 
$257,591,000 above the budget request. Major changes from the 
President's request include an increase of $550,000,000 for 
clean water State revolving funds.
    The Committee recommendation includes $3,515,977,000 for 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including 
$2,609,220,000 in emergency contingency funds for disaster 
relief.
    The Committee recommendation for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration totals $13,844,000,000, an increase of 
$243,181,000 above the fiscal year 2000 level.
    For the National Science Foundation, the Committee 
recommendation totals $4,297,184,000, an increase of 
$400,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 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.

              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.

                TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Appropriations, 2000

                                                         $44,255,165,000

Budget estimate, 2001

                                                          46,918,665,000

House allowance

                                                          46,909,667,000
Committee recommendation
                                                          46,965,583,000

                          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, 829 outpatient 
clinics, 134 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 of the remains of eligible deceased servicepersons 
and discharged veterans in any national cemetery with available 
grave space; 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 Administration 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 $46,965,583,000 for the Department 
of Veterans Affairs, including $24,586,126,000 in mandatory 
spending and $22,379,717,000 in discretionary spending. The 
amount provided for discretionary activities represents an 
increase of $17,178,000 above the budget request and 
$1,521,178,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The 
Committee has given VA programs the highest priority in the 
bill. Increases above the President's request are recommended 
for medical research and State home construction 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, 2000

                                                         $21,568,364,000

Budget estimate, 2001

                                                          22,766,276,000

House allowance

                                                          22,766,276,000
Committee recommendation
                                                          22,766,276,000

                          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 $22,766,276,000 for compensation 
and pensions. This is an increase of $1,197,912,000 above the 
fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same as the budget 
estimate.
    The estimated caseload and cost by program follows:

                                            COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2000               2001           Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:
    Compensation:
        Veterans........................................         2,290,710          2,285,075             -5,635
        Survivors.......................................           302,575            300,872             -1,703
        Children........................................               864                864   ................
        (Clothing allowance)............................           (75,785)           (75,598)              -187
Pensions:
    Veterans............................................           372,635            363,060             -9,575
    Survivors...........................................           266,101            252,898            -13,203
    Minimum income for widows (non-add).................              (594)              (562)               -32
    Vocational training (non-add).......................                (7)                (5)                -2
    Burial allowances...................................            95,180             94,050             -1,130
                                                         =======================================================
Funds:
    Compensation:
        Veterans........................................   $15,421,550,000    $16,010,051,000      +$588,501,000
        Survivors.......................................     3,522,325,000      3,600,000,000        +77,675,000
    Children............................................         9,499,000          9,734,000           +235,000
    Clothing allowance..................................        40,049,000         39,949,000           -100,000
    Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508 and 102-568)....         1,388,000          1,266,000           -122,000
    Medical exams pilot program (Public Law 104-275)....        26,324,000         28,390,000         +2,066,000
    Pensions:
        Veterans........................................     2,342,253,000      2,366,889,000        +24,636,000
        Survivors.......................................       707,003,000        683,070,000        -23,933,000
        Minimum income for widows.......................         3,697,000          3,581,000           -116,000
    Vocational training.................................            20,000             15,000             -5,000
    Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508, 102-568, and            9,343,000          8,521,000           -822,000
     103-446)...........................................
    Payment to Medical Care (Public Laws 101-508 and 102-        5,018,000          7,632,000         +2,614,000
     568)...............................................
    Payment to Medical Facilities (non- add)............        (2,879,000)        (3,027,000)          +148,000
    Burial benefits.....................................       126,293,000        129,681,000         +3,388,000
    Other assistance....................................         3,406,000          3,413,000             +7,000
    Contingency.........................................  .................  .................  ................
    Unobligated balance and transfers...................      -649,804,000       -125,916,000       +523,888,000
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation...............................    21,568,364,000     22,766,276,000     +1,197,912,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The appropriation includes $17,419,000 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 2001 cost-of-
living increase of 2.5 percent for pension recipients.
    The bill includes language permitting this appropriation to 
reimburse such sums as may be earned, estimated at $3,027,000, 
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 2001 
supplemental appropriations after June 30, 2001 for 
compensation and pensions. The Committee has also rejected 
proposed bill language to split this account into three 
separate appropriation accounts.
    The Committee is aware that the current Veterans Burial 
Plot Interment Allowance is $150 per burial, and has not been 
increased for decades. While the Veterans Burial Plot Interment 
Allowance was not intended to cover the full cost of burial 
expenses, it appears that the current allowance does not 
reflect the increasing costs of burials for veterans. 
Therefore, the Committee directs the VA to study the current 
allowance to determine: (1) if it is adequate to meet burial 
expenses for veterans; (2) whether an increase in the allowance 
is warranted; and (3) what increase would be necessary to keep 
pace with the rising cost of burials, and to report back to the 
Congress by March 1, 2001.

                         readjustment benefits

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $1,469,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   1,634,000,000
House allowance.........................................   1,664,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,634,000,000

                          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 
$1,634,000,000 for readjustment benefits. The amount 
recommended is an increase of $165,000,000 above the fiscal 
year 2000 enacted level.
    The estimated caseload and cost for this account follows:

                                              READJUSTMENT BENEFITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2000              2001           Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of trainees:
    Education and training: dependents....................            46,420            48,530            +2,110
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
        Veterans and servicepersons.......................           279,100           309,300           +30,200
        Reservists........................................            71,300            70,900              -400
    Vocational rehabilitation.............................            51,630            50,985              -645
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................           448,450           479,715           +31,265
                                                           =====================================================
Funds:
    Education and training: Dependents....................      $141,806,000      $148,148,000       +$6,342,000
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
        Veterans and servicepersons.......................       890,736,000     1,118,903,000      +228,167,000
        Reservists........................................       100,860,000       105,875,000        +5,015,000
    Vocational rehabilitation.............................       416,718,000       391,887,000       -24,831,000
    Housing grants........................................        21,065,000        21,065,000  ................
    Automobiles and other conveyances.....................         7,589,000         7,589,000  ................
    Adaptive equipment....................................        23,700,000        23,600,000          -100,000
    Work-study............................................        33,400,000        35,100,000        +1,700,000
    Payment to States.....................................        13,000,000        13,000,000  ................
    Reporting fees........................................         3,530,000         3,771,000          +241,000
    Unobligated balance and other adjust-  ments..........      -183,404,000      -234,938,000       -51,534,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
        Total appropriation...............................     1,469,000,000     1,634,000,000      +165,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee has included bill language as proposed by the 
administration, which ensures that all administrative services 
are charged to the general operating expenses appropriation.

                   veterans insurance and indemnities

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $28,670,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      19,850,000
House allowance.........................................      19,850,000
Committee recommendation................................      19,850,000

                          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 $19,850,000 for veterans 
insurance and indemnities, as requested by the administration. 
This is a decrease of $8,820,000 below the fiscal year 2000 
enacted level. The Department estimates there will be 4,353,921 
policies in force in fiscal year 2001 with a value of nearly 
$447,000,000,000.

         VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Administrative
                                        Program account      expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000..................     $282,342,000     $156,958,000
Budget estimate, 2001.................      165,740,000      166,484,000
House allowance.......................      165,740,000      161,484,000
Committee recommendation..............      165,740,000      162,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $165,740,000, and 
$162,000,000 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 adapted housing to $300,000.
    The reduction of $4,484,000 below the budget request is to 
be taken from lower priority electronic initiatives.

                  education loan fund program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program     Administrative
                                              account        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000....................          $1,000        $214,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................           1,000         220,000
House allowance.........................           1,000         220,000
Committee recommendation................           1,000         220,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $220,000 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 $3,400.

            vocational rehabilitation loans program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program     Administrative
                                              account        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000....................         $57,000         415,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................          52,000         432,000
House allowance.........................          52,000         432,000
Committee recommendation................          52,000         432,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $841 
(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 $52,000 for program costs 
and $432,000 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 $2,726,000. It is estimated 
that VA will make 4,700 loans in fiscal year 2001, with an 
average amount of $580.

          native american veteran housing loan program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

                                                          Administrative
                                                                expenses

Appropriations, 2000....................................        $520,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................         532,000
House allowance.........................................         532,000
Committee recommendation................................         532,000

                          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 $532,000 for 
administrative expenses associated with this program in fiscal 
year 2001. These funds may be transferred to the ``General 
operating expenses'' account.

  GUARANTEED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOANS FOR HOMELESS VETERANS PROGRAM 
                                ACCOUNT

                     (including transfer of funds)

                          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

    All funds authorized for this program have been 
appropriated. Therefore, additional appropriations are not 
required. Administrative expenses of the program, estimated at 
$750,000 for fiscal year 2001, will be borne by the ``Medical 
care'' and ``General operating expenses'' appropriations.

                     Veterans Health Administration


                              MEDICAL CARE

Appropriations, 2000.................................... $18,926,481,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................  20,281,587,000
House allowance.........................................  20,281,587,000
Committee recommendation................................  20,281,587,000

                          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, 134 nursing homes, 
and 829 outpatient clinics which includes independent, 
satellite, community-based, and rural outreach clinics.
    This appropriation provides for medical care and treatment 
of eligible beneficiaries in VA 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 $20,281,587,000 for VA medical 
care, an increase of $1,355,106,000 over the fiscal year 2000 
enacted level. In addition, VA has authority to retain co-
payments and third-party collections, estimated by the 
Congressional Budget Office to total $639,000,000 in fiscal 
year 2001. Therefore, the Committee's recommendation represents 
total resources for medical care of $20,920,587,000.
    The Committee continues to be highly supportive of efforts 
within the Veterans Health Administration to improve the 
access, quality and availability of medical services to 
veterans, and increase the numbers of patients served. The 
Committee is concerned, however, about the lack of 
accountability within VA for its budget. While the Congress 
increased VA medical care by $1,700,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 
over the prior year and over the President's request, VA is 
spending far less in a variety of areas than originally 
projected. These include hepatitis C, substance abuse, and 
post-traumatic stress disorder to name a few. Data system 
deficiencies and the lack of standardization are major 
contributing factors. As a result, the Committee has been left 
with insufficient information to analyze whether VA is 
utilizing its funds appropriately and consistent with 
congressional intent. The Committee will be considering how to 
address this concern in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation, 
including whether a new and more prescriptive account structure 
is appropriate. In the meantime, the Committee has requested VA 
to report on a quarterly basis on spending in key program 
areas, including explanations for variances from original 
projections. In addition, VA is to report within 60 days of 
enactment on its efforts to improve comprehensively its data 
systems' reliability, accuracy, and consistency. The Committee 
also expects the fiscal year 2002 budget justification to 
include estimates for all national programs, projects and 
initiatives totaling $5,000,000 or more.
    The Committee has a number of specific concerns with VA's 
budget and related issues detailed below.
    Hepatitis C.--The Committee is concerned that the 
Department may be giving insufficient attention to hepatitis C, 
an epidemic deserving special consideration in the veteran 
population, particularly among Vietnam-era veterans. For fiscal 
year 2000, VA medical facilities are spending less than 
original projections. It is unclear whether this is due to 
fewer patients being suitable for new treatment therapies, or 
whether hospitals are not aggressively screening for hepatitis 
C and prescribing medications owing to cost concerns. The 
Committee expects VA will do more to ensure that its medical 
facilities consistently make testing for hepatitis C broadly 
available to veterans, and use all available therapies in the 
most clinically appropriate and cost-effective manner. In 
addition, the Committee expects VA to report within 60 days of 
enactment of this Act on final fiscal year 2000 expenditures 
including a full accounting for the discrepancy between this 
amount and original estimates of $250,000,000. VA estimates it 
will spend $340,000,000 in fiscal year 2001; should VA's 
expenditures deviate significantly from this estimate the 
Committee expects a detailed explanation. Finally, the 
Committee expects VA to establish expeditiously performance 
goals for the hepatitis C initiative, to be included in the 
fiscal year 2002 budget request.
    Management efficiencies/best practices.--The Committee 
notes there continue to be many opportunities for VHA to 
redirect dollars from inefficient practices to medical services 
for veterans, such as centralizing food production. The 
Committee is concerned VA may not be doing enough to ensure 
that ``best practices'' are institutionalized throughout the VA 
system. VA is to report concurrent with the submission of the 
operating plan for fiscal year 2001 on its efforts to implement 
additional management efficiencies, including instituting on a 
national basis best practices.
    Improving access.--In some areas of the country veterans 
have waited as long as 6 months to see a primary care doctor; 
this is unacceptable. In addition, the Committee is concerned 
about reports from women veterans that women are experiencing 
longer waiting times than male veterans. VA has given special 
attention to improving access in its fiscal year 2001 budget 
proposal and the Committee supports VA's efforts, including 
reducing waiting times for appointments and providing care to 
veterans closer to their homes. The Committee is concerned, 
however, that without accurate and reliable waiting time data, 
VA does not have an adequate picture of the waiting time 
problem, it will be unable to determine how best to allocate 
funds to reduce waiting times, and it will be unable to assess 
its success without baseline data. The Committee expects VA 
will implement appropriate reporting systems so VA facility 
performance can be baselined and progress measured. VA is to 
report by April 1, 2001, on how it will collect accurate and 
reliable data on waiting times, and its efforts to reduce 
waiting times with special attention to areas which have had 
particularly egregious problems with waiting times.
    The Committee is aware that veterans living in rural 
communities on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska must travel as 
much as 8 hours round-trip along an avalanche-prone road to 
receive VA medical care. The Committee directs VA to report by 
March 30, 2001, on its progress in establishing a community-
based outpatient clinic (CBOC) on the Kenai Peninsula, and 
expects the CBOC to be operational in fiscal year 2001. In the 
meantime, VA should enable veterans living in areas further 
than a 50-mile radius of Anchorage to use contract care from 
local physicians.
    The Committee is pleased VA has recognized the need for 
community-based outpatient clinics in Beaufort, Sumter, and 
Orangeburg, SC to improve services to over 100,000 veterans in 
12 counties. The Committee encourages VA to operationalize 
these clinics expeditiously.
    The Committee is aware of needs for CBOC's in the North-
central Virginia area which includes the counties of Caroline, 
Stafford, Spotsylvania, Culpeper, King George and the City of 
Fredricksburg, and encourages VA to meet these needs 
expeditiously.
    The Committee urges VA to partner with Northeast 
Mississippi Health Care, Incorporated, the existing HHS-funded 
Community Health Center in Byhalia, MS, for a demonstration 
project to provide cost-effective outpatient primary and 
preventative health care services for area veterans in their 
home community.
    Patient Safety.--The Committee supports VA's efforts to 
improve patient safety, for which VA has budgeted $137,000,000. 
VA has developed some promising patient safety initiatives, 
such as a barcoding system for blood and medications. However, 
far more needs to be done to ensure patient safety. The 
Committee expects VA to make a priority of patient safety not 
only within its own facilities, but also with its health-care 
contractors. The lack of medical error reporting by VA 
contractors makes it difficult to evaluate the care provided 
and compare the care to that provided in VA facilities. VA is 
to report within 90 days of enactment of this Act on its 
progress in patient safety, including a description of how it 
will ensure appropriate patient safety measures are implemented 
by facilities it contracts with for medical care.
    Homeless veterans.--It is estimated there are 250,000 
homeless veterans nationwide on any given night, and more than 
one-third of the homeless population are veterans. The 
Committee believes meeting the needs of homeless veterans 
should be a high priority within VA, yet the level of attention 
this problem is given varies widely from one hospital to the 
next. The Committee directs VA to submit a report within 120 
days of enactment of this Act, describing by each medical 
center its staffing and funding levels for homeless programs, 
the services provided, and plans to ensure the needs of 
homeless veterans in their catchment area are met.
    Collections.--The Committee continues to be concerned that 
VA's collections efforts fall short of the mark. In November 
1999, VA reported that ``the Office of Revenue has determined 
that it is appropriate and timely to consider contracting-out 
some or all of its ``third-party/first-party'' revenue-
generating processes to improve collections and make the 
process as efficient as possible.'' An outsourcing business 
plan was developed which involves centralizing certain 
processes at the VISN level and pilot-testing contract and 
franchising options for central revenue units. The Committee 
believes these steps are long overdue and urges the Department 
to move forward expeditiously to implement the outsourcing 
business plan. VA is to provide a report within 90 days of 
enactment of this Act on its progress.
    Nurse Pay.--VA has included $63,500,000 in its budget for 
nurse pay increases, and the Committee expects VA to allocate 
such funds to ensure all nurses receive pay raises in fiscal 
year 2001 in the absence of legislative changes to the Nurse 
Pay Act. The Committee believes it is unacceptable that in 
certain locations, there have been no pay increases for nurses 
for several consecutive years. VA is currently assessing the 
issues and difficulties involved in administering locality pay; 
the Committee looks forward to receiving VA's report to 
Congress in early 2001 on its findings and recommendations.
    Physician Assistants.--The Committee recognizes the 
contributions of Physician Assistants to the veterans health 
care system and is aware that no formal representation for 
Physician Assistants exists within VHA. VHA is urged to 
establish the position of Advisor on Physician Assistants, to 
be occupied by a certified practicing Physician Assistant.
    VERA.--The Committee supports the core principles 
underlying the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) 
system--that VA health care funds should be allocated fairly 
according to the number of veterans having the highest priority 
for health care, and aligning resources according to the best 
practices in health care. At the same time, however, the 
Committee believes that when any VISN experiences an operating 
shortfall that would threaten its ability to serve eligible 
veterans, and VHA has determined that the VISN has implemented 
all appropriate economies and efficiencies, VHA should consider 
strongly supplemental allocations to that VISN. To that end, 
the Committee urges VA to ensure that it reserves sufficient 
funds to meet the operating need of those VISNs that may 
require supplemental funding during the year.
    VERA Study.--Questions have been raised as to whether VERA 
may lead to a distribution of funds that does not adequately 
cover the special needs of some veterans. To investigate the 
progress of this funding allocation method, the Committee 
directs the Department to enter into a contract with a 
federally-funded research and development center to carry out a 
study of the VERA formula no later than 60 days after enactment 
of this bill. This study should include the following: (1) an 
assessment of the impact of the allocation of funds under the 
VERA formula, particularly in Veterans Integrated Service 
Networks (VISNs) and subregions receiving reduced funding under 
the formula, on the maintenance of older-than-average medical 
facilities and medical infrastructure, including facilities 
designated as historic landmarks; VISNs with populations of 
enrolled veterans who are older and more disabled than the 
average population of enrolled veterans; VISNs undergoing major 
consolidation with significant attendant costs; backlogs and 
waiting periods for appointments for veterans health care in 
rural and urban subregions; (2) an assessment of issues 
associated with the maintenance of direct affiliations between 
Department of Veterans Affairs medical center and university 
teaching and research hospitals, including the costs and other 
requirements associated with maintaining such affiliations; 
whether the VERA formula takes such affiliations into account 
in allocating funds; and the role of state-of-the-art equipment 
in maintaining such affiliations including the necessity of 
such equipment for such affiliations and the need for training 
associated with such equipment; (3) an assessment of whether 
the VERA formula accounts for differences in weather conditions 
when calculating costs of construction and maintenance of 
health care facilities and whether VISNs which experience harsh 
weather require more resources for the delivery of health care 
than regions which experience less harsh weather. VA should 
consider and incorporate any existing studies which have been 
conducted to date on these issues. The VA shall report to the 
Committee on the results of this study no later than May 1, 
2001.
    Mentally ill veterans.--The Committee expects VA to 
maintain adequate capacity for mentally ill veterans, including 
substance abuse treatment services. In addition, the Committee 
directs VA to produce a report within 180 days of enactment of 
this Act regarding the number of medical errors and adverse 
events involving people with a mental illness for each VA 
facility and CBOC. The report should include the number of 
veterans who commit suicide within 30 days of being under any 
type of VHA care, and a comparison with private sector 
statistics.
    Alcohol and mental health care in Alaska.--The Committee 
has learned there is only one staff member in the Anchorage 
Veterans Center to handle all alcohol and mental health cases 
in the entire State of Alaska. The Committee considers this 
inadequate to handle the caseload in a State which has the 
highest incidence of alcoholism in the entire country and is 
one-fifth the size of the Continental United States. Therefore, 
the Committee expects VA will provide additional staff to the 
Anchorage center for alcohol and mental health treatment. In 
addition, the Committee encourages VA to establish an alcohol 
detoxification and treatment facility in Anchorage so that 
Alaska veterans are not forced to travel to Washington State 
for such services.
    Contractor overpayments.--In last year's bill, the 
Committee provided VA the authority to use a contractor to 
collect overpayments made to non-VA medical facilities for care 
provided to veterans. Under this new authority VA could keep 
the money collected, less a percentage paid to the contractor, 
and use it in the VISN in which it was collected to enhance 
health care programs. The Committee understands VA is nearly 
ready to release a nationwide solicitation for these services. 
During this past year a program has been implemented in several 
sites to test the idea and it appears this program could be 
very successful in recapturing overpayments. However, there are 
a few challenges that need to be overcome in order for VA to 
maximize recoveries. The contractor does not have access to 
complete medical records or claims payment history. This lack 
of data impacts the ability to optimize collections. Therefore, 
the Committee directs VA to provide that access in a timely way 
as a part of any local or nationwide recovery audit program. 
Giving the contractor direct access to information in the 
Austin Automation Center will facilitate this process for 
claims payment.
    Fee-Basis Cost Containment Pilot.--In last year's report, 
the Committee directed VA to conduct a pilot program of managed 
care services, using credentialed providers, in up to four 
VISNs, for patients receiving care outside of VA medical 
facilities (fee-basis care). The Committee urges the VA to 
implement immediately this program in four VISNs. Considering 
the significant need to conserve scarce resources, ensure 
patient quality care and recapture workload appropriately, the 
Committee is interested in comparing the results of this pilot 
to the way VA currently runs the various Fee and Contract Care 
programs. The Committee requests that the VA provide the 
Committee their plans for moving ahead with this program before 
the end of the calendar year for Committee review and comment.
    Drug costs.--The Committee notes recent GAO testimony 
identified additional opportunities for VA to reduce 
pharmaceutical costs through joint national contracts with the 
Department of Defense. The Committee directs VA to report, 
within 60 days of enactment of this Act, on its efforts and 
long-term strategy to reduce further its pharmaceutical costs 
and increase wherever possible joint national contracts with 
DOD.
    Tripler Joint Venture Demonstration.--The recent colocation 
of VA and DOD healthcare facilities at Tripler Army Medical 
Center offers significant opportunities to provide high quality 
care to Federal beneficiaries residing in Hawaii and vast 
Pacific region through the creation of a truly integrated and 
seamless healthcare delivery system. To accomplish this, the 
Committee urges VA and DOD to establish formally a joint 
venture demonstration project at Tripler. Moreover, adequate 
resources should be provided by VA to VAMROC Honolulu to 
support reinvention projects and to allow continued and 
expanded VA participation of the recently established Hawaii 
Federal Healthcare Partnership. The Committee requests a plan 
and progress report for the joint venture demonstration project 
by March 1, 2002.
    Web-enabled technology.--The Committee is aware of the 
potential for web-enabled technology to improve coordination 
and delivery of medical care, while also reducing transaction 
costs associated with traditional care delivery mechanisms, and 
encourages VA to conduct evaluations of e-health tools.
    Veterans Health Care Buying Cooperative Pilot.--The 
Committee encourages VA to establish a pilot health care 
demonstration program in New Hampshire involving the 
development of a VHA-sponsored preferred provider network in 
rural and semi-rural areas. The pilot would seek to improve 
access to care for veterans, achieve cost savings, and 
stimulate the sharing of health care resources between VHA and 
non-VHA providers in rural settings.
    Joslin Vision Network.--The Committee supports the 
expansion of the Joslin Vision Network to additional pilot 
sites in fiscal year 2001. This program will benefit diabetic 
patients by offering improved quality of care through increased 
access to the highest quality medical expertise and education, 
and will reduce costs. Estimated costs for fiscal year 2001 are 
$5,000,000.
    Advanced digital retinal imaging.--The Committee notes that 
the use of advanced digital retinal imaging by primary care 
physicians in the evaluation of persons with diabetes to 
improve early detection of diabetic retinopathy appears 
promising. This technology is currently being demonstrated at 
the Oklahoma City VAMC. After evaluating the efficacy, safety, 
value and compatibility of this technology with existing 
systems in use, VA is encouraged to consider expanding the 
demonstration of this technology to additional VA medical 
centers.
    Health Promotion Centers.--The Committee supports VA's 
efforts to collaborate with the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention in the area of population-based health promotion and 
disease prevention.
    Clarksburg/Ruby Memorial demonstration.--The Committee 
supports continuation at current levels ($2,000,000) of the 
Clarksburg VAMC/Ruby Memorial hospital demonstration project.
    Pacific Telemedicine Project.--The Committee continues to 
support the development and feasibility analysis of a VA 
Pacific Telemedicine Project at the Hawaii VAMROC, which will 
enhance and improve the availability and access to health care 
for veterans in Hawaii. The Committee directs VA to report 
within 90 days of enactment of this Act on its plans to proceed 
with this project.
    Post-doctoral training program.--The Committee continues to 
support the VHA's efforts to strengthen their psychology post-
doctoral training program. The Committee awaits the progress 
report that will include the number of training slots for 
psychologists and their location. The Committee also has an 
interest in the progress being made in interdisciplinary 
training programs.
    Distance learning project for nurses.--The Committee is 
pleased with the success of the VA/DOD distance learning 
program. The Committee strongly recommends that the VA and DOD 
continue the distance learning project designed to transition 
clinical nurse specialists into roles as adult nurse 
practitioners.
    Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence.--Approximately 
22,000 veterans nationwide have multiple sclerosis. While 
multiple sclerosis care in VHA is not well-coordinated, there 
is a strong community of clinicians with specialized knowledge 
and expertise in the treatment of MS. To coordinate the 
application of this rich resource, the Committee urges VA to 
establish two Centers of Excellence in research, education and 
clinical treatment of multiple sclerosis.
    Motorized wheelchair demonstration.--The Committee urges VA 
to conduct a demonstration project to assess the impact on 
vocational rehabilitation and the ability of veterans with 
physical disabilities to return to work, of a newly developed 
technology that enables persons with mobility impairments to 
traverse virtually all terrain and climb stairs and curbs 
without assistance. The Research and Development Office's 
Rehabilitation Research and Cooperative Studies Services should 
be involved in such an effort.
    Rural Veterans Health Care Initiative.--The Committee 
expects continuation at the current level of the Rural Veterans 
Health Care Initiative at White River Junction, VT VAMC.
    Other Issues.--The Committee urges VA to support a clinical 
guidelines demonstration project, which could improve the 
quality of patient care.
    The Committee notes that the National Center for Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is an internationally 
recognized leader in PTSD research. Given the similarities 
between PTSD and various types of trauma suffered by women and 
children, the Committee encourages the National Center to 
expand its research into the effects of PTSD on women and 
children, particularly the families of veterans and the victims 
of violence.
    The Committee urges the VA to study the feasibility of 
utilizing remote telemedicine-video/audio technologies in 
conjunction with data capture, data analysis and embedded 
algorithm-driven decision support for VA patients in intensive 
care units.
    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 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.
    The Committee has included bill language delaying the 
availability until August 1, 2001, of $900,000,000 in the 
equipment, lands, and structures object classifications.
    The Committee has included bill language to make available 
through September 30, 2002, up to $500,000,000 of the medical 
care appropriation. This provides flexibility to the Department 
as it continues to implement significant program changes. The 
Committee notes VA expects to carry over $79,000,000 from 
fiscal year 2000 2-year funds.

                    medical and prosthetic research

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $321,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     321,000,000
House allowance.........................................     351,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     331,000,000

                          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 $331,000,000 for medical and 
prosthetic research, an increase of $10,000,000 above the 
budget request and the fiscal year 2000 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.
    Amid reports that some VA medical centers continue to 
discourage investigators from pursuing research and career 
development grants, the Committee urges VA to extend at least 
through fiscal year 2001 the expiration date of new policy 
designed to ensure that VERA research funds are used to 
maximize medical center support for the research program. The 
Committee believes more time is needed to evaluate whether this 
policy will provide physician-investigators with designated 
time sufficient to conduct research and appropriate 
infrastructure support.
    The Committee directs VHA to explore the feasibility of 
establishing a Nursing Research Program that would enable 
nurses to conduct research that focuses on the specific health 
care needs of aging veterans. Such a program would enhance 
nursing practice and target specific health promotion, disease 
prevention, and disease management efforts to this community.
    The Committee urges VA to provide adequate funding for 
Hepatitis C research, in such critical areas as the role of 
combat exposure in transmission of Hepatitis C.
    Recent research has documented the link between 
neurofibromatosis (NF) and cancer, brain tumors, and heart 
disease. In view this link, which suggests that research on NF 
could benefit a vast segment of the veteran population, the 
Committee encourages VA to increase its NF research portfolio, 
in addition to continuing to collaborate with other Federal 
agencies. In addition, the Committee requests that VA be 
prepared to describe its efforts toward this end at its fiscal 
year 2002 appropriations hearing.
    The Committee encourages VHA to expand its research 
portfolio on lymphoid malignancies. Recent studies prove that 
veterans exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War have an 
increased risk of contracting lymphoid malignancies. The 
Institute of Medicine's review committee on Agent Orange has 
also found an association between Agent Orange and the 
development of lymphoid malignancies.

      medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $59,703,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      64,884,000
House allowance.........................................      62,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      62,000,000

                          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 $62,000,000 for medical 
administration and miscellaneous operating expenses, an 
increase of $2,297,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level. The decrease of $2,884,000 is a general reduction, to be 
taken subject to normally reprogramming guidelines. The amount 
recommended should be sufficient to maintain on-board staff.
    Last year a reimbursement process between VHA, NCA, and VBA 
for project technical and consulting services to be provided by 
the Facilities Management Service Delivery Office was 
established. The estimated level of reimbursement to the MAMOE 
account in fiscal year 2001 for facilities management support 
is $7,200,000.

                      Departmental Administration


                       general operating expenses

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $912,594,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   1,061,854,000
House allowance.........................................   1,006,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,050,000,000

                          program description

    This appropriation provides for the administration of 
nonmedical veterans benefits through the Veterans Benefits 
Administration [VBA], the executive direction of the 
Department, several top level supporting offices, of the Board 
of Contract Appeals, and the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $1,050,000,000 for general 
operating expenses, an increase of $137,406,000 above the 
fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The amount provided includes 
$826,488,000 for the Veterans Benefits Administration and 
$223,512,000 for general administration. In addition to this 
appropriation, resources are made available for general 
operating expenses through reimbursements totaling $296,717,000 
for fiscal year 2001, with total estimated obligations of 
approximately $1,346,717,000.
    Bill language is recommended, as proposed by the 
administration, reflecting a one-time adjustment of $30,000,000 
from the ``Readjustment benefits'' account to GOE. This will 
allow all administrative vocational rehabilitation services, 
including contractual services, to be funded out of GOE.
    Bill language is included making available $45,000,000 of 
the GOE appropriation for 2 years.
    The reduction of $3,000,000 below the budget request within 
general administration is to be taken from offices slated for 
significant personnel increases under the budget request. 
Within VBA, the decrease of $8,854,000 below the President's 
request is to be taken from lower priority initiatives other 
than staffing. VBA's budget proposal includes a total of 
$60,288,000 in non-payroll initiatives, compared to fiscal year 
2000 VBA nonpayroll initiatives budget of $34,030,000.
    The Committee remains very troubled by the lack of progress 
within the Veterans Benefits Administration in improving the 
timeliness and quality of processing for disability 
compensation claims. In fiscal year 1999, the time it took to 
process an original disability claim worsened from the year 
before, growing from 168 days in 1998 to 205 days in 1999 with 
only marginal improvements in the quality of decision-making. 
The number of rating cases pending over 180 days increased from 
about 27 percent of the total ``backlog'' in July 1999 to 32 
percent in March 2000.
    Recently the General Accounting Office found that ``VBA has 
not systematically evaluated regional office practices to 
identify best practices that hold the most promise for 
improving the claims-processing performance of regional offices 
across the nation. VBA took steps in 1997 to identify 
potentially promising practices; however it has neither 
followed up on this effort nor developed a system for 
evaluating promising practices and disseminating the results to 
regional offices.'' The Committee expects VBA to follow 
expeditiously GAO's recommendation outlined in its report (GAO/
HEHS-00-65) to establish timeframes for developing and 
implementing a formal plan for evaluating and disseminating 
information on practices that hold promise for improving the 
abysmal performance of VBA regional offices.
    Numerous recommendations made in prior years for improving 
the claims processing system by organizations such as the 
National Academy of Public Administration have not been fully 
implemented. Regional offices, while having been grouped into 
service delivery networks, continue to operate generally as 58 
fairly autonomous regional offices, not closely aligned to 
headquarters. The Committee believes one step in improving 
performance and accountability would be to ensure that 
headquarters exercises line authority over the field.
    The Committee directs VBA to report on (1) its efforts to 
evaluate and disseminate best management practices; (2) how it 
is establishing better accountability between headquarters and 
the field including giving headquarters line authority over the 
field; (3) an evaluation of the progress being made on each 
electronic initiative; and (4) the progress each regional 
office is making in improving the timeliness and quality in 
disability claims processing. The report is due concurrent with 
VA's submission of the fiscal year 2001 operating plan.
    The Committee encourages VBA to explore new technologies, 
especially medical couplers, which could improve the efficiency 
and accuracy of the process.
    The Committee is aware of the hardship encountered by 
Alaska veterans who need the services of a Decision Review 
Officer, and must travel 5,000 or more miles round trip to 
Seattle to obtain these services. The Committee believes VA 
should establish a Decision Review Officer in Anchorage.
    The Committee is aware of reports of discrimination within 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Information and 
Technology and the Washington Regional Office of the Department 
of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Committee is extremely troubled 
by the serious nature of these allegations. The Committee is 
aware that VA's Office of Resolution Management is currently 
investigating the allegations raised. The Committee is further 
aware that a Task Force has been established to investigate 
discrimination complaints within the VA departments in 
question. The Committee strongly supports these steps, and 
directs the Department to provide all necessary resources to 
resolve the outstanding allegations. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to report back to the Committee with its findings and 
recommendations no later than December 15, 2000.
    The Committee notes that between September 15, 1981 and 
September 23, 1996 certain veterans who received separation pay 
and later repaid it so they could receive veterans disability 
compensation may have been unfairly penalized because of their 
inability to recover the Federal income taxes on the separation 
pay that was returned to the Federal Government. In view of 
this, the Committee directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
and the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress by September 
30, 2001 on remedies which may correct this penalty, and which 
might include the return of tax paid on separation pay that was 
returned to the Government. The report shall include the 
following: (1) the number of veterans who received separation 
pay during the period September 15, 1981, and ending September 
23, 1996, paid taxes on the pay, but were never able to recover 
the Federal taxes paid on the separation pay after the pay was 
returned; (2) the aggregate amount of income tax paid by 
veterans during this period on the separation pay; (3) the 
aggregate amount of separation recouped by the Federal 
Government during this period; (4) a description and assessment 
of various remedies available for compensating the veterans 
during this period, including joint remedies of the Secretaries 
as to the most appropriate remedy; and (5) if the 
recommendation of the Secretaries is the repayment to such 
veterans of the income taxes paid by veterans on separation 
pay, an estimate of the aggregate amount that would be 
repayable as a result of implementation of the recommendation.
    The Committee recommends the current level of $25,000 for 
official reception and representation expenses.

                    national cemetery administration

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $97,256,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     109,889,000
House allowance.........................................     106,889,000
Committee recommendation................................     109,889,000

                          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 $109,889,000 for the National 
Cemetery Administration. This is an increase of $12,633,000 
over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same as the 
budget request.
    The increase above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level will 
fund 47 additional FTE, for a total of 1,453. This will allow 
for growth in cemeterial interment workloads, an increased 
level of contracting to address deferred maintenance needs, and 
additional supplies and equipment to maintain increased 
gravesites.
    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, 2000....................................     $43,200,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      46,464,000
House allowance.........................................      46,464,000
Committee recommendation................................      46,464,000

                          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 $46,464,000 
for the inspector general. This is an increase of $3,264,000 
above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
    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, 2000....................................     $65,140,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      62,140,000
House allowance.........................................      62,140,000
Committee recommendation................................      48,540,000

                          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 $48,540,000 
for construction, major projects, a decrease of $13,600,000 
below the budget request and the House allowance.
    The following table compares the Committee recommendation 
with the budget request.

