Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                        Calendar No. 97
107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     107-43

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



 
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002

                                _______
                                

                 July 20, 2001.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

          Ms. Mikulski, from the Committee on Appropriations, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1216]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1216) 
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, 2002, and for other 
purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the 
bill do pass.



Amount of new budget (obligational) authority

Amount of bill as reported to Senate....................$113,361,308,000
Amount of appropriations to date, 2001.................. 105,346,264,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2002........................ 110,671,650,000
    Over estimates for 2002.............................   2,689,658,000
    Above appropriations for 2001.......................   8,015,044,000


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs..........................     5
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development............    26
Title III--Independent agencies:
    American Battle Monuments Commission.........................    63
    Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board...............    63
    Department of the Treasury: Community development financial 
      institutions...............................................    64
    Consumer Product Safety Commission...........................    65
    Corporation for National and Community Service...............    66
    U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims....................    68
    Department of Defense--Civil: Cemeterial expenses, Army......    69
    Department of Health and Human Services:
        National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences......    69
        Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.........    70
    Environmental Protection Agency..............................    70
    Executive Office of the President:
        Office of Science and Technology Policy..................    87
        Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
          Environmental Quality..................................    90
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector 
      General....................................................    91
    Federal Emergency Management Agency..........................    91
    General Services Administration: Federal Consumer Information
      Center.....................................................    97
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration................    98
    National Credit Union Administration.........................   112
    National Science Foundation..................................   113
    Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................   122
    Selective Service System.....................................   124
Title IV--General provisions.....................................   125
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   126
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   126
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   127

                              INTRODUCTION

    The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2002 provides a total of $113,361,308,000 in budget 
authority, including approximately $27,304,766,000 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 $23,830,210,000 in 
discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
an increase of $1,453,487,000 above the fiscal year 2001 
enacted level and $452,763,000 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 $31,019,494,000, an increase of 
$2,491,658,000 over the fiscal year 2001 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 $7,751,600,000, a decrease of $60,026,000 
below the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and an increase of 
$435,001,000 above the budget request. Major changes from the 
President's request include an increase of $500,000,000 for 
clean water State revolving funds.
    The Committee recommendation includes $3,277,945,000 for 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including 
$2,000,000,000 in emergency contingency funds for disaster 
relief.
    The Committee recommendation for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration totals $14,561,400,000, an increase of 
$307,528,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level.
    For the National Science Foundation, the Committee 
recommendation totals $4,672,520,000, an increase of 
$256,136,000 above the fiscal year 2001 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, 2001

                                                     \1\ $47,899,002,000

Budget estimate, 2002

                                                          50,686,213,000

Committee recommendation

                                                          51,138,976,000

\1\ Includes rescission of $50,610,000 and add-on of $8,840,000 pursuant 
to Public Law 106-554. Also, includes supplemental requests for 
Compensation and Readjustment Benefits totaling $589,413,000 and 
$347,000,000, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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, 876 outpatient 
clinics, 135 nursing homes, and 43 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 152 
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 $51,138,976,000 for the Department 
of Veterans Affairs, including $27,308,766,000 in mandatory 
spending and $23,830,210,000 in discretionary spending. The 
amount provided for discretionary activities represents an 
increase of $452,763,000 above the budget request and 
$1,453,487,000 above the fiscal year 2001 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, 2001

                                                     \1\ $23,355,689,000

Budget estimate, 2002

                                                          24,944,288,000

Committee recommendation

                                                          24,944,288,000

\1\ Includes supplemental request of $589,413,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $24,944,288,000 for compensation 
and pensions. This is an increase of $1,588,599,000 above the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted level and the same as the budget 
estimate.
    The estimated caseload and cost by program follows:

                                            COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2001                2002             Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:
    Compensation:
        Veterans....................................          2,324,225           2,371,834             +47,609
        Survivors...................................            306,842             308,316              +1,474
        Children....................................                936                 982                 +46
        (Clothing allowance)........................            (76,285)            (76,234)               (-51)
    Pensions:
        Veterans....................................            360,724             352,033              -8,691
        Survivors...................................            249,142             235,415             -13,727
        Minimum income for widows (non-add).........               (558)               (523)               (-35)
        Vocational training (non-add)...............                 (5)                 (3)                (-2)
    Burial allowances...............................             91,740              93,740              +2,000
                                                     ===========================================================
Funds:
    Compensation:
        Veterans....................................    $16,621,523,000     $17,939,507,000     +$1,317,984,000
        Survivors...................................      3,676,267,000       3,805,051,000        +128,784,000
        Children....................................         13,431,000          14,808,000          +1,377,000
        Clothing allowance..........................         41,687,000          41,652,000             -35,000
    Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508 and 102-568)          1,266,000           1,286,000             +20,000
    Medical exams pilot program (Public Law 104-             26,701,000          28,749,000          +2,048,000
     275)...........................................
    Pensions:
        Veterans....................................      2,312,739,000       2,306,208,000          -6,531,000
        Survivors...................................        683,736,000         656,848,000         -26,888,000
        Minimum income for widows...................          3,585,000           3,444,000            -141,000
    Vocational training.............................              6,000               4,000              -2,000
    Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508, 102-568,             8,521,000           8,564,000             +43,000
     and 103-446)...................................
    Payment to Medical Care (Public Laws 101-508 and          7,632,000           8,090,000            +458,000
     102-568).......................................
    Payment to Medical Facilities (non-add).........         (2,207,000)         (2,320,000)          (+113,000)
    Burial benefits.................................        129,837,000         130,300,000            +463,000
    Other assistance................................          3,212,000           3,221,000              +9,000
    Unobligated balance and transfers...............       -174,455,000          -3,444,000        +171,011,000
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation...........................     23,355,689,000      24,944,288,000      +1,588,599,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The appropriation includes $17,940,000 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 2002 cost-of-
living increase of 2.5 percent for pension recipients.

                         readjustment benefits

Appropriations, 2001..................................\1\ $1,981,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   2,135,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,135,000,000

\1\ Includes a supplemental request of $347,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 
$2,135,000,000 for readjustment benefits. The amount 
recommended is an increase of $154,000,000 above the fiscal 
year 2001 enacted level.
    The estimated caseload and cost for this account follows:

                                              READJUSTMENT BENEFITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2001              2002           Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of trainees:
    Education and training: Dependents....................            47,107            50,320            +3,213
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
        Veterans and servicepersons.......................           324,300           334,300           +10,000
        Reservists........................................            71,500            70,500            -1,000
    Vocational rehabilitation.............................            53,250            53,400              +150
    Tuition assistance....................................           161,000           214,000           +53,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................           657,157           722,520           +65,363
                                                           =====================================================
Funds:
    Education and training: Dependents....................      $173,694,000      $186,036,000      +$12,342,000
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
        Veterans and servicepersons.......................     1,356,150,000     1,444,752,000       +88,602,000
        Reservists........................................       115,850,000       123,504,000        +7,654,000
    Vocational rehabilitation.............................       419,200,000       432,100,000       +12,900,000
    Tuition assistance....................................        24,900,000        34,500,000        +9,600,000
    Licensing and certification tests.....................         2,860,000        16,860,000       +14,000,000
    Housing grants........................................        22,805,000        22,805,000  ................
    Automobiles and other conveyances.....................         7,947,000         7,947,000  ................
    Adaptive equipment....................................        27,500,000        27,500,000  ................
    Work-study............................................        50,500,000        49,500,000        -1,000,000
    Payment to States.....................................        14,000,000        14,000,000  ................
    Reporting fees........................................         3,052,000         3,500,000          +448,000
    Unobligated balance and other adjust-  ments..........      -237,458,000      -228,004,000        +9,454,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation.................................     1,981,000,000     2,135,000,000      +154,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   veterans insurance and indemnities

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $19,850,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      26,200,000
Committee recommendation................................      26,200,000

                          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 $26,200,000 for veterans 
insurance and indemnities, as requested by the administration. 
This is an increase of $6,350,000 above the fiscal year 2001 
enacted level. The Department estimates there will be 4,289,330 
policies in force in fiscal year 2002 with a value of nearly 
$554,273,500,000.

         VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Administrative
                                        Program account      expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001..................     $165,740,000     $161,644,000
Budget estimate, 2002.................      203,278,000      164,497,000
Committee recommendation..............      203,278,000      164,497,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $203,278,000, and 
$164,497,000 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 Committee has not included the Administration's request 
to eliminate the Secretary's authority (38. U.S.C. 2733) to 
finance the sale of acquired properties (establish vendee 
loans). The Committee expects the VA to cover the 
administrative expenses associated with this program within the 
amounts provided.

                  education loan fund program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program     Administrative
                                              account        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001....................          $1,000        $220,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................           1,000          64,000
Committee recommendation................           1,000          64,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $64,000 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, 2001....................         $52,000    \1\ $431,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................          72,000         274,000
Committee recommendation................          72,000         274,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes rescission of $1,000 pursuant to Public Law 106-554.

                          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 $72,000 for program costs 
and $274,000 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 $3,301,000. It is estimated 
that VA will make 5,400 loans in fiscal year 2002, with an 
average amount of $611.

          native american veteran housing loan program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

                                                          Administrative
                                                                expenses

Appropriations, 2001....................................    \1\ $531,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................         544,000
Committee recommendation................................         544,000

\1\ Includes rescission of $1,000 pursuant to Public Law 106-554.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $544,000 for 
administrative expenses associated with this program in fiscal 
year 2002. 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 2002, will be borne by the ``Medical 
care'' and ``General operating expenses'' appropriations.

                     Veterans Health Administration


                              MEDICAL CARE

Appropriations, 2001.................................... $20,236,968,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................  20,979,742,000
Committee recommendation................................  21,379,742,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] operates the 
largest Federal medical care delivery system in the country, 
with 172 medical centers, 43 domiciliaries, 135 nursing homes, 
and 876 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 $21,379,742,000 for VA medical 
care, an increase of $1,142,774,000 over the fiscal year 2001 
enacted level and $400,000,000 above the budget request. In 
addition, VA has authority to retain co-payments and third-
party collections, estimated by the Congressional Budget Office 
to total $896,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. Therefore, the 
Committee's recommendation represents total resources for 
medical care of $22,375,742,000.
    Physician Assistants.--In its fiscal year 2001 report, the 
Committee urged the VHA to establish a position of Physician 
Assistant (PA) Advisor. The Veterans Benefits and Health Care 
Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-419) also directed the 
VHA to create a PA Advisor position to the Office of the Under 
Secretary for Health. The Committee is deeply disturbed that 
the VHA has not yet established the PA position. Furthermore, 
the Committee is concerned that the VHA's proposal to limit the 
PA Advisor to a half-time field position is insufficient to 
effectively implement the position. Accordingly, the Committee 
encourages the VHA consider implementing the PA Advisor 
position as a full-time position, located in the VA central 
office or in a VA field medical center that is in close 
proximity to Washington, DC, and to provide sufficient funding 
to support the administrative and travel requirements 
associated with the position.
    Assisted Living.--The Committee notes with concern that the 
VA has not yet finalized the pilot program on assisted living 
called for in Section 103 of the Veterans Millennium Health 
Care Act (Public Law 106-117). Due to the high number of 
quality programs submitted for consideration, the Committee 
strongly urges the VA to expedite the pilot, and to consider 
funding additional assisted living pilots as soon as possible.
    Hepatitis C.--Essential screening and testing programs for 
hepatitis C have just begun to be implemented by VA. Infected 
veterans will need medical evaluation, counseling, drug 
treatment and long-term medical follow-up, a complicated 
regimen which requires close coordination of care for the best 
quality of care and use of resources. VA is encouraged to 
coordinate all hepatitis C-related screening, testing, care, 
and long-term follow-up activities for each facility, including 
oversight of VA's National Hepatitis C Registry.
    The Committee supports the VA's efforts to explore 
opportunities to utilize oral fluid testing to diagnose the 
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) and urges VA to continue pursuing HCV 
oral fluid tests.
    Schizophrenia.--The Committee is aware that the VA is 
developing new treatment guidelines for veterans with 
schizophrenia. Part of the deliberations on these guidelines 
include the consideration of a ``fail first'' approach, which 
is currently being tested in two health care networks. Under 
this ``fail first'' approach, physicians are required to begin 
treatment with the least expensive medication and then use 
other drugs progressively, in order of their costs, until the 
patient is effectively treated. The Committee is troubled by 
any approach that places costs above the patients' best 
interests, especially for such complex illnesses as 
schizophrenia. Accordingly, the Committee directs VA to suspend 
the implementation of the ``fail first'' approach until it 
submits a report to the Committee within 90 days after the 
enactment of this Act on its justifications for using the 
``fail first'' approach. This report should include any 
references to scientific literature or studies that demonstrate 
the rationale for the ``fail first'' approach.
    Improving access.--The Committee is concerned that 
outpatient clinics in Mason City, Waterloo, and Dubuque, Iowa, 
have stopped accepting new patients because they are full. The 
Committee directs the VA to report to the Committee on plans to 
ensure access to care for rural veterans in areas where 
outpatient clinics are full.
    The Committee urges the VA to establish a special Native 
American and Alaskan Veterans Advisory Committee to assure that 
comprehensive, culturally acceptable personal and public health 
services are available and accessible to American Indian and 
Alaskan Native Veterans.
    The Committee is aware of needs for outpatient clinics in 
areas of New Mexico and encourages the Department to expedite 
the opening of new clinics in Alamogordo and Santa Fe, New 
Mexico and Durango, Colorado.
    The Committee is aware that veterans living in rural 
communities in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley in Alaska must 
travel long distances to receive VA medical care in Anchorage. 
Travel to Anchorage is often marked by inclement weather and 
impassable road conditions. To address this situation, the 
Committee directs VA to report to the Committee by March 30, 
2002 on its progress in establishing a community-based 
outpatient clinic in the borough, and expects the clinic to be 
operational in fiscal year 2002. 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.
    Psychology Post-Doctoral Training Program.--The Committee 
continues to support the Veterans' Health Administration's 
efforts to strengthen their Psychology Post-Doctoral Training 
Program. The Committee awaits the progress report due early 
this year that will include the number of training slots for 
psychologists and their location.
    Long Distance Learning Program for Nursing.--The Committee 
supports the joint VA/DOD Distance Learning Program, and 
recommend that the VA continue the distance learning project 
designed to transition clinical nurse specialists into roles as 
adult nurse practitioners.
    Tripler Joint Venture Demonstration.--The colocation of VA 
and DOD healthcare facilities at the 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. In its fiscal year 
2001 report, the Committee urged VA and DOD to establish 
formally a joint venture demonstration project at Tripler. The 
Committee urges the VA to implement a demonstration project 
that integrates the VA pharmacy program at the Sparky M. 
Matsunaga VA Medical Center with the DOD pharmacy program, both 
located at Tripler, so that such services become ``seamless'' 
for veterans and DOD personnel. Moreover, adequate resources 
should be provided by VA to VAMROC Honolulu to support its 
participation in this and other demonstration projects, and to 
allow continued and expanded VA participation in the recently 
established Hawaii Federal Healthcare Partnership. The 
Committee reiterates its request included in its fiscal year 
2001 report to be provided with a plan and progress report for 
the joint venture demonstration project by March 1, 2002.
    Joslin Vision Network (JVN).--The Committee supports the 
current level of support to expand the JVN to additional pilot 
sites in fiscal year 2002. This program benefits diabetic 
patients by offering improved quality of care through increased 
access to the highest quality medical expertise and education, 
and the Committee encourages the VA to initiate new pilot sites 
to advance the JVN technology toward off-the-shelf deployment.
    VA-National Guard Partnership.--The Committee is aware of 
efforts to establish a pilot program to demonstrate the 
feasibility of using National Guard armories to provide 
veterans service. The Committee encourages the VA to continue 
its work to implement this program, and to keep the Committee 
informed of its efforts in this area.
    Homelessness.--The Committee remains concerned by the high 
prevalence among homeless veterans that have a mental health 
and/or substance abuse problem. According to a December 1999 
report by the Interagency Council on the Homeless, 76 percent 
of homeless veterans suffer from a mental health and/or 
substance abuse problem. Further, an April 2000 General 
Accounting Office report found that between 1996 and 1998, 
inpatient services to seriously mentally ill veterans decreased 
by 19 percent and services for substance abuse treatment 
decreased by 41 percent. The Committee directs VA to report to 
the Committees on Appropriations in its fiscal year 2002 
operating plan on how it intends to address these problems. 
Separately, the Committee directs VA to report by February 5, 
2002 detailing how many veterans are receiving treatment and 
how many veterans have requested treatment but have been turned 
away. This report should include recommendations on how VA 
intends to hold its networks accountable for serving these 
vulnerable veterans.
    The Committee is interested in finding ways to improve the 
use of VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem program, 
which is essential in providing transitional housing beds to 
homeless veterans. The VA estimates that no more than 
$34,000,000 will be spent on this program in fiscal year 2002--
$16,000,000 below its authorized level. The Committee is also 
concerned about existing funded grantees having access to per 
diem funds to expand their beds and encourages VA to address 
this issue in its fiscal year 2003 budget.
    The Committee supports the Department's recent announcement 
to establish a VA Advisory Council on Homelessness Among 
Veterans to provide the VA with advice and recommendations on 
improving access and service to homeless veterans. This effort 
should not only address those veterans that are currently 
homeless but also veterans that are at-risk of becoming 
homeless. To further this cause, the Committee encourages VA to 
consult with the Interagency Council on the Homeless to ensure 
that services provided by other Federal agencies such as HUD 
and HHS are coordinated with the VA in addressing homelessness.
    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 Veterans Integrated Service 
Network (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.--The Committee is pleased with the initial 
results of the ongoing VERA study, which indicate that a 
detailed analysis might yield greater specificity and fairness 
in distributing medical care resources. The Committee therefore 
directs VA to continue the federally-funded research and 
development center study through fiscal year 2002, with interim 
reports to be provided to the Committee in February 2002 and 
June 2002. The Committee expects the study to be complete at 
the end of fiscal year 2002.
    Clarksburg/Ruby Memorial demonstration.--The Committee 
supports continuation at current levels ($2,000,000) of the 
Clarksburg VAMC/Ruby Memorial hospital demonstration project.
    VA Healthcare Information Security.--The Committee provides 
$1,000,000 for the VA to study the feasibility of establishing 
a Center for Healthcare Information at the Office of Medical 
Information Security Service at the Martinsburg VAMC to 
identify solutions to protect the privacy, confidentiality, and 
integrity of the sensitive medical records of the VA patient 
population.
    Pacific Telemedicine Project.--The Committee continues to 
support the development 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 strongly encourages the VA to begin 
implementation of the Pacific Telemedicine project as part of 
the Hawaii Federal Healthcare Partnership.
    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.
    Veterans Health Promotion Centers.--The Committee is aware 
of proposals to develop a Public Health Research and Education 
Centers program, whereby centers based at accredited schools of 
public health would serve to complement the activities 
conducted through the VA's National Center for Health Promotion 
and Disease Prevention. Centers would conduct research, 
education, and outreach on health promotion and disease 
prevention activities for veterans. The Committee encourages 
the VA to seriously consider these proposals, determine if they 
would enhance the quality of healthcare to veterans in an 
effective and cost efficient manner, and to report to the 
Committee by March 2002 on this matter.
    Geriatrics.--The Committee supports the VA's Geriatric 
Research, Education, and Clinical Centers (GRECCs) program. 
There are now 21 GRECCs, and there are GRECCs located in all 
but three networks. The Committee is disappointed that the VA 
has not included an expansion of the program in its budget 
request, and encourages VA to expand the program, giving 
highest priority to VISNs that do not have a CRECC. The 
Committee directs the VA to report by December 31, 2001, on the 
VA's plan to expand the GRECC program, including funding 
requirements and potential locations.
    As America's veteran population grows older, it is 
imperative that the VA is able to recruit and train sufficient 
numbers of professionals with an emphasis in geriatrics. The 
Committee is concerned that the VA's current geriatrics 
fellowship duration of just 1 year may not encourage sufficient 
numbers of physicians to specialize in geriatrics. Accordingly, 
the Committee directs the VA to report by December 31, 2001, 
on: (1) the feasibility of extending geriatric fellowships to 2 
years; and (2) additional recommendations for making 
fellowships more competitive with the private sector.
    Mental Illness.--The Committee supports the VA's Mental 
Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Centers (MIRECC) 
program, and is disappointed that the budget request does not 
include an expansion of the program. The Committee directs VA 
to report by December 31, 2001, on VA's plans to expand the 
program, including funding requirements and potential 
locations.
    The Committee has included bill language delaying the 
availability until August 1, 2002, of $675,000,000 in the 
equipment, lands, and structures object classifications.
    The Committee has included bill language to make available 
through September 30, 2003, up to $900,000,000 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 $19,000,000 from 
fiscal year 2001 2-year funds.

                    medical and prosthetic research

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $350,228,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     360,237,000
Committee recommendation................................     390,000,000

                          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 $390,000,000 for medical and 
prosthetic research, an increase of $29,763,000 above the 
budget request and $39,772,000 above the fiscal year 2001 
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.
    Neurofibromatosis.--Research has documented the link 
between neurofibromatosis (NF) and cancer, brain tumors, and 
heart disease. In view of this link, which suggests that 
research on NF stands to benefit a vast segment of the veteran 
population, the Committee encourages the VA to increase its NF 
research portfolio, in addition to continuing to collaborate 
with other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense, 
in joint initiatives. In addition, the Committee requests that 
the VA be prepared to describe its efforts toward this end at 
its fiscal year 2003 appropriations hearing.
    Nursing Research Program.--The Committee supports the 
Nursing Research Program to enable nurses to conduct research 
that focuses on the specific health care needs of aging 
veterans, and urges the program's continuation.
    Mental Health Research.--The Committee notes that mental 
health research represents just a small percentage of the VA's 
total research program, and urges the VA to increase mental 
health research to investigate the prevalence of mental health 
problems in the VA population.
    Neuroscience.--The Committee is aware of collaborative 
efforts between the Jackson, Mississippi and New Orleans VAMCs, 
along with local academic research centers, to enhance existing 
integrative neuroscience research and care needs of veterans 
with chronic pain, depression, drug addiction, and depressive 
disorders. The Committee encourages VA to continue its efforts 
in this collaboration.
    Intellectual Property Rights.--The VA has recently proposed 
a new rule governing royalties stemming from intellectual 
property invented jointly by VA employees and employees of 
collaborating universities. This rule would allow VA to claim 
50 percent and in some cases, 100 percent of all royalties from 
inventions--regardless of whether the inventor is a full- or 
part-time VA employee. The Committee understands that the VA 
has not included the views and concerns of the research 
community in developing this rule. This approach is contrary to 
the spirit of rulemaking and the interest of the scientific 
community. The Committee, therefore, directs the VA to consider 
fully those views and concerns as part of the implementation of 
this rule.
    Lymphoma.--The Committee encourages the 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 Hodgkin's disease and 
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Institute of Medicine's review 
Committee on Agent Orange has also found an association between 
Agent Orange and the development of lymphoid malignancies. The 
Committee requests the VA to report to the Committee by March 
5, 2002 on the Department's current research portfolio on 
lymphoma and its future research agenda.

      medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $61,864,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      67,628,000
Committee recommendation................................      67,628,000

                          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 $67,628,000 for medical 
administration and miscellaneous operating expenses, an 
increase of $5,764,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level 
and the same as the budget request.
    In 2000, VA established a reimbursement process between 
VHA, NCA, and VBA for project technical and consulting services 
to be provided by the Facilities Management Service Delivery 
Office. The estimated level of reimbursement to the Medical 
Administration and Miscellaneous Operating Expenses account in 
fiscal year 2002 for facilities management support is 
$7,473,000.

                      Departmental Administration


                       general operating expenses

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $1,047,690,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   1,194,831,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,194,831,000

                          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 $1,194,831,000 for general 
operating expenses, an increase of $147,141,000 above the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The amount provided includes 
$955,352,000 for the Veterans Benefits Administration and 
$239,479,000 for general administration. In addition to this 
appropriation, resources are made available for general 
operating expenses through reimbursements totaling $444,606,000 
for fiscal year 2002, with total estimated obligations of 
approximately $1,639,437,000.
    Bill language is included making available $60,000,000 of 
the GOE appropriation for 2 years, and includes a travel 
limitation of $15,665,000.
    Coupler Technology.--The Committee notes that the VA 
recently completed a successful demonstration of a medical 
information coupler system at the Tampa VAMROC that 
dramatically improved the care of veterans and their 
dependents. This technology links unique patient 
characteristics to relevant medical knowledge, increasing the 
quality of care while improving and standardizing quality of 
data obtained to further research at potentially reduced costs. 
The Committee encourages the VA to implement diabetes coupling 
software at additional VA medical facilities so that these 
benefits may be achieved in all regions. The Committee directs 
the VA to report on the progress of this initiative by May 1, 
2002.
    The Committee also notes that couplers may provide an 
opportunity for the VBA to improve quality and efficiency in 
the processing of claims. The Committee remains concerned about 
the backlog and complexity of the process, and encourages the 
VBA to continue to investigate this technology to automate 
claims processing and increase efficiency.
    The Committee recommends the current level of $25,000 for 
official reception and representation expenses.

                    national cemetery administration

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $109,647,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     121,169,000
Committee recommendation................................     121,169,000

                          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 152 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 $121,169,000 for the National 
Cemetery Administration. This is an increase of $11,522,000 
over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and the same as the 
budget request.
    The increase above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level will 
fund 33 additional FTE, for a total of 1,499. 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.

                    office of the inspector general

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $46,362,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      48,308,000
Committee recommendation................................      48,308,000

                          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 $48,308,000 
for the inspector general. This is an increase of $1,946,000 
above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

                      construction, major projects

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $65,895,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     183,180,000
Committee recommendation................................     155,180,000

                          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 $155,180,000 
for construction, major projects, an increase of $89,285,000 
above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
    The following table compares the Committee recommendation 
with the budget request.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Available
   Location and description       through        2002        Committee
                                    2001       Request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Program:
    General: Miami, FL Utility  ...........       28,000  ..............
     Plant and Electrical
     Distribution.............
    Advance planning fund:      ...........        5,000          5,000
     Various stations.........
    CARE Fund.................  ...........       60,000         60,000
    Asbestos abatement:         ...........       18,000         18,000
     Various stations.........
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal................  ...........      111,000         83,000
                               =========================================
Veterans Benefits               ...........        1,500          1,500
 Administration: Advance
 planning fund................
National Cemetery
 Administration:
    Atlanta, GA Phase I         ...........       28,200         28,200
     Development..............
    Massachusetts National      ...........        9,200          9,200
     Cemetery Columbaria
     Expansion/Cemetery
     Improvement..............
    Miami, FL National               15,000        2,000          2,000
     Cemetery Design..........
    Tahoma, WA, National        ...........        6,900          6,900
     Cemetery Columbaria
     Expansion/Cemetery
     Improvements.............
    Land Acquisition..........  ...........       18,000         18,000
    Design fund...............  ...........        5,180          5,180
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal................       15,000       69,480         69,480
                               =========================================
Claims Analyses: Various        ...........        1,200          1,200
 stations.....................
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total construction,            15,000      183,180        155,180
       major projects.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee's recommendation includes $60,000,000 for the 
Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Fund. 
The Committee applauds the Department's commitment to the CARES 
process in its budget request. The Committee supports fully the 
VA's commitment to make construction funds available upon 
completion of CARES studies and determination of capital asset 
requirements. VA recently completed its pilot Phase I study of 
VISN 12, which includes 8 VA healthcare facilities in Illinois, 
Michigan, and Wisconsin. The Committee urges VA to continue its 
efforts on reviewing its capital assets to support delivery of 
health care services.
    The Committee has not recommended funds for the Miami, FL 
electrical project, or other major construction medical project 
funding, as the Committee supports all such projects proceeding 
only upon CARES validation.
    The Committee is aware of the efforts to provide additional 
research space for the Bronx VAMC to expand and enhance its 
programs in neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimers, 
Parkinsons, MS, ALS, and brain and spinal cord injury. The 
Committee recognizes the national significance of the research 
conducted at the Bronx VAMC, and has no objection to the VA 
proceeding with the design of this project. The Committee also 
urges the VA to include funding for this initiative in 
subsequent budget requests if it is found that this project is 
consistent with CARES protocols for VISN 3.
    Beckley, WV nursing home care unit.--The Committee urges 
the VA to accelerate the design of the nursing home care unit 
at the Beckley, WV VAMC, for which funding was provided in 
fiscal year 2001. The Committee urges the VA to include 
sufficient funding for this project in the fiscal year 2003 
budget request upon confirmation that the project is consistent 
with the strategic plan which emerges from the VISN 6 CARES 
process.
    Feasibility Study for a Clarksburg VAMC Research Center.--
The Committee directs the VA to conduct a feasibility study on 
the need for a VA Research Center for the Clarksburg VAMC on 
the campus of West Virginia University. The Committee expects 
that the findings 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 has included the requested amounts for 
development of the Atlanta, GA National Cemetery, improvements 
at the Massachusetts and Tahoma, WA, National Cemeteries, and 
design of the new Miami, FL, National Cemetery.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the requested 
amounts for land acquisition costs associated with the 
establishment of national cemeteries in the vicinity of 
Sacramento, CA, Pittsburgh, PA, and Detroit, MI. This will 
allow VA to acquire the land necessary to build new national 
cemeteries to serve veterans and their family members in these 
geographic areas.
    The Committee's recommendation also includes the requested 
amounts for design of the Fort Snelling, MN, Riverside, CA, and 
Barrancas, FL cemetery expansions.
    The Committee notes that the Department is currently 
undertaking a demographic study on the future burial needs of 
our Nation's veterans as required by the Veterans Millennium 
Health Care Act (Public Law 106-117). The Committee understands 
that this study will include an analysis of the needs of the 
Albuquerque area of New Mexico, and urges the Department to 
submit the results of this study by December 31, 2001.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $170,465,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     178,900,000
Committee recommendation................................     178,900,000