                                          CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Available
                 Location and description                    through        2001        House        Committee
                                                               2000       Request     allowance   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Program:
    Seismic corrections: Palo Alto, CA...................  ...........       26,600       26,600  ..............
    Beckley, WV nursing home care unit...................  ...........  ...........  ...........          1,000
    Advance planning fund: Various stations..............  ...........       14,500       14,500         14,500
    Asbestos abatement: Various stations.................  ...........        2,025        2,025          2,025
    Less: Design fund....................................  ...........       -1,330       -1,330  ..............
    Less: Working reserve................................  ...........  ...........  ...........         -1,735
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................................  ...........       41,795       41,795         15,790
                                                          ======================================================
Veterans Benefits Administration: Advance planning fund..  ...........          250          250            250
National Cemetery Administration:
    Fort Logan National Cemetery gravesite development...  ...........       16,100       16,100         16,100
    Oklahoma National Cemetery...........................        1,400  ...........  ...........         12,000
    Pittsburgh National Cemetery.........................          125  ...........  ...........          1,000
    Advance planning fund: Various stations..............  ...........        2,500        2,500          2,500
    Design fund..........................................  ...........        1,600        1,600          1,600
    Less: Design fund....................................  ...........         -805         -805         -1,400
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...........................................  ...........       19,395       19,395         31,800
                                                          ======================================================
Claims Analyses: Various stations........................  ...........          700          700            700
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Total construction, major projects.................  ...........       62,140       62,140         48,540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee has included $12,000,000 for the construction 
of the Oklahoma national cemetery, and $1,000,000 for 
additional planning and design activities for a new national 
cemetery in Pittsburgh, PA. Initial funding for the Pittsburgh 
project was provided in fiscal year 2000.
    The recommendation includes $10,000,000 in advance planning 
funds for VA implementation of the Capital Asset Realignment 
for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative. GAO has estimated 
that VA spends $1,000,000 a day to maintain excess capacity. 
Therefore, it is critical that VA begin the process of 
assessing its infrastructure needs in each of its ``markets'' 
and take steps necessary to sell, transfer or exchange 
underutilized properties. This will enable VA to maximize VA 
medical care funds for health care services for veterans, 
rather than maintaining unused buildings. The Committee is 
concerned VA did not act expeditiously in developing the CARES 
protocol and awarding the funding provided in fiscal year 2000 
for CARES. The Committee expects VA to give this program top 
priority, assess the contractor-developed options for each 
market based on absolute and discriminating criteria as 
recommended by GAO, and award the funds recommended herein 
expeditiously for additional market studies.
    The Committee has not recommended funds for the Palo Alto 
nursing home care unit, or other major construction medical 
project funding, as the Committee supports all such projects 
proceeding only upon CARES validation.
    The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the design of a 
nursing home care unit at the Beckley, WV VAMC. The Committee 
expects that the project will be reviewed as part of the CARES 
process for VISN 6. Construction funds will be recommended upon 
VA's confirmation that the project is consistent with the VISN 
strategic plan which emerges from the CARES process.
    The Committee supports VA's efforts to explore new uses for 
the Miles City, MT VA facility, which has extensive excess 
capacity, and expects VA to keep it apprised of its activities 
in this area.
    The Committee notes that funding of $2,000,000 is included 
for the master planning and design development activities for 
the development of national cemeteries in Atlanta, GA; Detroit, 
MI; Miami, FL; and Sacramento, CA.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $160,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     162,000,000
House allowance.........................................     100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     162,000,000

                          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 $162,000,000 for minor 
construction, the same as the budget request and $2,000,000 
above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
    The Committee expects that VA will review and approve all 
minor construction projects in a manner that is consistent with 
the process applied by the Capital Investment Board which 
reviews major projects, and consistent with the Capital Asset 
Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative. A central 
office work group, consisting of both VHA and other department 
officials, is to review all minor projects using criteria 
consistent with those developed for CARES. If total costs of 
projects being initiated at any facility exceeds $4,000,000, 
the recommendations of the work group must be approved by the 
Deputy Secretary.
    In that vein, the Committee has no objection to VHA 
proceeding with the design of a series of projects at the West 
Roxbury and Boston, MA VA facilities which will facilitate the 
integration of services at the VA Boston Healthcare System. 
However, until a CARES contractor reviews the projects to 
evaluate whether they are consistent with the future mission of 
the VISN envisioned by the CARES evaluation, no construction 
funds are to be awarded.
    The Committee directs the Department to expend 
expeditiously remaining funds previously appropriated in Public 
Law 103-211 to repair the earthquake-damaged gymnasium on the 
VAMC campus in Sepulveda, California.

                         parking revolving fund


                          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 2001.

       grants for construction of state extended care facilities

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $90,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      60,000,000
House allowance.........................................      90,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     100,000,000

                          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 $100,000,000 for grants for the 
construction of State extended care facilities, an increase of 
$10,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, and an 
increase of $40,000,000 above the budget request. This program 
cost-effectively meets long-term health care needs of veterans. 
The Committee notes the need for State home beds is expected to 
double by the year 2010, and there is a backlog of $150,000,000 
in priority one projects.
    The Committee is aware that Alaska has one of the nation's 
largest veteran populations per capita but is one of only three 
States without a State veterans home. VA should work with the 
Alaska State Department of Military and Veterans Affairs to 
assess the most cost-effective means of providing a State 
veterans home, including leasing existing facilities; 
contracting with existing nursing home providers; repair, 
upgrade or rehabilitation of existing facilities; and new 
construction. VA, together with the State of Alaska should 
report back to the Committee on its joint recommendation 
including possible costs no later than March 1, 2001.

       grants for the construction of state veterans' cemeteries

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      25,000,000
House allowance.........................................      25,000,000
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 2001, 
the same as the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the budget 
request. This amount is estimated to be sufficient to meet all 
fiscal year 2001 State cemetery grant applications.

                       administrative provisions

    The Committee has included eight 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 
$36,520,000 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. In addition, $2,022,000 is assumed in 
``General operating expenses'' for these activities.
    A new administrative provision is included which requires 
receipts collected under the Millennium Act to be maintained in 
the collections funds subject to appropriations.
    The Committee has included a provision authorizing the 
transfer of up to $1,200,000 from the ``Medical care'' account 
to general operating expenses to fund contracts and services in 
support of VBA's Benefits Delivery Center, Systems Development 
Center, and Finance Center located on the Hines VAMC campus. 
Future budget requests for these activities should be included 
in general operating expenses.
    In view of a recent General Counsel opinion which found 
that the Parking Revolving Fund is the exclusive funding source 
for surface parking lot projects, a provision has been included 
authorizing the transfer of funds from the ``Construction, 
minor projects'' and ``Medical care'' accounts. In its budget 
request, the Department included funds in these accounts 
totaling $6,500,000 for surface parking lot projects.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2000.................................... $25,860,183,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................  32,458,550,000
House allowance.........................................  29,980,030,000
Committee recommendation................................  30,633,726,000

                          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 for fiscal year 2001 an 
appropriation of $30,633,726,000 for the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. This is an increase of $4,754,778,000 
above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.

                        housing certificate fund

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

Appropriations, 2000.................................\1\ $11,304,420,000
Budget estimate, 2001.................................\2\ 14,127,824,000
House allowance.......................................\2\ 13,275,388,000
Committee recommendation..............................\2\ 13,171,400,000

\1\ Includes an advance appropriation of $4,200,000,000 for fiscal year 
2001.
\2\ Includes an advance appropriation of $4,200,000,000 for fiscal year 
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 
$13,171,400,000, of which $13,131,400,000 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 
2001 for the months requiring section 8 assistance during 
fiscal year 2002. An additional $1,300,000,000 in recaptures, 
carryover from fiscal year 2000 also is expected to be 
available for section 8 contract renewals.
    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.
    The Committee also reiterates its continuing concern over 
HUD's accounting practices for identifying excess section 8 
contract reserves as well as excess project-based section 8 
assistance. The Department has made strides in overhauling its 
section 8 accounting systems. Nevertheless, there remains 
significant concerns over the accuracy of its section 8 
accounting. 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 2002 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.
    Moreover, the Congress and the Administration need to 
address increasing concerns 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.
    As a result, the Committee is concerned that incremental 
housing vouchers remain the cornerstone of the Administration's 
strategy to address the housing needs of low-income Americans. 
As noted, there is significant evidence in a number of recent 
utilization studies that many families are having a difficult 
time in using vouchers to find housing, especially in tight and 
low vacancy housing marketplaces. A recent survey of public 
housing agencies by the Council of Large Public Housing 
Authorities found that as many as one in five families with a 
voucher are unable to find housing in their communities. 
Finally, HUD has failed to make incremental vouchers available 
on a timely basis to low-income families. For each of the last 
2 years, it has taken most of the fiscal year to allocate and 
make the incremental vouchers available to families.
    The Committee requires HUD to fund a new housing production 
block grant program from ``excess'' section 8 funds; with this 
program effective for fiscal year 2001 only. The Committee 
believes that this nation needs to begin to face front and 
recognize the growing housing needs of very low-income 
families, especially the elderly and disabled.
    The Committee has adopted the Administration's 
recommendation to defer $4,200,000,000 in section 8 funds tied 
to fiscal year 2001 contracts with great reluctance. As with 
fiscal year 2000, this hard choice had to be made since the 
Committee had to compensate for other shortfalls generated by 
the Administration's fiscal year 2001 budget.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $2,900,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   2,955,000,000
House allowance.........................................   2,800,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,955,000,000

                          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 $2,955,000,000 
for the public housing capital fund, the same as the budget 
request and $55,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level. 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, but is provided $75,000,000 
for emergency capital needs.

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $3,138,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   3,192,000,000
House allowance.........................................   3,139,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,192,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for the payment of operating 
subsidies to some 3,050 public housing authorities (except 
Indian housing authorities) with a total of over 1.2 million 
units under management in order to augment rent payments by 
residents in order to provide sufficient revenues to meet 
reasonable operating costs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,192,000,000 
for the public housing operating fund, an increase of 
$54,000,000 over the fiscal year 2000 level and the same as the 
budget request. The Committee remains concerned about the cost 
and accuracy of public housing operating subsidies as allocated 
under the performance funding system (PFS). The PFS is an 
outdated formula that no longer provides an accurate measure of 
public housing costs and the Department is late in developing a 
new and more accurate funding formula. The Committee continues 
to be concerned that the Department has not collected adequate 
data from PHAs on operating costs to ensure that the new 
formula will provide an appropriate level of funding for PHAs. 
HUD also 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.
    The Committee remains concerned with HUD's inability to 
develop a fair and cost-effective system to assess the 
financial and physical condition of the Nation's public housing 
stock. Despite the recent efforts of the Department to revise 
its new ``Public Housing Assessment System'' or ``PHAS'', a 
number of significant programmatic and operational problems 
with the system exists. Both the General Accounting Office 
(GAO) and the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) 
have recently identified numerous problems with PHAS. In its 
July 25, 2000 report (GAO/RCED-00-168), GAO found that despite 
the results of the first round of physical inspections 
performed under PHAS which indicated that most of HUD's public 
and multifamily housing was in satisfactory condition, HUD's 
quality assurance reviews ``found that a number of these 
inspections were not carried out consistently'' with HUD's 
requirements. GAO also found that HUD's (1) processes for 
overseeing its inspection contractors have problems and (2) 
response to develop and implement formal processes for 
requesting changes in inspection scores has been slow. NAPA's 
preliminary report concluded that ``HUD's current system 
exhibits significant deficiencies'' and validated the housing 
industry's concern that ``these deficiencies result from the 
rapidity with which the system has been developed and deployed, 
and the inadequacy of consultations during the process.'' The 
Committee has also found that HUD's technological capacity 
continues to fall short of being able to handle the data it is 
designed to collect.
    The Committee is very troubled by these findings. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs HUD to delay the 
implementation of PHAS until it (1) has complied fully with the 
recommendations in GAO's July 25, 2000 report and (2) has 
demonstrated clearly to Congress that it can administer its 
reporting requirements so that housing authorities can carry 
out their responsibilities smoothly, during normal working 
hours and without undue delay. Last, the Committee is aware 
that HUD has established a PHAS Advisory Board. The Committee 
believes that HUD should carry out its stated intention to 
convene this board officially under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act and industry representation on the board should 
consist of industry group representatives as well as public 
housing authority directors. This board should examine the 
issue of inspection reliability. HUD should use the PHAS 
Advisory Board to help answer the questions of what makes up an 
acceptable inspection and what an acceptable, overall 
inspection failure rate is.
    The Committee is aware of the important role that HUD plays 
in providing housing for elderly and disabled Americans. 
However, the Committee understands that elderly and disabled 
Americans also face critical health care needs. Therefore, the 
Committee directs HUD to work with the Secretary of the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop 
strategies to expand housing-based health care for elderly and 
disabled people living in Public Housing and HUD-assisted 
multifamily housing. The Committee directs HUD and HHS to 
report to the Committee on its findings and recommendations, 
including how HUD and HHS as well as State and local health 
care providers can address these needs. Nevertheless, it is 
expected that HHS will be the lead in the provision of any 
health care assistance.

             Drug Elimination Grants for Low-Income Housing

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $310,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     345,000,000
House allowance.........................................     300,000,000
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 
$4,500,000 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 remains concerned about HUD interfering with 
local decisonmaking on the use of drug elimination grants and 
believes that the proposed Community Gun Safety and Violence 
Reduction Initiative is both unneeded and inappropriate. HUD 
has no legal authority to direct local PHAs to conduct gun buy-
back programs. Instead, PHAs have broad authority on the use of 
these funds and the Committee believes that PHAs are in the 
best position to use these funds to meet local needs in their 
efforts to maximize anti-drug and anti-crime efforts. The 
Committee directs HUD to identify in the fiscal year 2002 
budget justifications the goals of the program and the actual 
performance of the grantees in meeting the goals.

         Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing 
                               [HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $575,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     625,000,000
House allowance.........................................     565,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     575,000,000

                          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 $575,000,000 
for the ``HOPE VI'' account, $50,000,000 less than the budget 
request and the same as the fiscal year 2000 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 remains 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 remains concerned about 
the wide swing in the per unit cost of HOPE VI projects 
throughout the country as well as data that indicates a high 
cost for planning and professional services. Nevertheless, the 
Committee believes that the HOPE VI program is one of the 
better managed and administered programs within the Department 
and wishes to work with HUD in developing program reforms to 
control these costs.
    HUD also is directed to report to the Committee by May 1, 
2001 on the physical condition of elderly public housing units 
and any special approaches employed by HUD in meeting the 
physical needs of elderly public housing.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $620,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     650,000,000
House allowance.........................................     620,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     650,000,000

                          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 $650,000,000 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 believes that training and technical 
assistance in support of NAHASDA should be shared, with 
$4,000,000 to be administered by the National American Indian 
Housing Council (NAIHC) and $2,000,000 by HUD in support of the 
inspection of Indian housing units, contract expertise, 
training and technical assistance in the training, oversight, 
and management of Indian housing and tenant-based assistance. 
The Committee is very concerned by reports that HUD has not 
released any funds to NAIHC for fiscal year 2000. This is 
unacceptable, and HUD is prohibited from using any technical 
assistance until all funds have been allocated to NAIHC for 
both fiscal year 2000 and 2001.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2000....................................      $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       6,000,000
House allowance.........................................       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 2000 enacted level and the fiscal year 2001 
budget request. The Committee requests HUD to provide a status 
report on the program by June 1, 2001, 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, 2000....................................     $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      27,000,000
House allowance.........................................      20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      27,000,000

                          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 $27,000,000 for the Office of 
Rural Housing and Economic Development for fiscal year 2001 to 
support housing and economic development in rural communities 
as defined by USDA and HUD. This funding level is $2,000,000 
more than the fiscal year 2000 level and the same as the budget 
request. HUD is directed to administer this program according 
to existing regulatory requirements. It is expected that any 
changes to the program shall be made subject to notice and 
comment rulemaking.
    The Committee is aware of an audit (Rpt. 00-DE-156-0001) 
dated March 31, 2000 conducted by the Office of Inspector 
General that concluded that the Office of Native American 
Programs inappropriately awarded $6,000,000 of the funding 
available for the 1998 Rural Housing and Economic Development 
Grants program. The Committee believes that the funding of the 
award for Alaska was appropriate as the funds were explicitly 
targeted in the legislation for the rural housing and economic 
development needs of Native Alaskans. However, the $2,000,000 
grant award made to Sioux Ogala Tribe, located in Pine Ridge, 
South Dakota was made inappropriately by HUD. The legislation 
required these funds to be awarded on a competitive basis and 
the award of these funds is a clear violation of the law. The 
Committee understands that the Sioux Ogala Tribe has 
substantial housing and community development needs and cannot 
afford to pay back these funds. Instead, the Committee expects 
the Secretary to refund these amounts out of the overall 
funding of the Native American Housing Block Grants program. 
The Committee also believes that the funding of the HUD 
Colonias Initiative under the Rural Housing and Economic 
Development Grants program is inappropriate. Carving out a 
portion of these funds for colonias resulted in limiting the 
ability of a number of other deserving and eligible entities to 
compete for these funds.

                   Community Planning and Development


                      community development grants

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $4,781,235,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   4,900,000,000
House allowance.........................................   4,505,000,000
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 2001. This is a reduction of $100,000,000 below the 
budget request for fiscal year 2001, but $19,235,000 above the 
fiscal year 2000 level.
    Set-asides under CDBG include $71,000,000 for native 
Americans; $3,000,000 for the Housing Assistance Council; 
$2,200,000 for the National American Indian Housing Council; 
$3,000,000 to support Alaska Native-Serving Institutions and 
Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions; $3,000,000 for 
competitive grants awarded to Tribal Colleges and Universities 
to build, expand, renovate, and equip their facilities; 
$25,000,000 for the National Community Development Initiative 
and $19,500,000 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 
$130,000,000 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:
      $500,000 for The Palace Theater for its renovation in 
        Manchester, NH;
      $300,000 for the Manchester Historic Association for the 
        restoration of the Millyard Museum in Manchester, NH;
      $500,000 for Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon 
        for construction and program activities at Bicentennial 
        Hall in Portland, Oregon;
      $500,000 for the Portland Oregon Visitors Association for 
        the Pioneer Courthouse Square Lobby Renovation project 
        in Portland, Oregon;
      $1,000,000 for the Community Action Agency of Southern 
        New Mexico, Inc., for construction of a regional food 
        bank and supporting offices; and
      $500,000 for the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, to 
        construct a permanent site for the Santa Fe Area 
        Farmers Market at the historic Santa Fe rail yard.
      $250,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Las Cruces, new 
        Mexico to upgrade existing facilities;
      $500,000 for Tatum, New Mexico to replace its community 
        center;
      $150,000 for the Bataan Death March Memorial for 
        renovations in Las Cruces, New Mexico;
      $1,000,000 for University of Idaho for the construction 
        of the Center for Science and Technology in Idaho 
        Falls, Idaho;
      $1,000,000 for the City of Salmon, Idaho for land 
        acquisition, construction, and alteration for the 
        Sacajawea Interpretive, Cultural, and Education Center;
      $500,000 for the Clearwater Economic Development 
        Association in Northern Idaho, for implementation of 
        the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Plan;
      $500,000 for Lewis-Clark State College for start-up 
        activities associated with the Idaho Virtual Incubator;
      $1,200,000 for MSU-Billings for the acquisition of a 
        College of Business facility to house economic 
        development activities;
      $1,000,000 for Billings, Montana for the completion of 
        the Billings depot project;
      $500,000 for the Jefferson County Local Development 
        Corporation in Whitehall, Montana for economic 
        development activities;
      $350,000 for the Human Resources Development council in 
        Bozeman, Montana for the restoration of a historic 
        property for community services offices;
      $300,000 for the City of Columbia falls for the 
        restructuring of the Old Main Veterans Facility;
      $1,500,000 for the City of Memphis for the construction 
        of the Stax Museum of American Soul Music in Memphis, 
        Tenn;
      $1,000,000 for the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries for 
        the purchase and renovation of a former Detroit YMCA 
        facility;
      $500,000 for Northern Initiatives to capitalize an Upper 
        Peninsula Michigan Equity Fund to assist in the 
        development of small businesses;
      $500,000 for the University of Utah for the planning and 
        design of the Museum of Science and Nature;
      $700,000 for the Covenant House Michigan for the 
        construction costs of a permanent Rights of Passage 
        facility;
      $500,000 for the City of Provo, Utah for the 
        redevelopment of the Ironton area;
      $1,000,000 for West Valley City, Utah for the 
        construction of the West Valley City Multi-Cultural 
        Community Center.
      $500,000 for the Hart Mountain Wyoming foundation for an 
        interactive learning center in Powell, Wyoming;
      $500,000 for the Vermont Rural protection Task force for 
        the purchase of equipment;
      $500,000 for the Southern Vermont Recreation Center 
        foundation in Springfield, VT;
      $500,000 for the Vermont Housing and conservation Board 
        for the development of affordable housing in Northern 
        Vermont;
      $500,000 for Marlboro College for a technology incubator 
        facility in downtown Brattleboro, VT;
      $500,000 for the Vermont Housing and conservation Board 
        for the development of affordable housing in Williston, 
        VT;
      $500,000 for the Town of Hartford, VT for the development 
        of the Railroad Row Historic District in downtown White 
        River Junction, VT;
      $500,000 for Vermont Technical College for economic 
        development in Randolph, VT;
      $250,000 for the Town of Fairfield, VT for the 
        development of the President Chester A. Arthur visitor 
        facility;
      $600,000 for the City of Montrose, Colorado for the 
        development of affordable low-income housing;
      $900,000 for the Trinity Repertory Company in providence, 
        RI for the conversion of an abandoned banking building;
      $300,000 for Upper Darby Township, PA to assist residents 
        with homes that are sinking due to soil subsidence;
      $150,000 for the Urban Redevelopment Authority of 
        Pittsburgh, PA for economic development on Pittsburgh's 
        North Shore;
      $100,000 for the City of Hazleton, PA for economic 
        development and revitalization activities;
      $750,000 for the City of Johnstown, PA for downtown 
        economic development;
      $300,000 for the City of Philadelphia, PA to assist in 
        the relocation of families in the Logan neighborhood 
        whose homes were built on an improperly filled creek 
        bed;
      $500,000 for Ford City, PA for brownfield revitalization;
      $300,000 for the City of Chester, PA for the 
        redevelopment of DeShong Park;
      $250,000 for Erie, PA for the Discovery Square museum 
        expansion;
      $500,000 for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia, PA 
        for relocation costs;
      $200,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Allentown, PA for 
        the Northern Lehigh Community Center;
      $400,000 for Allegheny County, PA for the redevelopment 
        of the Braddock-Swissvale-Rankin industrial site;
      $500,000 for the National Museum for American Jewish 
        History in Philadelphia, PA for expansion efforts;
      $500,000 for the Reading Berks Emergency Shelter in 
        Reading, PA for the construction of a transitional 
        housing facility for the homeless;
      $250,000 for the City of Lancaster, PA for the 
        development of the Lancaster Square project;
      $100,000 for Clarion County, PA for continued development 
        of Liberty Towers Senior Activities Facility;
      $250,000 for the Nueva Esperanza Community Development 
        Corporation in Philadelphia, PA for economic 
        revitalization of commercial and industrial facilities;
      $200,000 for Light of Life Ministries in Allegheny 
        County, PA for infrastructure improvements at the 
        Serenity Village homeless program;
      $250,000 for Universal Community Homes for economic 
        development activities in Philadelphia, PA;
      $250,000 for the City of Philadelphia to address the 
        safety concerns related to abandoned and structurally 
        impaired homes
      $600,000 for the City of East Providence, RI to develop 
        recreational facilities at Crescent Park;
      $300,000 for the City of State Line, Mississippi for 
        downtown infrastructure and economic revitalization;
      $1,000,000 for the City of Madison, Mississippi for the 
        renovation of the historic downtown of Madison, 
        Mississippi;
      $500,000 for Mississippi State University for the 
        renovation and expansion of facilities for the 
        Stoneville, Mississippi Research and Education Complex;
      $500,000 for the City of Canton for the establishment of 
        a State film complex;
      $2,000,000 for the rehabilitation and restoration of Cain 
        Hall on the campus of Hinds Community College in 
        Raymond, Mississippi;
      $1,200,000 for the City of Bangor, Maine for the 
        installation of steel bulkheading on the Penobscot 
        River;
      $550,000 for Vinalhaven Elder Care Services, Inc. for the 
        development of an elder care facility;
      $500,000 for the City of Dayton, Ohio for the restoration 
        of the Main Street historic district;
      $500,000 for the City of Cincinnati for the expansion of 
        Findlay Market;
      $500,000 for Cleveland Tomorrow in Cleveland, Ohio for 
        the restoration of the Euclid Beach Carousel;
      $700,000 for the Cleveland Botanical garden for the 
        development of a glass house conservatory;
      $500,000 for Skagit County for the preservation of 
        farmland in Skagit County, Washington;
      $1,000,000 for the Pacific Science Center in Seattle, 
        Washington to complete the Mercer Island Slough 
        Environmental Education Center;
      $500,000 for the Seattle Art Museum in Seattle, 
        Washington for site development;
      $500,000 for the City of Takoma, Washington for the 
        Downtown Revitalization and Shelter Improvements 
        program;
      $1,000,000 for the City of Lincoln, Nebraska for the 
        construction of the Northbridge Center for Children and 
        Youth;
      $500,000 for the Southwest Border Region Partnership for 
        an assessment of the border region's future economic 
        health;
      $250,000 for the Centro de Salud familiar La Fe in El 
        Paso, Texas for community outreach activities to assist 
        low-income families;
      $1,000,000 for the City of Houston for redevelopment 
        activities within Freedman's Town;
      $250,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Brownsville, 
        Texas for building repairs and community services;
      $250,000 for the George Gervin Youth center in San 
        Antonio for the construction of a youth center;
      $500,000 for the City of Beaumont, Texas to revitalize 
        the Charlton-Pollard neighborhood;
      $500,000 for the Lubbock Science Spectrum Museum to 
        establish a Brazos River exhibit;
      $500,000 for the Bayfront Arts and Science Park in Corpus 
        Cristi, Texas for the expansion of the park;
      $250,000 for West Texas A&M; University to develop an 
        integrated services center in Amarillo, Texas;
      $250,000 for Sam Houston State University for the 
        redevelopment of the Sam Houston Memorial Museum;
      $3,500,000 for the University of Louisville for the 
        expansion of the university's main library;
      $1,000,000 for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for the Oklahoma 
        City Murrah Revitalization project;
      $1,000,000 for the National Council on Agricultural Life 
        and Labor in Dover, Delaware for a variety of housing 
        assistance programs;
      $1,000,000 for the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa 
        Alabama for the Gorgas House Renovation Project;
      $100,000 for the Hammoundville Armory in the Town of 
        Valley Head, Valley Head, Alabama for the renovation of 
        historic facility to enhance economic development and 
        tourist activity;
      $500,000 for Monroeville, Alabama for the Monroe County 
        Courthouse Restoration Project;
      $1,000,000 for the Mobile Public Library, Mobile, Alabama 
        for the renovation of facilities as part of 
        neighborhood redevelopment project;
      $500,000 for the City of LaFayette, (Chambers County) 
        Alabama for the Chambers County Courthouse Restoration 
        Project;
      $100,000 for Union Springs, AL for the rehabilitation of 
        facilities for downtown restoration/revitalization;
      $250,000 for the Mobile Historic Development Commission 
        for the Oakleigh District Revitalization Project;
      $250,000 for the National Community College for the Deaf 
        and Blind in Talladega Alabama for the renovation of 
        facilities for development of economic education 
        program;
      $500,000 for Tuscaloosa, Alabama for the Tuscaloosa 
        Alberta City Project;
      $500,000 for the City of Brundidge, Alabama for the 
        completion of Pike County Covered Arena;
      $500,000 for the City of Mobile, Alabama for the 
        Battlehouse Restoration Project;
      $500,000 for Tennessee Valley Family Services Youth Home 
        in Guntersville, Alabama for the renovation of 
        facilities for neighborhood economic development;
      $700,000 for Kansas State Historical Society for the 
        restoration of the home of William Allen White;
      $1,000,000 for the development of the Life Center at 
        Franklin Pierce College in Ridge, NH.
      $100,000 for the Housing Partnership in Portsmouth, NH to 
        provide below market rents and to rehabilitate 
        deteriorated buildings;
      $400,000 for the Northern Forest Heritage Park in Berlin, 
        NH to develop facilities;
      $3,000,000 for the City of Meridian, Mississippi for the 
        rehabilitation of the opera house;
      $500,000 for Rowan Oak for the restoration of the home of 
        William Faulkner in Oxford, Mississippi;
      $500,000 for the George Ohr museum for the development of 
        an African-American art center;
      $500,000 for Ocean Springs, MS for the restoration of the 
        old high school administration building;
      $500,000 for Mississippi State University School of 
        Architecture in Starkville, MS for rural 
        revitalization;
      $2,500,000 for the University of Alaska for a pilot 
        training simulator;
      $450,000 for Bird TLC for the construction of Potter's 
        Marsh Conservation Center;
      $2,000,000 for Catholic Community Services for the 
        reconstruction of a homeless shelter and to acquire new 
        housing stock for battered women;
      $270,000 for the Fairbanks Hospitality House for the 
        purchase and renovation of an emergency shelter;
      $500,000 for Kids are People, Inc for a transitional 
        living program for homeless youth and an emergency 
        shelter in Wasilla, Alaska;
      $3,000,000 for the Alaska Pacific University for the 
        restoration of an historic property in Anchorage, 
        Alaska;
      $250,000 for downtown redevelopment activities in 
        Marceline, Missouri;
      $500,000 to the Ozark Action, Inc. of Missouri for low-
        income rural housing;
      $400,000 to Sedalia, Missouri for the Katy Depot 
        Restoration Project;
      $200,000 for the Bond Family Housing Center in St. Louis, 
        Missouri for the Transitional Housing Program;
      $2,000,000 for the Community Development Corporation of 
        Kansas City and Health Midwest Partners for Change for 
        the revitalization initiative on the northwest corner 
        of 63rd Street and Prospect Avenue;
      $2,000,000 for the Missouri Botanical Gardens for 
        development and revitalization activities associated 
        with McRee Town;
      $1,000,000 for Arkansas State University at Mountain 
        Home, Arkansas for the construction of a multipurpose 
        auditorium;
      $1,000,000 for the construction of the sexually 
        Transmitted Disease and HIV Prevention and Research 
        Center in Marion County, Indiana.
      $670,000 to the City of Spartanburg, South Carolina for 
        Arkwright/Forest Park revitalization;
      $670,000 to the South Carolina Association of Community 
        Development Corporations in Charleston, SC for job 
        creation, small business development and quality of 
        life improvements within the State of South Carolina;
      $660,000 to the University of South Carolina in Columbia, 
        South Carolina to enlarge the main building at the 
        University of South Carolina School of Public Health;
      $500,000 to Helping Hands Hawaii in Honolulu, Hawaii for 
        community based activities including the delivery of 
        goods and services to Hawaii's needy;
      $750,000 to Waipahu Community Association in Waipahu, 
        Hawaii for renovations and the establishment of a 
        Waipahu festival market fair;
      $500,000 to the Kauai Economic Development Board in 
        Lihue, Hawaii for site acquisition, design, 
        construction and equipment for the West Kauai 
        Technology Center;
      $250,000 to the Maui Academy of Performing Arts in 
        Puunene, Hawaii for the acquisition and renovation of 
        the facility;
      $250,000 to the Homestake Opera House in Lead, South 
        Dakota for renovation of the interior of the Homestake 
        Opera House;
      $250,000 to Cedar Youth Services in Lincoln, Nebraska to 
        complete construction of the Northbridge Center for 
        Children and Youth;
      $500,000 for the Lowell Cultural and Performing Arts 
        Downtown Initiative in Lowell, Massachusetts for 
        development of the site for the Lowell Performing Arts 
        Center;
      $500,000 to the City of Boston, Massachusetts for its 
        Main Streets Program;
      $325,000 to the City of Racine, Wisconsin for 
        construction of the Racine Root River Pathway;
      $300,000 to the City of Beloit, Wisconsin for the Beloit 
        urban renewal project;
      $300,000 to the Historic Third Ward Association in 
        Milwaukee, Wisconsin to establish a public market;
      $250,000 to Jentry-McDonald Corporation in Baltimore, 
        Maryland for capital improvements to the Jentry-
        McDonald House;
      $250,000 to the City of Takoma Park, Maryland for the 
        construction of the Takoma Park Computer Center;
      $250,000 to Montgomery County, Maryland for costs 
        associated with the Wheaton Small Business Technology 
        Center;
      $250,000 for the Central Montana Foundation to upgrade, 
        install technology, and facilitate occupancy of One 
        Stop Center in Lewistown, MT;
      $250,000 to the City of Indianapolis, Indiana for 
        infrastructure needs in the King Park homeownership 
        zone;
      $1,000,000 to the City of Belen, New Mexico for 
        construction of a community center;
      $350,000 for Rio Arriba County, NM for an environmental 
        impact statement;
      $150,000 for Cochita Pueblo, NM for the construction of a 
        community center;
      $450,000 to the City of San Francisco, California for 
        preservation and restoration of the Old Mint;
      $500,000 to Booker T. Washington Outreach, Inc. in 
        Monroe, Louisiana for construction of an Elderly Living 
        Center;
      $2,400,000 to Wheeling Jesuit University in Wheeling, 
        West Virginia for construction of a science/computer 
        center;
      $1,800,000 to the city of Hinton, West Virginia for 
        construction of a High Technology office building and 
        small business incubator;
      $250,000 to the Tubman African American Museum in Macon, 
        Georgia for construction of the Tubman African American 
        Museum;
      $250,000 to the Lemmon Area Charitable and Economic 
        Development Corporation in Lemmon, South Dakota for 
        economic development activities;
      $750,000 to the City of Fresno, California for the 
        development of the Fresno Community Health Center 
        Regional Medical Center;
      $250,000 to the City of Inglewood, California for the 
        Market Street Senior Center;
      $100,000 to the Mathilda Geppert Childcare Center in 
        Vermillion, South Dakota for development of a child day 
        care center;
      $75,000 to the City of Clark, South Dakota for 
        construction of a community childcare facility;
      $300,000 to the City of Brandon, South Dakota to 
        construct a community library;
      $1,500,000 to the City of Aberdeen, South Dakota for 
        construction of a community center;
      $500,000 to the Sioux Falls Empire Fair Association in 
        Sioux Falls, South Dakota for infrastructure 
        improvements to the W.H. Lyons Fairgrounds;
      $250,000 to the City of Redfield, South Dakota for 
        infrastructure improvement at its industrial park;
      $250,000 to Fairfield University in Fairfield, 
        Connecticut for continued construction of an 
        Information Technology Center;
      $250,000 to Prince George's County, Maryland for the 
        Prince George's County Technology Commercialization 
        Center;
      $100,000 to the American Visionary Arts Museum in 
        Baltimore, Maryland for expansion of the museum;
      $1,500,000 to the Discovery Center in Williston, North 
        Dakota for construction of a visitor center and 
        reconstruction of former barracks at Fort Buford State 
        Historic Site;
      $250,000 to the Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones in 
        North Dakota;
      $250,000 to North Dakota State University in Fargo, North 
        Dakota for development of a campus-based technology 
        park;
      $500,000 to the City of Taylorsville, Illinois for an 
        emergency services center;
      $1,000,000 to Loyola University in Chicago, Illinois for 
        development of a life sciences center;
      $200,000 to the Merit Music Program in Chicago, Illinois 
        to expand Project BEGIN;
      $400,000 to the City of Freeport, Illinois for 
        Brownfields cleanup;
      $100,000 to the City of Benton, Illinois for streetscape 
        and beautification of downtown Benton;
      $250,000 to the City of Charlotte, North Carolina for 
        economic development activities within Charlotte's 
        Wilkinson Boulevard Corridor;
      $250,000 to the Museum of Latin American Art in Long 
        Beach, California to expand and upgrade existing 
        facilities;
      $250,000 to FAME Renaissance in Los Angeles, California 
        to continue work on a small business incubator;
      $250,000 to the City of San Francisco, CA for a homeless 
        housing initiative;
      $250,000 to West River Foundation in South Dakota;
      $100,000 to the South Dakota Housing Development 
        Authority in Pierre, South Dakota for housing 
        development;
      $250,000 to Barry University in Miami Shores, Florida for 
        an Intercultural Community Center;
      $500,000 to the City of Waterloo, Iowa for the 
        redevelopment of blighted portions of the downtown 
        area;
      $1,800,000 to Comprehensive Housing Assistance, Inc., in 
        Baltimore, Maryland for renovations to the Concord 
        Apartments;
      $250,000 to Patterson Park Development Corporation for 
        the purchase and rehabilitation of homes in the 
        Patterson Park neighborhood;
      $500,000 to the City of Davenport, Iowa for development 
        of Friendly House;
      $500,000 to the City of Council Bluffs, Iowa for land 
        purchase and construction of an elderly community 
        center;
      $500,000 to the City of Des Moines, Iowa for planning of 
        the redevelopment of the Riverpoint area;
      $1,190,000 to City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin for 
        revitalization of Menomonee Valley industrial area;
      $10,000 to LaCrosse County, Wisconsin for economic 
        development information centers;
      $450,000 to Biomedical Research Foundation of Northwest 
        Louisiana, Shreveport, Louisiana for infrastructure 
        improvements to InterTech Park and construction of a 
        Cleanroom Biotechnology Incubator;
      $1,000,000 to University Heights Science Park, Newark, 
        New Jersey for University Heights Science Park's Newark 
        Digital Century Center;
      $500,000 to City of Woodbury, New Jersey for downtown 
        economic development activities;
      $500,000 to Bayshore Economic Development Corporation for 
        development of the Henry Hudson Trail;
      $400,000 for Sheperd College in Sheperdstown, West 
        Virginia for renovation of Scarborough Library;
      $400,000 for Bethany College in Bethany, West Virginia 
        for continued work on a health and wellness center;
      $250,000 to Town of Millville, New Jersey for development 
        of the Glasstown Center project;
      $400,000 to City of Burlington, Vermont for Firehouse 
        Center;
      $400,000 to City of Montpelier, Vermont for Pyralisk Arts 
        Center;
      $200,000 to Vermont Youth Orchestra Association, 
        Colchester, Vermont for rehabilitation of the Fort 
        Ethan Allen Riding Hall;
      $250,000 to Kellogg-Hubbard Library, Montpelier, Vermont 
        for restoration of historic library and addition to the 
        children's library;
      $750,000 to Vermont Housing and Conservation Board in 
        Brattleboro, Vermont for rehabilitation of the Westgate 
        apartments;
      $250,000 to City of Detroit, Michigan for development of 
        a pedestrian friendly Promenade along the Detroit 
        River;
      $250,000 to Bushnell Theatre, Hartford, Connecticut for 
        final completion of renovation;
      $225,000 to Boys and Girls Club of Drew County, Arkansas 
        for construction of general purpose facility;
      $225,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of McGhee, AR for the 
        construction of a facility;
      $250,000 to the City of Santa Ana, California for the 
        IDEA high-tech education center;
      $250,000 to the Tri-States River heritage Foundation in 
        Kennewick, Washington for an analysis of the new 
        economic development opportunities related to the 
        Hanford Reach National Monument;
      $250,000 to Frank Lloyd Wright Darwin Martin House, 
        Buffalo, New York for restoration work;
      $1,750,000 to Washington State Department of Community 
        Development to address farmworker housing issues in the 
        State;
      $250,000 to Trinity Repertory Pell-Chafee Theatre, 
        Providence, Rhode Island for theater expansion and 
        operations;
      $1,250,000 to City of Henderson, Nevada for downtown 
        redevelopment and infrastructure upgrade;
      $250,000 to Opportunity Village Foundation, Las Vegas, 
        Nevada for start-up funding for downpayment assistance 
        program to disabled;
      $500,000 to Boys and Girls Club of Las Vegas, Nevada for 
        the renovation and expansion of existing facilities;
      $750,000 to Henry and Martinsville Counties, Virginia for 
        economic development activities;
      $250,000 to Bayview Citizens for Social Justice and the 
        Northampton-Accomack Planning District Commission to 
        support economic development projects on the Eastern 
        Shore of Virginia;
      $250,000 to Monroe Community College, Rochester, New York 
        to establish a Virtual Campus Center;
      $1,000,000 City of Wildwood, New Jersey for 
        revitalization of the Pacific Avenue Business District;
      $250,000 for the West Virginia School of Osteopathic 
        Medicine in Lewisburg, West Virginia for expansion of 
        the ambulatory care facility;
      $250,000 to Northeast Ventures Corporation, Duluth, 
        Minnesota to provide capital support for micro 
        enterprise in Northeast Minnesota;
      $250,000 to City of Portland, Oregon for the Portland-
        Vancouver Regional Housing Affordability Pilot Program;
      $400,000 to Prince George's County, Maryland for 
        architecture, design and engineering work for 
        redevelopment of McGuire House;
      $250,000 to Howard County, Maryland for renovations to 
        Route 1.
    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 $60,000,000 for the Youthbuild 
program, of which $10,000,000 is for capacity building and new 
programs in underserved and rural areas. In addition, 
$4,000,000 is set-aside for capacity building by Youthbuild 
USA.
    The Committee has included up to $55,000,000 for supportive 
service contracts, a critical activity.
    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.