                          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 $178,900,000 for minor 
construction, the same as the budget request and $8,435,000 
above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
    The Committee has no objection to VHA proceeding with the 
design of a series of projects in VISN1 to renovate operating 
rooms, repair utilities and make other improvements to VA 
facilities in the region. 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.
    St. Louis Parking.--The Committee is aware that the 
Department is examining the use of enhanced-use leasing at the 
John Cochran Division of the VA Medical Center in St. Louis, 
Missouri as a means to address a severe parking deficiency and 
safety problem at the Medical Center. The VA Medical Center is 
located in an urban area that has been historically 
economically depressed but is currently undergoing an economic 
revitalization effort. Because of local economic conditions in 
this urban area, the enhanced-use alternative may require a 
capital contribution from minor construction appropriations in 
order to secure the necessary remaining and larger private 
sector investment for this facility. The Department is 
encouraged to pursue this approach, consistent with the CARES 
protocols in that it not only addresses the Department's 
facility needs in a cost effective way but also encourages 
economic growth and revitalization as a model for similar urban 
areas that serve as home to many of this Nation's veterans.

                         parking revolving fund

Appropriations, 2001....................................              $0
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       4,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,000,000

                          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

    The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the parking 
revolving fund, the same as the budget request.

       grants for construction of state extended care facilities

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $99,780,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      50,000,000
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. Public Law 102-
585 granted permanent authority for this program and Public Law 
106-117 provided greater specificity in directing VA to 
prescribe regulations for the number of beds for which grant 
assistance may be furnished.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for grants for the 
construction of State extended care facilities, an increase of 
$220,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, and an 
increase of $50,000,000 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 $285,000,000 
in priority one projects.
    Long-term care needs of veterans on Hawaii Island.--The 
Committee is concerned that the long-term care needs of the 
``mandated VA eligible'' veterans on the Island of Hawaii are 
not being met. The Committee therefore urges VA to work with 
the State of Hawaii Health Care Corporation (HHSC) to assess 
veterans' long-term care needs and to make recommendations on 
the most cost-effective means of providing a State veterans 
home, including the options of leasing existing health 
facilities, repairing and upgrading existing health facilities, 
or new construction. VA, together with HHSC, should report to 
the Committee with joint recommendations, inclusive of costs, 
no later than March 1, 2002.

       grants for the construction of state veterans' cemeteries

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $24,945,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      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 2002, 
$55,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and the same 
as the budget request.
    Fort Stanton State Cemetery, New Mexico.--The Committee 
encourages the Department to work with the State of New Mexico 
as the State applies for a grant for the Fort Stanton Cemetery.

                       administrative provisions

    The Committee has included 7 administrative provisions 
(Sections 101-107) carried in earlier bills. Included is a 
provision (Section 107) 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 $37,170,000 will be reimbursed to the 
``General operating expenses'' account as a result of this 
provision.
    The Committee has included two new administrative 
provisions. Included is bill language (Section 108) allowing, 
for fiscal year 2002 only, the reimbursement of the Office of 
Resolution Management (ORM) and the Office of Employment 
Discrimination Complaint Adjudication (OEDCA) for services 
provided, from funds in any appropriation for salaries and 
other administrative expenses. The Committee has agreed to this 
provision on a 1 year trial basis, rather than as permanent 
authority as was requested by the Administration. In past 
years, the Committee has rejected this proposal, and instead, 
provided transfer authority from medical care, NCA, and OIG 
appropriations. The Committee directs the VA to provide a 
report no later than March 1, 2002, on the effects of this 
provision on the level of service provided by ORM and OEDCA as 
compared to the previous 5 fiscal years.
    Also included is a new provision (Section 110) to extend 
the VA's Franchise Fund pilot program.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2001.................................... $28,527,836,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................  30,580,617,000
Committee recommendation................................  31,019,494,000

                          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 2002 an 
appropriation of $31,019,494,000 for the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. This is an increase of $2,491,658,000 
above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and an increase of 
$438,877,000 above the budget request.

                        housing certificate fund

              (Including Recission and Transfers of Funds)

Appropriations, 2001.................................\1\ $13,910,237,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................  15,717,392,000
Committee recommendation..............................\2\ 15,658,769,000

\1\ Includes an advance appropriation of $4,190,760,000 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 
$15,658,769,000, of which $15,506,746,000 shall be used to fund 
expiring section 8 contracts including the costs of 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. 
Consistent with the budget resolution, this account includes an 
advance appropriation of $4,200,000,000 for the remainder costs 
of contracts renewed in fiscal year 2002 for the months 
requiring section 8 assistance during fiscal year 2003.
    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 directs HUD to identify in its fiscal 
year 2003 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 includes $98,623,000 for 17,000 additional, 
incremental vouchers instead of the Administration's request of 
$197,246,000 for 34,000 incremental vouchers. The reduction 
from the Administration's request reflects the concerns of the 
Committee that vouchers do not always provide the best 
opportunities for low-income families to obtain affordable 
housing. The Committee also remains concerned that the 
Department has not addressed the many inefficiencies in the 
Section 8 program that interfere with the ability of families 
to use vouchers effectively to obtain affordable housing. These 
incremental vouchers are to be made available on a fair share 
basis to public housing authorities that have no less than a 97 
percent vacancy rate to ensure that this assistance is provided 
to areas with the greatest need. The Department is expected to 
distribute this assistance within 90 days of enactment of this 
legislation.
    In particular, 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.
    The Committee urges the Administration to consider new 
approaches to the development of affordable housing, especially 
for extremely low-income families who have incomes at or below 
30 percent of area medium income. These new approaches should 
include additional funding for new construction, tax incentives 
for housing production and preservation and new multifamily 
housing insurance products. The Committee reminds HUD that its 
2000 Worst Case Housing Needs study reported a record high of 
5.4 million households (some 600,000 more households with worst 
case housing needs than there were in 1991) have incomes that 
are below 50 percent of local median income and pay at least 
one-half of their income in rent.
    The bill includes a rescission of $615,000,000 from excess 
section 8 funds in fiscal year 2002. The Committee has also 
included bill language that would rescind and transfer any 
additional excess section 8 funds above the amount rescinded in 
the bill. The Committee directs that the recaptured funds would 
be transferred on a pro-rata basis to HUD's ``HOME Investment 
Partnership Program'' account, the ``Housing for Special 
Populations'' account, the National Science Foundation's 
``Research and Related Activities'' account, and the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration's ``Science, Aeronautics, 
and Technology'' account. The Committee has selected these 
accounts because of its strong commitment to basic science and 
technology research and the affordable housing needs of 
extremely low-income families as well as elderly and disabled 
people.
    The Committee is very concerned about HUD's policy to 
reduce the amount of section 8 reserves held by public housing 
agencies by one-half. The Committee believes that this 
reduction may limit the ability of some PHA's to provide 
section 8 assistance to families with severe housing needs and 
is counter productive to the reforms made by this Committee in 
recent years that would make section 8 assistance better 
utilized.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $2,993,400,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   2,293,400,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,943,400,000

                          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 $2,943,400,000 
for the public housing capital fund, $650,000,000 more than the 
budget request and $50,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2001 
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 up to 
$75,000,000 for emergency capital needs.

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $3,234,868,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   3,384,868,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,384,868,000

                          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 $3,384,868,000 
for the public housing operating fund, an increase of 
$150,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 level and the same as 
the budget request. 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.
    The Committee is aware that many public housing authorities 
are experiencing higher operating costs as a result of higher 
gas and electricity prices. The proposed increase for this fund 
should be directed at addressing this issue and encourages HUD 
to work with the public housing authorities to find long term 
solutions for dealing with higher utility costs.
    Consistent with the terms of the Chicago Housing Authority 
(CHA) Plan for Transformation, as incorporated in its Moving to 
Work Agreement with HUD, dated February 6, 2000, as amended, 
HUD is directed to provide the CHA with the maximum regulatory 
flexibility in meeting the terms of the agreement.
    The Committee has rejected the Administration's proposal to 
drastically cut public housing capital funds due to its 
concerns with the significant modernization needs of public 
housing and potential long-term consequences to housing 
authorities' bond authority ratings. There are estimates that 
the modernization backlog of the Nation's public housing is up 
to $22,000,000,000. While there exists some unspent capital 
funds, most of these funds are due to the normal expenditure 
rate of the program. The Committee directs the Department to 
report to the Committee within 120 days after the date of the 
enactment of this act on the long-term capital needs of public 
housing. This report should include data on the number of 
distressed units demolished and units replaced by HOPE VI or 
other similar activities.
    The Committee expects HUD to fund the Puerto Rico Public 
Housing Authority (PRPHA) in a manner consistent with the 
funding of all other public housing agencies, as provided in a 
settlement agreement, dated June 7, 2000, between HUD and the 
PRPHA. The Committee is optimistic that the PRPHA has taken the 
beginning steps necessary to address the many problems of fraud 
and abuse that have plagued the agency in the recent past.

             Drug Elimination Grants for Low-Income Housing

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $309,318,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................               0
Committee recommendation................................     300,000,000

                          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 $300,000,000 
for drug elimination grants for low-income housing, of which 
$3,000,000 shall be awarded for technical assistance grants, 
$20,000,000 for competitive grants under the New Approach Anti-
Drug Program.
    The administration has recommended the elimination of this 
program. However, the Committee believes that this program 
continues to play an important role in fighting crime and drugs 
in public housing complexes. In order to maximize the effective 
use of these dollars, the Committee urges HUD and public 
housing authorities to coordinate activities funded under this 
program with appropriate State and local law enforcement 
agencies to maximize the use of funding to reduce drug activity 
in public housing.

         Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing 
                               [HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $573,735,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     573,735,000
Committee recommendation................................     573,735,000

                          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 $573,735,000 
for the ``HOPE VI'' account, the same as the budget request and 
the same as the fiscal year 2001 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 recognizes the enormous 
progress that has been made under this program in eliminating 
the most severely distressed public housing. However, the 
Committee notes that a significant number of severely 
distressed units still exist with just one year left before the 
program's authorization expires. Therefore, the Committee 
directs HUD to give priority to eliminating the most severely 
distressed units in urban areas and provide sufficient funding 
for demolition of such units in the fiscal year 2002 grant 
awards.
    While HOPE VI has been successful at eliminating severely 
distressed public housing, the Committee notes the growing 
trend of concentrating public housing residents in private 
housing through the use of Section 8 vouchers. In some areas, 
high rise buildings and smaller multi-family units are occupied 
almost exclusively by Section 8 voucher holders. In effect, 
these units have become public housing by proxy. If these units 
were public housing, they would be eligible for HOPE VI grants. 
However, as privately owned units, they are not eligible for 
HOPE VI grants.
    Like their public housing counterparts, many of these high 
rises and multi-family units can be transformed into newer, 
mixed income developments that offer higher quality affordable 
housing and supportive services similar to the HOPE VI program 
for public housing. The Committee urges HUD to examine this 
housing trend in the context of re-authorizing the HOPE VI 
program and provide the Committee with guidance on how to apply 
HOPE VI principles to privately owned housing that depends 
exclusively upon Section 8 residents for income, operating and 
capital expenses.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $648,570,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     648,570,000
Committee recommendation................................     648,570,000

                          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 $648,570,000 for the native 
American housing block grant, of which $5,987,000 is set aside 
for a credit subsidy for the section 601 Loan Guarantee 
Program. The Committee recommendation is the same as the budget 
request and the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
    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 
$2,200,000 to be administered by the National American Indian 
Housing Council (NAIHC) and $5,000,000 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.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2001....................................      $5,987,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       5,987,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,987,000

                          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 $5,987,000 in program subsidies to 
support a loan guarantee level of $234,283,000. This is the 
same as the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and the budget 
request.

              NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2001....................................              $0
Budget estimate, 2002...................................               0
Committee recommendation................................       1,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This program provides access to private financing for 
Native Hawaiians who otherwise could not acquire housing 
financing because of the unique status of the Hawaiian Home 
Lands as 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 RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $1,000,000 in program subsidies to 
support a loan guarantee level of $40,000,000.

                   Community Planning and Development


          Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $257,432,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     277,432,000
Committee recommendation................................     277,432,000

                          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 $277,432,000 
for this program, $20,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 
enacted level and the same as the budget request.
    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.

            office of rural housing and economic development

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................               0
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

                          program description

    The Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development was 
established to ensure that the Department has a comprehensive 
approach to rural housing and rural economic development 
issues. The account includes funding for technical assistance 
and capacity building in rural, underserved areas, and grants 
for Indian tribes, State housing finance agencies, State 
economic development agencies, rural nonprofits and rural 
community development corporations to pursue strategies 
designed to meet rural housing and economic development needs.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Office of 
Rural Housing and Economic Development for fiscal year 2002 to 
support housing and economic development in rural communities 
as defined by USDA and HUD. This funding level is the same as 
the fiscal year 2001 level and $25,000,000 above 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.

                EMPOWERMENT ZONES/ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $199,560,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     150,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      75,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) 
program was authorized under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1993. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 later authorized 
two additional Round I urban EZs and 15 Round II urban EZs. 
This interagency initiative is designed to create self-
sustaining, long-term development in distressed urban and rural 
areas throughout the Nation. The program utilizes a combination 
of Federal tax incentives and flexible grant funds to 
reinvigorate communities that have been in decline for decades.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,000,000 
for this program, $124,560,000 less than the fiscal year 2001 
enacted level and $75,000,000 less than the budget request. 
These funds will be distributed to communities that recently 
received a second round EZ designation. The Committee remains 
concerned that the previous Administration acknowledged that 
this program was intended to be funded as a mandatory program 
and not as an obligation of this bill. The Committee urges the 
Senate Finance Committee to fund this program as mandatory, as 
promised. Moreover, the Committee is concerned about the lack 
of oversight and accountability with regard to these funds and 
directs the HUD IG to develop a task force to review the use of 
EZ funds with a report to Congress by July 31, 2002.

                       community development fund


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $5,112,406,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   4,801,993,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,012,993,000

                          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 $5,012,993,000 
for the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] program in 
fiscal year 2002. This is an increase of $211,000,000 above the 
budget request for fiscal year 2002, but $99,413,000 below the 
fiscal year 2001 level.
    Set-asides under CDBG include $71,000,000 for native 
Americans; $3,000,000 for the Housing Assistance Council; 
$2,600,000 for the National American Indian Housing Council; 
$4,000,000 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 $45,500,000 for section 107 grants, including $3,000,000 
for community development work study, $11,000,000 for 
historically black colleges and universities, $10,000,000 for 
assistance authorized under the Hawaiian Homelands 
Homeownership Act of 2000, $8,000,000 for insular areas 
$7,500,000 for Hispanic-serving institutions and $80,000,000 
for community technology centers.
    The Committee has provided $80,000,000 to create or expand 
computer technology centers in low-income areas to help 
individuals and families cross the digital divide. The 
Committee notes that HUD has already created more than 700 
computer technology centers in multi-family assisted housing 
units and HOPE 6 sites throughout the country through the 
Neighborhood Networks program. The Committee urges HUD to 
review the best practices from existing computer technology 
centers and ensure that each recipient has the capacity to 
properly administer the program over a sustained period of 
time. This funding shall be awarded on a competitive basis 
through a Notice of Funding Availability.
    In addition, this legislation includes a set-aside of 
$140,000,000 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:
      $250,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Carson City, 
        Nevada to establish a new community center.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for the 
        Menominee River Valley redevelopment project.
      $2,000,000 for the Wheeling Park Commission in West 
        Virginia to aid in the construction of the National 
        Training Center for Public Facility Managers.
      $250,000 for Covenant House California, for purchase and 
        renovation of a new facility for the East Bay Street 
        Outreach and Community Service Center.
      $500,000 for the YMCA of Kauai, Hawaii, for construction 
        of a multipurpose community center.
      $500,000 for Concord, New Hampshire to cleanup 
        brownfields.
      $900,000 to the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania for the 
        development of an entertainment/retail complex which is 
        intended to enhance the economic development provide 
        hundreds of new jobs.
      $300,000 for the Living Classrooms Foundation of 
        Baltimore, Maryland, for expansion of the Workforce 
        Development Center.
      $200,000 to the Vermont Foodbank to for food shelf 
        activities.
      $150,000 for the Shelby County Community Services Agency, 
        of Shelbyville, Illinois, for construction of a child 
        care center.
      $300,000 for Western Carolina University of Cullowhee, 
        North Carolina, for Millennial Campus project.
      $750,000 for the Fells Point Creative Alliance of 
        Baltimore, Maryland, for development of the Patterson 
        Center for the Arts.
      $250,000 for the City of Anderson, South Carolina for the 
        Murray/Franklin Street neighborhood revitalization 
        project.
      $400,000 for the Women's Industrial Exchange of 
        Baltimore, Maryland, for redevelopment of Charles 
        Street property.
      $290,000 for the Enterprise Foundation for stabilization 
        and redevelopment efforts in the Forrest Park and 
        Lauraville neighborhoods of Baltimore.
      $500,000 for the City of Davenport, Iowa, for the East 
        Davenport Development Corporation mixed-income housing 
        development.
      $500,000 for the National Federation of the Blind for the 
        development of the National Research and Training 
        Institute for the Blind in Baltimore, Maryland.
      $500,000 for the New Shiloh Community Development 
        Corporation of Baltimore, Maryland, for construction of 
        a multi-purpose center.
      $70,000 for St. Ambrose Housing Aid Center of Baltimore, 
        Maryland, for development of a new youth center by the 
        Stadium School Youth Dreamers.
      $1,000,000 for Urban Strategies for the construction of 
        affordable, mixed-income housing for disabled 
        individuals in the Central West End area of the City of 
        Saint Louis, Missouri.
      $500,000 for Way Station, Inc., of Frederick, Maryland, 
        for development of the Way Station Community Mental 
        Health and National Education Center.
      $300,000 for the Ruth Enlow Library System of Garrett 
        County, Maryland, for construction of the new 
        Grantsville Branch library.
      $500,000 for the Montgomery County Department of Housing 
        and Community Affairs, Maryland, for streetscaping and 
        revitalization efforts in Wheaton.
      $500,000 for the Montgomery County Department of Housing 
        and Community Affairs, Maryland, for the Stewartown 
        Homes digital divide initiative.
      $150,000 for the Rural Development Center, University of 
        Maryland Eastern Shore, for economic development 
        efforts of Delmarva Low Impact Tourism Experiences.
      $2,000,000 for the Webster County Development Authority 
        for construction of a high technology office building 
        and small business incubator in Webster County, West 
        Virginia.
      $1,000,000 for the West Central Community Center of 
        Spokane, Washington, for site acquisition and 
        preparation related to the expansion of childcare 
        facilities.
      $350,000 for Bethany College in West Virginia to complete 
        work on a health and wellness center
      $1,000,000 for the City of DeQueen, Arkansas for the 
        development of a cultural awareness center.
      $150,000 for Asian Human Services of Chicago, Illinois, 
        to expand its community empowerment programs.
      $750,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Hawaii to 
        establish three new Boys and Girls Clubs of Hawaii in 
        the Hawaiian homestead areas of Papakolea, Nanakuli and 
        Paukukalo.
      $200,000 for the County of Maui, Hawaii for restoration 
        of the Iao Theater in Wailuku Town.
      $300,000 for the County of Kauai, Hawaii, for the 
        Heritage Trails project.
      $500,000 for the YMCA of Honolulu, Hawaii, for 
        reconstruction and expansion of the Kalihi YMCA 
        facility.
      $300,000 for the Union Gospel Mission in Sioux Falls, 
        South Dakota, for renovations to the historic Farley 
        Lostcher building.
      $500,000 for the City of Charleston, South Carolina's 
        Homeownership Initiative to create affordable housing 
        opportunities.
      $750,000 for infrastructure improvements to the School of 
        the Building Arts in Charleston, South Carolina.
      $500,000 for Spoleto Festival, USA, of Charleston, South 
        Carolina, for rehabilitation of the historic Middleton-
        Pinckney House.
      $500,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board 
        for development of affordable housing at Macauley 
        Square.
      $300,000 for the Brattleboro Arts Initiative of 
        Brattleboro, Vermont, for the rehabilitation of the 
        historic Latchis Theatre and Community Arts Center.
      $500,000 for the State of Iowa for the Main Street 
        Program.
      $500,000 for the City of Council Bluffs, Iowa, for the 
        Katelman neighborhood redevelopment project.
      $3,000,000 for Shepherd College in Sheperdstown, West 
        Virginia, to complete the renovation of the Scarborough 
        Library.
      $1,000,000 for the Sea Island Comprehensive Health Care 
        Corporation, Inc., of Johns Island, South Carolina, for 
        affordable housing and economic development purposes.
      $350,000 for the George D. Aiken Resource Conservation 
        and Development Council of Randolph, Vermont for the 
        purchase of equipment.
      $500,000 for the City of Des Moines, Iowa, for 
        brownfields redevelopment.
      $500,000 for City of Waterloo, Iowa, for brownfields 
        redevelopment.
      $500,000 for the Kennedy Kreiger Institute of Baltimore, 
        Maryland, for development of a new community behavioral 
        health center.
      $100,000 for development assistance for Desert Space 
        Station in Nevada.
      $750,000 for the Reno, Nevada, housing authority for the 
        Friendship Lane housing revitalization project.
      $500,000 for the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for 
        brownfields revitalization.
      $700,000 for development of a job training facility for 
        workers in the hospitality industry in Las Vegas, 
        Nevada.
      $750,000 for the Smart Start Child Care Center and 
        Expertise School of Las Vegas, Nevada, for construction 
        of a child care facility.
      $250,000 for the Intertribal Council of Nevada to 
        establish a housing division.
      $500,000 for the City of Madison, Wisconsin to develop 
        affordable low income housing.
      $2,000,000 for the Lake Champlain Science Center in 
        Burlington, Vermont for facility construction and 
        rehabilitation.
      $200,000 for the City of Beloit, Wisconsin for urban 
        renewal activities.
      $200,000 for Adams County, Wisconsin for the construction 
        of an industrial park.
      $175,000 for the Centro de la Communidad Unida in 
        Wisconsin for construction of an alternative school for 
        at risk students.
      $175,000 for the African American World Cultural Center 
        in Wisconsin for construction.
      $100,000 for Fairness in Rural Lending in Wisconsin for 
        the Community Lender Partnership Initiative.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Bellingham, Washington, for 
        the Holly Street landfill redevelopment project.
      $1,000,000 for the Port of Ridgefield of Ridgefield, 
        Washington for brownfields redevelopment.
      $1,000,000 for the Rural Economic Area Partnerships 
        (REAP) Zones to build on and leverage economic 
        development opportunities in North Dakota.
      $900,000 for Sitting Bull College in Fort Yates, North 
        Dakota for construction of a new science facility.
      $1,000,000 for Churchs Ferry, North Dakota, to relocate 
        agricultural structures.
      $400,000 for Lewis and Clark Community Works of North 
        Dakota, for a rural housing development fund.
      $50,000 for the Eau Claire Area Industrial Development 
        Corporation, Wisconsin, for the Chippewa Valley 
        Technology Network.
      $750,000 for the West Angeles Community Development 
        Corporation of Los Angeles, California, for development 
        of the West Angeles Plaza.
      $500,000 for the County of Tulare, California, for 
        development of the Dinuba regional vocational training 
        facility.
      $750,000 for the City of East Palo Alto to redevelop the 
        Ravenswood industrial area.
      $250,000 for the City of Oceanside, California for the 
        Crown Heights neighborhood revitalization project.
      $250,000 for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom Center 
        of Oakland, California, for facility construction.
      $500,000 for the City of Moline, Illinois, for riverfront 
        redevelopment efforts in Moline, East Moline, and Rock 
        Island.
      $500,000 for Christopher House of Chicago, Illinois, for 
        construction of a family resource center.
      $200,000 for McHenry County, Illinois, for economic 
        development along the Fox River.
      $350,000 for Career Transitions Center of Chicago, 
        Illinois, for property acquisition and rehabilitation 
        to develop a social services outreach facility.
      $300,000 for Casa Central of Chicago, Illinois, for 
        expansion of a community technology center facility and 
        services.
      $150,000 for Catholic Urban Programs of East St. Louis, 
        Illinois to expand its emergency housing facility.
      $175,000 for the Quincy, Illinois, Housing Authority to 
        expand its community center facilities.
      $225,000 for the Back of the Yards Council of Chicago, 
        for expansion of a community youth center and related 
        programs.
      $1,000,000 for the Santa Fe Rape Crisis Center to 
        construct a new facility to house the center, including 
        outreach planning offices.
      $500,000 to the American Village for the construction of 
        Federal Hall and the Liberty Square Expansion in 
        Montevallo, Alabama.
      $150,000 for American Lung Association of Illinois' for 
        technology upgrades for the Tobacco Quitline and 
        veterans outreach programs.
      $150,000 for the World War II Illinois Veterans Memorial 
        of Springfield, Illinois, for construction.
      $400,000 for the City of Watertown, South Dakota, for a 
        community revitalization project.
      $300,000 for the Flandreau Development Corporation of 
        Flandreau, South Dakota, for infrastructure related to 
        the Flandreau industrial park development.
      $300,000 for South Dakota School of Mines and Technology 
        of Rapid City, South Dakota, for renovations and 
        rehabilitation related to the development of the Rapid 
        City Children's Science Center.
      $400,000 for the City of Brookings, South Dakota, for 
        renovations and rehabilitation to the historic 
        Brookings Middle School.
      $250,000 for the Center Theatre Group, of Los Angeles, 
        California, for the Culver City Theater project.
      $300,000 for Campbell County, South Dakota, for economic 
        development activities.
      $1,000,000 for the Louisiana Department of Culture, 
        Recreation, and Tourism for development activities 
        related to the Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial 
        Celebration.
      $500,000 for the Audubon Nature Institute, Inc., of New 
        Orleans, Louisiana, for development of the Living 
        Science Museum.
      $300,000 for the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, for 
        develop supporting infrastructure for its Convention 
        Center and Downtown Redevelopment project.
      $400,000 for the City of Vidalia for construction of the 
        Gateway Center at the Vidalia riverfront.
      $200,000 for the Mirabeau Family Learning Center, Inc., 
        of New Orleans, Louisiana, for expansion of facilities 
        and services.
      $200,000 for Kingsley House, Inc., of New Orleans, 
        Louisiana, for facility and service expansion.
      $200,000 for Booker T. Community Outreach, Inc., of 
        Monroe, Louisiana, for an elderly living center.
      $250,000 for the City of Donaldsonville, Louisiana, for 
        riverfront development.
      $250,000 for Dillard University of New Orleans, 
        Louisiana, the International Center for Economic 
        Freedom project.
      $1,000,000 for Traveler's Aid of Rhode Island for 
        relocation and expansion in Providence, Rhode Island.
      $500,000 for Town of Johnston, Rhode Island for 
        rehabilitation of a senior center.
      $450,000 for the City of Providence, Rhode Island for the 
        development of a Botanical Center at Roger Williams 
        Park and Zoo.
      $450,000 for the Providence Performing Arts Center for 
        building modernization in Providence, Rhode Island.
      $200,000 for Cornerstone Adult Services in Warwick, Rhode 
        Island for the construction of an Alzheimer's day 
        center.
      $350,000 for the Herreshoff Marine Museum in Bristol, 
        Rhode Island to restore and expand a maritime heritage 
        museum.
      $100,000 for the Institute for the Study and Practice of 
        Nonviolence in Providence, Rhode Island for 
        construction of a community center.
      $300,000 for the City of Sheboygan, Wisconsin to demolish 
        an old manufacturing building.
      $100,000 for the South Providence Development Corporation 
        in Providence, Rhode Island for the development of a 
        recycling facility.
      $200,000 for the Newport Art Museum in Newport, Rhode 
        Island for historical renovation.
      $50,000 for the Rhode Island Jewish War Veterans for a 
        veterans memorial.
      $50,000 for the City of Providence, Rhode Island, for 
        inner city recreational facilities.
      $500,000 for the Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Development 
        Foundation for development of a facility that will 
        support technology-based businesses.
      $250,000 for the Lake Area Improvement Corporation of 
        Madison, South Dakota, for development of the Madison 
        Technical Center.
      $700,000 for the City of Miami, Florida, Model 