                  home investment partnerships program

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $1,600,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   1,650,000,000
House allowance.........................................   1,585,000,000
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 2000 enacted level and $50,000,000 less 
than the budget request. The Committee includes $20,000,000 for 
housing counseling.

                          homeless assistance

                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $1,020,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   1,200,000,000
House allowance.........................................   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 the same as the 
fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $180,000,000 below the 
budget request for fiscal year 2001. This funding level rejects 
the Administration's request for $105,000,000 for section 8 
homeless assistance. In addition, $105,000,000 is funded in a 
separate account for Shelter Plus Care. 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 a minimum of 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 continues to be very concerned over HUD's 
administration of the McKinney homeless assistance programs 
through formula funding to local continuums of care. With the 
exception of the Emergency Shelter Grants program, the 
legislation for the Supportive Housing program, Shelter Plus 
Care and the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation SRO program 
requires a national competition by grantees, not a formula 
allocation. This is especially troubling since HUD uses a 
modified allocation formula pursuant to the Community 
Development Block Grants (CDBG) program to award funding to 
local continuums of care. The CDBG formula has no real nexus to 
homeless needs and the use of the CDBG formula also means that 
local continuums of care are assured of receiving a minimum 
amount of funds where a grant application meets certain minimum 
requirements regardless of the actual homeless assistance needs 
of the jurisdiction. Additional funds are then allocated to the 
local continuums of care where there is a reallocation of funds 
in cases where local continuums of care fail to meet the basic 
requirements.
    In addition, HUD has failed to establish the necessary 
oversight requirements that are needed to ensure the 
appropriate use of McKinney homeless assistance funds. In 
effect, the continuum of care process has become a self-
certifying process that presumes the appropriate use of funds 
at the local level. While the Committee believes that many, if 
not most, homeless assistance providers manage their homeless 
assistance programs and activities very well, there is 
inadequate information to ensure the funds are used well or 
even appropriately.
    The Committee believes that HUD must collect data on the 
extent of homelessness in America as well as the effectiveness 
of the McKinney homeless assistance programs in addressing this 
condition. These programs have been in existence for some 15 
years and there has never been an overall review or 
comprehensive analysis on the extent of homelessness or how to 
address it. The Committee believes that it is essential to 
develop an unduplicated count of homeless people, and an 
analysis of their patterns of use of assistance (HUD McKinney 
homeless assistance as well as other assistance both targeted 
and not targeted to homeless people), including how they enter 
and exit the homeless assistance system and the effectiveness 
of assistance. The Committee recognizes that this is a long 
term effort involving many partners. However, HUD is directed 
to take the lead in approaching this goal by requiring client 
level reporting at a jurisdictional level within 3 years.
    To improve the capacity of local providers and 
jurisdictions to collect data, the bill includes language that 
makes implementation of management information systems (MIS), 
as well as collection and analysis of MIS data, an eligible use 
of Supportive Housing Program funds. Further, the bill includes 
language allowing HUD to use 1 percent of homeless assistance 
grant funds for technical assistance, for management 
information systems, and to further its efforts to develop an 
automated, client-level APR system. Of this amount, at least 
$1,500,000 should be used to continue on an annual basis to 
provide a report on a nationally representative sample of 
jurisdictions whose local MIS data can be aggregated yearly to 
document the change in demographics of homelessness, demand for 
homeless assistance, to identify patterns in utilization of 
assistance, and to demonstrate the effectiveness of assistance. 
The Committee also expects HUD to use technical assistance 
funds to assist in the development of an unduplicated count. 
The Committee instructs HUD to use these funds to contract with 
experienced academic institutions to analyze data and report to 
the agency, jurisdictions, providers and the Committee on 
findings.
    HUD is directed to convene a group of experts including 
academics, practitioners, national organization 
representatives, local and State government officials, and 
Federal officials to make recommendations to Congress by June 
1, 2001 on alternatives to the formula by which ``pro rata 
shares'' are determined for local and State jurisdictions in 
its homeless assistance grants program. While this Committee 
supports the concept of a homeless assistance block grant for 
allocating funds, the current formula allocation and ``pro rata 
shares'' approach appears to be in violation of current 
statutory authority. The Committee, therefore, expects HUD to 
submit its program administration to the Department of Justice 
for a legal review of its implementation. The Committee also 
support the efforts of the Senate and House Banking Committees 
to develop a block grant program to address homeless needs. 
This would provide for State and local oversight on the use of 
homeless assistance funds as well as facilitate the access of 
other programs for homeless assistance. In addition, contrary 
to some concerns, this approach would not further 
institutionalize homeless assistance since a homeless block 
grant could be merged into the HOME program after 5 years. This 
approach would allow homeless concerns to be addressed through 
comprehensive strategies to address overall housing and 
community development needs for States and jurisdictions.
    The Committee expects that HUD field staff will oversee the 
implementation of homelessness programs funded under this 
title. This oversight should include annual site visits and 
desk and field audits of a representative sample of programs in 
each jurisdiction. Using this information, it should analyze 
Annual Performance Reports and forward an annual plan for 
addressing problem areas.
    The Committee is concerned that a small percentage of 
homeless people are chronically homeless and chronically ill, 
have no reasonable residential alternative beyond shelter and 
the streets, and are disproportionately using public resources. 
It is the intention of this Committee that HUD and local 
providers increase the supply of permanent supportive housing 
for chronically homeless, chronically ill people over time 
until the need is met (estimated 150,000 units). This includes 
preserving the current supply of such housing and providing new 
housing. Accordingly, the Committee requires HUD to use not 
less than 30 percent of the funds appropriated for homelessness 
programs for permanent supportive housing including those who 
are chronically homeless and chronically ill people. In 
addition, the Committee has funded the shelter plus care 
program as a separate program at $105,000,000.
    The Committee also recognizes that homelessness cannot be 
ended by homeless assistance providers alone--it requires the 
involvement of a full range of Federal programs. Accordingly, 
the Committee has included $500,000 for staffing for the 
Interagency Council on the Homeless. It instructs the Council 
specifically to require HUD, HHS, Labor, and VA to quantify the 
number of their program participants who become homeless, to 
address ways in which mainstream programs can prevent 
homelessness among those they serve, and to describe 
specifically how they provide assistance to people who are 
homeless. The Committee directs that the Council will be under 
the authority of the Assistant to the President for Domestic 
Policy within the Executive Office of the President. Members of 
the council shall be Cabinet Secretaries, and the Chairmanship 
of the Council shall rotate among the Secretaries of the 
following agencies: HUD, HHS, Labor, and VA. The members of the 
Council shall meet at least annually.
    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.
    In addition, each year, the Committee faces requests for 
additional funds for the renewal of Shelter Plus Care and 
Supportive Housing contracts. The Committee supports 
maintaining existing programs and infrastructure for homeless 
assistance where appropriate. However, these requests for 
funding are very troubling since the local continuum of cares 
in which this housing is located explicitly rejected the 
funding of these expiring contracts. Moreover, the Committee 
has rejected the idea of funding these expiring contracts, 
especially the Shelter Plus Care expiring contracts, under the 
Housing Certificate Fund. These contracts are part of the 
continuum of care and to move these funding requirements to the 
Housing Certificate Fund would institutionalize these contracts 
and minimize the concept of the continuum of care as a 
comprehensive approach to homeless assistance needs. The 
Committee further directs HUD to report to the Congress by May 
15, 2001 on (1) the method by which HUD will control quality in 
supportive housing and shelter plus care projects; (2) the 
criteria by which HUD will judge the need to renew supportive 
housing and shelter plus care projects; and (3) how supportive 
housing and shelter plus care projects fit into the continuum 
of care.
    The Committee also funds the Shelter Plus Care program as a 
separate account at $105,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. The 
Committee rejects the Administration's request to fund contract 
renewals of $37,000,000 for the Shelter Plus Care program under 
the Housing Certificate Fund since this action would divorce 
the program from accountability requirements that are needed to 
ensure the financial integrity of projects as well as any 
review to ensure the project is meeting the needs of the 
homeless.

                           SHELTER PLUS CARE

Appropriations, 2000....................................................
Budget estimate, 2001...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................    $105,000,000

                          Program Description

    The Shelter Plus Care program provides rental housing 
assistance for homeless persons with disabilities, including 
tenant-based rental assistance, sponsor-based rental 
assistance, project-based rental assistance, or SRO assistance. 
Funding for supportive services is provided from other sources.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $105,000,000 
for the Shelter Plus Care program for fiscal year 2001. This 
program was previously funded under the Homeless Assistance 
Grants account with the Administration recommending that the 
funding for Shelter Plus Care contract renewals of some 
$37,000,000 be funded through the Housing Certificate Fund in 
fiscal year 2001. The Committee rejects this recommendation 
since there would be no oversight or accountability for 
renewals to ensure the financial integrity of the project or to 
ensure the project is meeting the needs of the homeless within 
the overall structure and review process of the local continuum 
of care. The Committee is concerned that the continuum of care 
process does not meet the statutory requirements of the 
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, and is especially concerned 
that HUD's use of a modified formula allocation pursuant to the 
formula requirements of the Community Development Block Grants 
program does not meet the nationwide needs of the homeless or 
provide for the necessary oversight procedures to ensure the 
funds are being well used. The Committee also believes that the 
Shelter Plus Care program is a critical program designed to 
meet the needs of homeless persons with disabilities and that 
converting this funding to a nationwide competition will help 
ensure that these funds are targeted to those persons and 
localities with the greatest needs. Shelter Plus Care programs 
must still be coordinated with local continua of care.

          Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $232,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     260,000,000
House allowance.........................................     250,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     232,000,000

                          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 $232,000,000 
for this program, the same as the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level and $28,000,000 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 $210,000,000 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, 2000....................................    $911,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     989,000,000
House allowance.........................................     911,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     996,000,000

                          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 $996,000,000 
for development of additional new subsidized housing. Included 
in this recommendation is $783,000,000 for capital advances for 
housing for the elderly (section 202 housing) and $213,000,000 
for capital advances for housing for the disabled (section 811 
housing). This is an increase of $7,000,000 above the 
administration's budget request for fiscal year 2001 and 
provide an increase of $73,000,000 for section 202 and 
$12,000,000 for section 811 over the fiscal year 2000 levels. 
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 funds include up to $50,000,000 for the 
conversion of section 202 housing to assisted living 
facilities, up to $50,000,000 for grants for the new 
construction or substantial rehabilitation of assisted living 
facilities, and up to $50,000,000 for service coordinators.

                     federal housing administration


             fha--mutual mortgage insurance program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on       Limitation on      Administrative
                                                         direct loans      guaranteed loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000................................        $100,000,000    $140,000,000,000        $330,888,000
Budget estimate, 2001...............................         250,000,000     160,000,000,000         330,888,000
House allowance.....................................         100,000,000     160,000,000,000         330,888,000
Committee recommendation............................         250,000,000     160,000,000,000         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, 2000......................        $50,000,000    $18,100,000,000    $211,000,000    $153,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001.....................         50,000,000     21,000,000,000     211,455,000     101,000,000
House allowance...........................         50,000,000     21,000,000,000     211,455,000     101,000,000
Committee recommendation..................         50,000,000     21,000,000,000     211,455,000     101,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $160,000,000,000 in the ``MMI/CMHI'' account and 
$21,000,000,000 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 $160,000,000,000, a limitation on direct 
loans of $250,000,000, and an appropriation of $330,888,000 for 
administrative expenses. For the GI/SRI account, the Committee 
recommends $21,000,000,000 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 and the 
``Office of the Inspector General'' account.
    In addition, the Committee directs HUD to continue direct 
loan programs in 2001 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.
    The Committee is troubled that HUD has ignored the guidance 
it provided when it amended Section 204 of the National Housing 
Act (12 U.S.C. 1710) to create the ``Asset Control Areas'' 
(ACA) program. By partnering with qualified nonprofit 
organizations and local governments, the ACA program was 
intended to address the growing number of FHA-owned, foreclosed 
homes in distressed communities across the country and promote 
homeownership as a tool to stabilize these neighborhoods under 
siege because of HUD's negligence.
    Unfortunately, many participants in the ACA pilot programs 
are finding that most properties are so dilapidated that the 
cost of needed rehabilitation or demolition (of the worst 
properties in the inventory) far exceeds the market value for 
these homes, making homeownership virtually impossible for the 
low-income families Congress intended to serve. Pilot 
participants are finding that HUD's current ACA pricing 
structure appears to be adequate only in strong real estate 
markets, where homeownership rates and income levels are high. 
For seriously distressed properties, or those located in weak 
real estate markets with higher concentrations of low-income 
residents, however, the discount structure is grossly 
inadequate. Furthermore, appraisers often do not understand 
local code requirements and many times have no understanding of 
repair estimates or rehab costs. These problems have resulted 
in inflated and imprecise appraisals that, even after HUD's 
discount, leave the homes overpriced for the local market, 
creating huge subsidy gaps.
    In passing the enabling legislation 2 years ago in the VA, 
HUD Appropriations Act, Congress gave HUD maximum flexibility 
and ``sole discretion'' in determining a pricing structure for 
the ACA program that would support the effective redevelopment 
of FHA's foreclosed inventory of homes in selected target areas 
and in crafting a program that promotes neighborhood 
revitalization through homeownership opportunities. As such, 
the Committee directs HUD to amend its pricing structure in 
order to meet the needs and conditions of local communities and 
sell these assets to ``preferred purchasers'' (nonprofits or 
local governments) at enough of a discount to enable the 
purchasers to rehabilitate them and sell them at prices 
affordable to low-income residents. Repair estimates should be 
based on local code and certificate of occupancy standards and 
should be provided to appraisers prior to the appraisal. 
Likewise, local certified appraisers who are familiar with 
local code, rehabilitation standards and costs for repairs 
should perform the appraisals from which the discount will be 
applied. In cases where homes are severely dilapidated and 
demolition is the only feasible solution, HUD should pay for 
the demolition costs at whatever expense necessary based on the 
condition of the inventory, in order to meet local community 
standards.
    Further, HUD should sell homes at prices that, after 
``adequate rehabilitation'' (defined by the Conferees as 
``homes that are in good, safe and habitable condition, where 
major systems are dependable and in good repair, and where the 
properties are marketable to owner occupants given the 
standards and preferences of the local community''), will 
assure that the homes are affordable to families at or below 60 
percent of area median income, paying no more than 30 percent 
of their income for their housing (mortgage principle and 
interest, taxes and insurance).
    HUD is directed to report to the Committee by May 15, 2001 
on the current status 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. Moreover, the Committee 
is aware of the large number of single-family homes currently 
in the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) inventory. The 
Committee believes FHA can be a positive force in reducing this 
inventory while helping neighborhoods and communities redevelop 
their housing stock. Therefore, the Committee directs FHA to 
use available funds in the MMIF to repair and/or rehabilitate 
single-family homes in its inventory. The Committee directs FHA 
to give priority to local governments and non-profit 
institutions who have established neighborhood redevelopment 
plans. FHA should use its financial resources to repair and 
renovate homes where there are established redevelopment plans. 
FHA should be in the business of rebuilding and stabilizing 
neighborhoods to help prevent property flipping and predatory 
lending, which have devastated many communities across the 
country.
    The Committee is aware of the reforms announced by the FHA 
on May 19, 2000 to combat problems associated with property 
flipping and predatory lending. The Committee commends the 
Department for announcing these important reforms. The 
Committee supports the reforms announced, and urges the 
Department to move forward expeditiously in implementing the 
reforms. The Committee directs HUD to report back to the 
Committee on Appropriations no later than December 15, 2000 on: 
(1) How the FHA reforms are being implemented; (2) The current 
status of the implementation of the reforms; (3) FHA's long-
term plan for institutionalizing the reforms; (4) How FHA plans 
to monitor compliance with the reforms; and (5) What resources 
will be devoted to monitoring compliance.

                Government National Mortgage Association


                guarantees of mortgage-backed securities


                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 2000:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                        $200,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                               9,383,000

Budget estimate, 2001:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         200,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                               9,383,000

    Administrative (contract) expenses

                                                              40,000,000

House allowance, 2001:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         200,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                               9,383,000

    Administrative (contract) expenses

                                             ...........................

Committee recommendation:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         200,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                               9,383,000

    Administrative (contract) expenses

                                             ...........................

                          program description

    The Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA], 
through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees 
privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. GNMA 
is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United 
States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed 
generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as amended. 
GNMA is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to guarantee 
the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that 
are based on and backed by a trust, or pool, composed of 
mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the Federal 
Housing Administration, the Farmers Home Administration, or the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. GNMA's guarantee of mortgage-
backed securities is backed by the full faith and credit of the 
United States.
    In accord with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1990 [OBRA] requirements for direct and guaranteed loan 
programs, the administration is requesting $9,383,000 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 $9,383,000 for administrative expenses, the 
same as the budget request. The Committee does not include an 
additional $40,000,000 for administrative ``contract'' 
expenses, as requested by the Administration.

                    Policy Development and Research


                        research and technology

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $45,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      62,000,000
House allowance.........................................      40,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      45,000,000

                          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 $45,000,000 for research and 
technology activities in fiscal year 2001. This amount is the 
same as the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $17,000,000 less 
than the budget request. Of this funding, $10,000,000 is 
allocated to the Partnership for Advancing Technologies in 
Housing (PATH) program. The Committee expects the PATH program 
to continue its cold climate housing research with the Cold 
Climate Housing Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska. 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, 2000....................................     $44,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      50,000,000
House allowance.........................................      44,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      44,000,000

                          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 $44,000,000, of which 
$22,000,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP] 
and no more than $22,000,000 is for the fair housing 
initiatives program [FHIP]. The funding for the FHIP program 
includes $7,500,000 to fund the final year of a three-year 
audit-based enforcement initiative. This appropriation does not 
include $2,500,000 for the Project for Accessibility Training 
and Technical Assistance, $1,000,000 for a HUD training 
academy, or $3,500,000 for the Fair Housing Partnership.
    The Committee emphasizes 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.'' Any 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.

                     Office of Lead Hazard Control


                         LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $80,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     120,000,000
House allowance.........................................      80,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     100,000,000

                          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 $100,000,000 for lead-based paint 
hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2001. 
This is $20,000,000 less than the President's budget request 
for fiscal year 2001 and $20,000,000 more than the fiscal year 
2000 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 continues to 
be concerned that HUD does not have a coherent and 
comprehensive police for addressing the risks of lead-based 
paint hazards in housing. The Department is expected to develop 
a policy that links Federal education outreach and remediation 
efforts with State, local, nonprofit and private funding 
efforts towards the abatement of lead-based paint hazards.

                     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, 2000...........      477,000      518,000      9,383  .........        150        200  1,005,733
Budget estimate, 2001..........      565,000      518,000      9,383  .........        150        200  1,094,722
House allowance................      474,647      518,000      9,383      1,000        150        200  1,003,380
Committee recommendation.......      477,000      518,000      9,383  .........        150        200  1,005,733
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $1,002,233,000 
for salaries and expenses. This amount is the same as the 
fiscal year 2000 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 Department also is prohibited from employing more than 
9,100 FTEs, including all OMHAR employees and any contract 
employees working on-site in a position which would normally be 
occupied by an FTE. 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 does not reflect the Secretary's implementation of 
the HUD 2020 management reform plan. The Committee directs HUD 
to submit to the Committee as part of its operating plan, an 
analysis of the HUD budget request for salaries and expenses 
for fiscal year 2001, 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.
    The Committee is concerned that the Department has not met 
its obligation to dismantle the Community Builders program, and 
instead has taken the program in house. The VA/HUD fiscal year 
2000 Appropriations Act was clear that the Community Builders 
program was to terminate as of September 1, 2000, and HUD was 
directed not to recreate the positions within HUD. The 
Committee also is concerned that HUD has overhired, outside its 
own budget request. Even more troubling is the fact that the 
average cost of FTEs continues to climb each year, with costs 
exceeding inflation. In fact, the average cost of FTEs for HUD 
grew from $58,000 in fiscal year 1995 to $72,000 in fiscal year 
1999 to an estimated $78,000 in fiscal year 2000. To control 
the out of control cost of HUD FTEs, the legislation caps the 
average cost per FTE at $78,000.
    In addition, HUD has failed to provide an adequate staffing 
analysis to the Congress despite repeated requests to match 
program needs with staffing expertise. As a result, the 
Committee requests HUD to submit a report by January 31, 2001 
to the Committee on Appropriations that identifies how the 
Department has matched staffing expertise with program needs, 
including an analysis of future staffing needs and cost.
    The Committee recognizes that HUD's Office of Multifamily 
Housing Assistance Restructuring (OMHAR) is authorized to 
terminate on September 30, 2001. The original intent of this 
office was to ensure that the ``mark-to-market'' program was 
implemented without political influence from HUD and to ensure 
that qualified staff with the necessary expertise could be 
hired to oversee the program's implementation. When the program 
was enacted into law, both the administration and the Congress 
anticipated significant savings for section 8 renewals since 
above market contract rents were to be lowered to real market 
rent levels. However, the program has been fraught with delays 
due to unnecessary and prolonged negotiation tactics by OMHAR, 
an overly prescriptive operating program guide, and the 
inability to utilize fully State housing finance agencies that 
were intended by the Congress to administer most of the 
restructuring activities. And due to these delays, no full 
restructuring deals had been completed until last month.
    Due to OMHAR's failure to implement effectively the 
program, the Committee prohibits the Department and OMHAR in 
providing any salary bonuses or increases, or staff promotions 
until it has been able to complete 100 full restructuring deals 
by June 29, 2001. The Committee hopes that OMHAR will 
streamline the restructuring process and provide the 
flexibility necessary for the State housing finance agencies to 
administer the program as intended by the Congress.
    The Committee believes that OMHAR's authorization should 
not be continued and instead, its functions should be 
transferred to HUD beginning in fiscal year 2001. The Committee 
directs HUD in consultation with OMHAR to develop a transition 
plan that will detail how the mark-to-market program functions 
will be transferred from OMHAR to FHA's Office of Multifamily 
Housing. A preliminary transition plan should be submitted to 
the Committees on Appropriations by December 15, 2000 with a 
final transition plan included as part of the Department's 
fiscal year 2001 Operating Plan. The transition should be 
completed no later than September 30, 2001. The transition plan 
must include a workload analysis on the appropriate level of 
staffing needed at FHA to oversee the program and a process for 
hiring or terminating current OMHAR employees and officers. 
Further, the Committee directs HUD to be in charge of making 
any staffing changes (e.g., hiring, terminations, extensions) 
during fiscal year 2001.
    The Committee has been concerned for some time as to 
whether funds appropriated for information technology are being 
well spent and are helping to improve the performance of the 
Department. To help ensure that HUD's investments in 
information technology are managed wisely, the Committee 
directs HUD to provide data on its information technology 
projects. HUD is reportedly managing its information technology 
investment portfolio and therefore providing this information 
to the Committee would not impose any additional burden. The 
report to the Committee should be submitted on a quarterly 
basis and contain: (1) information technology investments 
(including new projects or initiatives, ongoing projects or 
initiatives, and steady State operations (such as the day-to-
day operations and maintenance of computer and communications 
facilities and existing systems) that HUD is planning to fund 
during the fiscal year and the estimated costs, any changes to 
those investment plans, the importance of the investments to 
HUD, funding spent to date, and planned spending for the 
remainder of the fiscal year; (2) information on whether the 
investments are meeting the cost, schedule, and results targets 
set for them, and any oversight or corrective actions being 
taken; and (3) other metrics or performance indicators that HUD 
is using to monitor project health and risks, and reassess the 
progress or continued worth of its investments.
    In particular, HUD is directed to report by March 1, 2001 
on all funding spent over the last 4 years to develop all 
accounting systems within the Department, including the current 
status and any changes that have been made to the contracts for 
these accounting requirements. This report should identify the 
overall costs of these systems, current status and the 
benchmarks for completion. Funding for these requirements are 
to be included in the Department's operating plan and any 
changes in funding shall be subject to reprogramming 
requirements.

                      Office of Inspector General


                     (including transfer of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Drug
                                                                   FHA funds by     elimination
                                                   Appropriation     transfer         grants           Total
                                                                                     transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000............................     $50,657,000     $22,343,000     $10,000,000     $83,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...........................      52,000,000      22,343,000      10,000,000      84,000,000
House allowance.................................      50,657,000      22,343,000      10,000,000      83,000,000
Committee recommendation........................      55,500,000      22,343,000      10,000,000      87,843,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $87,843,000 for 
the Office of Inspector General (OIG). This amount is 
$4,843,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and 
$3,500,000 above 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. The Committee commends OIG for 
its commitment and its efforts in reducing waste, fraud and 
abuse in HUD programs.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $19,493,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      25,800,000
House allowance.........................................      22,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,000,000

                          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 $22,000,000 for the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is $3,800,000 less 
than the budget request and $2,507,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2000 level. The Committee directs OFHEO to submit to the 
Congress a staffing and resource plan that identifies staffing 
needs with oversight responsibilities.

                       Administrative Provisions

    The Committee recommends 18 administrative provisions. A 
brief description follows.
    Sec. 201. Financing Adjustment Factor. Promotes the 
refinancing of bonds.
    Sec. 202. Fair Housing and Free Speech. Provides free 
speech protections.
    Sec. 203. HOPWA. Technical correction for allocations.
    Sec. 204. Due Process for Homeless Assistance. Requires HUD 
to establish due process requirements for removing convenors/
administrators in the McKinney Homeless Assistance programs.
    Sec. 205. HUD Reform Act Compliance. Requires HUD to award 
assistance on a competitive basis.
    Sec. 206. NEPA Review. Delegates NEPA review under the 
McKinney homeless assistance programs.
    Sec. 207. Technical Corrections to National Housing Act. 
Technical corrections to FHA.
    Sec. 208. Defines Law Enforcement Families under NAHASDA. 
Allows housing assistance for law enforcement officers.
    Sec. 209. Prohibition of Federal Funds in Support of the 
Sale of Tobacco Products. Prohibits HUD from funding any 
facility that predominantly sells cigarettes or tobacco 
products.
    Sec. 210. Prohibition of Implementation of Puerto Rico PHA 
Settlement Agreement. Prohibits the implementation of the PRPHA 
settlement agreement without adequate evidence of meeting goals 
to address mismanagement, fraud and abuse.
    Sec. 211. HOPE VI Grant for Hollander Ridge. Reprograms 
HOPE VI funding.
    Sec. 212. Reduced FHA Downpayments for Teachers and Police. 
Allows reduced downpayment requirements for teachers and 
police.
    Sec. 213. Computer Access for Public Housing Residents. 
Allows development of computer infrastructure as an eligible 
expense of public housing capital account and HOPE VI.
    Sec. 214. Mark-to-Market Reform. Makes properties in 
Independence, Missouri eligible for mark-to-market.
    Sec. 215. Section 236 Excess Income. Extends section 236 
excess income eligibility through 2001.
    Sec. 216. CDBG Eligibility. Grandfathers program 
eligibility for existing CDBG grantees.
    Sec. 217. Low-Income Multifamily Risk-Sharing Mortgage 
Insurance. Establishes a new multifamily insurance program that 
targets at least 25 percent of insured units to very low-income 
families.
    Sec. 218. Exemption for Alaska and Mississippi from 
requirement of resident on board of PHA. Exempts Alaska and 
Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA tenant on the 
board of a PHA for fiscal year 2001.

                    TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $28,359,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      26,196,000
House allowance.........................................      28,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      26,196,000

                          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 where they have served 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 31 monuments, 
memorials, markers, and offices in 15 countries around the 
world. In addition, the Commission administers three 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 $26,196,000 
for the American Battle Monuments Commission, which is 
$2,163,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board


                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 2000....................................      $8,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       8,000,000
House allowance.........................................       8,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,000,000

                          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 $7,000,000 for the Chemical Safety 
and Hazard Investigation Board, a decrease of $1,000,000 below 
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the budget request.
    The Committee is extremely troubled by the lack of 
accomplishments and the fractionalized, unproductive 
environment that has characterized this agency for most of the 
last year. While the new management structure seems to be 
yielding some positive results, the Committee will be 
monitoring closely the agency's activities and productivity.
    The Committee notes that three of the Board members 
recently petitioned the President to remove the former chairman 
from his position as a board member. The Committee urges the 
President to act on this request expeditiously to address very 
serious allegations of malfeasance in office, neglect of duty, 
and inefficiency. Failure of the White House to Act will make 
it very difficult for the agency to move beyond the divisive 
and unproductive environment and meet its objectives.
    The Committee has included bill language authorizing the 
Inspector General of FEMA to act as the Inspector General of 
the Chemical Safety Board. Funds have been included to 
accomplish this requirement in the FEMA OIG appropriation.
    Not later than March 1, 2002, and each year thereafter, the 
Chief Operating Officer of the Board shall prepare a financial 
statement for the preceding fiscal year, covering all accounts 
and associated activities of the Board. Each financial 
statement of the Board will be prepared according to the form 
and content of the financial statements prescribed by the 
Office of Management and Budget for executive agencies required 
to prepare financial statements under the Chief Financial 
Officers Act of 1990, as amended by the Government Management 
Reform Act of 1994. Each financial statement prepared under 31 
USC 3515 by the Board shall be audited according to applicable 
generally accepted government auditing standards by the 
Inspector General of the Board or an independent external 
auditor, as determined by the Inspector General. The IG shall 
submit to the Chief Operating Officer of the Board a report on 
the audit not later than June 30 following the fiscal year for 
which a statement was prepared.
    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, 2000....................................     $95,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     125,000,000
House allowance.........................................     105,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      95,000,000

                   program description for cdfi fund

    The community Development Financial Institutions Fund 
primarily provides grants, loans, equity investments, deposits, 
and technical assistance to new and existing community 
development financial institutions. These include community 
development banks, credit unions, and venture capital funds; 
revolving loan funds; and microloan funds. Recipient 
institutions engage in lending and investment for affordable 
housing, small business and community development within 
underserved communities.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $95,000,000 for CDFI, the same 
level as appropriated in fiscal year 2000 and $30,000,000 below 
the administration's request. While the CDFI Fund has made a 
greater effort to measure its performance, its track record is 
still unclear and some of its activities clearly overlap with 
those of other Federal programs designed to revitalize 
distressed communities. The Committee believes that it is not 
only important to understand whether the Fund's activities are 
achieving its mandated purposes, but just as importantly, how 
cost-effective and efficient its activities are in comparison 
to other similar Federal efforts. Accordingly, the Committee 
directs CDFI to include in its fiscal year 2002 Congressional 
Justifications, a comparison of its activities with other 
similar Federal efforts, including those of the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development and National Credit Union 
Administration. This comparison should include measurable 
performance outcomes including the number of affordable rental 
housing units developed.
    The Committee also recommends a set-aside of $5,000,000 for 
grants, loans, and technical assistance and training programs 
to benefit Native American, Alaskan Natives, and Native 
Hawaiian communities in the coordination of development 
strategies, increased access to equity investments, and loans 
for development activities. Development activities include 
investment in business opportunities, mortgage lending, human 
development, and other activities that support long-term 
economic growth in Indian communities. The Committee, however, 
is concerned about the Fund's capacity to administer this 
program due to its lack of expertise in Native American issues 
and therefore, directs the Fund to use qualifying entities that 
have expertise in and familiarity with Native American lending 
and community development activities.
    The Committee remains concerned about CDFI's lending 
activities in rural areas, especially the Fund's use of its 
Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) program. The administration notes 
that changes to the BEA authorizing language is needed to 
remove its impediment to serve rural areas. The Committee urges 
the administration to work with the Banking Committees to 
resolve this problem.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $48,814,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      52,500,000
House allowance.........................................      51,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      52,500,000

                          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 $52,500,000 for the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, the same as the budget estimate and 
an increase of $3,686,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level.