        Homeownership Zone Pilot Project.
      $500,000 for North Central Regional Water Commission in 
        Unionville, Missouri for planning and design of water 
        supply reservoir project.
      $350,000 for Covenant House, Florida, Inc., for 
        transitional housing.
      $750,000 for TechRanch of Bozeman, Montana, for 
        development of a technology incubator for the Gallatin 
        area and Eastern Montana.
      $750,000 for the YMCA of Delaware for renovations to the 
        Central Branch YMCA.
      $300,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Delaware for 
        facility construction and renovation.
      $750,000 for the City of St. Louis, Missouri, for 
        development of the Forest Park Master Plan.
      $400,000 for the Tubman African American Museum in Macon, 
        Georgia for construction of the Tubman African American 
        Museum.
      $350,000 for Rockdale County, Georgia, for construction 
        of Georgia's Veterans Park.
      $400,000 for the City of Lawrence, Massachusetts, for 
        economic development activities.
      $350,000 for Fitchburg State College, of Fitchburg 
        Massachusetts, for the development of a new technology 
        center.
      $750,000 for Focus: HOPE of Detroit, Michigan, for 
        facility renovation.
      $250,000 for the City of Wildwood, New Jersey, for 
        revitalization of the Pacific Avenue Business District.
      $250,000 for the Township of Hamilton, New Jersey, for 
        renovations of a senior center.
      $250,000 for the New Jersey Community Development 
        Corporation, of Paterson, New Jersey, for redevelopment 
        of abandoned property.
      $750,000 for the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, for the 
        Phalen Village Superblock project.
      $750,000 for the Vermont Institute of Natural Science of 
        Woodstock, Vermont to support construction of a public 
        education and wildlife rehabilitation facility in 
        Quechee, Vermont.
      $750,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board 
        for the development of affordable housing in Vermont.
      $150,000 for the Charlestown, Massachusetts, Boys and 
        Girls Club for facility renovations.
      $150,000 for the Haskell Free Library for repairs to this 
        historic building located in Derby Line, Vermont.
      $400,000 to Polytechnic University, Brooklyn for the 
        National Center for E-Commerce.
      $150,000 to the Long Island Housing Partnership, Long 
        Island for neighborhood revitalization.
      $250,000 to the Lesbian and Gay Community Services 
        Center, New York City for infrastructure upgrades.
      $200,000 to the City of Canandaigua, New York, for Lagoon 
        Park development.
      $450,000 to Union College, of Albany, New York for the 
        Union-Schenectady Neighborhood Initiative.
      $200,000 to the City of Hornell, New York, for 
        restoration of the historic depot.
      $150,000 to the Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks 
        in Tupper Lake, New York, for building construction.
      $200,000 to the City of Albany, New York, for the Corning 
        Park Revitalization Project.
      $300,000 for Community Medical Centers of Fresno, 
        California, for renovations to the Fresno Community 
        Regional Medical Center.
      $300,000 for the City of Renton, Washington, for the Port 
        Quendall brownfields redevelopment project.
      $300,000 for Studio for the Arts of Pocahontas, Arkansas, 
        for a new facility.
      $300,000 for Wayne County, Michigan, for construction of 
        the Community Kitchen project.
      $300,000 for the City of Jeffersonville, Indiana, for 
        redevelopment of the Quartermaster Depot.
      $300,000 for the Rio Grande Community Development 
        Corporation, of Albuquerque, New Mexico, for 
        construction of the South Valley Economic Development 
        Center.
      $300,000 for the Borough of Paulsboro, New Jersey, for 
        brownfields redevelopment.
      $300,000 for the Mesabi Academy and Martin Hughes School 
        of Buhl, Minnesota, for facility renovation and program 
        expansion.
      $300,000 for Connecticut Hospice, Inc., of Branford, 
        Connecticut, for construction of a new facility.
      $300,000 for the Southside Institutions Neighborhood 
        Alliance of Hartford, Connecticut, for neighborhood 
        revitalization in Hartford.
      $700,000 for the McDowell County Commission to complete 
        the repair and restoration of the Kimball War Memorial 
        in Kimball, West Virginia.
      $1,000,000 for the Southern New Mexico Fair and Rodeo in 
        Dona Ana County for infrastructure improvements and to 
        build a multi-purpose event center.
      $1,000,000 for the Clearwater Economic Development 
        Association for the implementation of the Lewis and 
        Clark Bicentennial plan.
      $150,000 for Fall River, Massachusetts, for the Iwo Jima 
        project.
      $300,000 for Covenant House Georgia, to purchase and 
        renovate a new community service center in Atlanta, 
        Georgia.
      $300,000 for the Northeast Family Center of Lincoln, 
        Nebraska, for facility renovations.
      $300,000 for Dalles, Oregon, for development of the 
        Dalles Fiber Optic Loop.
      $1,500,000 for the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska for 
        the expansion of the Alaska Zoo.
      $1,500,000 for Alaska Pacific University for the 
        restoration of a historic property in Anchorage, 
        Alaska.
      $300,000 for the City of Appleton, Wisconsin for the 
        reconstruction of College Avenue.
      $1,250,000 for the United Way community services facility 
        in Anchorage, Alaska to complete construction of a 
        social service facility to serve low-income people.
      $990,000 for Catholic Community Services for its Adult 
        Day Care facility in Juneau, Alaska to provide day care 
        for the elderly persons.
      $2,250,000 for Fairbanks, Alaska to provide winter 
        recreation opportunities for military and civilian 
        persons at the Fairbanks North Star Borough Birch Hill 
        recreation area.
      $1,000,000 for Albuquerque Health Care for the Homeless 
        to complete renovation of a health care facility for 
        the homeless in Albuquerque.
      $450,000 for Curry County, New Mexico for infrastructure 
        improvements to the Curry County Fairgrounds.
      $750,000 for the City of Brewer, Maine for the 
        redevelopment of its waterfront.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Lewiston, Maine for the 
        funding of a community and economic development center.
      $1,000,000 for the Wiscassett Regional Development 
        Corporation for the Maine Yankee Power Plane Reuse 
        Initiative.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Dayton, Ohio for the 
        revitalization of historic main Street.
      $1,000,000 for Dubuque, Iowa for the development of an 
        American River Museum.
      $1,000,000 for the Greater El Paso, Texas Chamber of 
        Commerce for a local economic development initiative 
        for the creation of jobs and housing.
      $500,000 for the City of Wichita Falls, Texas for the 
        restoration of the old Holt Hotel property.
      $150,000 for Pell-Chafee Performance Center in 
        Providence, Rhode Island to complete construction.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Fort Worth, Texas for the 
        redevelopment of a residential and commercial center 
        along Hemphill Street.
      $1,000,000 for Sevier County, Utah for a multi-events 
        center.
      $800,000 for the City of West Jordan, Utah for the 
        development of a senior citizens center.
      $500,000 for Milford, New Hampshire for downtown 
        revitalization.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Nashua, New Hampshire to 
        create housing opportunities.
      $650,000 for the City of Espanola, New Mexico, to build a 
        veterans memorial.
      $500,000 for Keene, New Hampshire to cleanup brownfields.
      $400,000 to the City of Reading, Pennsylvania for the 
        development of the Morgantown Road Industrial Park on 
        what is currently a brownfields site.
      $300,000 for the expansion of facilities of the Re Place 
        at Good Shepard Home, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania which 
        will provide employment opportunities for persons with 
        mental and physical challenges in sales, business 
        administration, mechanical repair, janitorial skills 
        and computer refurbishing.
      $100,000 to the Borough of Millerstown, Perry County, 
        Pennsylvania for improvements to the Borough Municipal 
        Building, which will allow the Borough to implement 
        several community programs including substance abuse 
        deterrent programs and clinics, Scouting programs as 
        well as senior informational programs and facilities.
      $300,000 to the Ogontz Avenue Revitalization Corporation, 
        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to assist with substantial 
        rehabilitation of 40-50 severely deteriorated vacant 
        properties that will be developed as a part of the West 
        Oak Lane community development rebuilding initiative.
      $50,000 for the Delaware Valley Historical Aircraft 
        Association, Delaware County to complete their building 
        project which will house historic military aircraft 
        presently on outdoor display in Willow Grove, 
        Pennsylvania.
      $300,000 to the City of Philadelphia to support the 
        Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, which will 
        demolish many abandoned homes as well as revitalize the 
        areas.
      $100,000 for the Philadelphia Zoo to expand construction 
        of Children's Zoo.
      $100,000 to Discovery Square, Erie, Pennsylvania for the 
        construction of an educational and cultural complex.
      $200,000 to the Allegheny Housing Authority to construct 
        the Groveton Village Computer/Support Services Center.
      $200,000 to Universal Community Homes, Philadelphia, 
        Pennsylvania to continue the conversion of more than 
        500 parcels of land into for-sale units to low-and 
        moderate-income families.
      $250,000 to the City of Chester, Pennsylvania for 
        revitalization of its waterfront.
      $200,000 to the Urban Redevelopment Authority of 
        Pittsburgh in conjunction with Northside Properties in 
        Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to acquire the 332 unit, 
        scattered site affordable housing development with 
        project-based Section 8 rental subsidy.
      $3,500,000 for the University of Louisville for the 
        expansion of its main library.
      $1,000,000 for Wellsville, Ohio for improvements to a 
        riverside transportation center.
      $500,000 for the City of Cleveland, Ohio for the 
        construction of the Cleveland Intercultural Center.
      $1,000,000 for MSU-Billings for the development of the 
        Billings Technology Training and Technology program as 
        a business incubator.
      $1,000,000 for Great Falls, Montana for the Missouri 
        Riverfront Park Enhancement project.
      $750,000 for the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee for the 
        revitalization of the Alton Park neighborhood.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Memphis, Tennessee for the 
        Soulsville Revitalization project.
      $100,000 to the OLYMPIA ship of Independence Seaport 
        Museum to provide ship repairs which will contribute to 
        the economic development of the Penn's Landing 
        waterfront area in Philadelphia.
      $1,000,000 for Sparks, Nevada for the revitalization of 
        the West End community.
      $1,000,000 for the University of Idaho for a performance 
        and education facility.
      $500,000 for the Lewis and Clark State College for the 
        Idaho Virtual Incubator.
      $1,000,000 for the Community Alliance in Omaha, Nebraska 
        for its ``Building Homes, Rebuilding Lives'' program.
      $500,000 for the Girls and Boys Town USA in Omaha, 
        Nebraska to address the needs of at-risk boys and 
        girls.
      $1,000,000 for Henderson, North Carolina for the 
        construction of the Embassy Cultural Center.
      $1,000,000 for City of Midwest, Oklahoma City for phase 
        II of its tornado recovery.
      $1,000,000 for Jackson County, Mississippi for the 
        construction of a county community center.
      $2,000,000 for the University of Southern Mississippi for 
        its National Center for Excellence in Economic 
        Development, Education, Research and Community Service.
      $300,000 for the Chickasaw Trails Industrial Authority 
        for preliminary planning and engineering for an 
        industrial park.
      $500,000 for Mississippi State University for a state 
        capacity development initiative.
      $1,000,000 for Mississippi State University for the 
        Mississippi Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems and 
        Engineering Extension Facility.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Carmel for its Indiana parks 
        development.
      $500,000 for the Historic Preservation Association of 
        Jasper County, Indiana for the restoration of Drexel 
        Hall.
      $1,000,000 for Hutchison, Kansas for revitalization.
      $400,000 to the Alabama Historical Commission for the 
        renovation of the Historic Green County Courthouse in 
        Green County, Alabama.
      $500,000 to the City of Hamilton, Alabama for the 
        construction of a call center facility.
      $100,000 to the Alabama Wildlife Federation for the 
        development of the Alabama Quail Trail in rural 
        Alabama.
      $500,000 to the Cleveland Avenue YMCA so that they may 
        expand their existing programs to serve more young 
        people in Montgomery, Alabama.
      $350,000 to the Housing Authority of the City of 
        Andalusia to expand their existing preschool programs 
        and facility to accommodate more low-income, high risk 
        children in Andalusia, Alabama.
      $500,000 to the city of Winfield, Alabama for the 
        construction of a call center facility.
      $100,000 to the city of Selma, Alabama for the 
        acquisition of the Lovelady Building on historic Water 
        Avenue in Selma, Alabama.
      $500,000 to the Lakeshore Foundation in Birmingham, 
        Alabama to expand their existing facilities to serve a 
        larger population of Alabamians with physical 
        disabilities.
      $150,000 to Family Connection, Inc. in Alabaster, Alabama 
        to construct a facility to house a new diversionary 
        program for first time juvenile offenders in Shelby 
        County, Alabama.
      $300,000 to the Covington County Commission in Alabama 
        for the construction of the second phase of the 
        Covington County Farm Center.
      $1,000,000 for the Christopher Newport University in 
        Newport News, Virginia for the development of the 
        Christopher Newport University Fine Arts Center.
      $500,000 for the Kaw Valley Center in Vermont, Kansas for 
        infrastructure and community outreach.
      $350,000 for the Urban Development authority of 
        Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for the Harbor Gardens 
        Greenhouse project.
      $800,000 for the Town of Mountain Village, Colorado for 
        an affordable housing initiative.
      $1,000,000 for the Colorado Mountain Housing Coalition.
      $250,000 for the City of St. Joseph, Missouri for 
        downtown redevelopment project.
      $300,000 for the Central Missouri Lake of the Ozarks 
        Convention and Visitor Bureau community center.
      $250,000 for the Sparta, Missouri Community Development 
        Organization for the development of an industrial park.
      $250,000 for the Cuba, Missouri Tourism Center for the 
        historic district improvement project.
      $300,000 for the City of Fayette, Missouri Downtown 
        revitalization project.
      $500,000 for Downtown West Plains Inc. for City square 
        renovation and downtown revitalization project of West 
        Plains Missouri.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Kansas City Missouri for the 
        City Market renovation project.
      $1,000,000 for the University of Missouri-Kansas City for 
        continued development of it's collaborative Life 
        Sciences Initiative.
      $750,000 for the Filipino Community Center, Inc. of 
        Honolulu, Hawaii to develop a new community center.
      $300,000 for the Perry County Industrial Development 
        Authority to renovate building to serve as a Center for 
        Industry and Education.
      $450,000 for the Rolla Chamber of Commerce for downtown 
        revitalization project.
      $1,000,000 for Eastern Oregon University for construction 
        of a science center.
      $450,000 for the Oregon Food Bank for its food 
        distribution efforts.
      $550,000 for the City of Watertown, South Dakota, for 
        development related to the Hanten Industrial Park.
      $300,000 for Black Hills Community Development 
        Corporation of Lead, South Dakota, for economic 
        development efforts related to the closure of the 
        Homestake Gold Mine.
      $150,000 for the City of Tea, South Dakota, to develop a 
        community library.
      $150,000 for Boulder City, Nevada, for renovation, 
        modernization, and expansion of public recreation 
        facilities.
      $50,000 for the Reno Veterans Memorial Project, of Reno, 
        Nevada, for construction of a memorial.
      $200,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Pawtucket, Rhode 
        Island, for development of a new facility.
      $100,000 for the Coastal Institute at the University of 
        Rhode Island for development of a sustainable 
        management plan for Narragansett Bay.
      $450,000 for Jackson State University in Jackson, 
        Mississippi, for the renovation of the Margaret J. 
        Walker Alexander Research Center.
      $1,000,000 for Beyond Housing, a St. Louis Missouri non-
        profit to preserve homes in the Castle Point, Pagedale 
        and NE University City areas.
      $50,000 for Applied Urban Research Institute of Kansas 
        City Missouri for a study to develop a city-wide plan 
        to assist troubled youth.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Denver, Colorado for 
        revitalization.
    The Committee includes $60,000,000 for the Youthbuild 
program, of which $10,000,000 is for new programs in 
underserved and rural areas. In addition, $2,000,000 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.

                 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Limitation on
                                     guarantee loans     Program costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001..............     $1,261,000,000        $29,934,000
Budget estimate, 2002.............        608,696,000         15,000,000
Committee recommendation..........        608,696,000         15,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal 
loan guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and 
non-entitlement communities to cover the costs of acquiring 
real property, rehabilitation publicly-owned real property, 
housing rehabilitation, and other certain economic development 
activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000 
for program costs associated with the section 108 loan 
guarantee program. This amount is $14,936,000 less than the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted level and equal to the budget request. 
Of these funds provided, $14,000,000 is provided for credit 
subsidy costs to guarantee $608,696,000 in section 108 loan 
commitments in fiscal year 2002, and $1,000,000 is for 
administrative expenses to be transferred to the Salaries and 
Expenses account.

                       BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $24,945,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      25,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act 
of 1974, as amended, authorizes the Brownfields Redevelopment 
program. This program provides competitive economic development 
grants in conjunction with section 108 loan guarantees for 
qualified brownfields projects. Grants are made in accordance 
with Section 108(q) selection criteria. The program supports 
the cleanup and economic redevelopment of contaminated sites.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000 
for this program. This amount is $55,000 above the fiscal year 
2001 enacted level and the same as the budget request.

                  home investment partnerships program


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $1,796,040,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   1,796,040,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,796,040,000

                          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 $1,796,040,000 
for the HOME Investment Partnership Program. This amount is the 
same as the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and the budget 
request. The Committee includes $20,000,000 for housing 
counseling.
    The Committee did not include any funds for the 
Administration's proposed American Dream Downpayment Fund. The 
Administration proposed cutting the HOME program by 
$200,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 to fund the Downpayment Fund. 
While the Committee supports expanding home ownership 
opportunities, it does not believe cutting existing programs is 
the best way to achieve that goal. Furthermore, the Committee 
notes that downpayment assistance is already permissable under 
the HOME program and therefore does not require new or 
additional authorization.

                          homeless assistance

                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $1,022,745,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   1,022,745,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,022,745,000

                          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 $1,022,745,000 for homeless 
assistance grants. The amount recommended is the same as the 
fiscal year 2001 appropriated level and same as the budget 
request. In addition, the Committee has provided an additional 
$99,780,000 in a separate account for Shelter Plus Care 
renewals.
    The Committee is concerned that a small percentage of 
homeless people are chronically homeless, defined as having 
been homeless for at least 2 years, having a chronic 
disability, and over that time having had regular interaction 
with costly systems such as emergency shelter, hospital 
emergency rooms, emergency psychiatric and detoxification 
facilities, and the corrections system. The Committee believes 
that HUD and local providers need to increase the supply of 
permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless, 
chronically ill people over time until the need is met at an 
estimated 150,000 units. Accordingly, the Committee is 
including again a requirement that a minimum of 30 percent of 
the funds appropriated be allocated to permanent housing to 
address chronic homelessness. The Committee expects the 
Department to take this 30 percent requirement seriously and 
meet this minimum standard. To achieve this important goal, the 
Committee directs the Department to use the Continuum of Care 
process to ensure that communities utilize permanent housing 
funds to target chronically homeless, chronically disabled 
people and to give them preference in receiving McKinney-Vento 
homeless funds.
    In addition, the Committee is including a 25-percent match 
requirement for services to maintain a balance between homeless 
services and the development of permanent housing. The 
Committee supports HUD's efforts to transfer the responsibility 
for services to HHS, leaving the housing component to HUD.
    The Committee continues to believe that to address fully 
homelessness and to make a serious effort in ending 
homelessness, the involvement of a full range of Federal 
programs is critical. Accordingly, the Committee has included 
the budget request of $500,000 for staffing for the Interagency 
Council on the Homeless. This money shall be transferred from 
the HUD budget to the budget of the Executive Office of the 
President, which shall administer the Interagency Council on 
the 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 semi-annually. The purpose 
of the Council shall be to promote substantive coordination 
among Federal agencies in order to prevent homelessness, to 
meet the needs of homeless people, and to pursue reductions in 
the number of homeless people. The Committee instructs the 
Council specifically to require HUD, HHS, Labor and VA to 
quantify the number of their programs 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 continues to believe that it is critical for 
the Department to collect and analyze data on homelessness to 
determine the true number of people that experience 
homelessness and for what services and assistance are provided 
to homeless people. The Committee remains supportive of the 
Department's ongoing data collection and analysis efforts 
pertaining to its homeless programs. HUD should continue its 
efforts in working with local jurisdictions on collecting an 
array of data on homelessness in order to prevent duplicate 
counting of homeless persons, and to analyze their patterns of 
use of assistance, including how they enter and exit the 
homeless assistance system and the effectiveness of the system. 
The Committee directs HUD to take the lead in working with 
communities toward this end, and to analyze jurisdictional data 
within 2 years. Implementation and operation of Management 
Information Systems (MIS), and collection and analysis of MIS 
data have been made eligible uses for Supportive Housing 
Program funds, and have been authorized to be funded under 
renewal grants even in cases where MIS is a new activity. The 
Committee directs HUD to report on the progress of this data 
collection and analysis effort within 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act. This activity should be considered a 
priority.
    The Committee has included bill language to provide 
$14,200,000 of the funds provided under this account for 
technical assistance and homeless information systems. Despite 
the mandates included in the fiscal year 2001 appropriations 
legislation, the Department failed to provide sufficient 
funding to the Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs to 
develop and implement critically-needed information systems. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department to provide 
the designated funds to the Office of Special Needs Assistance 
Programs.
    The Committee also directs HUD to spend at least $1,500,000 
of the amount made available for MIS and technical assistance 
to continue on an annual basis, to report on a nationally 
representative sample of jurisdictions whose local MIS data can 
be aggregated yearly to document the change in demographics of 
homelessness and demand for homeless assistance, to identify 
patterns in utilization of assistance, and to demonstrate the 
effectiveness of assistance. The Committee 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 the data and provide annual reports to the Congress on 
its findings.
    The Committee urges the Department to provide funding for 
the expansion of the Corporation for Supportive Housing's 
capacity-building activities. The Corporation, one of our 
nation's most important national housing intermediary 
organizations, is the only intermediary dedicated to combating 
chronic homelessness in our communities by expanding the 
availability of permanent supportive housing. The successes of 
the Corporation and service-supported housing has been both 
dramatic and well documented in addressing the condition of 
homelessness among the nation's most vulnerable residents and 
successfully breaking the tragic cycle of homeless individuals 
through shelters, emergency rooms and even jails.
    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.

                           SHELTER PLUS CARE

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $99,780,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      99,780,000
Committee recommendation................................      99,780,000

                          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 $99,780,000 
for the Shelter Plus Care renewals on an annual basis for 
expiring contracts. This funding level is the same as the 
budget request and the fiscal year 2001 level. The Committee is 
also concerned about contracts expiring under the permanent 
housing component of the Supportive Housing Program. Cost 
estimates for renewing these contracts for 1 year is about 
$23,000,000. The Committee, however, has decided to not shift 
funding for this program to a separate account due to questions 
about future out-year cost data on contract renewals for 
Supportive Housing. Accordingly, the Committee directs the 
Department to include in its fiscal year 2003 budget 
justifications, 5-year projections on an annual basis the cost 
of renewing the permanent housing component of the Supportive 
Housing Program. Further, the Department should include the 
same level of details for Shelter Plus Care renewals.

                            Housing Programs


                    Housing for special Populations

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $993,809,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   1,001,009,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,001,009,000

                          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 $1,001,009,000 
for development of additional new subsidized housing. Included 
in this recommendation is $783,286,000 for capital advances for 
housing for the elderly (section 202 housing) and $217,723,000 
for capital advances for housing for the disabled (section 811 
housing). This is the same as the administration's budget 
request for fiscal year 2002 and provides an increase of 
$4,286,000 for section 202 and $723,000 for section 811 over 
the fiscal year 2001 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.

                  MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2001....................................              $0
Budget request, 2002....................................      17,254,000
Committee recommendation................................      17,254,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 
Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 
Improvement Act of 2000, authorizes the Secretary to establish 
Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 
the construction, design, and performance of manufactured 
homes. All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal 
standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs 
of administering the Act.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $17,254,000 to support the 
manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees 
collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust 
Fund account. The amount recommended is the same as the budget 
request. The Committee directs HUD to identify the use of all 
program fees as part of the fiscal year 2003 HUD Budget 
Justification.

                     federal housing administration


             fha--mutual mortgage insurance program account


                     (including transfers of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on       Limitation on      Administrative
                                                         direct loans      guaranteed loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001................................        $250,000,000    $160,000,000,000        $330,160,000
Budget estimate, 2002...............................         250,000,000     160,000,000,000         336,700,000
Committee recommendation............................         250,000,000     160,000,000,000         336,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             fha--general and special risk program account


                     (including transfers of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Limitation on      Limitation on    Administrative
                                               direct loans     guaranteed loans      expenses     Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001......................        $50,000,000    $21,000,000,000    $210,990,000    $100,778,000
Budget estimate, 2002.....................         50,000,000     21,000,000,000     216,100,000      15,000,000
Committee recommendation..................         50,000,000     21,000,000,000     216,100,000      15,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $336,700,000 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 $216,100,000 
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 2002 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 continues to be troubled that HUD has ignored 
the Committee's 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. The ACA program was intended 
to address the growing number of FHA-owned, foreclosed homes in 
distressed communities across the country and promote 
homeownership for low-income people as a tool to stabilize 
these neighborhoods. HUD was to work with nonprofits and local 
governments in targeted, revitalization areas to design a 
flexible pricing structure so that the homes could be 
adequately repaired (``to create good, decent, and structurally 
sound homes''), affordable for and marketable to the low-income 
residents that live in these communities, as a way to reverse 
blight and decline.
    Many participants are finding that most FHA properties are 
so dilapidated that the cost of necessary rehabilitation or 
demolition far exceeds the market value for these homes. In 
addition, HUD's current ACA discount structure is grossly 
inadequate and does not allow local governments and nonprofits 
to adequately rehabilitate and resell at a price affordable to 
low-income buyers without additional subsidies. Furthermore, 
HUD-contracted appraisers often do not understand local code 
requirements and have no understanding of repair estimates or 
rehabilitation costs. This has resulted in inflated and 
imprecise appraisals that, even after HUD's maximum 50 percent 
discount, leave homes overpriced for the local market, creating 
huge subsidy gaps that currently are being filled by additional 
Federal subsidies, including those from other HUD accounts. 
This unnecessary inefficiency allows the problem of FHA 
foreclosures to worsen at a rate faster than communities trying 
to combat this problem can respond. More importantly, these 
limited Federal resources could be used to address other 
critical housing needs.
    The Committee directs HUD to immediately amend its discount 
and appraisal structure so that local governments and nonprofit 
purchasers can adequately rehabilitate and resell these 
properties at prices affordable to low-income residents. Repair 
estimates should reflect local code standards required for 
certificates of occupancy and should be provided to the 
appraiser prior to the appraisal so that repair costs can be 
included in deciding the final ``as is'' appraisal. Likewise, 
local certified appraisers who are familiar with local codes, 
rehabilitation standards and costs for repairs should perform 
the appraisals upon which the discount will be applied. In 
cases where homes are severely dilapidated and demolition is 
the only feasible solution, HUD should pay for all demolition 
costs and execute demolitions in a timely manner.
    In non-Asset Control Areas, the Committee encourages HUD to 
bundle defaulted loans and sell through auctions.
    The Committee is concerned that HUD has failed to 
adequately calculate the amount of credit subsidy necessary to 
support its multifamily mortgage insurance programs. The 
Committee expects HUD to institute a computer program that 
accurately identifies the risk of default and financial risk to 
the insurance fund. Moreover, the Committee directs HUD to 
establish a task force to review the costs of defaults to the 
multifamily insurance fund and incorporate its finding in 
assessing the cost of credit subsidy to the various FHA 
multifamily mortgage insurance programs no later than July 15, 
2002. The Committee further directs HUD to issue any premium 
changes through notice and comment rule making, as required by 
law.