             Corporation for National and Community Service


                national and community service programs

                           operating expenses

              (including transfer and rescission of funds)

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $433,153,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     533,700,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................     433,500,000

                          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- and part-time national and community 
service programs. National service participants may receive 
education 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. Board members and the 
Chief Executive Officer are appointed by the President of the 
United States and confirmed by the Senate.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $433,500,000 
for the Corporation for National and Community Service. Of this 
amount, $75,000,000 is for education awards; $207,500,000 is 
for grants under the National Service Trust, including the 
AmeriCorps program; $10,000,000 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; $29,000,000 is for administrative 
expenses; $5,000,000 is for audits and other evaluations; 
$7,500,000 is for America's Promise; $2,500,000 is for the 
Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc.; $2,500,000 is for 
the Boys and Girls Clubs of America; and $5,000,000 is for 
Communities In Schools. The total amount is $347,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $100,200,000 below the 
budget request.
    For the second consecutive year, the Corporation received 
an unqualified opinion on its Statement of Financial Position 
and in general, the Corporation had made significant progress 
in correcting some of its long-standing financial management 
problems. However, the independent auditors were again unable 
to render an opinion on the Corporation's Statement of 
Operations and Changes in Net Position, and the Statement of 
Cash Flows. More importantly, the Corporation continues to be 
hampered by material weaknesses in five major management areas.
    One of the most critical material weaknesses is in the area 
of grants management. The Inspector General (IG) has found 
numerous problems in the grants management area including 
instances of waste, fraud, and abuse by State commissions and 
national non-profit grantees. In the administration's request, 
the Corporation has requested the legal authority to provide 
additional administrative funds to troubled State grantees. 
Currently, each State commission must provide a 50 percent 
match for any administrative funds received from the 
Corporation. Nevertheless, the Corporation seeks to waive this 
matching requirement for troubled grantees.
    The Committee is extremely troubled by the administration's 
proposal to provide additional funds to troubled grantees and 
to waive the current matching requirement. The Committee 
believes that the administration's proposal sends the wrong 
signal that the Federal Government awards poor performers. 
Accordingly, the Committee rejects these proposals and the 
administration's request for an additional $3,600,000 in 
program administration funds for troubled grantees. Instead, 
the Committee directs the Corporation to develop a ``resolution 
plan'' for each troubled grantee identified by either the 
Corporation or the IG that would lay out the steps necessary to 
correct the grantee's problems. The resolution plan should (1) 
evaluate the use of a ``receiver'' that would temporarily take 
over the grantee's administrative and operational duties until 
the problems were fully corrected, (2) include a workload 
analysis to determine the level of program responsibilities 
that the grantee can adequately perform, and (3) establish a 
timeline with identifiable and reasonable milestones to correct 
fully the problems with the grantee. Further, the Corporation 
should seriously consider the use of administrative sanctions 
it currently has available and propose to the Committee by 
December 15, 2000 any additional legislative recommendations on 
strengthening or increasing administrative sanctions.
    The Committee remains troubled by the Corporation's 
inability to provide information to the Congress or American 
taxpayer on what they are getting in return for the funds 
provided to the Corporation. Currently, the Corporation is only 
able to provide anecdotal examples and data on a budgeted basis 
for its programs. The IG has repeatedly stressed the importance 
of a cost accounting system that would be able to track and 
provide information on how the programs are actually 
performing. The Committee was disappointed to learn that the 
Corporation has been slow in responding to these concerns. 
Accordingly, the Committee has included bill language to direct 
the Corporation to use $2,000,000 out its allocation for 
program administration for the acquisition of a cost accounting 
system for the Corporation's financial management system, an 
integrated grants management system that provides comprehensive 
financial management information for all Corporation grants and 
cooperative agreements, and the establishment, operation and 
maintenance of a central archives serving as the repository for 
all grant, cooperative agreement, and related documents. The 
Corporation is directed to ensure that the cost accounting 
system and the grants management system conform to Federal 
requirements, including those established for such systems by 
the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program. The 
Corporation is also directed to provide a report that describes 
its progress to date for each of these areas, expenditures for 
the period by category (e.g. contract or salaries), purpose, 
and amount, as well as cumulative expenditures to the Committee 
on a quarterly basis. Further, the Corporation is prohibited 
from providing any salary increases (with the exception of 
locality adjustments and other appropriate adjustments provided 
to all government employees) or bonuses to its employees graded 
at management levels or above until the Corporation has 
certified with the IG's concurrence that an adequate cost 
accounting and grants management system has been acquired, 
implemented, and conforms to all Federal requirements.
    As identified by the IG and independent auditors in last 
year's financial statements audit, the National Service Trust 
account continues to maintain a significant surplus of funds to 
meet its existing liabilities. The Committee remains concerned 
that the administration may be requesting more funds than is 
necessary to meet its existing liabilities for the AmeriCorps 
program; thus, bill language is included to rescind $50,000,000 
in surplus funds. The Committee directs the Corporation to 
maintain an enrolled level of AmeriCorps participation that it 
can fully support with its existing Trust account level, minus 
the rescission. The Committee also directs the Corporation to 
provide quarterly reports to the Committee on the assets and 
liabilities of the National Service Trust fund, including 
information on interest earned and interested received.
    The Committee continues its strong support for the 
Corporation's literacy and mentoring efforts and activities to 
support homeless families and individuals, especially the 
homeless veterans of this nation. The Committee directs the 
Corporation to expand its support in these areas and provides 
$40,000,000 for the ``America Reads'' literacy and mentoring 
program.
    The Committee commends and supports the efforts that 
AmeriCorps has made under its E-Corps program in bringing 
technology to America's neediest communities. E-Corps 
volunteers bring technology skills to people who have been left 
out or left behind in the digital economy by training and 
mentoring children, teachers, and non-profit and community 
center staff on how to use computers and information 
technology. Many E-Corps members are engaged in training 
students and community members directly. The Committee 
recommends that, in addition to these activities, E-Corps 
members focus on training community center staff, teachers and 
others who will remain as trainers within the community, in 
order to build stability, continuity, and institutional memory. 
To boost the E-Corps program, the Committee directs the 
Corporation to provide $25,000,000 for E-Corps activities.
    The Committee has provided $2,500,000 in direct funds to 
the Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc. (PAT). PAT is an 
early childhood parent education and family support program 
that provides parents information on child development. PAT has 
more than 2,100 sites in 49 States, the District of Columbia, 
and six other countries. The Committee supports and expects PAT 
to continue its efforts to empower parents as their children's 
first teachers and to provide early literacy experiences for 
children.
    The Committee has provided $2,500,000 in direct funds to 
the Boys and Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) to establish an 
innovative outreach program designed to meet the special needs 
of youth in public and Native American housing communities. 
These funds are expected to be matched by the private sector 
and will be provided to selected communities for the direct 
start-up and continuation of BGCA clubs that serve youth in 
federally assisted public and Indian housing. The Committee 
expects BGCA to work cooperatively with America's Promise to 
minimize duplicative activities in addressing the needs of at-
risk youth.
    The Committee has provided $5,000,000 to Communities In 
School, Inc. (CIS). CIS is the Nation's largest non-profit 
organization dedicated to school dropout prevention and has 
been able to leverage significant private resources with 
Federal resources. The Committee expects CIS to continue its 
partnerships with other organizations such as America's Promise 
in helping our Nation's youth.
    The Committee has also provided $7,500,000 in direct funds 
to the America's Promise--the Alliance for Youth organization. 
The Committee fully supports this effort and applauds America's 
Promise for addressing problems with at-risk youth in this 
nation by using and assisting current national and local 
efforts. The Committee also supports America's Promise's 
current activities and plans to work with local businesses, 
charities, and other public entities to minimize duplicative 
activities and leverage private resources. America's Promise is 
also encouraged to continue the development of measurable 
outcome goals on a national basis and for each of its 
``Communities of Promise'' to ensure adequate oversight and 
accountability.
    Lastly, the Committee has included bill language to correct 
a technical problem with funds appropriated last year for the 
Girl Scouts of America, Inc. The Committee continues its strong 
support for the Girl Scouts' anti-violence efforts initiated in 
fiscal year 2000.

                      Office of Inspector General

Appropriations, 2000....................................      $3,985,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       5,000,000
House allowance.........................................       5,000,000
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 $1,015,000 
increase over the amount appropriated for this Office in fiscal 
year 2000 and is equal to the administration's request level.
    The additional funds for the OIG should be used for the 
purpose of its continuing efforts to review and audit the State 
commissions of the Corporation. The OIG has identified numerous 
problems with State commissions and the Committee supports 
fully the OIG's work in this area.
    Bill language has also been included to provide the OIG 
with more flexibility on the expenditure of funds.

               U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $11,450,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      12,500,000
House allowance.........................................      12,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,445,000

                          program description

    The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 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 $12,455,000 for the Court of 
Appeals for Veterans claims, an increase of $1,995,000 above 
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The decrease of $55,000 
below the budget request reflects a revised estimate for the 
pro bono program, for which $895,000 is included.

                      Department of Defense--Civil


                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $12,426,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      15,949,000
House allowance.........................................      17,949,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,949,000

                          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, 1999, 
Arlington and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries 
contained the remains of 277,932 persons and comprised a total 
of approximately 628 acres. There were 3,604 interments and 
2,152 inurnments in fiscal year 1999; 3,700 interments and 
2,200 inurnments are estimated for the current fiscal year; and 
3,700 interments and 2,300 inurnments are estimated for fiscal 
year 2001.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $15,949,000 
for the Army's cemeterial expenses. This amount is $3,523,000 
above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same as the 
fiscal year 2001 budget request.

                    Environmental Protection Agency

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $7,562,811,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   7,276,599,000
House allowance........................................\1\ 7,143,888,000
Committee recommendation................................   7,534,190,000

\1\ Does not include $60,000,000 for NIEHS or $70,000,000 for ATSDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 of 1990 authorize a 
national program of air pollution research, regulation, 
prevention, and enforcement activities.
    Water quality.--The Clean Water Act, 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 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 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 and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
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 
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 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. 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 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 $7,534,190,000 for EPA. 
This is an increase of $257,591,000 above the budget request 
and a decrease of $28,621,000 below the fiscal year 2000 
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 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, 2000....................................    $642,303,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     674,348,000
House allowance.........................................     650,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     670,000,000

                          program description

    EPA's ``Science and technology'' account provides funding 
for the scientific knowledge and tools necessary to support 
decisions on preventing, regulating, and abating environmental 
pollution and to advance the base of understanding on 
environmental sciences. These efforts are conducted through 
contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with 
universities, industries, other private commercial firms, 
nonprofit organizations, State and local government, and 
Federal agencies, as well as through work performed at EPA's 
laboratories and various field stations and field offices. 
Trust Fund resources are transferred to this account directly 
from the Hazardous Substance Superfund.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $670,000,000 for science and 
technology, a decrease of $4,348,000 below the budget request 
and an increase of $27,697,000 above the enacted level. In 
addition, the Committee recommends the transfer of $38,000,000 
from the Superfund account, for a total of $708,000,000 for 
science and technology.
    The Committee has made the following changes to the budget 
request:
  +$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.
  +$1,900,000 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.
  +$1,000,000 for the Environmental Technology 
        Commercialization Center to increase the transfer of 
        federally-developed environmental technology.
  +$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.
  +$1,500,000 for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research 
        Center.
  +$250,000 for the Institute for Environmental and Industrial 
        Science at Southwest Texas State University.
  +$750,000 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.
  +$3,902,000 for the Mine Waste Technology Program and the 
        Heavy Metal Water Program at the National Environmental 
        Waste Technology, Testing, and Evaluation Center.
  +$3,625,000 for the Water Environment Research Foundation.
  +$3,625,000 for the American Water Works Association Research 
        Foundation (AWWARF).
  +$400,000 for Texas Institute for Applied Environmental 
        Research at Tarleton State University.
  +$500,000 for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology 
        Research.
  +$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.
  +$750,000 for the Kalamazoo River Watershed Initiative 
        through Western Michigan University's Environmental 
        Research Institute.
  -$800,000 from the EMPACT program.
  -$28,000,000 from the climate change technology initiative.
    The Committee supports a funding level of $7,000,000 for 
the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation [SITE] program, 
funded from the transfer from Superfund to this account. The 
Committee supports efforts through the SITE program to identify 
cost-effective, innovative technology solutions for 
contamination problems such as Brownfields, sediments and fuel 
oxygenates. Of the amount provided for the SITE program, 
$500,000 is for a demonstration project at the Port of 
Ridgefield, WA, involving an innovative steam extraction 
technology. EPA is expected to work with the State and the port 
to ensure that cleanup of the Ridgefield site continues in an 
efficient and timely manner beyond the demonstration project 
under the SITE program.
    The Committee also urges EPA through the SITE program to 
give consideration to funding a demonstration of a prototype 
ceramic microfiltration technology for the treatment of acid 
mine drainage.
    The Committee supports funding at not less than current 
levels for the hazardous substance research center program, to 
be funded by funds transferred from Superfund, and the science 
and technology appropriation.
    NAS study on health benefits associated with air pollution 
regulations.--There have been many concerns raised regarding 
the methodology used by EPA in calculating incremental health 
benefits that have been associated with air pollution 
regulatory proposals. The magnitude of health benefit estimates 
is highly dependent upon the assumed concentrations threshold 
of a particular response to a pollutant health effect. It is 
important EPA employ the most scientifically defensible 
methodology in estimating health benefits. The EPA is directed 
to engage the NAS, within 90 days of this authorization, to 
conduct a study of this issue and recommend to the agency a 
common methodology to be followed in all future analyses. A 
report of the study shall be forwarded to the Congress within 
12 months after the NAS receives the EPA request.
    Updated NAS study on ozone.--As authorized by Section 185B 
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the National Academy 
of Sciences on behalf of EPA in 1991 conducted the study, 
``Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air 
Pollution.'' The Act ``requires EPA to conduct a study in 
conjunction with the NAS on the role of ozone precursors in 
tropospheric ozone formation and control.'' The issue of VOC 
versus NOX control was specifically addressed in the 
1991 report and two key conclusions were made. ``NOX 
reductions can have either a beneficial or detrimental effect 
on ozone concentrations, depending upon the locations and 
emissions rates of VOC and NOX sources . . .'' and 
``Some modeling and field studies show that ozone 
concentrations can increase in the near field in response to 
NOX reductions but decrease in the far field.'' 
Since the issuance of the NAS study almost a decade ago, 
ambient ozone impacts have decreased dramatically. Ambient 
monitoring of ozone, VOC and NOX has greatly 
improved as well. These data along with extensive urban and 
regional modeling activity have closed many of the knowledge 
gaps cited in the NAS study. In fact, there have been serious 
questions raised concerning the potential disbenefits of 
further NOX control in terms of achieving and 
maintaining the current NAAQS for ozone. As a result of this 
large body of new scientific evidence, EPA is directed to 
engage the NAS within 90 days of this Act, for an update on the 
current ozone problem in urban and regional settings with 
specific emphasis on the role of NOX control in 
meeting mandated air quality goals. A report shall be submitted 
to Congress within eighteen months after the NAS receives the 
EPA request.
    NAS study of carbon monoxide episodes in meteorological and 
topographical problem areas.--The Committee directs EPA to 
contract with the National Academy of Sciences for a study of 
carbon monoxide episodes in meteorological and topographical 
problem areas, addressing the public health significance and 
strategies for managing these rare occurrences in national 
ambient air quality standards non-attainment areas, due mostly 
to cold-weather inversions. One of the major case studies is to 
be Fairbanks, AK.
    BEN Model.--The Committee understands EPA is considering 
revisions to the economic model utilized by EPA to identify and 
calculate the economic benefit of regulatory noncompliance, the 
so-called ``BEN Model.'' In view of the significant 
ramifications associated with revisions to the BEN Model, it is 
imperative that an independent peer review be undertaken. The 
Committee directs EPA to undertake such a review prior to 
finalizing revisions to the BEN Model or the formal adoption of 
its proposed new approach to the recovery of economic benefit.
    Bill language relative to the liquidation of obligations is 
included as an administrative provision.
    The Committee has not included proposed bill language 
relative to the environmental services fund.

                 environmental programs and management

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $1,895,267,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   2,099,461,000
House allowance.........................................   1,895,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,000,000,000

                          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 and other administrative 
expenses for all agency programs except hazardous substance 
Superfund, LUST, Science and Technology, Oil Spill Response, 
and OIG.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $2,000,000,000 for environmental 
programs and management, an increase of $104,733,000 above the 
2000 level and a decrease of $99,461,000 below the budget 
request.
    The Committee has made the following changes to the budget 
request:
  +$8,600,000 for the National Rural Water Association.
  +$2,300,000 for the Rural Community Assistance Program.
  +$550,000 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. The Committee 
        encourages EPA to support a pilot project through the 
        Small Flows Clearinghouse that would create an Internet 
        site to help small rural communities complete Federal, 
        State and local loan and grant applications.
  +$1,250,000 for the national onsite and community wastewater 
        treatment demonstration project through the Small Flows 
        Clearinghouse.
  +$2,500,000 for the Southwest Center for Environmental 
        Research and Policy.
  +$4,000,000 for the Small Public Water System Technology 
        Centers at Western Kentucky University; the University 
        of New Hampshire; the University of Alaska-Sitka; 
        Pennsylvania State University; the University of 
        Missouri-Columbia; Montana State University; the 
        University of Illinois; and Mississippi State 
        University.
  +$500,000 for the final year of Federal funding 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 livestock 
        operations, with the goal of improving surface and 
        ground water quality.
  +$500,000 for the Ohio River Watershed Pollutant Reduction 
        Program, to be cost-shared.
  +$1,000,000 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.
  +$300,000 for the Coalition for Utah's Future to continue the 
        Envision Utah project including the development of a 
        sustainable plan for future growth and environmental 
        stewardship in the Wasatch Front.
  +$300,000 for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use 
        Management.
  +$750,000 for planning, coordination and development of a 
        comprehensive watershed based implementation program 
        for the Santa Fe River.
  +$500,000 for the Brazos-Navasota watershed management 
        project.
  +$500,000 for the Kentucky Center for Wastewater Research to 
        establish training, education and database management 
        for wastewater research to identify the greatest 
        threats to regional watersheds.
  +$250,000 for the Maryland Bureau of Mines for an acid mine 
        drainage remediation project to reduce or eliminate the 
        loss of quality water from surface streams in the 
        Kempton Mine complex.
  +$2,000,000 to the University of Missouri-Rolla for research 
        and development of technologies to mitigate the impacts 
        of livestock operations on the environment.
  +$500,000 for marsh restoration activities at Acowmin Marsh 
        and Little River Marsh near North Hampton and Rye, NH.
  +$200,000 for the Tri-State Water Quality Council for 
        development of voluntary nutrient reduction programs, 
        establishing a basinwide water quality monitoring 
        program, and related activities.
  +$500,000 for the Global Environmental Management Education 
        Center within the College of Natural Resources at the 
        University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point to provide 
        training and outreach education for safeguarding the 
        quality of surface and groundwater resources.
  +$1,000,000 for the Frank Tejeda Center for Excellence in 
        Environmental Operations to continue its efforts to 
        demonstrate new technology for water and wastewater 
        treatment.
  +$1,250,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants 
        Program. The Committee expects that the funds provided 
        for the Chesapeake Bay small watersheds program, 
        managed by the Fish and Wildlife Foundation, shall be 
        used for community-based projects including those that 
        design and implement on-the-ground and in-the-water 
        environmental restoration or protection activities to 
        help meet Chesapeake Bay Program goals and objectives.
  +$1,000,000 for the Lake Champlain management plan.
  +$1,000,000 for the Long Island Sound Program Office, for a 
        total of $1,500,000.
  +$500,000 for the Environmentors project.
  +$200,000 for the Northeast Waste Management Officials 
        Association to continue solid waste, hazardous waste, 
        cleanup and pollution prevention programs.
  +$2,000,000 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.
  +$1,890,000 for the Michigan Biotechnology Institute for 
        development and demonstration of environmental cleanup 
        technologies.
  +$200,000 for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the 
        University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture 
        and Human Resources to continue projects aimed at 
        improving the acceptability and efficacy of 
        agriculturally-based environmental restoration 
        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.
  +$1,000,000 to complete a cumulative impacts study by the 
        National Academy of Sciences of North Slope oil and gas 
        development.
  +$750,000 for an expansion of EPA's efforts related to the 
        Government purchase and use of environmentally 
        preferable products focused on biobased products with 
        an emphasis on soy-based industrial oils, greases and 
        hydraulic fluid. This includes $200,000 to complete the 
        soy smoke initiative through the University of 
        Missouri-Rolla.
  +$975,000 for the Alabama Department of Environmental 
        Management water and wastewater training programs. 
        These funds are strictly for training purposes.
  +$1,000,000 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.
  +$600,000 for the Wetland Development project in Logan, UT.
  +$500,000 for the Economic Development Alliance of Hawaii to 
        accelerate commercialization of biotechnology to reduce 
        pesticide use in tropical and subtropical agricultural 
        production.
  +$100,000 for the Connecticut River Science Consortium to 
        develop an interdisciplinary scientific monitoring and 
        analysis project in the Connecticut River Basin.
  +$1,000,000 to develop and demonstrate new tools for imaging 
        and monitoring the movement of fluids and contaminants 
        in the shallow subsurface using time-lapse geophysical 
        imaging and tomography techniques. This project will 
        involve researchers from Boise State University, the 
        Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 
        Laboratory, other Federal labs and industry.
  +$500,000 for Mississippi State University, the University of 
        Mississippi and the University of Georgia to conduct 
        forestry best management practice water quality 
        effectiveness studies in the States of Mississippi and 
        Georgia.
  +$750,000 for the University of Idaho's groundwater 
        assessment project for rural Idaho cities and towns.
  +$500,000 for a study by the City of Fairbanks using 
        geographic information system mapping to assess methods 
        to comply with NPDES requirements.
  +$150,000 to Colchester, VT to study nonpoint source 
        influences on water quality in Mallets Bay on Lake 
        Champlain and to plan for mitigation, with a focus on 
        stormwater management and on-site disposal systems.
  +$750,000 for the Resource and Agricultural Policy Systems 
        Project at Iowa State University.
  +$700,000 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 continued research 
        on watershed issues and related activities.
  +$750,000 for the New Hampshire Estuaries Project management 
        plan implementation.
  +$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.
  +$5,000,000 to the Gas Research Institute for the development 
        of a biorefinery commercialization pilot project which 
        will utilize thermal-depolymerization technology to 
        break down waste streams into usable products.
  -$98,000,000 from the climate change technology initiative 
        [CCTI]. GAO found that EPA provided no justification 
        for the requested increase for CCTI.
  -$600,000 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.
  -$9,000,000 from the Montreal protocol fund.
  -$1,000,000 from environmental education.
  -$3,840,000 from the regional geographic program.
  -$4,841,000 from the innovative community partnership 
        program.
  -$3,395,000 from urban environmental quality and human 
        health.
  -$4,000,000 from international environmental monitoring.
  -$9,000,000 from the information integration initiative. 
        While the Committee strongly supports efforts to 
        improve the quality, reliability and integration of 
        environmental data and information systems, EPA has not 
        developed a comprehensive plan for the information 
        exchange network or a detailed spending proposal to 
        guide the allocation of resources under this proposed 
        new program. Moreover, EPA has not fully assessed its 
        information integration needs nor that of the States. 
        Therefore, the Committee has provided $5,000,000 for 
        continued planning and design of the exchange network.
  -$29,000,000 as a general reduction, subject to normal 
        reprogramming guidelines.
    The Committee directs that no reductions be taken below the 
President's request from pesticides registration or 
reregistration activities, the NPDES permit backlog, RCRA 
corrective action, High Production Volume Chemical Challenge 
Program, endocrine disruptor screening program, 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 2000 
funding levels for the Great Lakes National Program Office, 
compliance assistance activities ($25,000,000), and the 
regional environmental enforcement associations. Finally, the 
Committee supports the fiscal year 1999 level for the 104(g) 
wastewater operator training program.
    The Committee supports EPA's New Source Review RACT/BACT/
LAER Clearinghouse, a partnership between EPA and states that 
enables all stakeholders to access the latest information about 
air pollution control technologies. This activity should be 
funded at not less than $1,500,000 in fiscal year 2001.
    TMDL Rules.--The Committee is very troubled with EPA's TMDL 
water quality rules addressing impaired waters under section 
303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The regulations are inconsistent 
with the Clean Water Act, inflexible and prescriptive, and have 
enormous cost implications for the States and the private 
sector. Moreover, there are serious gaps in data, research, and 
monitoring to meet the requirements EPA has set forth. 
Therefore, the Committee is very distressed with the 
administration's decision to thwart congressional intent in 
finalizing this flawed rule.
    The Committee has provided large increases under the 
``State and tribal assistance grants'' for section 319 nonpoint 
source grants and section 106 water quality grants to enable 
the States to continue planning and monitoring activities, and 
to increase efforts to control nonpoint sources of water 
pollution. In addition, the Committee expects the following 
TMDL studies to be initiated promptly.
    NAS Study of TMDLs.--The Committee directs EPA to contract 
expeditiously with the National Academy of Sciences for a 
review of the quality of science used to develop and implement 
TMDLs. The study will evaluate the information required to 
identify sources of pollutant loadings and their respective 
contributions to water quality impairment; the information 
required to allocate reductions in pollutant loadings among 
sources; whether such information is available for use by 
States; whether such information, if available, is reliable; 
and if such information is not available or is not reliable, 
what methodologies should be used to obtain such information. 
The final report shall include recommendations for improving 
the methodologies evaluated under the study and shall be 
submitted to the Congress by June 1, 2001.
    TMDLs Cost Assessment.--To obtain better cost information, 
the Committee directs EPA to conduct a comprehensive assessment 
of the potential State resources which will be required for the 
development and implementation of TMDLs and present the results 
of this study to Congress within 120 days of enactment of this 
Act. At a minimum, the report should (1) identify any expected 
increase in State personnel needed to develop and implement 
40,000 TMDLs; (2) specify additional data collection activities 
to make listing decisions; (3) identify the cost of conducting 
the needed studies to collect high quality data on the current 
loads from sources (point and nonpoint sources) of a pollutant 
on 303(d) listed waters slated for TMDL development; and (4) 
provide an estimate of the annual costs to the private sector 
due to TMDL implementation and related costs.
    TMDL Monitoring Data.--In addition, the Committee directs 
EPA to prepare an analysis of the monitoring data needed for 
development and implementation of TMDLs. Such analysis shall 
address the data gaps identified in the March 2000 GAO report 
``Water Quality, Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by 
Inconsistent and Incomplete Data,'' including gaps in data 
needed to assess all State water, identify waters that are 
impaired, identify pollution sources, develop TMDLs and develop 
plans to implement TMDLs. The analysis shall include an 
estimate of the cost of collecting the monitoring data. In 
conducting the analysis, the Administrator shall solicit 
comments from each State regarding the Agency's analysis and 
estimate.
    TMDL Guidance.--The Committee is very concerned that some 
EPA Regional offices, including Region IX, issued and 
implemented TMDL guidance to impose stringent requirements in 
individual permits prior to the TMDL rule being finalized. 
Region IX should not be mandating these requirements, and it is 
unclear whether this Region or any other Region has authority 
to do so.
    Workforce Issues.--The Committee continues to be concerned 
with EPA's haphazard approach to allocating and justifying 
staffing levels in its program offices and regions. According 
to GAO, EPA has no workforce planning strategy to determine the 
number and types of people needed to carry out strategic goals 
and objectives, EPA has not assessed changes in its workload 
resulting from factors such as productivity improvements and 
delegations of responsibilities to States, and EPA has not made 
much progress toward its stated goal of developing a process 
for continually monitoring and assessing its workforce in light 
of changes in its internal and external environment such as the 
increased role of State environmental agencies. GAO found that 
recent workforce planning efforts ``have not received the 
resources and senior management commitment needed to bring them 
to fruition, and they have fallen short of their objectives.'' 
GAO has been directed to undertake a comprehensive assessment 
of EPA human capital management, and the Committee will be 
following these efforts closely in order to address these 
concerns directly in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation.
    Financial Management Issues.--The Committee is troubled by 
the fact that EPA did not receive a ``clean'' financial audit 
for fiscal year 1999 by the Inspector General. EPA failed to 
provide complete, accurate and reliable information by the 
agreed upon dates to the OIG. Moreover, none of the 
recommendations made by the IG 1 year ago to improve financial 
management at EPA have been fully addressed. A key concern is 
the need to replace EPA's Integrated Financial Management 
System (IFMS), which is outdated and very costly to operate. 
The Committee expects EPA will take all necessary steps 
recommended by the OIG to improve financial management, 
including developing a plan to replace IFMS in a timely way, 
which would involve forming an IFMS replacement team to ensure 
sufficient staff expertise to undertake the replacement of 
IFMS, completing an options study for IFMS replacement, and 
developing a budget for this project. The Committee expects to 
be kept apprised of EPA's efforts in this area.
    Grants oversight.--The Committee is troubled that EPA's 
Inspector General continues to raise serious concerns about 
EPA's oversight of grants, which amount to more than half of 
EPA's total budget. This has been a material management control 
weakness since 1996, when the IG found that EPA grantees too 
often did not provide the products and services specified in 
the grant agreements, meet performance goals, or comply with 
procurement requirements. In the past year, the IG noted 
continuing concerns about inadequate monitoring of grantees to 
ensure proper performance, noncompetitive grant awards, and 
grants being issued when contracts were more appropriate. An IG 
audit found an EPA headquarters office and EPA regional office 
awarded grants with identical work plans to the same recipient, 
paying twice for the same work while EPA did not receive the 
product it expected. Examples of grantees who did not complete 
the work promised but received all the funds have also been 
identified. The Committee directs EPA to report quarterly on 
its efforts to address these critical management concerns, 
beginning with the submission of the fiscal year 2001 operating 
plan.
    Compliance Assistance.--The Committee directs that 
compliance assistance activities within the Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) be funded at no 
less than $25,000,000. The Committee is disturbed by EPA's 
continuing attempts to avoid the intent of Congress in this 
regard. EPA's delay in fully funding the program in fiscal year 
2000 until after Congressional oversight and with only 2 months 
remaining in the fiscal year is inexcusable, not to mention 
detrimental to improving compliance by the regulated community. 
Furthermore, EPA's diversion of compliance assistance resources 
in the middle of fiscal year 2000 to the civil enforcement 
office can only be seen as an attempt to avoid Congressionally 
directed spending levels. Therefore, the Committee directs that 
no funds spent by the Office of Regulatory Enforcement or the 
Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training count 
towards the $25,000,000 compliance assistance floor. If OECA 
spends funds in those offices on compliance assistance 
activities, it should consider moving those compliance 
assistance functions and personnel to the Office of Compliance, 
as originally intended by the Administrator's enforcement 
reorganization as approved by Congress. Likewise, the Agency 
should not attempt to divert compliance assistance funds to 
other activities such as compliance monitoring. The lack of 
senior-level enforcement management commitment to funding 
compliance assistance activities troubles the Committee. 
Compliance assistance must remain an essential element of EPA 
regulatory policy.
    Small Business Division.--The Committee directs EPA to fund 
the Small Business Division in the Office of Policy, Economics 
and Innovation at $3,000,000 and no less than 10 full time 
equivalents (excluding Senior Environmental Employees). EPA 
efforts which assist and promote small business compliance with 
existing and new environmental regulations will only benefit 
the environment. Recent EPA rulemakings, economic impact 
analysis and policy initiatives make it clear that EPA must do 
more to develop and incorporate the needs of small business 
into its activities. Stakeholder comments gathered by the 
Agency during its revision of the EPA Small Business Strategy 
reinforce this point. In allocating these resources to the 
Division, EPA should include a Division action plan along with 
its Agency operating plan submission to Congress. The plan 
should discuss how the Division will use its staff and funds to 
increase delivery of compliance information and tools to small 
business, increase development and delivery of information 
about small business characteristics, impacts and needs to the 
Agency, and increase the consideration of small business needs 
and issues within the Agency during EPA's rulemaking, 
enforcement and policy development activities.
    Environmental Data Management.--The Committee is very 
disappointed in the lack of progress by the Office of 
Environmental Information in meeting critical commitments and 
addressing serious concerns about the quality and reliability 
of EPA data. EPA still does not have a long-term strategy that 
would address specifically how it will address the myriad of 
information management issues such as insuring the quality of 
EPA data and error correction processes, integrating EPA's many 
information management system and those of the States, how it 
will work with the States to achieve this, addressing data 
gaps, and reducing reporting burdens. While EPA has finally 
begun to address major computer security concerns which were 
first raised at least 5 years ago, EPA has yet to demonstrate a 
strong commitment to establishing an effective long-term 
computer security testing and monitoring program. The Committee 
has also noted its concerns about EPA's plans for an 
information integration initiative. While the Committee 
supports this initiative in concept, very little progress has 
been made in the last year in developing a detailed plan for 
how this will work, resource requirements, and the specific 
role of the States in this effort.
    National Environmental Performance Partnership System.--The 
Committee is disappointed with the lack of progress at EPA in 
using the National Environmental Performance Partnership System 
(NEPPS) to change fundamentally EPA's relationship with the 
States in implementing environmental protection programs. The 
OIG recently found that the NEPPS program, including the 
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) program, has not been well-
integrated into EPA programs or accepted by EPA managers. The 
OIG identified several factors for this, including the lack of 
leadership, training and guidance; and the lack of goals and 
performance measures. The OIG stated, ``For many EPA regional 
managers and staff, NEPPS has not focused on environmental 
results or deferred work that was not a priority. Instead, 
NEPPS has been added to a long list of traditional work 
responsibilities. Further, some regional program managers and 
staff viewed NEPPS as only a paperwork exercise to get a 
performance partnership agreement in place.'' The Committee 
expects EPA to implement expeditiously the OIG recommendations 
to address these key shortcomings, and report to the Committee 
within 90 days of enactment of this Act on its progress.
    National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA).--The Committee notes 
that EPA recently released the first phase (emission estimates 
and ambient concentration data) of its National Air Toxics 
Assessment (NATA). The Committee is aware of the potential 
value of this tool. The Committee is also aware of recent 
concerns by States and other stakeholders regarding errors in 
NATA's inputs and models. Therefore, the Committee requests 
that EPA conduct and publish an uncertainty and variability 
analysis of NATA and its inputs and models; and an analysis of 
how the uncertainties and variabilities combine to affect the 
final risk estimates and characterizations. Furthermore, the 
Committee requests that EPA form a working group with State 
representatives and other stakeholders to help identify and 
correct NATA deficiencies and improve future NATA releases. The 
Committee also requests that EPA submit all components of NATA 
for full scientific peer-review.
    3MRA Risk Assessment Model.--The Committee is concerned 
that EPA has not peer-reviewed the 3MRA risk assessment model 
which it plans to use to identify lower-risk wastes than can 
``exit'' the RCRA system. The Committee directs EPA to submit 
the 3MRA risk model to an independent peer review, such as the 
National Academy of Sciences, and respond publicly to the 
findings of the peer review prior to using it to establish 
regulatory determinations.
    Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).--The Committee 
understands that EPA is currently completing an assessment 
requested last year on the quality of the data included in the 
Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. 
Given that the Agency and many State regulatory agencies rely 
almost exclusively on IRIS values in promulgating regulations, 
the Committee remains concerned over the potential for rules to 
rely on outdated scientific information. As a result, the 
Committee requests that the Agency devote all necessary 
resources, including continued collaboration with external 
entities where possible, to meet its goal of issuing 21 new or 
revised toxicological assessments in fiscal year 2001. In 
addition, the Committee requests that EPA conduct needs 
assessments with public input to determine the need for 
increasing this annual rate of updates to existing IRIS files 
during 2002-2005 as well as the need to add new IRIS files for 
chemicals not now included. Furthermore, the Committee also 
expects the Agency to adhere consistently to its policy to 
accept and respond to new toxicity information during 
rulemakings, as articulated in EPA's August 26, 1994 memorandum 
entitled ``Guidance on the Use of Integrated Risk Information 
System (IRIS) Values,'' as well as its December 21, 1993 
memorandum entitled ``Use of IRIS Values in Superfund Risk 
Assessment.''
    Tribal Water Quality program.--The Committee continues to 
value and support the Tribal Coordinated Water Quality program 
and the work of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and 
expects EPA to continue to fund these programs, including the 
NWIFC coordination role. The Committee expects EPA to maintain 
a base funding level amount for each tribe in this program of 
$110,000 and to provide $160,000 to NWIFC for coordination. To 
accomplish the overall program, EPA is to provide $700,000 in 
addition to the existing GAP funding presently received by the 
tribes and the NWIFC.
    New Source Review.--Numerous comments and questions have 
been raised about the agency's management of the 1980 New 
Source Review (NSR) rule and related guidance and policies. 
Given the importance of achieving clean air goals in fair and 
cost-effective ways, the Committee directs EPA to enter into an 
agreement with the National Academy of Public Administration, 
within 90 days of enactment of this Act, to conduct an 
independent evaluation of the NSR and Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) programs, and to publish a report of its 
findings and recommendations. The report, which shall be 
completed within 1 year, shall examine: the evolution of the 
agency's NSR/PSD regulations, guidance and interpretation of 
those regulations, and implementation of NSR/PSD programs; the 
respective roles of the States and EPA in implementing NSR/PSD; 
the evolution of EPA's policies and strategies on enforcement 
of NSR/PSD; and the impacts of the current NSR/PSD program 
administration on industrial competitiveness, capital 
investment, technological innovation, pollution prevention, and 
environmental quality. The Academy shall provide 
recommendations to EPA and the Congress on how to manage better 
or reform the program. The Committee has provided $500,000 for 
this study.
    Hazardous Waste Initiative.--The Committee is aware that 
many organizations, including the NAS-sponsored Government-
University-Industry Research Roundtable, the National 
Institutes of Health, and EPA, have recognized that allowing 
certain flexibility within the academic laboratory research 
environment can potentially yield superior compliance while 
reducing regulatory burden. The Committee is also aware of a 
new collaborative initiative involving environmental health 
professionals and academic research scientists from 10 major 
academic research institutions and authorized State regulatory 
officials from each of the EPA regions to establish consensus 
best practices for laboratory waste management. The Committee 
supports this approach and applauds the commitment to minimize 
the potential for harm to human health and the environment and 
to promote excellence in environmental stewardship. The 
Committee encourages EPA to participate in this initiative and 
to provide the maximum flexibility permissible under the 
regulatory provisions of RCRA, as appropriate, in support of 
the initiative. Within 12 months, EPA is to submit a report to 
the Congress evaluating the consensus best practices developed 
through the initiative and the need for regulatory changes, if 
any, to carry out its recommendations. In addition, EPA should 
consider proposing regulatory changes based on the consensus 
approach to best practices for academic research laboratory 
waste management developed under this initiative.
    Lead-paint pre-renovation rule.--The Committee is concerned 
that there remains significant confusion over compliance with 
EPA's lead-paint pre-renovation rule. Therefore, the Committee 
urges the agency to extend the compliance assistance phase of 
enforcement through September 2001, and directs EPA to release 
additional guidance that will assist the multifamily housing 
industry with compliance with the rule. The Committee believes 
that child health is best-protected in well-maintained housing 
and is concerned that excessive notification requirements will 
impede routine repairs and maintenance activities in 
multifamily properties. EPA should continue to work with 
property owners and the regulated community generally to 
develop a practical approach to implementing this rule as soon 
as possible.
    Radon in drinking water standard.--The Committee is aware 
of bipartisan efforts in Congress to introduce legislation 
which would improve public health protection from the threat of 
radon. The Committee encourages EPA to work closely with the 
Congress in crafting this legislation, and postpone final 
promulgation of a drinking water standard until such 
legislation can be fully considered.
    Compendium of Methods for Characterizing Solid Waste.--The 
Committee directs EPA to publish Update IVB to SW846 in the 
Federal Register not later than 30 days after enactment of this 
Act.
    Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell project.--The Committee notes 
that funds remain available from prior year appropriations for 
the Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell demonstration project. These 
funds are to be used in fiscal year 2001 for that purpose; 
however, EPA shall not award remaining funds until it receives, 
not later than September 1, 2000, a written plan from the 
vendor which details the vendor's design plans and costs to 
complete the pilot project.
    Mountain Cloud Water Chemistry and Deposition Program.--The 
Committee urges EPA to reinstate under the CASTNet program the 
Mountain Cloud Water Chemistry and Deposition Program to resume 
long-term cloud chemistry monitoring and research.
    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 Committee notes 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 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 continue to 
explain 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 2002 budget submission for all affected agencies.
    Ozone Protection Activities.--The Committee recognizes that 
voluntary efforts to use non-ozone depleting substances prior 
to the Clean Air Act mandate provides benefits to stratospheric 
ozone recovery. The Committee encourages EPA to develop a more 
comprehensive strategy to promote the benefits of ozone 
protection. In developing this strategy, EPA should consider 
increased public awareness, education, and outreach on the 
importance of ozone protection beyond those activities now 
employed by EPA. The Significant New Alternative Program (SNAP) 
must be the basis for all future refrigerant promotion 
supported by the agency. All new agency programs and promotion 
must be beneficial to all manufacturers without advantaging any 
single manufacturer over another. The EPA should also continue 
encouraging manufacturers to look for ways to employ the most 
environmentally beneficial refrigerants in their equipment 
designs.
    Hydraulic fracturing.--The Committee understands that the 
Office of Water plans to undertake a study focused on the 
hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane wells shortly. In 
undertaking such a study, the Committee is concerned that EPA 
not duplicate any research efforts or studies underway by 
States or other research bodies, such as the Groundwater 
Protection Council. In addition, such a study should be 
conducted by a credible organization which is widely-recognized 
for scientific and technical research studies to ensure that it 
is properly designed and executed. Data collected for the study 
as well as the study process should be transparent, and after 
completion the study should be subjected to peer review.
    The Committee has not included proposed bill language 
relative to the environmental services fund.
    Bill language relative to the liquidation of obligations is 
included as an administrative provision.