                Government National Mortgage Association


                guarantees of mortgage-backed securities


                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 2001:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                        $200,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                               9,362,000

Budget estimate, 2002:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         200,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                               9,383,000

Committee recommendation:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         200,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                               9,383,000

                          program description

    The Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA], 
through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees 
privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. GNMA 
is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United 
States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed 
generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as amended. 
GNMA is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to guarantee 
the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that 
are based on and backed by a trust, or pool, composed of 
mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the Federal 
Housing Administration, the Farmers Home Administration, or the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. GNMA's guarantee of mortgage-
backed securities is backed by the full faith and credit of the 
United States.
    In accord with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1990 [OBRA] requirements for direct and guaranteed loan 
programs, the administration is requesting $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 and an increase of $21,000 above the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

                    Policy Development and Research


                        research and technology

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $53,382,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      43,404,000
Committee recommendation................................      53,404,000

                          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 $53,404,000 for research and 
technology activities in fiscal year 2002. This amount is 
$22,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and 
$10,000,000 above 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, 2001....................................     $45,899,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      45,899,000
Committee recommendation................................      45,899,000

                          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 $45,899,000, of which 
$21,899,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP] 
and no more than $24,000,000 is for the fair housing 
initiatives program [FHIP].
    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.

                     Office of Lead Hazard Control


                         LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $99,780,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     109,758,000
Committee recommendation................................     109,758,000

                          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 $109,758,000 for lead-based paint 
hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2002. 
This amount is the same as the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2002 and $9,978,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 
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 has also 
provided $1,000,000 for the National Center for Lead-Safe 
Housing, and $750,000 for CLEARCorps.
    The Committee continues to be concerned that HUD does not 
have a coherent and comprehensive policy 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, 2001...........      542,072      518,000      9,383      1,000        150        200  1,070,805
Budget estimate, 2002..........      556,067      530,457      9,383      1,000        150        200  1,097,257
Committee recommendation.......      556,067      530,457      9,383      1,000        150        235  1,097,292
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $1,097,292,000 
for salaries and expenses. This amount is $26,487,000 above the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $35,000 above the budget 
request. The appropriation includes the requested amount of 
$530,457,000 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, $200,000 from the native American housing block grant, and 
$35,000 from the Native Hawaiian Housing Program.
    In addition, the Department is prohibited from employing 
more than 77 schedule C and 20 noncareer senior executive 
service employees.
    The Committee supports the reauthorization of the 
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act and 
urges the Banking Committees to move legislation on this 
important program. The Committee also supports the 
Administration's position to integrate the functions of the 
program under the Office of Housing. The Committee is troubled 
by the inability of the Office of Multifamily Housing 
Assistance Restructuring (OMHAR) to force owners into full 
restructuring deals, leaving these properties at increased risk 
of physical and financial problems. In a draft report by the 
General Accounting Office (GAO), it found that there were 11 
properties identified as ``troubled'' and 23 more as 
``potentially troubled'' because these properties were not 
properly restructured by OMHAR. The Committee directs HUD to 
address this problem as part of the reauthorization process.
    The Committee also directs HUD to be in charge of making 
any staffing decisions for the mark-to-market program under the 
Office of Housing. The Committee urges the Department to retain 
as many qualified OMHAR staff under the Office of Housing but 
to ensure that salaries and benefits are commensurate with 
other staff currently employed by the Office of Housing. While 
the Committee recognizes the specialized skills of the OMHAR 
staff for administering the program, it is concerned about 
disparate treatment between existing civil servants at HUD and 
these staff. The Department should also consider reducing the 
number of staff to oversee the program since most of the actual 
administration of the program is being performed by the 
participating administrative entities.
    The Committee is concerned that many HUD program offices 
did not receive sufficient funds to operate, maintain, or 
upgrade their information systems. The fiscal year 2001 VA/HUD 
appropriations legislation set up a single account under 
``Working Capital'' to better account and oversee the 
expenditure of funds for HUD-wide and program-specific systems. 
Contrary to legislative intent, the Department did not provide 
adequate funding to program-specific systems, such as the 
management information system for homeless programs. The 
Committee expects HUD to correct this problem immediately to 
ensure that program-specific systems are not short-changed and 
receive the funding allocated as intended by the Committee.

                      Office of Inspector General


                     (including transfer of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Drug
                                                                   FHA funds by     elimination
                                                   Appropriation     transfer         grants           Total
                                                                                     transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001............................     $52,541,000     $22,343,000     $10,000,000     $84,884,000
Budget estimate, 2002...........................      61,555,000      22,343,000  \1\ 10,000,000      93,898,000
Committee recommendation........................      66,555,000      22,343,000  ..............      88,898,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The budget request proposes to transfer $10,000,000 from public housing operating subsidy.

                          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 $88,898,000 for 
the Office of Inspector General (OIG). This amount is 
$4,014,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and 
$5,000,000 below the budget request. This funding level 
includes $22,343,000 by transfer from various FHA funds. The 
Committee recommendation does not include $10,000,000 by 
transfer from the public housing operating subsidy account for 
Operation Safe Home due to problems identified in a recent 
General Accounting Office report. The Committee commends OIG 
for its commitment and its efforts in reducing waste, fraud and 
abuse in HUD programs. The Committee directs that of the funds 
provided, $10,000,000 is to be targeted to anti-predatory 
lending and anti-flipping activities.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $21,952,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      27,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      27,000,000

                          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 $27,000,000 for the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is the same as the 
budget request and $5,048,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 
level. As requested by the Administration, the Committee has 
provided $5,000,000 as a one-time only increase in additional 
funds to meet OFHEO's information technology initiative to 
upgrade and expand its computing demands. The Committee directs 
OFHEO to submit to the Congress a staffing and resource plan 
that identifies staffing needs with oversight responsibilities.

                         CONSOLIDATED FEE FUND

                              (RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2001....................................              $0
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      -6,700,000
Committee recommendation................................      -6,700,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Section 7(j) of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development Act establishes fees and charges from selected 
programs which are deposited in a fund to offset the costs of 
audits, inspections, and other related expenses that may be 
incurred by the Department in monitoring these programs. These 
fees were misclassified for many years as deposit funds, and 
are now re-classified as on-budget Federal funds.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a rescission of $6,700,000 from 
the fee fund, as requested by the Administration.

                       Administrative Provisions

    The Committee recommends 17 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. HOPWA Technical. Extends provision requiring HUD 
to allocate directly to New Jersey a portion of funds 
designated for Philadelphia area.
    Sec. 205. Section 236 Excess Income. Extends section 236 
excess income eligibility through 2002.
    Sec. 206. Technical Correction to National Housing Act. 
Technical correction to FHA 223(f) program.
    Sec. 207. Emergency Homeownership Counseling. Repeal of 
program limitation.
    Sec. 208. FHA Hybrid Arms. Provides HUD with new authority 
on hybrid arms.
    Sec. 209. Rehabilitation Loan Reform. Makes changes to 
203(k) program.
    Sec. 210. Hospital Standards. Allows HUD to set hospital 
standards.
    Sec. 211. Nursing Home Standards. Allows HUD to set nursing 
home standards.
    Sec. 212. Mortgagee Monitoring. Requires HUD to review 
early defaults and claims and allows HUD to terminate poor 
performing mortgagees.
    Sec. 213. HUD Reform Act Compliance. Requires HUD to award 
funds on a competitive basis.
    Sec. 214. Exemption for Alaska from requirement of resident 
on board of PHA. Exempts Alaska from the requirement of having 
a PHA resident on the board of directors for fiscal year 2002. 
The Committee expects the State of Alaska to establish a tenant 
advisory board to ensure that PHA residents can participate 
effectively in PHA activities.
    Sec. 215. Multifamily Disposition. Requires HUD to maintain 
section 8 assistance on properties occupied by elderly or 
disabled families.
    Sec. 216. Multifamily Loan Limits. Raises FHA multifamily 
loan limits.
    Sec. 217. NAHASDA Technical Correction. Makes technical 
correction to use of funds provided to Cook Inlet Housing 
Authority.

                    TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $27,938,400
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      28,466,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,466,000

                          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 $28,466,000 
for the American Battle Monuments Commission, which is $527,600 
above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board


                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 2001....................................      $7,483,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       7,621,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,621,000

                          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 the budget request of $7,621,000 
for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, an 
increase of $138,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
    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, 2001....................................    $117,740,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      67,948,000
Committee recommendation................................     100,000,000

                   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 $100,000,000 for the CDFI Fund, 
which is $17,740,000 below the fiscal year 2001 level and 
$32,052,000 above the administration's request.
    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. This amount is an increase of 
$4,500,000 above the budget request and the same as the fiscal 
year 2001 enacted level. The Committee urges CDFI to expedite 
the release of funds provided for fiscal year 2001.
    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 Committee urges CDFI 
to increase its activities in rural areas, especially in light 
of the abundance of Federal programs already dedicated to urban 
areas. Further, CDFI is directed to include details on its 
rural lending activities in its fiscal year 2003 budget 
justifications. These details should include the number of 
CDFIs approved in rural areas by state and the amount of funds 
provided to each rural area by program activity.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $52,384,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      54,200,000
Committee recommendation................................      56,200,000

                          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 $56,200,000 for the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, $2,000,000 above the budget request 
and an increase of $3,816,000 above the fiscal year 2001 
enacted level.
    The Committee recommends adding $1,000,000 to the budget 
request to ensure that CPSC can maintain its current level of 
product testing and analysis in support of recall and 
compliance activities, and can cover current staffing and 
operational expenses.
    The Committee also recommends adding $1,000,000 to the 
budget request for a research project on sensor technologies. 
This research project will be designed to accelerate the 
incorporation of state-of-the-art sensor technologies from the 
industrial, defense, and space sectors into consumer products.

             Corporation for National and Community Service


                national and community service programs

                           operating expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $457,491,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     411,480,000
Committee recommendation................................     415,480,000

                          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 $415,480,000 
for the Corporation for National and Community Service. Of this 
amount, $240,492,000 is for grants under the National Service 
Trust, including the AmeriCorps program; $10,000,000 is for the 
Points of Light Foundation; $25,000,000 is for the Civilian 
Community Corps; $43,000,000 is available for school-based and 
community-based service-learning programs; $31,000,000 is for 
administrative expenses; $28,488,000 is for innovation, 
demonstration, and assistance activities; $15,000,000 is for 
the new Veteran's Mission for Youth Program; $5,000,000 is for 
audits and other evaluations; $7,500,000 is for America's 
Promise; $1,500,000 is for the Parents as Teachers National 
Center, Inc.; $2,500,000 is for the YMCA; $1,000,000 is for 
Teach For America; and $5,000,000 is for Communities In 
Schools. No funding has been provided to the Silver 
Scholarships program. The total amount is $42,011,000 less than 
the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $4,000,000 above the 
budget request.
    The Committee commends the Corporation for receiving its 
first clean opinion on its fiscal year 2000 financial 
statements and reducing the number of material weaknesses from 
six to two. The most important material weakness that remains 
is in the area of grants management. While the Corporation has 
made some progress on developing a comprehensive grants 
management system, the Committee believes that more needs to be 
done.
    The Committee is also concerned about the lack of an 
adequate cost accounting system. The Corporation is still 
unable to provide actual expense data on program costs by 
function or participant and believes strongly that this 
information is vital to ensure proper management of the various 
programs. The Committee has provided $2,000,000 in targeted 
funding from the Corporation's program administration account 
to bolster its efforts in acquiring and implementing a new cost 
accounting system. The Committee expects the new cost 
accounting system to be implemented before the end of fiscal 
year 2002. The Committee directs the Corporation to provide 
monthly status reports, beginning in December 2001, to the 
Committee and the Office of Inspector General. These reports 
should detail the amount of funds spent for the new system, 
justification for the expenditures, and an estimated time frame 
upon which the new system will be completed and implemented. 
The Committee also directs the Corporation to provide a 5-year 
budget in its fiscal year 2002 operating plan submission that 
details the annual estimated budget costs for operating and 
maintaining its grants management and cost accounting systems.
    The Corporation has not requested new budget authority for 
the National Service Trust for fiscal year 2002 because of 
sufficient balances that exist in the Trust to cover the 
estimated education award liabilities for its current members. 
The Inspector General verified that sufficient Trust Fund 
assets will be available to fund its current liabilities 
through 2002, however, additional funding may be required for 
each new program year after 2002 if new program awards are 
made. The Committee expects the Corporation to monitor 
carefully its activities under the Trust Fund and directs the 
Corporation to provide quarterly activity reports to the 
Committee and Inspector General on the expenditure of awards 
under the Trust Fund. The initial report should be provided to 
the Committee by January 7, 2002.
    The Committee has also designated $25,000,000 to support 
the Corporation's E-Corps activities. The Committee supports 
fully the efforts of AmeriCorps in bringing technology skills 
to people who have been left out or left behind in the digital 
economy. The Committee directs the Corporation to strengthen 
its E-Corps activities by providing training and mentoring 
support for children, teachers, and non-profit and community 
center staff on how to use computers and information 
technology.
    The Committee has provided $10,000,000 to the Points of 
Light Foundation. Bill language has also been included to allow 
the Points of Light Foundation to allocate $2,500,000 from its 
fiscal year 2001 appropriation and another $2,500,000 from its 
fiscal year 2002 appropriated funds into an endowment fund. 
This endowment fund will allow the Foundation to leverage 
private resources so that it can begin the process of becoming 
financially self-sustaining.
    The Committee has provided $7,500,000 in direct funds to 
the America's Promise--the Alliance for Youth organization. The 
Committee encourages America's Promise to continue its outreach 
efforts to other local and national organizations involved in 
assisting at-risk youth and its efforts in establishing 
Communities of Promise to improve local coordination 
activities.
    The Committee has provided $5,000,000 in direct funds to 
Communities In Schools, Inc. (CIS). These funds are dedicated 
to CIS's efforts in school dropout prevention. The Committee 
expects CIS to continue working with other similar 
organizations in helping at-risk youth in our Nation.
    The Committee has provided $2,500,000 in direct funds to 
the YMCA of the USA to support and establish innovative school-
based programs designed to strengthen collaborations and 
linkages between public schools and their surrounding 
communities.
    The Committee has provided $1,000,000 in direct funds to 
Teach For America to support their efforts in expanding 
educational opportunities for our Nation's most disadvantaged 
students.
    The Committee has also provided $1,500,000 in direct funds 
to the Parents as Teachers National Center to support work with 
the National Center for Family Literacy to reach the low-
literate and to increase parental involvement related to 
literacy.