                      office of inspector general


                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $32,380,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      34,094,000
House allowance.........................................      34,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      34,094,000

                          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 $34,094,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General, the same as the budget request. In addition, 
$11,000,000 will be available by transfer from the Superfund 
account, for a total of $45,094,000. The trust fund resources 
will be transferred to the inspector general ``General fund'' 
account with an expenditure transfer.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $62,362,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      23,931,000
House allowance.........................................      23,931,000
Committee recommendation................................      23,000,000

                          program description

    The appropriation for buildings and facilities at EPA 
covers the necessary major repairs and improvements to existing 
installations which are used by the Agency. This appropriation 
also covers new construction projects when appropriate.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $23,000,000 for buildings and 
facilities, a reduction of $931,000 below the budget request.
    The reduction of $931,000 below the President's request is 
a general reduction, subject to normal reprogramming 
guidelines.
    The Committee is concerned that EPA's region II laboratory 
facility may not be able to support adequately the workload for 
region II, the environmental response team, and the Office of 
Research and Development's Urban Watershed Management research 
program. Therefore, the Committee directs EPA to report within 
60 days of enactment of this Act on its plans to ensure that 
region II laboratory needs will be met, as well as the agency's 
plans and timeline to replace or improve this facility.

                     hazardous substance superfund


                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $1,400,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   1,450,000,000
House allowance........................................\1\ 1,270,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,400,000,000

\1\ Does not include $60,000,000 for NIEHS and $70,000,000 for ATSDR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $50,000,000 below the budget request and the same 
as the fiscal year 2000 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:
      $910,337,000 for the response program. This includes the 
        President's full Superfund request for brownfields.
      $140,000,000 for enforcement.
      $38,000,000 for research and development.
      $126,000,000 for management and support.
      $75,000,000 for the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
        Disease Registry, including up to $6,000,000 for 
        medical monitoring and related activities in Libby, MT; 
        up to $3,000,000 for the Great Lakes fish consumption 
        study; $500,000 for subsistence and dietary studies of 
        contaminants in the environment, subsistence resources 
        and people in Alaska native populations; and up to 
        $1,500,000 to complete the Tom's River cancer cluster. 
        Not more than $1,000,000 should be expended on 
        toxicological profiles.
      $60,000,000 for the National Institute of Environmental 
        Health Sciences, including $23,000,000 for worker 
        training grants and $37,000,000 for research.
      $28,663,000 for the Department of Justice.
      $5,800,000 for the U.S. Coast Guard.
      $5,200,000 for other Federal agencies.
      $11,000,000 for the inspector general.
    The Committee has included bill language delaying the 
availability of $100,000,000 until September 1, 2001.
    The Committee expects to be notified of any non-ATSDR 
resources to be devoted to Libby, MT medical monitoring and 
related activities.

              leaking underground storage tank trust fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $69,760,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      72,096,000
House allowance.........................................      79,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      72,096,000

                          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 $72,096,000 
for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, an increase 
of $2,336,000 above the fiscal year 2000 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, 2000....................................     $14,974,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      15,712,000
House allowance.........................................      15,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,000,000

                          program description

    This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act of 1987 and amended by the Oil Pollution 
Act of 1990, provides funds for preventing and responding to 
releases of oil and other petroleum products in navigable 
waterways. EPA is responsible for: directing all cleanup and 
removal activities posing a threat to public health and the 
environment; conducting inspections, including compelling 
responsible parties to undertake cleanup actions; reviewing 
containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency 
plans; pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed cleanups; and 
conducting research of oil cleanup techniques. Funds are 
provided through the oilspill liability trust fund established 
by the Oil Pollution Act and managed by the Coast Guard.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the oilspill 
response trust fund, the same as the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level prior to the 0.38 percent rescission and a decrease of 
$712,000 below the budget request.

                   state and tribal ASSISTANCE grants

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $3,445,765,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   2,906,957,000
House allowance.........................................   3,176,957,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,320,000,000

                          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; Alaska Native villages; and 
information integration initiative.
    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 compliance; (15) Indians general assistance grants; 
(16) underground storage tanks; and, (17) enforcement and 
compliance assurance. 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 $3,320,000,000 
for State and tribal assistance grants, an increase of 
$413,043,000 over the budget request and a decrease of 
$125,765,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following:
      $955,000,000 for performance partnership/categorical 
        grants and associated program support. Increases above 
        the fiscal year 2000 enacted level are provided for air 
        State and local grants (+$5,000,000), section 106 water 
        quality grants (+$27,043,000), section 319 nonpoint 
        source grants (+$20,000,000), hazardous waste financial 
        assistance (+$8,000,000), and Indian general assistance 
        program (+$9,957,000).
      $820,000,000 for drinking water State revolving funds, 
        the same as the fiscal year 2000 level.
      $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, 
        $3,500,000 shall be for the El Paso-Las Cruces 
        Sustainable Water Project, $1,000,000 shall be for the 
        Del Rio/San Felipe Springs Water Treatment Plant, and 
        $2,000,000 shall be for the Brownsville water supply 
        project. A provision has been included restricting 
        border infrastructure funds to local communities that 
        have a local ordnance or zoning rule regarding 
        development.
      $35,000,000 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.
      $110,000,000 for special needs infrastructure grants, as 
        follows:
      $400,000 for the Newmarket, NH outflow discharge pipe.
      $500,000 for the Waimea Wastewater Treatment Plant 
        Interim Expansion in the County of Kauai, HI.
      $2,200,000 for water and sewer improvements in Fairbanks, 
        AK through the North Star Borough.
      $1,100,000 for water and sewer improvements in Whittier, 
        AK.
      $2,200,000 for water and sewer improvements in Sitka, AK.
      $2,000,000 for Ogden, UT, water and sewer improvements.
      $1,000,000 for Grand County, UT Water and Sewer Service 
        Agency for water infrastructure improvements.
      $3,000,000 for the Lockwood, MT wastewater collection 
        system and wastewater treatment and disposal system.
      $2,000,000 for the City of Belgrade, MT wastewater 
        collection, treatment and disposal system.
      $1,000,000 for the West Valley, MT water and sewer 
        development.
      $2,000,000 for the City of Montrose, CO sewage treatment 
        upgrade.
      $750,000 for the Pawtucket, RI water treatment plant 
        construction.
      $3,000,000 for the DeSoto County, MS comprehensive water 
        and wastewater management project.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Pearl, MS wastewater 
        collection rehabilitation.
      $1,000,000 for the Corinna, ME sewer upgrade.
      $3,000,000 for the City of Bremerton, WA combined sewer 
        overflow correction.
      $2,000,000 for the Coulee Dam, WA water infiltration 
        system.
      $500,000 for Hoodsport Water System, Mason County, WA 
        drinking water system improvements.
      $2,000,000 for the Berlin, NH water works improvement 
        project.
      $300,000 for Lebanon, NH combined sewer overflow 
        elimination project.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Abilene, TX water treatment 
        facility.
      $2,500,000 for the City of Pownal, VT wastewater 
        treatment project.
      $1,000,000 for Montgomery, VT wastewater demonstration 
        project.
      $1,500,000 for the City of Elizabeth, NJ combined sewer 
        overflow abatement project.
      $1,500,000 for the City of Carteret, NJ combined sewer 
        overflow improvements.
      $2,500,000 for the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority 
        of Arizona (WIFA) for a loan to Pima County, AZ for 
        wastewater treatment facility improvements. WIFA may 
        lend the funds directly to Pima County or use the funds 
        to support bonds to fund loans to Pima County and other 
        Arizona communities on Arizona's SRF priority list. 
        Pima County and other benefitting communities, if any, 
        shall repay loans to Arizona's SRF.
      $3,000,000 for Jefferson County, MS water and sewer 
        infrastructure needs.
      $1,000,000 for West Rankin Metropolitan Sewer Authority 
        to develop alternative water and wastewater systems for 
        Rankin County, MS.
      $3,000,000 for Logan/Todd, KY Regional Water Commission 
        for water system improvements.
      $3,000,000 for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration 
        project, Allegheny County, PA.
      $1,000,000 for the Springettsbury, PA regional sewer 
        project.
      $900,000 for the Scottsboro, AL sewer project.
      $3,000,000 for the Thomasville, AL water facility 
        project.
      $1,000,000 for the Jasper, AL sewer extension project.
      $3,000,000 for Grand Forks, ND water treatment plant.
      $4,000,000 for the City of Huron, SD to upgrade its water 
        treatment facility.
      $3,000,000 for Rapid City, SD, to upgrade its water 
        reclamation facility.
      $500,000 for the City of Alcester, SD for a wastewater 
        treatment facility.
      $3,250,000 for Clinton, IA to separate storm and sewage 
        systems.
      $1,000,000 for the City of York, SC water treatment plant 
        upgrade.
      $1,400,000 for Branchville, SC water distribution system.
      $2,000,000 for St. Clair Shores, MI combined sewer 
        overflow correction project.
      $1,000,000 for Bristol County, MA, wastewater projects.
      $1,000,000 for Lawton-Verdi, NV sewer interceptor 
        project.
      $1,000,000 for Beloit, WI combined sewer overflow 
        project.
      $2,000,000 for Milwaukee, WI, Metropolitan Sewerage 
        District for continued renovations and repairs to the 
        sewer system.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Vallejo, CA for a sanitary 
        sewer system and Mare Island.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Sacramento, CA combined sewer 
        overflow project.
      $1,500,000 for the McCall, ID water plant improvement 
        project.
      $2,300,000 for Granite Reeder, ID Water and Sewer 
        District sewer system construction.
      $1,000,000 for Burley, ID sewer system improvement 
        project.
      $1,000,000 for the Village of Johnsburg, IL wastewater 
        treatment project.
      $3,000,000 for the Alaska Department of Environmental 
        Conservation groundwater remediation project near the 
        Kenai River. The match requirement can be met with non-
        Federally funded pre-award work by the Alaska 
        Department of Environmental Conservation.
      $750,000 for Clovis, NM wastewater treatment system 
        repair.
      $4,600,000 for biological nutrient removal on the eastern 
        shore of Maryland, including $2,000,000 to the City of 
        Crisfield; $1,800,000 for the City of Fruitland; and 
        $800,000 for the Somerset County Sanitary District for 
        Princess Anne.
      $6,000,000 to be divided equally between St. Louis and 
        Kansas City, MO for the Meramec River enhancement and 
        wetlands protection project and the Central Industrial 
        District wastewater project.
      $900,000 for Nodaway County, Missouri wastewater needs, 
        including the communities of Pickering and Ravenwood.
      $100,000 for Allendale, MO wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements.
      $830,000 for Los Lunas, NM wastewater system upgrade.
      $990,000 for Corrales, NM centralized water and 
        wastewater treatment system.
      $3,180,000 for North and South Valley of the City of 
        Albuquerque and the county of Bernalillo, NM regional 
        water and wastewater system improvements.
      $1,200,000 for the West Rehoboth Expansion of the Dewey 
        Beach Sanitary District, DE.
      $650,000 for the Cowen Public Service District to provide 
        water and sewer to the proposed Cowen Industrial Park 
        in Webster County, WV.
    EPA is to work with the grant recipients on appropriate 
cost-share arrangements consistent with past practice.
    The Committee is once again perplexed with the 
administration's decision to cut funding by 40 percent for the 
clean water State revolving fund. EPA has been developing new 
estimates of the need for water and wastewater infrastructure 
funding, referred to as the ``gap analysis.'' Key findings from 
EPA's analysis include: (1) the identification of a ``gap'' 
between total annual spending for wastewater infrastructure 
nationally of $6,000,000,000 to cover the projected capital 
requirements of the new systems and replace existing systems; 
(2) the current course will lead to an annual gap of 
$12,000,000,000; (3) wastewater capital investment is declining 
but needs to double. Moreover, other sources estimate an annual 
gap of $23,000,000,000 between current investments in 
infrastructure and the investments that will be needed annually 
over the next 20 years to replace aging and failing pipes and 
meet clean water and safe drinking water mandates. The 
Committee believes the contribution of the EPA State revolving 
funds are a critical component to meeting these water 
infrastructure needs, and expects the fiscal year 2002 budget 
request to reflect this.
    Within the funds provided for 106 water quality grants, 
$2,000,000 is for grants to coastal States to establish 
monitoring and notification programs for detecting pathogens in 
coastal recreation waters, upon enactment of authorizing 
legislation. Under the 319 program, EPA should give priority to 
projects that assist communities in restoring degraded water 
bodies listed as ``impaired'' under section 303(d) of the Clean 
Water Act. In addition, 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.
    The Committee directs EPA to finalize Section 106 grant 
agreements and make funds fully available to States under the 
established allotment formula within 60 days of apportionment 
for all Section 106 eligible uses using performance partnership 
agreements or other accepted grant mechanisms at the State 
option, so long as the State maintains the fiscal year 2000 
level of effort.
    The Committee has not included bill language requested by 
the administration authorizing a set-aside of up to 19 percent 
of State revolving funds for nonpoint source grants. The 
Committee notes it has recommended $220,000,000 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 proposals for a new $85,000,000 clean air 
partnership grant program or a new $50,000,000 Great Lakes 
grant program. These programs are not specifically authorized 
and cannot be supported in view of the many higher priority 
agency activities.
    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 2000, 
which allows States in fiscal year 2001 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.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    The Committee has included an administrative provision 
requested by EPA regarding the liquidation of obligations in 
multiple-year appropriations accounts. Similar language was 
included last year.
    The Committee has also included a provision as proposed by 
the administration, authorizing EPA to enter into cooperative 
agreements with Indian tribal governments to facilitate the 
administration of environmental programs on Indian 
reservations.
    The Committee has included bill language reinstating the 
12-month grace period following designation for new 
nonattainment areas for the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards originally contained in EPA conformity regulations.

                   Executive Office of the President


                Office of Science and Technology Policy

Appropriations, 2000....................................      $5,089,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       5,201,000
House allowance.........................................       5,150,000
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 $112,000 above the fiscal year 
2000 enacted level.
    The Committee recognizes the administration's recent 
efforts to combat the fear and hysteria being generated around 
the use of biotechnology. The Committee is encouraged by the 
efforts of OSTP and NSF to educate the public about 
biotechnology with scientific facts and reason. The 
administration announced a plan on May 3, 2000 to strengthen 
science-based regulation and consumer access to information 
about food and agricultural biotechnology activities. The 
Committee plans to monitor the implementation of this new plan 
and encourages OSTP and other Federal agencies such as NSF, the 
Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, 
and EPA to provide a coherent and unified voice on the 
scientific facts behind biotechnology. The Committee believes 
that it is critical that the administration ensures that the 
fear and hysteria surrounding biotechnology is minimized, 
especially since the Committee has concerns about recent 
tactics to misinform the public about other important 
scientific endeavors such as nanotechnology. Accordingly, the 
Committee directs OSTP to provide recommendations to the 
Committee by January 19, 2001 on creating a new office within 
OSTP to coordinate the Federal Government's activities and 
efforts in providing the public with scientifically-based 
information relating to biotechnology.
    The issues surrounding indirect costs remain a concern to 
the Committee. Despite the Federal Government's numerous 
efforts to lower the indirect cost rates, the average indirect 
cost rates at universities was about 52.3 percent in fiscal 
year 1997--only 0.4 percent lower than the average rate in 
fiscal year 1991--according to the Chronicle of Higher 
Education. This is confirmed by data available from the Office 
of Naval Research and Department of Health and Human Services, 
which found that negotiated rates have remained stable for at 
least a decade. The 1998 National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act (Public Law 105-207) required OSTP to prepare 
a report to the Congress on indirect costs to analyze, among 
other things, options to reduce or control the rate of growth 
of the Federal indirect cost reimbursement rates. This report 
was submitted to the Congress on July 21, 2000. While the OSTP 
report concluded that Federal policy changes to further reduce 
indirect costs would be detrimental to the research enterprise 
at our nation's universities, it recommended that ``thoughtful 
dialogues between the Federal Government and the universities 
on ways to increase administrative efficiency are the best way 
to assure a wise and productive government investment.'' The 
Committee agrees with the OSTP recommendation and urges OSTP to 
review how universities can improve the way they administer 
research grants and activities.
    The OSTP report also found that there is currently no 
systematic method by which the Federal Government collects and 
maintains data on indirect cost rates and actual costs. The 
Committee recommends that OSTP include in its fiscal year 2002 
budget a cost estimate on creating a central database of 
Federal research indirect costs and rates.
    For the past several years, the Committee has followed with 
interest the developing progress that has been made relative to 
research and development using high field nuclear magnetic 
resonance (NMR) instrumentation and has requested OSTP to 
assess the future needs in this field. At present, the greatest 
impediment to federal initiatives in this area is the lack of a 
commercially-available 900 MHz instrument. There is the view 
that new commercial instrumentation could be available in the 
very near future. The Committee strongly encourages the OSTP to 
convene a working group to monitor developments and plan for 
interagency initiatives to allow U.S. scientists to take full 
advantage of these new instruments through novel linkages and 
collaborations among leading academic institutions and national 
laboratories.
    Lastly, the Committee is concerned about the participation 
of those agencies involved in the information technology 
initiative. While the Committee is encouraged by the research 
community's response to NSF's information technology program, 
it is concerned about those proposals which NSF has received 
that could be funded from other agencies such as the National 
Institutes of Health. The Committee urges OSTP to coordinate 
the activities of the IT participating agencies to ensure that 
funding proposals are considered by the appropriate agency.

  Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality

Appropriations, 2000....................................      $2,816,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       3,020,000
House allowance.........................................       2,900,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,900,000

                          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 $2,900,000 for the Council on 
Environmental Quality, an increase of $84,000 above the fiscal 
year 2000 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, 2000....................................      33,666,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      33,660,000
House allowance.........................................      33,661,000
Committee recommendation................................      33,660,000

                          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 $33,660,000 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, 2000....................................  $3,338,421,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   3,580,477,000
House allowance.........................................     876,730,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,515,977,000

                          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 $3,515,977,000 for the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. The amount provided includes 
$2,909,220,000 in disaster relief expenditures (of which 
$2,609,220,000 is contingency funding) and $906,757,000 for 
other programs.

                            disaster relief

Appropriations, 2000..................................\1\ $2,768,009,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................................\2\ 2,909,220,000
House allowance.........................................     300,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................\2\ 2,909,220,000

\1\ Includes $2,480,425,000 in contingency funds.
\2\ Includes $2,609,220,000 in contingency funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 President's request of 
$300,000,000 for disaster relief, and an additional 
$2,609,220,000 in disaster relief contingency funds.
    The Committee has included bill language making available 
up to $15,000,000 for map modernization activities in areas 
which receive Presidential disaster declarations. The Committee 
believes it is critical that accurate maps are developed 
following disasters to ensure reconstruction activities are 
carried out in accordance with appropriate codes and standards. 
These funds are limited strictly to mapping needs associated 
with post-disaster reconstruction activities only.
    The Committee has not included the administration's 
proposal for up to $50,000,000 for buyouts of repetitive loss 
properties in areas which receive Presidential disaster 
declarations as this issue was addressed in the fiscal year 
2000 emergency supplemental appropriation. The Committee is 
very disappointed in FEMA's implementation of the buyout 
program. Despite clear Congressional directives to engage 
stakeholders in a serious dialogue on the establishment of a 
program, coordinate with other relevant agencies, and issue 
timely regulations, the agency has failed to do so. FEMA has 
not established clear guidelines and parameters, incentives for 
the purchase of--and disincentives not to purchase--flood 
insurance, consistent procedures for estimating pre-flood fair 
market value, and procedures to ensure an equitable 
distribution of funds to the most appropriate buyout 
candidates. Rather than establishing a national program, FEMA 
has relied on the States to develop priorities and procedures, 
resulting in a haphazard, inconsistent, and inequitable 
approach. Almost 1 year after Hurricane Floyd struck the east 
coast, there continues to be confusion amongst States and flood 
victims as to what the buyout program is intended to 
accomplish. The Committee directs in the strongest manner 
possible that FEMA rectify these shortcomings immediately.
    Under section 311 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act, an applicant must agree to obtain 
and maintain insurance as a condition of receiving a public 
assistance grant. The Committee continues to support FEMA's 
efforts to achieve a nationally consistent level of 
responsibility among public and certain private nonprofit 
entities for natural disaster risks by enhancing building 
insurance coverage requirements as a criterion for eligibility 
for public assistance. Last spring FEMA issued an advanced 
notice of proposed rulemaking and expects to finalize a rule 
prior to the end of the calendar year. The Committee urges FEMA 
to act expeditiously on this important effort.
    The Committee urges FEMA to work with the Quileute Tribe in 
Washington State to develop necessary flood mapping for the 
Bogachiel and Quillayute River.
    The Committee supports FEMA's efforts to streamline 
disaster field operations, including developing three levels of 
operational responses to disasters; utilizing standardized 
staffing templates for large, medium and small disasters; 
minimizing and/or eliminating disaster field offices; and State 
management of small disasters. The Committee expects FEMA to 
keep it informed of its streamlining efforts, with a report 
within 90 days of enactment of this Act.

                      PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION FUND

Appropriations, 2000....................................................
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     $30,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
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.

                         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, 2000....................      $1,295,000        $420,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................       1,678,000         427,000
House allowance.........................       1,295,000         420,000
Committee recommendation................       1,678,000         427,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $427,000 in 
administrative expenses. For the cost of subsidizing the 
appropriation, the bill includes $1,678,000.

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $179,950,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     221,024,000
House allowance.........................................     190,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     215,000,000

                          program description

    This account provides the necessary resources to administer 
the Agency's various programs at headquarters and in the 
regions; and 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 $215,000,000 for FEMA salaries and 
expenses. This is a decrease of $6,024,000 below the request 
and an increase of $35,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 
enacted level. This is a general reduction subject to normal 
reprogramming requirements. The amount recommended is 
sufficient to move forward with the headquarters building 
project while potentially needing to delay some procurements 
until fiscal year 2002. In addition, the amount provided allows 
for modest enhancements in terrorism-related programs as 
requested by the administration.

                    office of the inspector general

Appropriations, 2000....................................      $7,965,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       8,476,000
House allowance.........................................       8,015,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

                          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 $10,000,000 for the Office of the 
Inspector General, an increase of $2,035,000 above the fiscal 
year 2000 enacted level.
    Bill language has been included which authorizes the FEMA 
Inspector General to serve also as the IG for the Chemical 
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Additional funds are 
recommended to enable the OIG to carry out these new 
responsibilities. It is estimated that up to 8 additional 
permanent full-time employees would be necessary to fulfill 
this requirement. The Committee does not intend that this new 
responsibility will diminish in any way the OIG's FEMA 
oversight responsibilities.
    To ensure the independence of the OIG, additional funds 
above the President's request are also recommended to enable 
the OIG to support its own administrative functions rather than 
relying on FEMA for support services such as budget and 
accounting, procurement, and personnel.
    The Committee expects the OIG to prepare annual audited 
financial statements for the new Office of Cerro Grande Fire 
Claims.

              emergency management planning and assistance

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $267,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     269,652,000
House allowance.........................................     267,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     269,652,000

                          program description

    The emergency management planning and assistance 
appropriation provides resources for the following activities: 
response and recovery; preparedness; training and exercises; 
information technology services; fire prevention and training; 
operations support; policy and regional operations; mitigation 
programs; and executive direction.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget estimate of 
$269,652,000 for emergency management planning and assistance. 
This is an increase of $2,652,000 above the fiscal year 2000 
level.
    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 the fiscal year 2000 level of $25,000,000 for this 
program.
    The Committee is concerned about recent findings of the 
Inspector General regarding Project Impact. In particular, the 
IG found that reported partner contributions are not accurate 
and communities are not spending their Federal grant monies 
timely. The Committee directs FEMA to submit a report within 90 
days of enactment of this Act describing its plans to implement 
the recommendations of the IG.
    The Committee has not included the administration's 
proposal for $25,000,000 for a new grant program for 
firefighters. There has not been sufficient justification for 
this new program, particularly in view of the extraordinary 
budget constraints imposed by the subcommittee's allocation. 
Funding for a new local grant program would be possible only by 
imposing cuts in other critical areas, such as other U.S. Fire 
Administration programs, anti-terrorism, disaster training or 
exercises. The Committee cannot support such cuts.
    The Committee supports FEMA's budget request of $3,825,000 
to prepare urban search and rescue task forces for incidents 
involving weapons of mass destruction.
    The Committee urges FEMA to work with the Engineering and 
Geology Departments at the University of Mississippi and 
University of Missouri-Rolla on the development of a 
comprehensive earthquake preparedness plan and safe, cost-
effective hazard mitigation measures associated with the New 
Madrid Seismic Zone in Mid-America.
    The Committee urges the National Fire Academy to work with 
West Texas A&M; University to establish an on-line fire 
management administration program. This program would enable 
graduates to interact effectively with law enforcement and 
public works personnel, city councils and mayors, and county 
government personnel, to coordinate and administer better their 
fire department's activities.
    The Committee urges FEMA to continue the Chemical Health 
and Environmental Management in Schools (CHEMIS) program. This 
program provides valuable training to schools, health and 
safety officials, and regulatory agencies on the proper method 
of storing, handling, and disposing of dangerous chemicals. The 
Pan-Educational Institute (PEI) has been successful in 
providing this unique training to 24 States.
    The Committee has included full funding for the dam safety 
program.

                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 recover the amounts anticipated by FEMA to 
be obliated in the next fiscal year for expenses related to REP 
program activities. Estimated collections for fiscal year 2001 
are $14,261,000.

                       emergency food and shelter

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $110,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     140,000,000
House allowance.........................................     110,000,000
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 3.5 percent of the funding received for 
administrative costs.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $110,000,000 for the Emergency 
Food and Shelter Program, the same as the fiscal year 2000 
level and a reduction of $30,000,000 below the budget request.

                     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 
$25,736,000 for administrative costs from the Flood Insurance 
Program for salaries and expenses. The Committee has also 
included bill language providing up to $77,307,000 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 2001 for 
borrowing from the Treasury up to $1,500,000,000, and for flood 
mapping studies.
    The Committee supports the recommendations contained in the 
recent report by the Heinz Center ``Evaluation of Erosion 
Risks'' and directs FEMA to put together a plan to develop 
erosion hazard maps that display the location and extent of 
coastal areas subject to erosion, including a cost estimate and 
timeframe.
    The Committee directs the GAO to undertake a comprehensive 
review of the National Flood Insurance Program, including 
implementation of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 
1994, assessing lender compliance, examining participation 
rates, and make recommendations to improve participation and 
the program generally. This review is to complement, not 
duplicate a recent review by the FEMA OIG of compliance with 
homeowner flood insurance purchase requirements.
    The Committee notes that on March 9, 2000, the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers issued changes to the nationwide permits 
(NWPs) under the wetlands permitting program under section 404 
of the Clean Water Act. The Corps' action will restrict access 
to streamlined permitting of minimal impact projects under the 
NWPs in 100-year floodplains. The new restrictions are 
predicated on the use of flood insurance rate maps issued by 
FEMA. However, FEMA acknowledges its maps are outdated and 
inaccurate. According to FEMA, flood data updates are needed 
for 17,500 panels of the approximately 100,000 panel inventory; 
an additional 16,500 panels require map maintenance to update 
non-engineering reference features, such as roads and corporate 
limits; and the manual cartographic methods used to prepare 
most of the maps limit the utility of the maps for users and 
FEMA's ability to distribute cost effectively and revise the 
maps, requiring converting to digital format 74,500 map panels. 
These map modernization requirements will cost an estimated 
$750,000,000. A funding source for the comprehensive map 
modernization effort has not been identified. Clearly it will 
take a significant commitment of time and resources to 
modernize fully FEMA's map inventory. In the meantime, 
effective implementation of the Corps' rule will be compromised 
at best.
    The Committee directs FEMA to report within 120 days of 
enactment of this Act on (1) the availability to the public of 
flood insurance rate maps depicting the 100-year floodplains 
that differentiate clearly between the ``floodway'' and the 
``flood fringe;'' (2) the availability to the public of flood 
insurance rate maps that depict, on a statewide basis, 100-year 
floodplains; (3) where such maps are not available, a timetable 
for when such maps will be made available; (4) an analysis of 
the accuracy of the flood insurance rate maps that are 
currently available; and (5) how FEMA will implement its new 
responsibilities under General Condition 26 of the nationwide 
permit program, including the organization and process for 
implementing such responsibilities, and the cost, including the 
number of personnel and work-hours involved, of implementing 
such responsibilities.
    Finally, the Committee notes that FEMA is not and was never 
intended to be a regulatory agency, and therefore the Committee 
does not expect FEMA to assume a formal role in the NWP 
permitting process or spend any appropriated funds to approve, 
disapprove or condition applications for ``individual'' or 
``standard'' permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND

                          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

    Through fee-generated funds totaling $20,000,000 in fiscal 
year 2001 transferred from the National Flood Insurance Fund, 
the National Flood Mitigation Fund will provide a mechanism to 
reduce the financial burden of pre-existing, at-risk structures 
that are repetitively flooded by removing or elevating these 
structures out of flood hazard areas, as well as provide flood 
mitigation assistance planning support to States and 
communities.

                    General Services Administration


                  federal consumer information center

Appropriations, 2000....................................      $2,622,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       6,822,000
House allowance.........................................       7,122,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,122,000

                          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.
    On January 28, 2000, the Consumer Information Center 
assumed responsibility for the operations of the Federal 
Information Center [FIC] program with the resulting 
organization being officially named the Federal Consumer 
Information Center [FCIC]. The FIC program was established 
within the General Services Administration in 1966, and was 
formalized by Public Law 95-491 in 1980. The program's purpose 
is to provide the public with direct information about all 
aspects of Federal programs, regulations, and services. To 
accomplish this mission, the FIC uses contractual services to 
respond to public inquiries via a nationwide toll-free 
telephone call center. The FIC was previously funded by the 
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act.
    The new Federal Consumer Information Center combines the 
nationwide toll-free telephone assistance program and the 
database of the FIC with the CIC website and publications 
distribution programs. The FCIC is a one-stop source for 
citizens to get information about government programs and 
everyday consumer issues.
    Public Law 98-63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a 
revolving fund for the CIC. Under this fund, FCIC 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 FCIC activities. All 
are available as authorized in appropriation acts without 
regard to fiscal year limitations.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $7,122,000 for the Federal 
Consumer Information Center. This reflects an increase of 
$300,000 from the fiscal year 2001 budget request and is 
necessary to bring FCIC's annual income more in balance with 
its administrative expenses and to shore up the FCIC Fund 
balance. Despite FCIC's actions to reduce costs, fixed expenses 
have continued to increase while the appropriation has remained 
stable and other funding sources, such as users fees, have 
declined due to the reduction in the public's demand for 
printed publications. This has resulted in a projected Fund 
balance of $291,000 at the end of fiscal year 2001, an amount 
insufficient to offset administrative expenses in future years.
    The increase of $4,500,000 over the current level mainly is 
associated with the Agency's new responsibility for the Federal 
Information Center.
    The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from 
Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications, 
user fees from the public, and other income. FCIC's anticipated 
obligations for fiscal year 2001 will total approximately 
$10,927,000.
    In fiscal year 2001, the FCIC program expects to respond to 
2,700,000 phone calls, distribute approximately 5,600,000 
publications, and receive 13.5 million web accesses. This 
represents delivery of a total of 21.8 million information 
products to the public.
    The Committee strongly supports GSA's decision to allot to 
the position of Director, Federal Consumer Information Center, 
one Senior Executive Service slot in view of the level of 
responsibility of this important agency.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration


Appropriations, 2000

                                                         $13,600,819,000

Budget estimate, 2001

                                                          14,035,300,000

House allowance

                                                          13,658,600,000

Committee recommendation

                                                          13,844,000,000

                          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 $13,844,000,000 for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2001, an 
increase of $243,181,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level.
    The Committee strongly supports NASA's mission of promoting 
civilian space flight, exploration, scientific advancement, and 
the development of next-generation technologies. The current 
centerpiece of NASA's mission is the construction of the 
International Space Station that when complete in 2005-2006 
will represent the most sophisticated long-duration habitable 
microgravity research laboratory in space. This research 
facility will significantly enhance human understanding of the 
challenges facing humans in exploring the universe and will 
serve as a stepping stone to the future exploration of space. 
It also will provide a unique science platform for space-based 
research in cell and developmental biology, plant biology, 
human physiology and all branches of physics. The construction 
of this facility has continued with the successful integration 
of the long delayed Russian Zvezda service module that will 
serve as the initial crew habitation quarters early in fiscal 
year 2001.
    Nevertheless, the Committee remains very concerned by cost 
overruns and unrealistic budgeting by NASA, especially those 
associated with the development and construction of the 
International Space Station. This concern was highlighted most 
significantly by the independent cost assessment and validation 
[CAV] report issued in 1998 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 $17,400,000,000 and will take up to 38 months 
longer to build than previous NASA estimates. In addition, many 
of these higher costs were unfairly borne through budget 
reductions in other NASA programs and activities, most 
particularly programs and activities designed to increase our 
understanding of the space and earth sciences. In addition, 
since that report, delays and cost overruns continue to be a 
significant problem that NASA has not addressed adequately.
    The Committee continues to believe that NASA must 
articulate a comprehensive agenda and strategy through a 
strategic plan for each of NASA's primary centers that links 
staffing, funding resources and mission activities in a manner 
that will ensure each primary center will be vested with 
specific responsibilities and activities. Within each 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 should articulate clearly 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. These plans should be updated annually.
    As part of the Committee's efforts to understand NASA's 
long-term budgeting, the Committee directs NASA by April 15, 
2001, to identify 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 expects explicit information on full-time 
equivalent and overhead costs (including how overhead costs are 
calculated) at all of the space centers by each mission, 
program, and activity. As of now, NASA has not provided 
adequate information on these matters.
    The Committee also seeks 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 operating plan and all resubmissions also 
should include an accounting of all program/mission reserves. 
The Committee also directs NASA to maintain its current account 
structure.
    The Committee also expects NASA to continue to refine its 
implementation of the Government Performance and Reports Act 
[GPRA]. NASA needs to tie its performance goals and the 
benchmarks to its annual budget submission.
    The Committee remains sensitive to 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. The Committee commends both NASA and the NASA 
Inspector General (IG) for their efforts to protect sensitive 
NASA-related technologies. Nevertheless, this will remain an 
area of great sensitivity and concern as the development of 
technological advances likely will continue to accelerate. The 
Committee directs NASA and the NASA IG to report annually on 
these issues, including an assessment of risk.

                           HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $5,487,900,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   5,499,900,000
House allowance.........................................   5,472,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,400,000,000

                          general description

    NASA's ``Human Space Flight'' account provides funding for 
human space flight activities, including the development and 
assembly of the International Space Station and the operation 
of the Space Shuttle. It also includes support of activities 
with Russia, upgrades to the performance and safety of the 
Space Shuttle, and other activities in support of the 
International Space Station and Space Shuttle.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has provided $5,400,000,000 for the Human 
Space Flight account. This amount is $99,900,000 less than the 
President's request for these activities in fiscal year 2001 
and $72,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2000 level.
    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. The station will 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. 
Nevertheless, a reduction of funding is appropriate because of 
the program's history of delays and overruns that mean many 
activities and associated costs will be pushed into subsequent 
fiscal years.
    The Committee also supports the international character of 
the Space Station as a symbol and tool for international 
cooperation and partnership. Despite this support, the 
Committee continues to have substantial concerns regarding the 
ability of Russia to meet its financial commitment and 
partnership obligations to the Space Station, but is sensitive 
to the difficult issues that face Russia as it attempts to make 
the transition from communism to a more democratic and 
commercial society.
    The Committee is also troubled over NASA's failure to 
provide adequate information on the operational costs of the 
International Space Station and believes that NASA must expand 
the development of related research efforts, activities and 
missions to broaden commercial investment and partnerships 
throughout the country through open competitive procedures. The 
Committee directs NASA to develop no later than April 15, 2001 
a working plan that establishes a 10-year plan for all research 
efforts, activities and missions related to the ISS, including 
operational needs. This plan needs to be a public document in 
which interested parties are provided an opportunity to comment 
and participate in its development of the plan and the use of 
the International Space Station. In addition, in conjunction 
with the primary NASA centers, NASA needs to compete the 
research efforts, missions and activities related to the 
International Space Station based on objective criteria and 
requirements in the Federal Register. These requirements 
include the development of and investment in research 
facilities and major research equipment, including medical 
facilities and equipment.
    In addition, the International Space Station program should 
be national in scope as it is international in scope. There 
should be a university-based center of excellence approach for 
universities throughout the country that links the various 
science disciplines that are the subject of research on the 
ISS. The Committee directs NASA to develop a blueprint plan 
that identifies lead universities as well as complimentary 
universities that will coordinate with NASA for the individual 
science disciplines that will be the focus of research after 
assembly is complete. In addition, universities should be 
encouraged to coordinate with public and private research 
facilities. The Committee encourages NASA to look at the Hubble 
Space Telescope (HST) as a model for the development of a 
university-based consortium to manage the ISS science research.
    The Committee also recognizes the value of software 
configuration management for the International Space Station 
and encourages NASA to continue evaluating its role in the ISS 
program.
    Nine space shuttle flights have been planned for fiscal 
year 2001, including seven flights for the assembly and 
servicing of the International Space Station, one for the 
service of the Hubble space telescope (Hubble), and a dedicated 
microgravity research flight. The Committee remains concerned 
that NASA has focused primarily on shuttle flights targeted to 
the assembly of the ISS. The Committee also expects NASA to 
schedule an additional annual shuttle flight for microgravity 
research as important in order to maintain the continuity and 
quality of microgravity research, and directs NASA to report to 
the Committee on a schedule for these flights by February 15, 
2001.
    The Committee supports the full budget request for shuttle 
upgrades, and remains supportive of all safety needs associated 
with the space shuttle fleet in response to workforce staffing 
needs and obsolescence concerns raised in the Annual Report for 
1999 of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. This report echoes 
many of the concerns highlighted by the National Research 
Council's report, Upgrading the Space Shuttle (1999) and the 
report of the Space Shuttle Independent Assessment Team (March 
7, 2000). It is critical that the shuttle fleet be maintained 
in peak condition, especially as shuttle crews work under 
extremely stressful conditions that are a natural corollary to 
the construction and assembly of the International Space 
Station. The commitment of adequate resources has become more 
important since the space shuttle fleet will remain the primary 
vehicle for human space flight until a decision is made on a 
replacement vehicle such as a reusable launch vehicle.
    The Committee encourages NASA to continue to evaluate 
Lithium-Ion batteries as a power source for space tools used 
aboard the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station.

                  SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, and TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $5,580,895,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   5,929,400,000
House allowance.........................................   5,579,600,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,837,000,000

                          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 $5,837,000,000 for the Science, 
Aeronautics and Technology account, a reduction of $92,400,000 
below the President's request and $256,105,000 above the fiscal 
year 2000 enacted level. 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 2001 operating 
plan.
    Space Science.--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 loss of two consecutive Mars missions in the 
Mars Surveyor program raises serious concerns with regard to 
NASA's philosophy of ``faster, better, cheaper.'' The Committee 
believes that these losses should have been easily avoided. In 
particular, the $125,000,000 Mars Climate Orbiter was lost on 
September 23, 1999 because of a failure by Lockheed Martin/JPL 
to convert English units into metric units. Subsequently, the 
$165,000,000 Mars Polar Lander likely was lost because of a 
coding failure that never should have occurred. Both programs 
had histories of cost overruns and schedule delays. These 
failures follow last year's losses of the Lewis and Clark and 
the Wide-field Infrared Explorer (WIRE) missions. Since 1992, 
NASA has launched 16 robotic space exploration missions under 
the ``faster, better, cheaper'' policy and seven of these 
missions have either failed or had serious problems post 
launch.
    The Mars Program Independent Assessment Team Report, 
released on March 14, 2000, acknowledged the value of the Mars 
program as well as the viability of the ``faster, better, 
cheaper'' philosophy. The Committee also supports this 
philosophy but directs NASA to take all necessary steps to 
ensure that the right lessons are learned and applied. In 
particular, the report emphasized the need to establish 
protocols that minimize risk, including the need to provide 
experienced leadership, standards for risk assessment and the 
development of realistic budgets and reserves for each mission 
which also tie decisionmaking to appropriate headquarter 
oversight.
    The Committee recognizes that the recommendations of the 
Mars Program Independent Assessment Team may be applied 
throughout the Space Science enterprise in order to minimize 
the possibility of future mission failures. This likely will 
increase the costs of space science missions in future years. 
The Committee, therefore, directs NASA to provide a 5-year 
profile of the additional costs that would be associated with 
implementing the Mars Program recommendations as part of the 
fiscal year 2002 budget submission.
    The Committee understands that NASA missions and activities 
have inherent risk, and supports NASA's efforts to push the 
envelope of human knowledge which requires some risk and must 
allow for failure. The Committee also believes that any failure 
must be smart failure, not stupid failure.
    NASA's fiscal year 2001 request for the Office of Space 
Science also provides an important first step toward achieving 
a robust and consolidated Sun-Earth Connection (SEC) program. 
This new initiative called ``Living With A Star'' and the 
intent to accelerate the launch rate of Solar Terrestrial Probe 
(STP) missions will strengthen OSS's overall program. 
Accordingly, the Committee has provided the full budget 
request, $20,000,000, for this initiative in 2001 and directs 
NASA to submit a detailed, long-term plan to create a resilient 
SEC program by February 15, 2001. The plan should include a 
launch schedule, flight profile and creation of an Advanced 
Technology Development (ATD) program.
    Based on the Committee's direction to select competitively 
75 percent of space science advanced technology funding, NASA 
recently released an open research announcement in the Cross 
Enterprise Technology Development Program (CETDP) that resulted 
in an impressive response of over 1,200 proposals worth 
$1,500,000,000. However, NASA has raised concerns that 
diverting these funds to open solicitations is contributing to 
a possible loss of needed ``core competencies'' at the NASA 
field centers. Therefore, the Committee requests that the 
National Academy of Sciences report to the Committee by June 
2001 whether NASA's concern over core competencies is 
adequately understood and the desired funding is justified, and 
whether the CETDP out-year budget for open solicitations should 
be reduced in favor of funding key core competency activities. 
In the meantime, NASA should take no action that undermines the 
75 percent goal or the planned open research solicitations. If 
NASA feels that additional funding is needed in fiscal year 
2001 to address transitional core competency issues, then the 
agency may propose for the Committee's consideration a 
reprogramming of funds from within the Intelligent Synthesis 
Environment program.
    The Committee fully supports NASA's goal to develop new 
long-term partnerships, particularly with university 
laboratories throughout the country. As a means of cost 
reduction and improving long-term vision, NASA must leverage 
existing infrastructures and capabilities at university 
laboratories. This approach has the added benefits of 
complementing NASA's core capabilities at NASA centers and 
improving technology transfer to the private sector. NASA is 
encouraged to invest in future partnerships of this type to 
enhance the fundamental value of its earth and space science 
programs.
    The Committee includes an additional $3,000,000 for the 
development of the STEP-AIRSEDS program, an electrodynamic and 
momentum transfer space tether transportation program.
    The Committee continues to note the significant scientific 
knowledge and discovery which Hubble Space Telescope generates 
now nearly a decade past its initial launch. The Committee 
believes that HST should continue to have the capabilities to 
generate significant scientific advancement throughout its 
currently planned life on orbit. For this reason, the Committee 
believes that additional funds are necessary to cover costs to 
the program for servicing-related expenses caused by delays in 
launch due to the space shuttle's manifest schedule that have 
forced the program to deplete critical program reserves. The 
Committee believes these costs should be allocated to the Human 
Space Flight account absent a reasonable justification from 
NASA. As the NASA budget picture becomes clearer, the Committee 
anticipates providing additional funds to cover these HST 
costs. At the same time, the Committee believes that costs for 
the upcoming deployment of the Wide Field Camera 3 (WF3) should 
be constrained in accordance with the program's fiscal year 
1998 baseline. For this reason, WF3 costs, exclusive of costs 
borne by the Office of Space Flight for shuttle integration and 
payload processing and related shuttle launch costs, is capped 
at $75,500,000.
    The Committee includes an increase of $2,500,000 for the 
Hubble telescope project to initiate a Composites Technology 
Institute in Bridgeport, WV. The Hubble telescope project has 
been one of the exemplary programs at NASA that has educated 
and heightened public knowledge and appreciation of the wonders 
of the universe. To maximize public investment in this program, 
NASA is directed to fund fully all upgrades.
    Earth Science.--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 is concerned about the failure to implement 
Congressional directives in the release of specific funding 
designated by the Appropriations Committees in the Fiscal Year 
2000 VA-HUD Appropriations Act. For this reason, the Committee 
is suspending the ability of the Office of Earth Science to 
reprogram funds in fiscal year 2001 unless specifically 
authorized by the Committees on Appropriations. The Committee 
will consider changes to this policy where there are issues 
related to near-term launch readiness and mission safety.
    The Committee remains troubled by the lack of a follow-on 
strategy for the next generation of earth science satellites. 
While the Committee is aware of the National Academy of 
Sciences plan for follow-on missions, the Committee thus far 
has received no notice of a definitive plan or any indication 
as to what the future missions will be. The Committee, 
therefore, recommends a funding increase of $2,500,000 for the 
National Academy of Sciences to initiate follow-on studies from 
the National Academy to identify mid- and long-term follow-on 
flight profiles.
    As part of the follow-on plan, the Office of Earth Science 
should devise a flight program that allows for regular flight 
opportunities similar to the space science effort in explorer, 
discovery and parallel class missions awarded through the 
announcement of opportunity process; $1,500,000 for studies 
initiating a Landsat-7 follow-on commercial data purchase; 
$2,000,000 for phase A/B studies and preliminary advanced 
technology development (ATD) work to initiate the global 
precipitation mission, identified by the National Academy as a 
high priority data requirement; $2,000,000 for phase A/B 
studies and preliminary ATD work on the global earthquake 
satellite; $5,000,000 for studies on the next generation earth 
science data information system, the so called ``new DIS.'' The 
Committee believes there should be an emphasis on the re-use of 
the existing system in order to minimize future costs while 
allowing for the infusion of new technology; $50,000,000 for 
formulation studies and ATD on the NPOESS preparatory project 
(NPP) mission, of which $5,000,000 shall be an additional 
amount allocated to ECS only for the development of high speed 
data processing and algorithm validation processes to minimize 
NPP flight risks.
    The Committee also expects the Office of Earth Science to 
allocate management for each of the above follow-on directives, 
except the National Academy studies, to the appropriate NASA 
centers to integrate fully the Agency's earth science 
capabilities into the future of the earth science program.
    The Committee provides an additional $40,000,000 above the 
request to ensure delivery of a full scale EOSDIS Core System 
(ECS) only for a total program level of $115,000,000. Of these 
additional funds, $25,000,000 should be used to provide 
optimized system functionality, planning for future growth and 
adaptations due to instrument team changes, provision for 
additional processing, and archival capabilities needed at the 
DAAC's. The remaining $15,000,000 is needed to continue and 
expand the Synergy program that was begun in fiscal year 2000. 
In fiscal year 2001, the Committee believes the Synergy program 
should focus on the following: continued development of the 
current applications to make them accessible to the general 
public; expansion of the number of infomarts/data store fronts 
to broaden the application base and implementation of a unified 
access data server for local, State and Federal agencies and 
the commercial marketplace. As part of this effort, NASA is 
directed to integrate the regional earth science application 
centers into the Synergy program by the end of fiscal year 
2001.
    The Committee continues to support programs aimed at 
fostering the development of a robust U.S. commercial remote 
sensing industry which is being carried out at the Stennis 
Space Center as NASA's lead center for commercial remote 
sensing. The Committee strongly endorses the partnership 
programs developed by the Stennis Space Center that include 
sponsored research projects with private companies, 
universities, States and localities as well as other 
governmental agencies, such as the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Department of 
Transportation. The Committee also expects the management of 
the Synergy program to remain at the Goddard Space Flight 
Center. Moreover, the Committee provides an additional 
$20,000,000 to continue commercial data purchases to meet 
NASA's Earth Science and Application data needs. The Committee 
further directs NASA to report to the Committee by March 15, 
2001 with a 10-year strategy and funding profile for securing 
Earth Science and Application data services from U.S. 
companies. NASA is directed to develop centers of excellence at 
universities throughout the nation to develop this industry and 
increase commercial applications, including applications such 
as those related to agriculture, flood mapping, forestry, 
environmental protection, and urban planning.
    In particular, the Committee supports NASA's ongoing 
support under its Commercial Remote Sensing program for 
academic partnerships, including renewal of its ongoing grant 
to support Mississippi State University's remote sensing 
program and its center of excellence for geospatial research, 
education and training. Within this program, the Committee also 
includes $3,000,000 to enhance the University of South 
Mississippi's research capability in the use of remotely sensed 
data for coastal zone management, $1,000,000 for a carbon cycle 
remote sensing technology program for the KARS Regional Earth 
Sciences Applications Center at the University of Kansas and 
$1,500,000 for the University of North Dakota to support the 
Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium.
    The Committee is aware of NASA efforts to produce high 
resolution topographic maps of regions of the United States. 
These results can serve a wide range of users from commercial 
and military aviation to environmental and property development 
planning. The Committee endorses this program and has provided 
$1,500,000 for topographic sensor measurement efforts in 
Alaska. The Committee is aware of opportunities to use NASA 
aircraft and satellite sensors to make detailed observations of 
the ocean currents, weather, and possibly species migrations. 
These efforts can have a range of applications from aiding 
planning of fish harvests to assisting the weather modeling in 
regions heavily influenced by ocean conditions. The Committee 
recommendation provides $2,000,000 for remote ocean sensing 
research and measurements in the areas of the Bering Sea and 
the northernmost Pacific Ocean.
    Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications.--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 $3,500,000 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 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.
    The Committee recommendation includes $9,000,000 for the 
Small Air Transportation System (SATS). SATS is NASA's only 
focused investment in advanced technology that is designed to 
improve the safety and efficiency of general aviation.
    The Committee intends that the Ultra Efficient Engine 
Technology program be funded at $10,000,000 above the 
President's budget. The Committee includes the President's 
request of $5,500,000 for the development of Polymer Energy 
Rechargeable Systems.
    The Committee recommendation supports the President's 
budget request for the independent verification and validation 
[IV&V;] facility and $7,300,000 for the National Technology 
Transfer Center.
    The Committee strongly supports NASA's Space Launch 
Initiative (SLI), whose goals is for NASA to meet its future 
space flight needs, including human access to space, using 
commercial launch vehicles that will reduce cost and improve 
safety and reliability. The Committee fully supports NASA's 
request of $290,000,000. NASA is commended for developing an 
integrated space transportation plan that links decision 
milestones between SLI, Space Shuttle upgrades, Space Station 
crew return vehicle development, and third generation space 
transportation technology research.
    The Committee directs NASA to maintain two key principles 
throughout the life of SLI, namely: (1) any launch vehicles 
developed will be owned and operated by private industry and be 
capable of competing effectively in the commercial marketplace; 
and (2) the program will rely on competition from existing and 
emerging launch service providers to ensure innovation, 
openness, and resiliency. Therefore, NASA must:
  --identify the minimum set of requirements that would enable 
        development of privately owned and operated launch 
        vehicle(s) that would compete effectively in the 
        commercial marketplace, and, with the benefit of NASA 
        provided unique hardware, would service the cargo and 
        personnel needs of the International Space Station. Any 
        requirements above this minimum set should be clearly 
        identified and separately costed for its impact;
  --allocate at least 90 percent of SLI funding through full 
        and open competition;
  --promptly name an independent external panel that will 
        conduct regular reviews of SLI to ensure that NASA 
        adheres to the two principles cited above; has the 
        organization and plan in place to implement the 
        program; has adequately assessed the program 
        requirements and identified possible alternatives 
        (particularly those that would enhance commercial 
        viability); and is on track to enable full-scale launch 
        vehicle development decisions. The panel should 
        annually report its findings to the Committee;
  --assess crew return vehicle concepts that could serve as a 
        cost effective building block toward an eventual crew 
        transfer vehicle. The independent panel should validate 
        this effort and report to the Committee before NASA 
        commits any funds for full scale development of a crew 
        return vehicle; and
  --vigorously pursue commercial launch services from existing 
        and emerging launch service providers, including 
        efforts targeted to the feasibility of reusable launch 
        vehicles, for Alternative Access to Space Station and 
        report to the Committee whether joint procurements with 
        the Department of Defense for such launch vehicles are 
        desirable. Although Alternative Access promises to be 
        an important feature of the initiative, the Committee 
        believes it is premature to add funding above the 
        $40,000,000 request. Furthermore, the Committee directs 
        NASA to consider launch sites other than Cape 
        Canaveral/Kennedy Space Center as part of the 
        Alternative Access to Space Station initiative.
    The Committee includes $10,000,000 for a Propulsion 
Research Laboratory to be located at NASA's Center of 
Excellence for Space Propulsion at the Marshall Space Flight 
Center.
    Mission Communications Services and Academic Programs.--The 
Committee has included $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 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 2000 level and the President's request 
for fiscal year 2001. This program is a valuable tool in 
developing educational partnerships in support of science, 
mathematics, technology, engineering and geography.
    The Committee recommendation has included $12,000,000 for 
the NASA EPSCoR Program, $5,400,000 above the budget request 
and $2,000,000 over the fiscal year 2000 level. The Committee 
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 $55,000,000 for NASA's minority 
university research and education activities. This amount is 
$1,200,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and 
$9,100,000 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. African-Americans 
continue to be substantially underrepresented at the doctoral 
level in many sciences, mathematics, engineering, and 
technology fields.
    The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for the 
NASA International Earth Observing System [EOS] Natural 
Resource Training Center at the University of Montana, 
Missoula, MT; $2,000,000 for the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee to implement the Wisconsin Initiative for Math, 
Science, and Technology initiative; $2,500,000 for the Jason 
Foundation for the development of an education program for 
school children on the exploration of space; $2,500,000 for the 
Bishop Museum/Mauna Kea Astronomy Education Center; $1,000,000 
for the implementation of the state-wide learning program for 
the Challenger Learning Center in Kenai, Alaska; $1,000,000 for 
the University of Akron for nanotechnology research; $1,000,000 
for a NASA Center of Excellence in Mathematics, Science and 
Technology at Texas College in Tyler, Texas; $1,000,000 for the 
Pipelines Project at Iowa State University/Southern 
University--Baton Rouge; $1,000,000 for ongoing aerospace 
projects at MSE Technology Applications in Butte, Montana; 
$250,000 for the Oklahoma Aeronautics and Space Commission for 
sounding rockets for the Oklahoma Space and Technology Applied 
Research program; $1,000,000 for the Chabot Observatory and 
Science Center, Oakland, CA; $1,000,000 for Montana State 
University for the techlink program; $3,000,000 is provided to 
the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center's Modern Genetic's 
project to permit studies that simulate specialized weather 
conditions, pathogen attacks, and development and 
characterization of genetically modified plants in controlled-
environment chambers; an increase of $10,000,000 for the Green 
Bank Radio Astronomy Observatory including $3,000,000 for 
operations, $5,000,000 for deferred maintenance and $2,000,000 
to complete an education and visitor center; $2,000,000 for the 
National Center for Space Research and Technology, a 
partnership between the Marshall Space Flight Center and the 
University of Alabama Huntsville (as a reduction from the 
Propulsion Research Laboratory at Marshall Space Flight 
Center); $2,000,000 for equipment for the South Carolina State 
Museum's Observatory, Planetarium and Theater; $8,000,000 for 
the University of Hawaii for infrastructure needs of the Mauna 
Kea Education Center; $15,000,000 for infrastructure needs for 
the Life Sciences building at the University of Missouri-
Columbia; and $1,000,000 for the Field Museum for the 
development of the ``SUE'' exhibit, a showcase of a 67 million-
year-old Tyrannosaurus Rex; 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 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, 2000....................................  $2,512,024,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   2,584,000,000
House allowance.........................................   2,584,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,584,000,000

                          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 $2,584,000,000 for mission 
support activities. This amount is the same as the President's 
budget request for these activities and an increase of 
$71,976,000 above the current level.
    The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for E-Complex upgrades 
and relocation of Government equipment at the Stennis Space 
Center to accommodate the growth in large, medium and small-
scale liquid propulsion testing as part of the Space Launch 
Initiative. An additional $12,000,000 is included to cover a 
new Propulsion Test Operations Building, and for upgrades to 
the East/West access road.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      22,000,000
House allowance.........................................      23,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      23,000,000

                          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 $23,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, 
$1,000,000 above the President's budget request. The Committee 
commends the NASA IG's diligence to addressing issues of fraud 
and abuse.

                       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 largely, in prior-year 
appropriation acts.

                  National Credit Union Administration


                       central liquidity facility


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Direct loan       Administrative     Revolving loan
                                                             limitation          expenses           program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000...................................    $18,600,000,000           $257,000           $996,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................................     20,700,000,000            296,000  .................
House allowance........................................      3,000,000,000            296,000          1,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................        600,000,000            296,000  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 
$296,000 in fiscal year 2001. This legislation reinstates a 
limitation of $600,000,000 for the principal amount of new 
direct loans to member credit unions, and does not appropriate 
an additional $1,000,000 to be used for loans to community 
development credit unions as requested by the President.
    In the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act the 
Committee lifted the cap on loans to member credit unions in 
order to address anticipated liquidity demands due to the Y2K 
date change. It was the intent of the Committee in the 1999 
Emergency Supplemental to raise the cap for a possible 
liquidity shortage due to Y2K only and it was not the intent of 
the Committee to permanently raise the cap. Additionally, the 
General Accounting Office reports that although increasing the 
caps probably reduced fears, the slight increase in loans to 
member credit unions to cover possible liquidity short falls 
due to Y2K probably could have been covered by corporate credit 
unions and from the Federal Reserve discount window. Therefore, 
the Committee recommends to reinstate the cap at $600,000,000 
and recommends that if NCUA wishes to raise the cap that it 
work with the Committee on Banking and Urban Affairs to amend 
the Central Liquidity Facility Act.
    While the Committee is supportive of assisting low-income 
communities, it is concerned about the duplication of Federal 
programs. Accordingly, the Committee suggests NCUA coordinate 
its program of issuing loans to community development credit 
unions with the community development programs of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Community 
Development Financial Institutions Fund. The Committee would 
like to see the results of this effort in NCUA's 2002 budget 
justification.

                      National Science Foundation

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $3,897,184,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   4,572,400,000
House allowance.........................................   4,064,300,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,297,184,000

                          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 $4,297,184,000 for the National 
Science Foundation for fiscal year 2001. This amount is 
$400,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and 
$275,216,000 below the budget request.

                    RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2000....................................  $2,958,462,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................   3,540,680,000
House allowance.........................................   3,135,690,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,245,562,000

                          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 $3,245,562,000 
for research and related activities. This amount is 
$287,100,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and 
$295,118,000 below the budget request.
    The Committee supports fully the Foundation's efforts to 
push the boundaries of science and technology issues, 
especially in the areas of information technology, 
biotechnology, and the administration's new focus on 
nanotechnology. The Committee also applauds the Foundation's 
efforts to address the problem of science and mathematics 
education among K-12, undergraduate, and graduate students. 
However, in order for the Foundation to reach successfully its 
research and education goals, it must reach out to individuals 
and schools that have not participated fully in NSF's programs. 
Accordingly, the Committee remains concerned about the 
administration's request for programs designed to assist 
minorities, women, and schools that have not received 
significant Federal support.
    To improve planning and priority-setting for the Foundation 
and improve the Committee's efforts to understand NSF's long-
term budgeting, the Committee directs NSF to provide multi-year 
budgets for all of its multi-disciplinary activities beginning 
in fiscal year 2002. While the Foundation has provided outyear 
budgets for projects under its Major Research Equipment 
account, only 1 year budgets have been generally provided for 
its activities under the R&RA; and Education and Human Resources 
accounts. The Committee recognizes that NSF has taken on more 
significant initiatives that often require multi-year funding 
to meet its research goals. For example, NSF has initiated 
major efforts in the areas of information technology, 
biocomplexity, and nanotechnology. Accordingly, the Committee 
directs NSF to include the outyear budget impacts and needs of 
all these major multi-disciplinary activities in the annual 
operating plan.
    To further NSF's major initiatives, the Committee 
recommends an additional $125,000,000 in new funding to enhance 
its computer and information science and engineering activities 
consistent with the President's Information Technology Advisory 
Committee (PITAC) recommendations in its February 1999 report. 
These additional funds would increase the level of support for 
the information technology initiative to $215,000,000. As 
prescribed in the PITAC report and the fiscal year 2000 
conference report accompanying the VA, HUD, and Independent 
Agencies Appropriations Act (House Report 106-379), the 
Committee expects NSF to provide an increased ratio of grants 
at higher funding levels and for longer duration than what is 
typically funded. Further, the Committee encourages NSF to 
continue its efforts under the Next Generation Internet program 
in providing high-speed networking access to remote and hard to 
reach areas, especially in rural States.
    The Committee recommends $75,000,000 for the Foundation's 
biocomplexity initiative, an increase of $25,000,000 over last 
year's level. The Committee supports this multi-disciplinary 
initiative. This program should also complement the highly 
successful Plant Genome Research Program.
    The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for the Plant Genome 
Research Program and supports the Foundation's request to 
initiate the new ``2010 Project'' and supplement the program 
with $20,000,000 from other basic research activities 
throughout the biological sciences directorate. The Committee 
expects the Foundation to continue its support for structural 
and functional plant genomic research on economically 
significant crops. The Committee recognizes the findings of the 
Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Plant Genomes, which 
recommended spending at least $320,000,000 over 5 years in new 
funds on plant genome research.
    The ``2010 Project'' is expected to create needed genome-
wide tools that will lead to more rapid advances in functional 
genomics research in valuable food crops. The Committee 
encourages NSF to work with the IWG on Plant Genomes to develop 
recommendations on how best to make use of the important tools 
that will be developed through the ``2010 Project.'' The 
Committee is also excited by NSF's supported research in 
nutritional genomics, which will lead to the discovery in 
plants of key genes controlling metabolic pathways that lead to 
production of vitamins, essential amino acids, antioxidants, 
and accumulation of minerals essential for human nutrition. 
This research could substantially improve the nutritional 
quality and health benefit of eating normal portions of fruits 
and vegetables, which would greatly benefit people in 
developing countries. The Committee encourages NSF 
representatives to the IWG on Plant Genomes to work with other 
IWG representatives in developing recommendations for the 
Committee concerning research and training in nutritional 
genomics.
    The Committee recommends $125,000,000 for the new multi-
agency nanotechnology initiative. The Committee believes that 
the recommended level of funding will be adequate for the 
Foundation to begin this initiative in a field that is still 
regarded to be in its infancy. The recommended level is less 
than the $216,700,000 requested level due to concerns about the 
Foundation taking on another major interagency initiative when 
its administrative resources have remained relatively flat. The 
Committee expects the Foundation to work with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy in carefully crafting a detailed, 
rational long-term strategy with performance outcome 
measurements for the nanotechnology initiative. Further, the 
Committee directs NSF to include in its budget justifications 
for fiscal year 2002, a workload-analysis plan that identifies 
the resources necessary for the Foundation to carry out this 
initiative and other current and future program 
responsibilities.
    The Committee recognizes the significant infrastructure 
needs of our nation's research institutions, especially for 
smaller research institutions that have not traditionally 
benefitted from Federal programs. The Committee is especially 
concerned about the larger schools receiving a disproportionate 
share of scarce Federal resources from indirect cost 
reimbursements to fund infrastructure needs. As a result, the 
Committee recommends $75,000,000 to the Foundation's Major 
Research Instrumentation (MRI) account to address the 
infrastructure needs of research institutions. NSF is 
encouraged to target these funds in assisting smaller research 
institutions.
    The Committee notes the recent 3 year, $15,000,000 
cooperative agreement between NSF and the International Arctic 
Research Center (IARC). The Committee commends NSF for its 
commitment to the international cooperative research 
opportunities made available through IARC.
    The Committee notes that NSF is participating in a multi-
agency effort to determine the future needs of the U.S. 
research vessel fleet. The Committee is aware that a 
replacement vessel for the R/V Alpha Helix, an arctic research 
vessel, has a useful life of 2 to 3 years remaining. The 
Committee recommends that NSF begin the design and model 
testing of a vessel to replace the R/V Alpha Helix and provides 
$1,000,000 for this purpose.
    The Committee is very concerned that NSF has not proposed 
to maintain adequately its existing astronomy facilities. In 
last year's Senate report, the Committee expressed its support 
for enhanced operations and maintenance and development of new 
instrumentation at the Very Large Array and the Very Long 
Baseline Array in New Mexico and continued construction of the 
Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia. Now that the Green Bank 
Telescope is completed, these astronomy facilities need to be 
supported in their operations, and new instrumentation and 
upgrades must be provided to keep them as world class 
facilities. Accordingly, the Committee provides an additional 
$13,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 request levels for the 
astronomical sciences subactivity for these facilities.
    The Committee is very supportive of the research and 
development activities being conducted at the National High 
Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL). Based at Florida State 
University with the University of Florida and Los Alamos 
National Laboratory as its partners, the laboratory has 
attracted world-class scientists and engineers and has 
developed state-of-the-art facilities like no other place in 
the world. The NHMFL has submitted its renewal proposal to the 
Foundation earlier this year and is being currently reviewed by 
NSF and the National Science Board for final funding decisions 
this fall. The Committee supports strongly the laboratory and 
the work it has accomplished and hopes that the Foundation 
continues its support for this outstanding facility.
    Lastly, the Committee recognizes the Foundation's funded 
research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences (SBE) 
area. The Committee is especially interested in SBE activities 
to raise science literacy, which is a problem in this country 
that will impact the economic health and competitiveness of the 
nation. The Committee also encourages the continued involvement 
of behavioral and social science research in NSF's multi-
disciplinary initiatives, including information technology and 
21st Century Workforce. Further, the Committee encourages NSF 
to formulate a plan for increasing the number of young 
investigators in SBE and other research areas.

                        MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $93,500,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     138,540,000
House allowance.........................................      76,600,000
Committee recommendation................................     109,100,000

                          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 $109,100,000 
for major research equipment. This amount is $15,600,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $29,440,000 below 
the budget request.
    The Committee has provided $45,000,000 for a second 
Terascale Computing System, $16,400,000 for the Large Hadron 
Collider, and $6,000,000 for the Millimeter Array. The 
Committee has also provided $28,200,000 to continue the 
construction of the Network for Earthquake Engineering 
Simulation, and $13,500,000 for the south pole station 
modernization efforts. No funding is provided for the new 
EarthScope or the National Ecological Observatory Network 
projects as requested by the administration due to budgetary 
constraints.

                     EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $690,872,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     729,010,000
House allowance.........................................     694,310,000
Committee recommendation................................     765,352,000

                          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 $765,352,000 
for education and human resources (EHR). This amount is 
$74,480,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and 
$36,342,000 more than the budget request. The Committee also 
notes that NSF expects to receive an additional $31,000,000 
from the H-1B Visa account, which will further supplement its 
EHR activities.
    The Committee is deeply disappointed by the 
administration's lack of support in its budget request for 
assisting smaller research institutions and minorities. The 
Committee is particularly troubled by the lack of support 
provided to the Office of Innovation Partnerships (OIP) and the 
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 
(EPSCoR). The Office of Innovation Partnerships, which was 
created last year at the Committee's direction, was expected to 
raise the attention and focus of addressing the needs of 
smaller research institutions and other underfunded entities. 
Regrettably, the administration requested no new funds for this 
important office. The Committee recommendation provides 
$10,000,000 to OIP, an increase of $1,500,000 over last year's 
level. The Committee has also provided $65,000,000 to EPSCoR, 
an increase of $13,610,000 over last year's enacted level and 
$16,590,000 over the budget request.
    To address the importance of broadening science and 
technology participation to minorities, the Committee 
recommendation includes $12,000,000 for the Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities--Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP), an 
increase of $3,620,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level 
and $3,000,000 more than the budget request. These funds are to 
be matched by an additional $1,000,000 in funds from the 
research and related activities account for a total funding 
level of $13,000,000 in fiscal year 2001. The Committee also 
supports the administration's budget requests for the Louis 
Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation program; the new 
Tribal Colleges program; the Minority Graduate Education 
program; the Centers of Research Excellence in Science and 
Technology program; and the Model Institutions for Excellence 
program. The Committee commends the Foundation for creating a 
new Tribal Colleges program to address the research and 
infrastructure needs of colleges serving Native Americans, 
Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiians.
    The Committee notes that Alaska and Hawaii do not provide 
higher education to Native students through the tribal college 
system. It expects the Foundation to include Alaska Native 
serving institutions and Native Hawaiian serving institutions 
as defined by the Higher Education Act in its Tribal College 
program to ensure that Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians are 
not excluded from this innovative, new initiative.
    The Committee also strongly supports the Foundation's 
programs to support women and persons with disabilities. 
Specifically, the Committee recommends $16,500,000 for programs 
designated for women and persons with disabilities.
    The Committee supports the Foundation's efforts to 
strengthen the nation's security of its information 
infrastructure. The Committee is providing $11,200,000 for the 
new Scholarships for Service program to build a cadre of 
individuals in the Federal sector with the skills to protect 
the nation's information systems.
    The Committee also continues its strong support for the 
Informal Science Education (ISE) program. The Committee 
especially values the ISE program in raising interest among 
children and young adults in science and technology and notes 
the success of certain settings, such as the Sea Life Center in 
Seward, Alaska and the National Aquarium in Baltimore, 
Maryland. The ISE has also played a role in the development of 
science teachers. The Committee supports NSF's fiscal year 2001 
focus on building collaborations between informal and formal 
science institutions, opportunities for underrepresented 
groups, involvement of parents, and enhancement of public 
understanding of mathematics.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of research in 
nuclear science. NSF's investment is primarily in basic nuclear 
science and NSF-supported research has led to important 
applications seen in medicine such as CAT scans, nuclear 
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission 
tomography (PET scans). The Committee, however, is concerned by 
the declining Federal support in nuclear engineering education. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Foundation to review the 
academic interest in nuclear engineering education and to 
provide recommendations on how NSF can support this area. The 
findings and recommendations should be provided to the 
Committee by no later than March 15, 2001.
    The Committee is also concerned by the funding levels 
proposed by the Administration for the Foundation's graduate 
research education programs. The Committee is concerned 
particularly with the proposed reduction in funding for the 
highly successful and prestigious Graduate Research Fellowships 
(GRF) program. This highly competitive program has produced 18 
Nobel Prize winners since 1975. The Committee is very 
supportive of the GRF program and provides $55,200,000 for 
fiscal year 2002. This will allow the Foundation to raise the 
annual stipend amount from its current level of $16,200 to 
$18,000 per award. The Committee believes that the increased 
stipend will improve the Foundation's ability to attract the 
best and brightest students into the science, mathematics, 
engineering, and technology fields. The Committee also urges 
NSF to increase the GRF program to 900 for the next 
competition. The Committee also provides an increase of 
$7,500,000 to the Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education 
program, raising the program level to $15,000,000 for fiscal 
year 2002. While this level is below the President's requested 
level of $28,000,000, the Committee believes that it is 
difficult to justify a substantial increase to a program that 
has only been in place for a year and whose performance has not 
been assessed.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2000....................................    $148,900,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................     157,890,000
House allowance.........................................     152,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     170,890,000

                          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 $170,890,000 
for salaries and expenses. The increase of $13,000,000 above 
the budget request is for travel expenses that the 
administration had proposed to fund out of its R&RA; and EHR 
accounts instead of salaries and expenses. Accordingly, the 
Committee directs NSF to fund travel only from this account and 
not to use other account funds for travel purposes.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2000....................................      $5,450,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................       6,280,000
House allowance.........................................       5,700,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,280,000

                          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 $6,280,000 for 
the Office of Inspector General. This amount is $830,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and equal to the budget 
request.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $74,715,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      90,000,000
House allowance.........................................      90,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      80,000,000

                          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, over 200 NeighborWorks organizations 
serve over 1,000 urban, suburban and rural communities in 48 
States and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 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 $80,000,000 for the Neighborhood 
Reinvestment Corporation, $10,000,000 less than the budget 
request and $5,285,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted 
level.
    The Committee recognizes the important work of the 
Corporation in assisting low-income families attain 
homeownership with the support of public and private resources. 
The Committee is especially supportive of the efforts of the 
Corporation and the NeighborWorks organization in providing 
homeownership counseling, participating in a pilot program to 
assist section 8 voucher holders attain homeownership, and 
educating potential homebuyers on various lending products. Due 
to the Committee's concerns about the growing problems of 
predatory lenders on low-income people and communities, the 
Committee encourages NRC and its network organizations to 
expand its education and counseling programs in impacted areas 
such as Baltimore, Maryland; Los Angeles, California; and 
Chicago, Illinois.
    The Committee is also concerned about the shortage of 
available, affordable rental housing across the nation. The 
Corporation has been successfully using a mixed-income 
affordable rental housing through the use of ``mutual housing'' 
models. As of June 30, 1999, the Corporation through its mutual 
housing associations had created over 5,600 affordable rental 
units. The Committee encourages NRC to increase the number of 
affordable housing units through this model and to devise a 5-
year strategy on expanding this model across the Nation. This 
strategy should be included in the fiscal year 2002 budget 
justifications for the Corporation.

                        Selective Service System


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2000....................................     $23,909,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................      24,480,000
House allowance.........................................      23,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      24,480,000

                          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 $24,480,000 
for the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as 
the budget request for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of 
$571,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommends inclusion of 25 general provisions 
previously enacted in the 2000 appropriations act. They are 
largely standard limitations which have been carried in the VA, 
HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill in the past.

               DIVISION B--THE HOUSING NEEDS ACT OF 2000

TITLE I--PRODUCTION OF NEW HOUSING FOR LOW AND VERY LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

    Establishes a $1,000,000,000 block grant program that would 
allocate funds to State housing finance agencies on a per 
capita basis according to the population of the State.
    Allows funds to be used for acquisition, new construction, 
reconstruction, or moderate or substantial rehabilitation of 
affordable housing; permits funds to be used for rehabilitation 
needs and preservation of existing assisted low-income housing 
(although no more than 20 percent of the funds can be used for 
rehabilitation and preservation); allows conversion of existing 
housing to housing for the elderly or for persons with 
disabilities.
    Requires States to meet a 75 percent matching requirement 
to ensure accountability and to leverage additional funds.
    Requires housing developed to be low- and mixed-income 
housing with at least 30 percent of the units targeted to very 
low-income families; sets rents in a manner modeled after the 
low-income tax credit program only with deeper targeting where 
a unit rent would be 20 percent of the adjusted income of a 
family whose income equals 50 percent of the median income for 
an area. All assisted units must be targeted to low-income 
families.
    Establishes a new multifamily risk-sharing mortgage 
insurance program to underwrite housing produced under this 
title.

                  TITLE II--SECTION 8 SUCCESS PROGRAM

    Allows public housing authorities to increase their payment 
standard for assisted rents under section 8 up to 150 percent 
of the existing fair market rent or payment standard. Will 
ensure that families can find housing using vouchers.
    Applies to tight rental markets throughout the country, 
including rural and urban areas, and any rent change would be 
subject to the approval of a plan by HUD that includes 
proactive actions by PHAs to help tenants with vouchers. This 
reform should be especially helpful to tight rental markets, 
such as San Francisco, Cambridge, MA and Philadelphia, PA.
    Limits funds to those held by the PHA under the existing 
program; thus would not cost more but would allow flexibility 
to ensure that vouchers could be used to find housing.

             TITLE III--PRESERVATION OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING

    Raises the amount of section 8 project-based assistance 
that a PHA can create from 15 percent to 25 percent of 
available section 8 assistance, with expedited procedures. This 
will allow more project-based section 8 housing to help seniors 
and persons with disabilities, in particular.
    Requires HUD to maintain section 8 assistance on all HUD-
held and HUD foreclosed multifamily housing. Many elderly and 
persons with disabilities have been displaced by HUD since HUD 
provides vouchers to residents upon the disposition of a 
property. Thus these people can stay in their homes.

  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

    Fair housing activities: $44,000,000.
    HOME Investment Partnerships Program: $1,600,000,000.
    Homeless assistance grants: $1,020,000,000.
    Community development block grants: $4,800,000,000.
    Rural housing and economic development: $27,000,000.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

    Community Development Financial Institutions Fund: 
$95,000,000.

                   CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

    Salaries and expenses: $52,500,000.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Environmental programs and management: $2,000,000,000.
    Science and technology: $670,000,000.
    State and tribal assistance grants: $3,320,000,000.
    Superfund: $1,400,000,000.

                  FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

    Salaries and expenses: $215,000,000.
    Emergency management planning and assistance: $269,652,000.
    Emergency food and shelter: $110,000,000.

                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

    Consumer Information Center: $7,122,000.

             NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    Human space flight: $5,400,000,000.
    Science, aeronautics, and technology: $5,837,000,000.
    Mission support: $2,584,000,000.

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, H.R. 4635, the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
Agencies appropriations bill, 2001 and subject to amendment and 
subject to its budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 27-1, 
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Stevens                    Mr. Kyl
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. 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.''

                TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



            CHAPTER 85--AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL


                 SUBCHAPTER I--PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



           Part D--Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas


               subpart 1--nonattainment areas in general

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 7506. Limitations on certain Federal assistance

(a) * * *

(c) Activities not conforming to approved or promulgated plans

    (1) * * *
    (5) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (6) Notwithstanding paragraph 5, this subsection shall not 
apply with respect to an area designated nonattainment under 
section 107(d)(1) until one year after that area is first 
designated nonattainment for a specific national ambient air 
quality standard. This paragraph only applies with respect to 
the national ambient air quality standard for which an area is 
newly designated nonattainment and does not affect the area's 
requirements with respect to all other national ambient air 
quality standards for which the area is designated 
nonattainment or has been redesignated from nonattainment to 
attainment with a maintenance plan pursuant to section 175(A) 
(including any pre-existing national ambient air quality 
standard for a pollutant for which a new or revised standard 
has been issued).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937


             TITLE I--GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 9. PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL AND OPERATING FUNDS.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) * * *
            (1) * * *
                    (E) management improvements, including the 
                establishment and initial operation of computer 
                centers in and around public housing through a 
                Neighborhood Networks initiative, for the 
                purpose of enhancing the self-sufficiency, 
                employability, and economic self-reliance of 
                public housing residents by providing them with 
                onsite computer access and training resources;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) * * 
            (1) * * *
                    (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (I) the costs of repaying, together with 
                rent contributions, debt incurred to finance 
                the rehabilitation and development of public 
                housing units, which shall be subject to such 
                reasonable requirements as the Secretary may 
                establish; [and]
                    (J) the costs associated with the operation 
                and management of mixed finance projects, to 
                the extent appropriate[.]; and
                    (K) the costs of operating computer centers 
                in public housing through a Neighborhood 
                Networks initiative described in subsection 
                (d)(1)(E), and of activities related to that 
                initiative.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (h) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (6) training and technical assistance to assist in 
        the oversight and management of public housing or 
        tenant-based assistance; [and]
            (7) clearinghouse services in furtherance of the 
        goals and activities of this subsection[.]; and
            (8) assistance in connection with the establishment 
        and operation of computer centers in public housing 
        through a Neighborhood Networks initiative described in 
        subsection (d)(1)(E).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 24. DEMOLITION, SITE REVITALIZATION, REPLACEMENT HOUSING, AND 
                    TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR PROJECTS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) * * *
            (1) * * *
                    (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (G) economic development activities that 
                promote the economic self-sufficiency of 
                residents under the revitalization program, 
                including a Neighborhood Networks initiative 
                for the establishment and operation of computer 
                centers in public housing for the purpose of 
                enhancing the self-sufficiency, employability, 
                an economic self-reliance of public housing 
                residents by providing them with onsite 
                computer access and training resources;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (m) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (2) Technical assistance and program oversight.--Of 
        the amount appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) for 
        any fiscal year, the Secretary may use up to 2 percent 
        for technical assistance or contract expertise, 
        including assistance in connection with the 
        establishment and operation of computer centers in 
        public housing through the Neighborhoods Networks 
        initiative described in subsection (d)(1)(G). Such 
        assistance or contract expertise may be provided 
        directly or indirectly by grants, contracts, or 
        cooperative agreements, and shall include training, and 
        the cost of necessary travel for participants in such 
        training, by or to officials of the Department of 
        Housing and Urban Development, of public housing 
        agencies, and of residents.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                  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, 
[2000] 2001, and $1,000,000,000 thereafter. The Director shall 
report to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate at any time when he 
requests the approval of the President in accordance with the 
preceding sentence.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Sec. 1376. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
may be necessary through [September 30, 2000] September 30, 
2001, for studies under this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    Sec. 311. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Sec. 312. (a) Appropriations for the Administration for 
fiscal year 2002 and thereafter shall be made in accounts, 
``Human space flight'', ``International space station'', 
``Science, aeronautics and technology'', and an account for 
amounts appropriated for the necessary expenses of the Office 
of Inspector General. Appropriations shall remain available for 
two fiscal years. Each account shall include the planned full 
costs of the Administration's related activities.
    (b) The Administrator shall notify the Committees on 
Appropriations whenever any program or activity exceeds fifteen 
percent of the annual or total budget of such program or 
activity.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                      AIDS HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ACT


SEC. 856. RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRANTEES.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (h) Environmental Review.--For purposes of environmental 
review, a grant under this subtitle shall be treated as 
assistance for a special project that is subject to section 
305(c) of the Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Reform 
Act of 1994, and shall be subject to the regulations issued by 
the Secretary to implement such section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



             TITLE I--HOUSING RENOVATION AND MODERNIZATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                      TITLE II--MORTGAGE INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



               FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS

      Sec. 202. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (c) Mortgagee Review Board.--
            (1) Establishment.--There is established within the 
        Federal Housing Administration the Mortgagee Review 
        Board (``Board''). The Board is empowered to initiate 
        the issuance of a letter of reprimand, the probation, 
        suspension or withdrawal of any mortgagee found to be 
        engaging in activities in violation of Federal Housing 
        Administration requirements or the non-discrimination 
        requirements of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the 
        Fair Housing Act, or Executive Order 11063.
            (2) Composition.--The Board shall consist of--
                    (A) the Assistant Secretary of Housing/
                Federal Housing Commissioner;
                    (B) the General Counsel of the Department;
                    (C) the President of the Government 
                National Mortgage Association;
                    (D) the Assistant Secretary for 
                Administration;
                    (E) the Assistant Secretary for Fair 
                Housing Enforcement (in cases involving 
                violations of nondiscrimination requirements); 
                [and]
                    (F) the Chief Financial Officer of the 
                Department;
            [or their designees.] and
                    (G) the Director of the Enforcement Center; 
                or their designees.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         insurance of mortgages

      Sec. 203. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (10) * * *
            (11) Reduced downpayment requirements for teachers 
        and uniformed municipal employees--
                    (A) In general.--Notwithstanding the 
                downpayment requirements contained in paragraph 
                (2), in the case of a mortgage described in 
                subparagraph (B)--
                            (i) the mortgage shall involve a 
                        principal obligation in an amount that 
                        does not exceed the sum of 99 percent 
                        of the appraised value of the property 
                        and the total amount of initial service 
                        charges, appraisal, inspection, and 
                        other fees (as the Secretary shall 
                        approve) paid in connection with the 
                        mortgage;
                            (ii) no other provision of this 
                        subsection limiting the principal 
                        obligation of the mortgage based upon a 
                        percentage of the appraised value of 
                        the property subject to the mortgage 
                        shall apply; and
                            (iii) the matter in paragraph (9) 
                        that precedes the first proviso shall 
                        not apply and the mortgage shall be 
                        executed by a mortgagor who shall have 
                        paid on account of the property at 
                        least 1 percent of the cost of 
                        acquisition (as determined by the 
                        Secretary) in cash or its equivalent.
                    (B) Mortgages covered.--A mortgage 
                described in this subparagraph is a mortgage--
                            (i) under which the mortgagor is an 
                        individual who--
                                    (I) is employed on a full-
                                time basis as: (aa) a teacher 
                                or administrator in a public or 
                                private school that provides 
                                elementary or secondary 
                                education, as determined under 
                                State law, except that 
                                elementary education shall 
                                include pre-Kindergarten 
                                education, and except that 
                                secondary education shall not 
                                include any education beyond 
                                grade 12; or (bb) a public 
                                safety officer (as such term is 
                                defined in section 1204 of the 
                                Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
                                Streets Act of 1968, except 
                                that such term shall not 
                                include any officer serving a 
                                public agency of the Federal 
                                Government); and
                                    (II) has not, during the 
                                12-month period ending upon the 
                                insurance of the mortgage, had 
                                any present ownership interest 
                                in a principal residence 
                                located in the jurisdiction 
                                described in clause (ii); and
                            (ii) made for a property that is 
                        located within the jurisdiction of--
                                    (I) in the case of a 
                                mortgage of a mortgagor 
                                described in clause (i)(I)(aa), 
                                the local educational agency 
                                (as such term is defined in 
                                section 14101 of the Elementary 
                                and Secondary Education Act of 
                                1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801)) for the 
                                school in which the mortgagor 
                                is employed (or, in the case of 
                                a mortgagor employed in a 
                                private school, the local 
                                educational agency having 
                                jurisdiction for the area in 
                                which the private school is 
                                located); or
                                    (II) in the case of a 
                                mortgage of a mortgagor 
                                described in clause (i)(I)(bb), 
                                the jurisdiction served by the 
                                public law enforcement agency, 
                                firefighting agency, or rescue 
                                or ambulance agency that 
                                employs the mortgagor.
      (c)(1) * * *
      (2) [Notwithstanding] Except as provided in paragraph (3) 
and notwithstanding any other provision of this section, each 
mortgage secured by a 1- to 4-family dwelling and executed on 
or after October 1, 1994, that is an obligation of the Mutual 
Mortgage Insurance Fund or of the General Insurance Fund 
pursuant to subsection (v), shall be subject to the following 
requirements:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Deferral and reduction of up-front premium.--In 
        the case of any mortgage described in subsection 
        (b)(10)(B):
                    (A) Paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection 
                (relating to collection of up-front premium 
                payments) shall not apply.
                    (B) If, at any time during the 5-year 
                period beginning on the date of the insurance 
                of the mortgage, the mortgagor ceases to be 
                employed as described in subsection 
                (b)(10)(B)(i)(I) or pays the principal 
                obligation of the mortgage in full, the 
                Secretary shall at such time collect a single 
                premium payment in an amount equal to the 
                amount of the single premium payment that, but 
                for this paragraph, would have been required 
                under paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection with 
                respect to the mortgage, as reduced by 20 
                percent of such amount for each successive 12-
                month period completed during such 5-year 
                period before such cessation or prepayment 
                occurs.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      [(s)](t)(1) Each mortgagee (or servicer) with respect to 
a mortgage under this section shall provide each mortgagor of 
such mortgagee (or servicer) written notice, not less than 
annually, containing a statement of the amount outstanding for 
prepayment of the principal amount of the mortgage and 
describing any requirements the mortgagor must fulfill to 
prevent the accrual of any interest on such principal amount 
after the date of any prepayment. This paragraph shall apply to 
any insured mortgage outstanding on or after the expiration of 
the 90-day period beginning on the date of effectiveness of 
final regulations implementing this paragraph.
      (2) Each mortgagee (or servicer) with respect to a 
mortgage under this section shall, at or before closing with 
respect to any such mortgage, provide the mortgagor with 
written notice (in such form as the Secretary shall prescribe, 
by regulation, before the expiration of the 90-day period 
beginning upon the date of the enactment of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act) describing any 
requirements the mortgagor must fulfill upon prepayment of the 
principal amount of the mortgage to prevent the accrual of any 
interest on the principal amount after the date of such 
prepayment. This paragraph shall apply to any mortgage executed 
after the expiration of the period under paragraph (1).
      [(t)](u)(1) No mortgagee may make or hold mortgages 
insured under this section if the customary lending practices 
of the mortgagee, as determined by the Secretary pursuant to 
section 539, provide for a variation in mortgage charge rates 
that exceeds 2 percent for insured mortgages made by the 
mortgagee on dwellings located within an area. The Secretary 
shall ensure that any permissible variations in the mortgage 
charge rates of any mortgagee are based only on actual 
variations in fees or costs to the mortgagee to make the loan.
      (2) For purposes of this subsection--
            (A) the term ``area'' shall have the meaning given 
        the term under subsection (b)(2);
            (B) the term ``mortgage charges'' includes the 
        interest rate, discount points, loan origination fee, 
        and any other amount charged to a mortgagor with 
        respect to an insured mortgage; and
            (C) the term ``mortgage charge rate'' means the 
        amount of mortgage charges for an insured mortgage 
        expressed as a percentage of the initial principal 
        amount of the mortgage.
    (v) Notwithstanding section 202 of this title, the 
insurance of a mortgage under this section in connection with 
the assistance provided under section 8(y) of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937 shall be the obligation of the General 
Insurance Fund created pursuant to section 519 of this title. 
The provisions of subsections (a) through (h), (j), and (k) of 
section 204 shall apply to such mortgages, except that (1) all 
references in section 204 to the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund 
or the Fund shall be construed to refer to the General 
Insurance Fund, and (2) any excess amounts described in section 
204(f)(1) shall be retained by the Secretary and credited to 
the General Insurance Fund.
        [(v)](w) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development shall submit to the Congress an annual report 
on the single family mortgage insurance program under this 
section. Each report shall set forth--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (x) Management Deficiencies Report.--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


           housing for moderate income and displaced families

      Sec. 221. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (g) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (4)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (C)(i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (viii) This subparagraph shall not apply after 
        December 31, 2002, except that this subparagraph shall 
        continue to apply if the Secretary receives a 
        mortgagee's written notice of intent to assign its 
        mortgage to the Secretary on or before such date. Not 
        later than January 31 of each year (beginning in 1992), 
        the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report 
        including statements of the number of mortgages 
        auctioned and sold and their value, the amount of 
        subsidies committed to the program under this 
        subparagraph, the ability of the Secretary to 
        coordinate the program with the incentives provided 
        under the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act 
        of 1987 or subsequent Act, and the costs and benefits 
        derived from the program for the Federal Government.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      Sec. 236. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3) * * *
                    (A) during fiscal year [2000] 2001, to all 
                project owners collecting such excess charges; 
                and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


              STEWART B. McKINNEY HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                     TITLE IV--HOUSING ASSISTANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                  Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Programs

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



[SEC. 443. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

      [The provisions of, and regulations and procedures 
applicable under, section 104(g) of the Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1974 shall apply to assistance and projects 
under this title.]

SEC. 443. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

    For purposes of environmental review, assistance and 
projects under this title shall be treated as assistance for 
special projects that are subject to section 305(c) of the 
Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Reform Act of 1994, 
and shall be subject to the regulations issued by the Secretary 
to implement such section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937


             TITLE I--GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                    lower income housing assistance

    Sec. 8. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (o) Voucher Program.--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (13) PHA project-based assistance.--
                    (A) In general.--If the Secretary enters 
                into an annual contributions contract under 
                this subsection with a public housing agency 
                pursuant to which the public housing agency 
                will enter into a housing assistance payment 
                contract with respect to an existing structure 
                under this subsection--
                            (i) the housing assistance payment 
                        contract may not be attached to the 
                        structure unless the owner agrees to 
                        rehabilitate or newly construct the 
                        structure other than with assistance 
                        under this Act, and otherwise complies 
                        with this section; and
                            (ii) the public housing agency may 
                        approve a housing assistance payment 
                        contract for such existing structures 
                        for not more than [15 percent] 25 
                        percent of the funding available for 
                        tenant-based assistance administered by 
                        the public housing agency under this 
                        section.
                    (B) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (D) Adjusted rents.--With respect to rents 
                adjusted under this paragraph--
                            (i) the adjusted rent for any unit 
                        shall be reasonable in comparison with 
                        rents charged for comparable dwelling 
                        units in the private, unassisted, local 
                        market; and
                            (ii) the provisions of subsection 
                        (c)(2)(C) shall not apply.
                    (E) The Secretary shall establish expedited 
                procedures to allow public housing agencies to 
                enter into housing assistance payment contracts 
                with respect to existing structures.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (x) Family Unification.--
            (1) * * *
            (2) Use of funds.--The amounts made available under 
        this subsection shall be used only in connection with 
        tenant-based assistance under section 8 on behalf of 
        [any family (A) who is otherwise eligible for such 
        assistance, and (B)] (A) any family (i) who is 
        otherwise eligible for such assistance, and (ii) who 
        the public child welfare agency for the jurisdiction 
        has certified is a family for whom the lack of adequate 
        housing is a primary factor in the imminent placement 
        of the family's child or children in out-of-home care 
        or the delayed discharge of a child or children to the 
        family from out-of-home care, and (B) for a period not 
        to exceed 18 months, youths who have attained at least 
        18 years of age and not more than 21 years of age and 
        who have left foster care at age 16 or older.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974


                     TITLE I--COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


findings and purpose

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    Sec. 102. (a) * * *
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (6)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (E) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (F) Notwithstanding any other provision of 
                this paragraph, any county that was classified 
                as an urban county pursuant to subparagraph (A) 
                for fiscal year 1999, at the option of the 
                county, may hereafter remain classified as an 
                urban county for purposes of this Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                TITLE V--HUD MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REFORM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                  Subtitle C--Enforcement Provisions

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 542. MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE CREDIT [DEMONSTRATIONS] PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development (hereinafter referred to as the `Secretary') shall 
carry out programs through the Federal Housing Administration 
to [demonstrate the effectiveness of providing] provide new 
forms of Federal credit enhancement for multifamily loans. In 
carrying out [demonstration] programs, the Secretary shall 
include an evaluation of the effectiveness of entering into 
partnerships or other contractual arrangements including 
reinsurance and risk-sharing agreements with State or local 
housing finance agencies, the Federal Housing Finance Board, 
the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home 
Loan Mortgage Corporation, qualified financial institutions, 
and other State or local mortgage insurance companies or bank 
lending consortia.
    (b) Risk-Sharing [Pilot] Program.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
        [pilot] program through the Federal Housing 
        Administration to [determine the effectiveness of] 
        provide for risk sharing related to mortgages on 
        multifamily housing.
            (2) Authority for reinsurance agreements.--The 
        Secretary may enter into reinsurance agreements (as 
        such term is defined in section 544) with the Federal 
        National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan 
        Mortgage Corporation, qualified financial institutions, 
        qualified housing finance agencies, and the Federal 
        Housing Finance Board. The agreements may provide for 
        risk-sharing and other forms of credit enhancement with 
        respect to mortgage lending on multifamily housing, 
        including reinsurance with respect to pools of loans on 
        multifamily housing properties, that the Secretary 
        determines to be appropriate to carry out the purposes 
        of this subsection. The agreements shall be in a form 
        and have such terms and conditions as the Secretary 
        determines to be appropriate to carry out the purposes 
        of this subsection.
            (3) Development of alternatives.--The Secretary 
        shall develop and assess a variety of risk-sharing 
        alternatives, including arrangements under which the 
        Secretary assumes an appropriate share of the risk 
        related to long-term mortgage loans on newly 
        constructed or acquired multifamily rental housing, 
        mortgage refinancings, bridge financing for 
        construction, and other forms of multifamily housing 
        mortgage lending that the Secretary deems appropriate 
        to carry out the purposes of this subsection. Such 
        alternatives shall be designed--
                    (A) to ensure that other parties bear a 
                share of the risk, in percentage amount and in 
                position of exposure, that is sufficient to 
                create strong, market-oriented incentives for 
                other participating parties to maintain sound 
                underwriting and loan management practices;
                    (B) to develop credit mechanisms, including 
                sound underwriting criteria, processing 
                methods, and credit enhancements, through which 
                resources of the Federal Housing Administration 
                can assist in increasing multifamily housing 
                lending as needed to meet the expected need in 
                the United States;
                    (C) to provide a more adequate supply of 
                mortgage credit for sound multifamily rental 
                housing projects in underserved urban and rural 
                markets;
                    (D) to encourage major financial 
                institutions to expand their participation in 
                mortgage lending for sound multifamily housing, 
                through means such as mitigating uncertainties 
                regarding actions of the Federal Government 
                (including the possible failure to renew short-
                term subsidy contracts);
                    (E) to increase the efficiency, and lower 
                the costs to the Federal Government, of 
                processing and servicing multifamily housing 
                mortgage loans insured by the Federal Housing 
                Administration; and
                    (F) to improve the quality and expertise of 
                Federal Housing Administration staff and other 
                resources, as required for sound management of 
                reinsurance and other market-oriented forms of 
                credit enhancement.
            (4) Eligibility standards.--The Secretary shall 
        establish and enforce standards for financial 
        institutions and entities to be eligible to enter into 
        reinsurance agreements under this subsection, as the 
        Secretary determines to be appropriate.
            [(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 15,000 units over fiscal 
        years 1993 and 1994. The demonstration authorized under 
        this subsection shall not be expanded until the reports 
        required under subsection (d) are submitted to 
        Congress.]
            (5) Insurance authority.--Using any authority 
        provided in appropriation Acts to insure mortgages 
        under the National Housing Act, the Secretary may enter 
        into commitments under this subsection for risk-sharing 
        units.
            (6) Fees.--The Secretary shall establish and 
        collect premiums and fees under this subsection as the 
        Secretary determines appropriate to (A) achieve the 
        purpose of this subsection, and (B) compensate the 
        Federal Housing Administration for the risks assumed 
        and related administrative costs.
            (7) Non-federal participation.--The Secretary shall 
        carry out this subsection, to the maximum extent 
        practicable, with the participation of well-established 
        residential mortgage originators, financial 
        institutions that invest in multifamily housing 
        mortgages, multifamily housing sponsors, and such other 
        private sector experts in multifamily housing finance 
        as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
            (8) Timing.--The Secretary shall take any 
        administrative actions necessary to initiate the 
        [pilot] program under this subsection not later than 
        the expiration of the 8-month period beginning on the 
        date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Housing Finance Agency [Pilot] Program.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a 
        specific [pilot] program in conjunction with qualified 
        housing finance agencies to [test the effectiveness of] 
        provide Federal credit enhancement for loans for 
        affordable multifamily housing through a system of 
        risk-sharing agreements with such agencies.
            (2) [Pilot] Program requirements.--
                    (A) In general.--In carrying out the 
                [pilot] program authorized under this 
                subsection, the Secretary shall enter into 
                risk-sharing agreements with qualified housing 
                finance agencies.
                    (B) Mortgage insurance.--Agreements under 
                subparagraph (A) shall provide for full 
                mortgage insurance through the Federal Housing 
                Administration of the loans for affordable 
                multifamily housing originated by or through 
                qualified housing finance agencies and for 
                reimbursement to the Secretary by such agencies 
                for either all or a portion of the losses 
                incurred on the loans insured.
                    (C) Risk apportionment.--Agreements entered 
                into under this subsection between the 
                Secretary and a qualified housing finance 
                agency shall specify the percentage of loss 
                that each of the parties to the agreement will 
                assume in the event of default of the insured 
                multifamily mortgage. Such agreements shall 
                specify that the qualified housing finance 
                agency and the Secretary shall share equally 
                the full amount of any loss on the insured 
                mortgage.
                    (D) Reimbursement capacity.--Agreements 
                entered into under this subsection between the 
                Secretary and a qualified housing finance 
                agency shall provide evidence of the capacity 
                of such agency to fulfill any reimbursement 
                obligations made pursuant to this subsection. 
                Evidence of such capacity may include--
                            (i) a pledge of the full faith and 
                        credit of a qualified State or local 
                        agency to fulfill any obligations 
                        entered into by the qualified housing 
                        finance agency;
                            (ii) reserves pledged or otherwise 
                        restricted by the qualified housing 
                        finance agency in an amount equal to an 
                        agreed upon percentage of the loss 
                        assumed by the housing finance agency 
                        under subparagraph (C);
                            (iii) funds pledged through a State 
                        or local guarantee fund; or
                            (iv) any other form of evidence 
                        mutually agreed upon by the Secretary 
                        and the qualified housing finance 
                        agency.
                    (E) Underwriting standards.--The Secretary 
                shall allow any qualified housing finance 
                agency to use its own underwriting standards 
                and loan terms and conditions for purposes of 
                underwriting loans to be insured under this 
                subsection without further review by the 
                Secretary, except that the Secretary may impose 
                additional underwriting criteria and loan terms 
                and conditions for contractual agreements where 
                the Secretary retains more than 50 percent of 
                the risk of loss.
            (3) Mortgage insurance premiums.--The Secretary 
        shall establish a schedule of insurance premium 
        payments for mortgages insured under this subsection 
        based on the percentage of loss the Secretary may 
        assume. Such schedule shall reflect lower or nominal 
        premiums for qualified housing finance agencies that 
        assume a greater share of the risk apportioned 
        according to paragraph (2)(C).
            [(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 to exceed 30,000 units over 
        fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995. The demonstration 
        authorized under this subsection shall not be expanded 
        until the reports required under subsection (d) are 
        submitted to the Congress.]
            (4) Insurance authority.--Using any authority 
        provided in appropriation Acts to insure mortgages 
        under the National Housing Act, the Secretary may enter 
        into commitments under this subsection for risk-sharing 
        units.
            (5) Identity of interest.--Notwithstanding any 
        other provision of law, the Secretary shall not apply 
        identity of interest provisions to agreements entered 
        into with qualified State housing finance agencies 
        under this subsection.
            (6) Prohibition on ginnie mae securitization.--The 
        Government National Mortgage Association shall not 
        securitize any multifamily loans insured under this 
        subsection.
            (7) Qualification as affordable housing.--
        Multifamily housing securing loans insured under this 
        subsection shall qualify as affordable only if the 
        housing is occupied by very low-income families and 
        bears rents not greater than the gross rent for rent-
        restricted residential units as determined under 
        section 42(g)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
            (8) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the 
        date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
        issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out 
        this subsection.
    [(d) Independent Studies and Reports.--
            [(1) Federal national mortgage association.--The 
        Federal National Mortgage Association, in consultation 
        with representatives of its seller-servicers and State 
        housing finance agencies, shall carry out an 
        independent assessment of alternative methods for 
        achieving the purposes of this section and shall submit 
        a report containing any findings and recommendations, 
        including any recommendations for legislative or 
        administrative action, simultaneously to the Secretary 
        and the Congress not later than 12 months after the 
        date of the enactment of this Act.
            [(2) Federal home loan mortgage corporation.--The 
        Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, in consultation 
        with representatives of its seller-servicers and State 
        housing finance agencies, shall carry out an 
        independent assessment of alternative methods for 
        achieving the purposes of this section and shall submit 
        a report containing any findings and recommendations, 
        including any recommendations for legislative or 
        administrative action, simultaneously to the Secretary 
        and the Congress not later than 12 months after the 
        date of the enactment of this Act.
            [(3) Secretary.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
        Congress, and publish, reports under this paragraph 
        assessing the activities carried out under each of the 
        pilot programs. The Secretary shall submit and publish 
        a preliminary report under this paragraph not later 
        than 9 months after the date of the implementation of 
        each of the pilot programs, and a final report not 
        later than 24 months after the date of implementation 
        on which the pilot program is initiated, which shall 
        include any recommendations by the Secretary for 
        legislative changes to achieve the purposes of this 
        section.
            [(4) Comptroller general.--The Comptroller General 
        of the United States shall carry out an evaluation of 
        each of the pilot programs under this section and shall 
        submit to the Congress, not later than 30 months after 
        the date of implementation for each of the pilot 
        programs, a report regarding the evaluation, together 
        with any recommendations for legislative changes to 
        achieve the purposes of this section. The Comptroller 
        General shall also submit to the Congress a report 
        containing a preliminary assessment of the pilot 
        program not later than 18 months after the date of 
        enactment of this Act.
            [(5) Federal housing finance board.--The Federal 
        Housing Finance Board shall monitor and assess the 
        activities carried out under the pilot programs under 
        this section. The Federal Housing Finance Board shall 
        submit a preliminary report containing any findings 
        regarding such activities not later than 9 months after 
        the date of the enactment of this Act, and a final 
        report containing such findings not later than 24 
        months after the date on which the pilot program is 
        initiated, which shall include any recommendations by 
        the Board for legislative changes to achieve the 
        purposes of this section.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1996

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



              TITLE I--BLOCK GRANTS AND GRANT REQUIREMENTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                TITLE II--AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 201. NATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND ELIGIBLE FAMILIES.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) Eligible Families.--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Non-indian families.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
        (1), a recipient may provide housing or housing 
        assistance provided through affordable housing 
        activities assisted with grant amounts under this Act 
        for a non-Indian family on an Indian reservation or 
        other Indian area if the recipient determines that the 
        presence of the family on the Indian reservation or 
        other Indian area is essential to the well-being of 
        Indian families and the need for housing for the family 
        cannot reasonably be met without such assistance.
            (4) Law enforcement officers.--Notwithstanding 
        paragraph (1), a recipient may provide housing or 
        housing assistance provided through affordable housing 
        activities assisted with grant amounts under this Act 
        to a law enforcement officer on the reservation or 
        other Indian area, who is employed full-time by a 
        Federal, state, county or tribal government, and in 
        implementing such full-time employment is sworn to 
        uphold, and make arrests for violations of Federal, 
        state, county or tribal law, if the recipient 
        determines that the presence of the law enforcement 
        officer on the Indian reservation or other Indian area 
        may deter crime.
            [(4)] (5) Preference for tribal members and other 
        indian families.--The Indian housing plan for an Indian 
        tribe may require preference, for housing or housing 
        assistance provided through affordable housing 
        activities assisted with grant amounts provided under 
        this Act on behalf of such tribe, to be given (to the 
        extent practicable) to Indian families who are members 
        of such tribe, or to other Indian families. In any case 
        in which the applicable Indian housing plan for an 
        Indian tribe provides for preference under this 
        paragraph, the recipient for the tribe shall ensure 
        that housing activities that are assisted with grant 
        amounts under this Act for such tribe are subject to 
        such preference.
            [(5)] (6) Exemption.--Title VI of the Civil Rights 
        Act of 1964 and title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 
        1968 shall not apply to actions by federally recognized 
        tribes and the tribally designated housing entities of 
        those tribes under this Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                            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 2001: Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and
 Independent Agencies:
    General purpose, defense discretionary..................          135          135          132      \1\ 132
    General purpose, non-defense discretionary..............       79,983       79,978       85,975       85,971
    Mandatory...............................................       24,710       24,582       24,438       24,103
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2001....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 62,398
    2002....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       22,879
    2003....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        8,593
    2004....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        4,511
    2005 and future years...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        4,558
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2001           NA       28,705           NA       31,976
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 2000 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2001
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Senate Committee recommendation compared with  (+
                                                                                                                             or -)
               Item                      2000       Budget estimate  House allowance     Committee    --------------------------------------------------
                                    appropriation                                      recommendation        2000
                                                                                                        appropriation   Budget estimate  House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             TITLE I

  DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

 Veterans Benefits Administration

Compensation and pensions........      21,568,364       22,766,276       22,766,276       22,766,276       +1,197,912   ...............  ...............
Readjustment benefits............       1,469,000        1,634,000        1,664,000        1,634,000         +165,000   ...............         -30,000
Veterans insurance and                     28,670           19,850           19,850           19,850           -8,820   ...............  ...............
 indemnities.....................
Veterans housing benefit program          282,342          165,740          165,740          165,740         -116,602   ...............  ...............
 fund program account
 (indefinite)....................
    (Limitation on direct loans).            (300)            (300)            (300)            (300)  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses......         156,958          166,484          161,484          162,000           +5,042           -4,484             +516
Education loan fund program                     1                1                1                1   ...............  ...............  ...............
 account.........................
    (Limitation on direct loans).              (3)              (3)              (3)              (3)  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses......             214              220              220              220               +6   ...............  ...............
Vocational rehabilitation loans                57               52               52               52               -5   ...............  ...............
 program account.................
    (Limitation on direct loans).          (2,531)          (2,726)          (2,726)          (2,726)           (+195)  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses......             415              432              432              432              +17   ...............  ...............
Native American Veteran Housing               520              532              532              532              +12   ...............  ...............
 Loan Program Account............
Guaranteed Transitional Housing            48,250   ...............  ...............  ...............         -48,250   ...............  ...............
 Loans for Homeless Veterans
 program account.................
    (Limitation on direct loans).        (100,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............       (-100,000)  ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Veterans Benefits         23,554,791       24,753,587       24,778,587       24,749,103       +1,194,312           -4,484          -29,484
       Administration............

  Veterans Health Administration

Medical care.....................      18,026,481       19,381,587       19,354,587       19,381,587       +1,355,106   ...............         +27,000
    Delayed equipment obligation.         900,000          900,000          927,000          900,000   ...............  ...............         -27,000
    (Transfer to general                 (-27,907)  ...............        (-28,134)        (-27,907)  ...............        (-27,907)           (+227)
     operating expenses).........
    (Transfer to Parking           ...............  ...............  ...............         (-2,000)         (-2,000)         (-2,000)         (-2,000)
     revolving fund).............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................      18,926,481       20,281,587       20,281,587       20,281,587       +1,355,106   ...............  ...............

Medical care cost recovery
 collections:
    Offsetting receipts..........        -608,000         -639,000         -639,000         -639,000          -31,000   ...............  ...............
    Appropriations (indefinite)..         608,000          639,000          639,000          639,000          +31,000   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total available............        (608,000)        (639,000)        (639,000)        (639,000)        (+31,000)  ...............  ...............

Medical and prosthetic research..         321,000          321,000          351,000          331,000          +10,000          +10,000          -20,000
Medical administration and                 59,703           64,884           62,000           62,000           +2,297           -2,884   ...............
 miscellaneous operating expenses
General Post Fund, National
 Homes:
    Loan program account (by                   (7)  ...............  ...............  ...............             (-7)  ...............  ...............
     transfer)...................
    (Limitation on direct loans).             (70)  ...............  ...............  ...............            (-70)  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses (by               (54)  ...............  ...............  ...............            (-54)  ...............  ...............
     transfer)...................
General post fund (transfer out).            (-61)  ...............  ...............  ...............            (+61)  ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Veterans Health           19,307,184       20,667,471       20,694,587       20,674,587       +1,367,403           +7,116          -20,000
       Administration............

   Departmental Administration

General operating expenses.......         912,594        1,061,854        1,006,000        1,050,000         +137,406          -11,854          +44,000
    Offsetting receipts..........         (36,754)         (36,520)         (36,520)         (36,520)           (-234)  ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Program Level.......        (949,348)      (1,098,374)      (1,042,520)      (1,086,520)       (+137,172)        (-11,854)        (+44,000)

    (Transfer from medical care).         (27,907)  ...............         (28,134)         (27,907)  ...............        (+27,907)           (-227)
    (Transfer from national                  (117)  ...............            (125)            (117)  ...............           (+117)             (-8)
     cemetery)...................
    (Transfer from inspector                  (30)  ...............             (28)             (30)  ...............            (+30)             (+2)
     general)....................
National Cemetery Administration.          97,256          109,889          106,889          109,889          +12,633   ...............          +3,000
    (Transfer to general                    (-117)  ...............           (-125)           (-117)  ...............           (-117)             (+8)
     operating expenses).........
Office of Inspector General......          43,200           46,464           46,464           46,464           +3,264   ...............  ...............
    (Transfer to general                     (-30)  ...............            (-28)            (-30)  ...............            (-30)             (-2)
     operating expenses).........
Construction, major projects.....          65,140           62,140           62,140           48,540          -16,600          -13,600          -13,600
Construction, minor projects.....         160,000          162,000          100,000          162,000           +2,000   ...............         +62,000
    (Transfer to Parking           ...............  ...............  ...............         (-4,500)         (-4,500)         (-4,500)         (-4,500)
     Revolving Fund).............
Grants for construction of State           90,000           60,000           90,000          100,000          +10,000          +40,000          +10,000
 extended care facilities........
Grants for the construction of             25,000           25,000           25,000           25,000   ...............  ...............  ...............
 State veterans cemeteries.......
    (Transfer to Parking           ...............  ...............  ...............          (6,500)         (+6,500)         (+6,500)         (+6,500)
     Revolving Fund).............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental               1,393,190        1,527,347        1,436,493        1,541,893         +148,703          +14,546         +105,400
       Administration............
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, title I, Department       44,255,165       46,948,405       46,909,667       46,965,583       +2,710,418          +17,178          +55,916
       of Veterans Affairs.......

              Appropriations.....     (44,255,165)     (46,948,405)     (46,909,667)     (46,965,583)     (+2,710,418)        (+17,178)        (+55,916)
              Rescissions........  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
              Contingent           ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
               emergency
               appropriations....
          (By transfer)..........             (61)  ...............  ...............  ...............            (-61)  ...............  ...............
          (Limitation on direct          (102,904)          (3,029)          (3,029)          (3,029)        (-99,875)  ...............  ...............
           loans)................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
          Consisting of:
              Mandatory..........     (23,396,626)     (24,585,866)     (24,615,866)     (24,585,866)     (+1,189,240)  ...............        (-30,000)
              Discretionary......     (20,858,539)     (22,362,539)     (22,293,801)     (22,379,717)     (+1,521,178)        (+17,178)        (+85,916)

             TITLE II

 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
           DEVELOPMENT

    Public and Indian Housing

Housing Certificate Fund.........       7,104,420        9,927,824        9,075,388        8,971,000       +1,866,580         -956,824         -104,388
    (By transfer)................        (183,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............       (-183,000)  ...............  ...............
    Advance appropriation, fiscal       4,200,000        4,200,000        4,200,000        4,200,000   ...............  ...............  ...............
     year 2001/2002..............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total funding..............      11,304,420       14,127,824       13,275,388       13,171,000       +1,866,580         -956,824         -104,388

Housing set-asides:
    Expiring section 8 contracts.     (10,834,135)     (13,221,824)     (13,275,388)     (13,131,000)     (+2,296,865)        (-90,824)       (-144,388)
    Section 8 relocation                 (156,000)         (79,000)  ...............  ...............       (-156,000)        (-79,000)  ...............
     assistance..................
    Contract administration......  ...............        (209,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............       (-209,000)  ...............
    Incremental vouchers.........        (346,560)        (527,000)  ...............  ...............       (-346,560)       (-527,000)  ...............
    Housing production program...  ...............         (66,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............        (-66,000)  ...............
    Voucher for disabled.........         (40,000)         (25,000)  ...............         (40,000)  ...............        (+15,000)        (+40,000)
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................     (11,376,695)     (14,127,824)     (13,275,388)     (13,171,000)     (+1,794,305)       (-956,824)       (-104,388)

Rescission of unobligated
 balances:
    Section 8 recaptures               -1,300,000   ...............        -275,388         -275,000       +1,025,000         -275,000             +388
     (rescission)................
    Section 8 carryover and              -943,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        +943,000   ...............  ...............
     Tenant Protection (resc)....
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................      -2,243,000   ...............        -275,388         -275,000       +1,968,000         -275,000             +388

Public housing capital fund......       2,900,000        2,955,000        2,800,000        2,955,000          +55,000   ...............        +155,000
Public housing operating fund....       3,138,000        3,192,000        3,139,000        3,192,000          +54,000   ...............         +53,000
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................       6,038,000        6,147,000        5,939,000        6,147,000         +109,000   ...............        +208,000

Drug elimination grants for low-          310,000          345,000          300,000          310,000   ...............         -35,000          +10,000
 income housing..................
Revitalization of severely                575,000          625,000          565,000          575,000   ...............         -50,000          +10,000
 distressed public housing (HOPE
 VI).............................
Native American housing block             620,000          650,000          620,000          650,000          +30,000   ...............         +30,000
 grants..........................
Indian housing loan guarantee               6,000            6,000            6,000            6,000   ...............  ...............  ...............
 fund program account............
    (Limitation on guaranteed             (71,956)         (71,956)         (71,956)         (71,956)  ...............  ...............  ...............
     loans)......................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, Public and Indian         16,610,420       21,900,824       20,430,000       20,584,000       +3,973,580       -1,316,824         +154,000
       Housing...................

      Community Planning and
           Development

Housing opportunities for persons         232,000          260,000          250,000          232,000   ...............         -28,000          -18,000
 with AIDS.......................
Rural housing and economic                 25,000           27,000           20,000           27,000           +2,000   ...............          +7,000
 development.....................
America's private investment
 companies program:
    (Limitation on guaranteed            (541,000)      (1,000,000)  ...............  ...............       (-541,000)     (-1,000,000)  ...............
     loans)......................
    Credit subsidy...............          20,000           37,000   ...............  ...............         -20,000          -37,000   ...............
Urban empowerment zones..........          55,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -55,000   ...............  ...............
Rural empowerment zones..........          15,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -15,000   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...................          70,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -70,000   ...............  ...............

Community development block             4,800,000        4,900,000        4,505,000        4,800,000   ...............        -100,000         +295,000
 grants..........................
Section 108 loan guarantees:
    (Limitation on guaranteed          (1,261,000)      (1,217,000)      (1,217,000)      (1,261,000)  ...............        (+44,000)        (+44,000)
     loans)......................
    Credit subsidy...............          29,000           28,000           28,000           29,000   ...............          +1,000           +1,000
    Administrative expenses......           1,000            2,000            1,000            1,000   ...............          -1,000   ...............
Brownfields redevelopment........          25,000           50,000           20,000           25,000   ...............         -25,000           +5,000
HOME investment partnerships            1,600,000        1,650,000        1,585,000        1,600,000   ...............         -50,000          +15,000
 program.........................
Homeless assistance grants.......       1,020,000        1,200,000        1,020,000        1,020,000   ...............        -180,000   ...............
Shelter Plus Care................  ...............  ...............  ...............         105,000         +105,000         +105,000         +105,000
Communities in schools community            5,000            5,000   ...............  ...............          -5,000           -5,000   ...............
 development program.............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Community planning         7,827,000        8,159,000        7,429,000        7,839,000          +12,000         -320,000         +410,000
       and development...........

         Housing Programs

Housing for special populations..         911,000          989,000          911,000          996,000          +85,000           +7,000          +85,000
    Housing for the elderly......        (710,000)        (779,000)        (710,000)        (783,000)        (+73,000)         (+4,000)        (+73,000)
    Housing for the disabled.....        (201,000)        (210,000)        (201,000)        (213,000)        (+12,000)         (+3,000)        (+12,000)

  Federal Housing Administration

FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance
 program account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed        (140,000,000)    (160,000,000)    (160,000,000)    (160,000,000)    (+20,000,000)  ...............  ...............
     loans)......................
    (Limitation on direct loans).        (100,000)        (250,000)        (100,000)        (250,000)       (+150,000)  ...............       (+150,000)
    Administrative expenses......         330,888          330,888          330,888          330,888   ...............  ...............  ...............
    Administrative contract               160,000          160,000          160,000          160,000   ...............  ...............  ...............
     expenses....................
    Additional contract expenses.           4,000            4,000            4,000            4,000   ...............  ...............  ...............
        Reduced downpayments for   ...............  ...............  ...............         -24,000          -24,000          -24,000          -24,000
         teachers/police(Sec 219)
FHA--General and special risk
 program account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed         (18,100,000)     (21,000,000)     (21,000,000)     (21,000,000)     (+2,900,000)  ...............  ...............
     loans)......................
    (Limitation on direct loans).         (50,000)         (50,000)         (50,000)         (50,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses......          64,000          211,455          211,455          211,455         +147,455   ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses              (147,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............       (-147,000)  ...............  ...............
     (unobligated balances)......
    Negative subsidy.............         -75,000         -100,000         -100,000         -100,000          -25,000   ...............  ...............
    Subsidy......................  ...............         101,000          101,000          101,000         +101,000   ...............  ...............
    Subsidy (unobligated                 (153,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............       (-153,000)  ...............  ...............
     balances)...................
    Non-overhead administrative           144,000          144,000          144,000          144,000   ...............  ...............  ...............
     expenses....................
    Additional contract expenses.           7,000            7,000            7,000            7,000   ...............  ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Housing              634,888          858,343          858,343          834,343         +199,455          -24,000          -24,000
       Administration............

   Government National Mortgage
           Association

Guarantees of mortgage-backed
 securities loan guarantee
 program account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed        (200,000,000)    (200,000,000)    (200,000,000)    (200,000,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............
     loans)......................
    Administrative expenses......           9,383            9,383            9,383            9,383   ...............  ...............  ...............
    Administrative contract        ...............          40,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -40,000   ...............
     expenses....................
    Offsetting receipts..........        -422,000         -347,000         -347,000         -347,000          +75,000   ...............  ...............

 Policy Development and Research

Research and technology..........          45,000           62,000           40,000           45,000   ...............         -17,000           +5,000

      Fair Housing and Equal
           Opportunity

Fair housing activities..........          44,000           50,000           44,000           44,000   ...............          -6,000   ...............

  Office of Lead Hazard Control

Lead hazard reduction............          80,000          120,000           80,000          100,000          +20,000          -20,000          +20,000

  Management and Administration

Salaries and expenses............         477,000          565,000          474,647          473,500           -3,500          -91,500           -1,147
    Transfer from:
        Limitation on FHA                (518,000)        (518,000)        (518,000)        (518,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............
         corporate funds.........
        GNMA.....................          (9,383)          (9,383)          (9,383)          (9,383)  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Community Planning and             (1,000)          (1,000)          (1,000)          (1,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............
         Development.............
        America's Private          ...............          (1,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............         (-1,000)  ...............
         Investment Companies
         Program.................
        Title VI.................            (150)            (150)            (150)            (150)  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Indian Housing...........            (200)            (200)            (200)            (200)  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Salaries and          (1,005,733)      (1,094,733)      (1,003,380)      (1,002,233)         (-3,500)        (-92,500)         (-1,147)
           expenses..............

Office of Inspector General......          50,657           52,000           50,657           55,500           +4,843           +3,500           +4,843
    (By transfer, limitation on           (22,343)         (22,343)         (22,343)         (22,343)  ...............  ...............  ...............
     FHA corporate funds)........
    (By transfer from Drug                (10,000)         (10,000)         (10,000)         (10,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............
     Elimination Grants).........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of Inspector          (83,000)         (84,343)         (83,000)         (87,843)         (+4,843)         (+3,500)         (+4,843)
       General...................

Office of Federal Housing                  19,493           25,800           22,000           22,000           +2,507           -3,800   ...............
 Enterprise Oversight............
    Offsetting receipts..........         -19,493          -25,800          -22,000          -22,000           -2,507           +3,800   ...............

    Administrative Provisions

Sec. 208 FHA.....................        -319,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        +319,000   ...............  ...............
Annual contribution (transfer            (-79,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............        (+79,000)  ...............  ...............
 out)............................
Annual contributions (transfer          (-104,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............       (+104,000)  ...............  ...............
 out)............................
Sec. 212 Rescissions.............         -74,400   ...............  ...............  ...............         +74,400   ...............  ...............
Sec. 214 Moving to Work..........           5,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          -5,000   ...............  ...............
Sec. 222 Excess Income...........  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, administrative                   -00   ...............  ...............  ...............        +388,400   ...............  ...............
       provisions................
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department      25,878,948       32,458,550       29,980,030       30,633,726       +4,754,778       -1,824,824         +653,696
       of Housing and Urban
       Development (net).........

          Current year, fiscal        (21,678,948)     (28,258,550)     (25,780,030)     (26,433,726)     (+4,754,778)     (-1,824,824)       (+653,696)
           year 2001.............
              Appropriations.....     (23,996,348)     (28,258,550)     (26,055,418)     (26,708,726)     (+2,712,378)     (-1,549,824)       (+653,308)
              Rescissions........     (-2,317,400)  ...............       (-275,388)       (-275,000)     (+2,042,400)       (-275,000)           (+388)
          Advance appropriation,       (4,200,000)      (4,200,000)      (4,200,000)      (4,200,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............
           fiscal year 2001/2002.

          (Limitation on             (359,902,000)    (383,217,000)    (382,217,000)    (382,261,000)    (+22,359,000)       (-956,000)        (+44,000)
           guaranteed loans).....
          (Limitation on                 (561,076)        (562,076)        (561,076)        (561,076)  ...............         (-1,000)  ...............
           corporate funds)......
                                  ======================================================================================================================
            TITLE III

       INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

    American Battle Monuments
            Commission

Salaries and expenses............          28,359           26,196           28,000           26,196           -2,163   ...............          -1,804

    Chemical Safety and Hazard
       Investigation Board

Salaries and expenses............           7,970            8,000            8,000            7,000             -970           -1,000           -1,000

    Department of the Treasury

 Community Development Financial
           Institutions

Community development financial            95,000          125,000          105,000           95,000   ...............         -30,000          -10,000
 institutions fund program
 account.........................

     Consumer Product Safety
            Commission

Salaries and expenses............          48,814           52,500           51,000           52,500           +3,686   ...............          +1,500

   Corporation for National and
        Community Service

National and community service            433,153          533,700   ...............         433,500             +347         -100,200         +433,500
 programs operating expenses.....
    Rescission...................         -80,000   ...............  ...............         -50,000          +30,000          -50,000          -50,000
Office of Inspector General......           3,985            5,000            5,000            5,000           +1,015   ...............  ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total......................         357,138          538,700            5,000          388,500          +31,362         -150,200         +383,500

  Court of Appeals for Veterans
              Claims

Salaries and expenses............          11,408           12,500           12,500           12,445           +1,037              -55              -55

   Department of Defense--Civil

    Cemeterial Expenses, Army

Salaries and expenses............          12,426           15,949           17,949           15,949           +3,523   ...............          -2,000

  Department of Health and Human
             Services

   National Institute of Health

National Institute of              ...............  ...............          60,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -60,000
 Environmental Health Sciences...

      Public Health Service

Toxic Substance and Environmental  ...............  ...............          70,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -70,000
 Public Health...................

 Environmental Protection Agency

Science and Technology...........         642,303          674,348          650,000          670,000          +27,697           -4,348          +20,000
    Transfer from Hazardous                38,000           35,871           35,000           38,000   ...............          +2,129           +3,000
     Substance Superfund.........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science and               680,303          710,219          685,000          708,000          +27,697           -2,219          +23,000
       Technology................

Environmental Programs and              1,895,267        2,099,461        1,895,000        2,000,000         +104,733          -99,461         +105,000
 Management......................
Office of Inspector General......          32,380           34,094           34,000           34,094           +1,714   ...............             +94
    Transfer from Hazardous                11,000           11,652           11,500           11,000   ...............            -652             -500
     Substance Superfund.........
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, OIG..............          43,380           45,746           45,500           45,094           +1,714             -652             -406

Buildings and facilities.........          62,362           23,931           23,931           23,000          -39,362             -931             -931

Hazardous Substance Superfund....       1,300,000        1,450,000        1,170,000        1,300,000   ...............        -150,000         +130,000
    Delay of obligation..........         100,000   ...............         100,000          100,000   ...............        +100,000   ...............
    Transfer to Office of                 -11,000          -11,652          -11,500          -11,000   ...............            +652             +500
     Inspector General...........
    Transfer to Science and               -38,000          -35,871          -35,000          -38,000   ...............          -2,129           -3,000
     Technology..................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Hazardous               1,351,000        1,402,477        1,223,500        1,351,000   ...............         -51,477         +127,500
       Substance Superfund.......

Leaking Underground Storage Tank           69,760           72,096           79,000           72,096           +2,336   ...............          -6,904
 Program.........................
Oil spill response...............          14,974           15,712           15,000           15,000              +26             -712   ...............

State and Tribal Assistance             2,560,765        1,838,000        2,108,000        2,365,000         -195,765         +527,000         +257,000
 Grants..........................
    Categorical grants...........         885,000        1,068,957        1,068,957          955,000          +70,000         -113,957         -113,957
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, STAG.............       3,445,765        2,906,957        3,176,957        3,320,000         -125,765         +413,043         +143,043
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, EPA.................       7,562,811        7,276,599        7,143,888        7,534,190          -28,621         +257,591         +390,302

Executive Office of the President

Office of Science and Technology            5,089            5,201            5,150            5,201             +112   ...............             +51
 Policy..........................
Council on Environmental Quality            2,816            3,020            2,900            2,900              +84             -120   ...............
 and Office of Environmental
 Quality.........................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total......................           7,905            8,221            8,050            8,101             +196             -120              +51

    Federal Deposit Insurance
           Corporation

Office of Inspector General               (33,666)         (33,660)         (33,661)         (33,660)             (-6)  ...............             (-1)
 (transfer)......................

   Federal Emergency Management
              Agency

Disaster relief..................         287,584          300,000          300,000          300,000          +12,416   ...............  ...............
    Emergency funding............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    (Transfer out)...............         (-2,900)         (-2,900)        (-35,500)         (-2,900)  ...............  ...............        (+32,600)
    Emergency funding............       2,480,425        2,609,220   ...............       2,609,220         +128,795   ...............      +2,609,220
Pre-disaster mitigation..........  ...............          30,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         -30,000   ...............
    (Transfer out)...............  ...............         (-2,600)  ...............  ...............  ...............         (+2,600)  ...............
Disaster assistance direct loan
 program account:
    State share loan.............           1,295            1,678            1,295            1,678             +383   ...............            +383
        (Limitation on direct             (25,000)         (25,000)         (19,000)         (25,000)  ...............  ...............         (+6,000)
         loans)..................
    Administrative expenses......             420              427              420              427               +7   ...............              +7
Salaries and expenses............         179,950          221,024          190,000          215,000          +35,050           -6,024          +25,000
Office of Inspector General......           7,965            8,476            8,015           10,000           +2,035           +1,524           +1,985
Emergency management planning and         266,782          269,652          267,000          269,652           +2,870   ...............          +2,652
 assistance......................
    (By transfer)................          (2,900)          (5,500)          (5,500)          (2,900)  ...............         (-2,600)         (-2,600)
Radiological emergency                     -1,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          +1,000   ...............  ...............
 preparedness fund...............
Emergency food and shelter                110,000          140,000          110,000          110,000   ...............         -30,000   ...............
 program.........................
Flood map modernization fund.....           5,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          -5,000   ...............  ...............
    (By transfer)................  ...............  ...............         (30,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............        (-30,000)
National insurance development             (3,730)  ...............  ...............  ...............         (-3,730)  ...............  ...............
 fund............................
National Flood Insurance Fund
 (limitation on administrative
 expenses):
    Salaries and expenses........         (24,333)         (25,736)         (25,736)         (25,736)         (+1,403)  ...............  ...............
    Flood mitigation.............         (78,710)         (77,307)         (77,307)         (77,307)         (-1,403)  ...............  ...............
    (Transfer out)...............        (-20,000)        (-20,000)        (-20,000)        (-20,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............
National flood mitigation fund     ...............         (20,000)         (20,000)         (20,000)        (+20,000)  ...............  ...............
 (by transfer)...................
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Emergency          3,338,421        3,580,477          876,730        3,515,977         +177,556          -64,500       +2,639,247
       Management Agency.........

          Appropriations.........        (857,996)        (971,257)        (876,730)        (906,757)        (+48,761)        (-64,500)        (+30,027)
          Rescissions............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
          Emergency funding......  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............

 General Services Administration

Federal Consumer Information                2,622            6,822            7,122            7,122           +4,500             +300   ...............
 Center Fund.....................

  National Aeronautics and Space
          Administration

Human space flight...............       5,487,900        5,499,900        5,472,000        5,400,000          -87,900          -99,900          -72,000
Science, aeronautics and                5,580,895        5,929,400        5,579,600        5,837,000         +256,105          -92,400         +257,400
 technology......................
Mission support..................       2,512,024        2,584,000        2,584,000        2,584,000          +71,976   ...............  ...............
Office of Inspector General......          20,000           22,000           23,000           23,000           +3,000           +1,000   ...............
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NASA................      13,600,819       14,035,300       13,658,600       13,844,000         +243,181         -191,300         +185,400

          Rescissions............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............

      National Credit Union
          Administration

Central liquidity facility:
    (Limitation on direct loans).  ...............        (600,000)      (3,000,000)        (600,000)       (+600,000)  ...............     (-2,400,000)
    (Limitation on administrative            (257)            (296)            (296)            (296)            (+39)  ...............  ...............
     expenses, corporate funds)..
    Revolving loan program.......             996   ...............           1,000   ...............            -996   ...............          -1,000
    Community development credit   ...............           1,000   ...............  ...............  ...............          -1,000   ...............
     union revolving loan fund...

   National Science Foundation

Research and related activities..       2,958,462        3,540,680        3,117,690        3,245,562         +287,100         -295,118         +127,872
Major research equipment.........          93,500          138,540           76,600          109,100          +15,600          -29,440          +32,500
Education and human resources....         690,872          729,010          694,310          765,352          +74,480          +36,342          +71,042
Salaries and expenses............         148,900          157,890          152,000          170,890          +21,990          +13,000          +18,890
Office of Inspector General......           5,450            6,280            5,700            6,280             +830   ...............            +580
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NSF.................       3,897,184        4,572,400        4,046,300        4,297,184         +400,000         -275,216         +250,884

          Rescissions............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............

    Neighborhood Reinvestment
           Corporation

Payment to the Neighborhood                74,715           90,000           90,000           80,000           +5,285          -10,000          -10,000
 Reinvestment Corporation........

     Selective Service System

Salaries and expenses............          23,909           24,480           23,000           24,480             +571   ...............          +1,480
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Total, title III,                29,070,497       30,374,144       26,212,139       29,908,644         +838,147         -465,500       +3,696,505
       Independent agencies......

              Appropriations.....     (26,590,072)     (27,764,924)     (26,212,139)     (27,299,424)       (+709,352)       (-465,500)     (+1,087,285)
              Rescissions........        (-80,000)  ...............  ...............        (-50,000)        (+30,000)        (-50,000)        (-50,000)
              Emergency funding..      (2,480,425)      (2,609,220)  ...............      (2,609,220)       (+128,795)  ...............     (+2,609,220)
          (Limitation on                 (103,043)        (103,043)        (103,043)        (103,043)  ...............  ...............  ...............
           administrative
           expenses).............
          (Limitation on direct           (25,000)        (625,000)      (3,019,000)        (625,000)       (+600,000)  ...............     (-2,394,000)
           loans)................
          (Limitation on                     (257)            (296)            (296)            (296)            (+39)  ...............  ...............
           corporate funds)......
                                  ======================================================================================================================
         OTHER PROVISIONS

H.R. 202--Preservation of                 -14,000   ...............  ...............  ...............         +14,000   ...............  ...............
 Affordable Housing..............
VA Compensation Date Shift \1\...  ...............  ...............      -1,574,000   ...............  ...............  ...............      +1,574,000
VA Pension Date Shift \1\........  ...............  ...............        -258,000   ...............  ...............  ...............        +258,000
                                  ======================================================================================================================
      Grand total (net)..........      99,190,610      109,781,099      101,269,836      107,507,953       +8,317,343       -2,273,146       +6,238,117

          Current year, fiscal        (94,990,610)    (105,581,099)     (97,069,836)    (103,307,953)     (+8,317,343)     (-2,273,146)     (+6,238,117)
           year 2001.............
              Appropriations.....     (94,907,585)    (102,971,879)     (97,345,224)    (101,023,733)     (+6,116,148)     (-1,948,146)     (+3,678,509)
              Rescissions........     (-2,397,400)  ...............       (-275,388)       (-325,000)     (+2,072,400)       (-325,000)        (-49,612)
              Emergency funding..      (2,480,425)      (2,609,220)  ...............      (2,609,220)       (+128,795)  ...............     (+2,609,220)
          Advance appropriation,       (4,200,000)      (4,200,000)      (4,200,000)      (4,200,000)  ...............  ...............  ...............
           fiscal year 2001/2002.

          (By transfer)..........        (216,727)         (53,660)         (83,661)         (53,660)       (-163,067)  ...............        (-30,001)
          (Transfer out).........       (-203,061)        (-20,000)        (-50,000)        (-20,000)       (+183,061)  ...............        (+30,000)
          (Limitation on                 (103,043)        (103,043)        (103,043)        (103,043)  ...............  ...............  ...............
           administrative
           expenses).............
          (Limitation on direct          (349,860)        (999,985)      (3,243,985)        (999,985)       (+650,125)  ...............     (-2,244,000)
           loans)................
          (Limitation on             (359,902,000)    (383,217,000)    (382,217,000)    (382,261,000)    (+22,359,000)       (-956,000)        (+44,000)
           guaranteed loans).....
          (Limitation on                 (561,333)        (562,372)        (561,372)        (561,372)            (+39)         (-1,000)  ...............
           corporate funds)......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CBO assigned request to authorizing committee.