                      Office of Inspector General

Appropriations, 2001....................................      $4,989,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       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 equal to the 
amount appropriated for this Office in fiscal year 2001 and is 
equal to the administration's request level.

               U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $12,418,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      13,221,000
Committee recommendation................................      13,221,000

                          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 the budget request of $13,221,000 
for the Court of Appeals for Veterans claims, an increase of 
$803,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

                      Department of Defense--Civil


                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $17,910,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      18,437,000
Committee recommendation................................      18,437,000

                          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 $18,437,000 
for the Army's cemeterial expenses. This amount is $527,000 
above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

                Department of Health and Human Services


                     National Institutes of Health


          National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $62,861,400
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      70,228,000
Committee recommendation................................      70,228,000

                          program description

    The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, an 
agency within the National Institutes of Health, was authorized 
in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to conduct certain 
research and worker training activities associated with the 
nation's Hazardous Substance Superfund program.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $70,228,000 
for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 
which is the same as the budget request and $7,366,600 above 
the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. This includes $24,404,000 
for worker training grants and $45,824,000 for research.

            Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $74,835,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      78,235,000
Committee recommendation................................      78,235,000

                          program description

    The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR), an agency of the Public Health Service, was created in 
section 104(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The ATSDR's primary 
mission is to conduct surveys and screening programs to 
determine relationships between exposure to toxic substances 
and illness. Other activities include the maintenance and 
annual update of a list of hazardous substances most commonly 
found at Superfund sites, the preparation of toxicological 
profiles on each such hazardous substance, consultations on 
health issues relating to exposure to hazardous or toxic 
substances, and the development and implementation of certain 
research activities related to ATSDR's mission.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $78,235,000 
for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which 
is $3,400,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
    The Committee encourages ATSDR to continue at least the 
current level of support for the Great Lakes Fish Consumption 
Study. Additionally, the Committee directs ATSDR report by 
December 31, 2001, on the feasibility of a proposal to 
establish a pilot program in Michigan for fish consumption 
advisories, including funding requirements for such a pilot 
program.
    The Committee appreciates the work of the Center for 
Disease Control (CDC) and ATSDR to help families and public 
officials respond to and investigate 13 cases of leukemia 
affecting children in the small community of Fallon, Nevada. 
The Committee directs ATSDR to continue to afford the highest 
priority to this work by expeditiously conducting 
investigations into the possible environmental causes of these 
cases, working with the National Institutes of Health and the 
Department of Defense to study the population mixing theory, 
supporting the work of the Nevada Public Health Office in 
connection with these cases, and conducting other 
investigations consistent with the recommendations of the 
Nevada Public Health Officer's expert panel.

                    Environmental Protection Agency

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $7,811,627,600
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   7,316,599,000
Committee recommendation................................   7,751,600,000

                          general description

    The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] was created 
through Executive Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 designed to 
consolidate certain Federal Government environmental activities 
into a single agency. The plan was submitted by the President 
to the Congress on July 8, 1970, and the Agency was established 
as an independent agency in the executive branch on December 2, 
1970, by consolidating 15 components from 5 departments and 
independent agencies.
    A description of EPA's pollution control programs by media 
follows:
    Air.--The Clean Air Act Amendments 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 $7,751,600,000 for EPA. 
This is an increase of $435,001,000 above the budget request 
and a decrease of $60,026,000 below the fiscal year 2001 
enacted level.
    The Committee recognizes the critical need for substantial 
investments in our Nation's water infrastructure, and regrets 
that its recommendation cannot accommodate funding for the new 
Wet Weather grant program. The Committee acknowledges the 
enormous needs our communities face in seeking to upgrade 
combined sewer and sanitary sewer systems, and is deeply 
disappointed that the Administration chose to request funding 
for the Wet Weather program at the expense of the Clean Water 
State Revolving Loan Fund. This approach is specifically 
prohibited by the Wet Weather program authorization because it 
would weaken the clean water SRF. Instead, the Committee's 
recommendation has restored the Administration's $500,000,000 
cut to the clean water SRF.
    The Committee has also rejected the Administration's 
proposal to reduce EPA's ability to enforce environmental laws. 
The Committee supports the concept of providing additional 
Federal assistance to help States ensure compliance with 
environmental laws, but is disappointed that the Administration 
chose to provide such funding at the expense of EPA's 
enforcement program. The Committee believes there should be 
both a strong Federal and State enforcement presence to achieve 
compliance with our environmental laws, not one or the other. 
Therefore, the Committee has recommended funding to restore the 
270 enforcement employees cut by the budget request, and has 
not funded the Administration's proposed new State enforcement 
grant program.
    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 
notification is required at $500,000; 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

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $695,466,600
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     640,537,800
Committee recommendation................................     665,672,260

                          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 $665,672,260 for science and 
technology, an increase of $25,134,260 above the budget request 
and a decrease of $29,794,340 below the enacted level. In 
addition, the Committee recommends the transfer of $36,890,500 
from the Superfund account, for a total of $702,428,500 for 
science and technology.
    Enforcement.--The Committee directs that Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) activities within 
the Science and Technology account be funded at no less than 
fiscal year 2001 levels. Furthermore, the Committee's 
recommendation includes $134,260 to restore 1.4 workyears to 
OECA, to be restored in the following manner:
    To headquarters, 1.4 workyears are to be restored, of 
which: 1.1 workyears are to be restored to civil enforcement, 1 
and .3 workyears are to be restored to capacity building. In 
addition, the Committee directs EPA to continue the fiscal year 
2001 current levels of workyear and funding support for 
compliance monitoring and criminal enforcement.
    The Committee recommendation for science and technology 
includes:
      $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.
      $750,000 for the Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium (GHP).
      $500,000 for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology 
        Research.
      $500,000 for the Center for the Study of Metals in the 
        Environment.
      $3,900,000 for the Mine Waste Technology Program at the 
        National Environmental Waste Technology, Testing, and 
        Evaluation Center.
      $1,500,000 for the Connecticut River Airshed-Watershed 
        Consortium.
      $3,600,000 for the Water Environment Research Foundation.
      $3,600,000 for the American Water Works Association 
        Research Foundation.
      $1,000,000 for the Center for Urban Environmental 
        Research and Education at the University of Maryland 
        Baltimore County.
      $1,200,000 for the Center for Air Toxic Metals at the 
        Energy and Environmental Research Center.
      $1,000,000 for environmental education and research at 
        the Turtle Cove Research Station.
      $500,000 for the Missouri River Institute for research 
        and outreach.
      $100,000 for the University of Vermont's Proctor Maple 
        Research Center to continue mercury deposition 
        monitoring effects.
      $750,000 for the Great Lakes Hydrological Center of 
        Excellence partnership by Western Michigan University 
        and the Environmental Research Institute of Michigan.
      $750,000 for the Cancer Institute of New Jersey for 
        research of the influence of environmental factors in 
        cancer causation.
      $250,000 for acid rain research at the University of 
        Vermont.
      $1,300,000 for the National Jewish Medical and Research 
        Center for research on the relationship between indoor 
        and outdoor pollution and the development of 
        respiratory diseases.
      $400,000 for Tooele City, Utah for the Middle Canyon 
        Creek Irrigation project.
      $500,000 for the Montana Drinking Water Assistance 
        program.
      $1,000,000 for the National Environmental Respiratory 
        Center at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute.
      $750,000 for the University of South Alabama, Center for 
        Estuarine Research.
      $500,000 for the Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics 
        Research Center.
      $1,000,000 for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance 
        Research Center.
      $2,000,000 for the Table Rock Lake Wastewater Initiative 
        as a National Community Decentralized Demonstration 
        Project.
    The Committee has not included proposed bill language 
relative to the environmental services fund.

                 environmental programs and management

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $2,083,396,400
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   1,972,960,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,061,996,200

                          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 $2,061,996,200 for environmental 
programs and management, a decrease of $21,400,200 below the 
2001 level and $89,036,200 above the budget request.
    Enforcement.--The Committee directs that Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) activities within 
the Environmental Programs and Management account be funded at 
no less than fiscal year 2001 levels. In addition, the 
Committee's recommendation includes $19,180,000 to restore 200 
workyears to OECA, to be restored in the following manner:
    To headquarters, 38.4 workyears are to be restored, of 
which: 3 workyears are to be restored to compliance incentives, 
1.2 workyears are to be restored to capacity building, 12.4 
workyears are to be restored to compliance monitoring, 10.1 
workyears are to be restored to civil enforcement, 3.5 
workyears are to be restored to criminal enforcement, 4.7 
workyears are to be restored to enforcement training, 1 
workyear is to be restored to NEPA implementation, .1 workyear 
is to be restored to environmental justice, and 2.4 workyears 
are to be restored to program management. In addition, the 
Committee directs EPA to continue the fiscal year 2001 levels 
of workyear and funding support for compliance assistance and 
data management.
    To regional offices, 161.6 workyears are to be restored, of 
which: 7 workyears are to be restored to compliance assistance, 
3 workyears are to be restored to compliance incentives, 6 
workyears are to be restored to capacity building, 80.6 
workyears are to be restored to compliance monitoring, and 79 
workyears are to be restored to civil enforcement. In addition, 
the Committee directs EPA to continue the fiscal year 2001 
levels of workyear and funding support for data management and 
environmental justice.
    The Committee's recommendation for environmental programs 
and management includes:
      $25,000,000 for the National Estuary Program, an increase 
        of $7,946,800 over the budget request and $6,807,500 
        over the fiscal year 2001 level.
      $20,728,100 for the Chesapeake Bay Program, an increase 
        of $1,909,400 over the budget request and equal to the 
        fiscal year 2001 level.
      $15,210,000 for the Great Lakes National Program Office.
      $2,500,000 for the Lake Champlain Basin Program.
      $2,500,000 for the Long Island Sound Program Office.
      $1,000,000 for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration 
        Program.
      $1,400,000 for the Ohio River Watershed Pollutant 
        Reduction Program, to be cost shared.
      $2,500,000 for the National Alternative Fuels Training 
        Consortium.
      $2,300,000 for the Rural Community Assistance Program.
      $8,600,000 for the National Rural Water Association.
      $10,700,000 for the source water protection program.
      $550,000 for the Ground Water Protection Council.
      $200,000 for the Northeast Waste Management Officials 
        Association to continue solid waste, hazardous waste, 
        cleanup and pollution prevention programs.
      $300,000 for the water quality monitoring program along 
        the New Jersey-New York shoreline.
      $1,750,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Small Watersheds Grants 
        Program. The Committee expects that the funds provided 
        for this 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.
      $750,000 for the Maryland Bureau of Mines for an acid 
        mine drainage remediation project.
      $1,000,000 for projects demonstrating the benefits of Low 
        Impact Development along the Anacostia Watershed in 
        Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties, Maryland.
      $500,000 for the Kenai River Center for continued 
        research on watershed issues.
      $250,000 for the Vermont Department of Agriculture to 
        work with conservation districts to reduce non-point 
        source pollution run-off to the Poultney-Mettowee 
        watershed.
      $100,000 for Fallon, Nevada, for arsenic removal 
        technologies.
      $1,000,000 for the Columbia Basin Groundwater Management 
        Area.
      $750,000 for the painting and coating assistance 
        initiative through the University of Northern Iowa.
      $1,000,000 for the Frank M. Tejeda Center for Excellence 
        in Environmental Operations.
      $750,000 for the Center for Agricultural and Rural 
        Development at Iowa State University for the Resource 
        and Agricultural Policy Systems program.
      $1,250,000 for the Green Bay Sewerage District Biosolids 
        demonstration project.
      $100,000 for the American Farmland Trust to continue 
        support for the design for the environment for farms 
        program in Hawaii and the American Pacific.
      $400,000 for the County of Hawaii and the Hawaii Island 
        Economic Development Board to establish and implement a 
        community development model for renewable resource 
        management by upgrading solid waste transfer stations 
        into community recycling centers.
      $500,000 for the Small Business Pollution Prevention 
        Center at the University of Northern Iowa.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Portland, Oregon wet weather 
        demonstration project.
      $1,000,000 for Boise State University for developing 
        multipurpose sensors to detect and analyze 
        environmental contaminants.
      $700,000 for the Alabama Department of Environmental 
        Management for the water and wastewater training 
        program.
      $500,000 for the Economic Development Alliance of Hawaii 
        to promote biotechnology to reduce pesticide use in 
        tropical and subtropical agricultural production.
      $250,000 for the County of Maui for the control of 
        nuisance seaweed accumulations on the beaches of Kihei, 
        Maui, Hawaii.
      $200,000 for a study of air quality in the Shreve-Bossier 
        area of Louisiana.
      $500,000 for cross-media and water quality monitoring in 
        the Sweetwater River watershed, California.
      $900,000 for the Environmental Biotechnology Institute at 
        the University of Idaho to develop selenium control 
        technologies.
      $500,000 for Gateway Cities, California, diesel emissions 
        reduction program.
      $4,200,000 for America's Clean Water Foundation for 
        implementation of on-farm environmental assessments for 
        livestock operations.
      $1,000,000 to continue the sediment decontamination 
        technology demonstration in the New York-New Jersey 
        Harbor.
      $850,000 for the Southcoast Harbor education and 
        monitoring project.
      $850,000 for a biodiversity and ecosystems survey by 
        Florida Atlantic University.
      $250,000 for the Envision Utah Project.
      $2,500,000 for the Southwest Center for Environmental 
        Research and Policy.
      $2,000,000 for the Coeur d'Alene Basin Commission, 
        established by the State of Idaho to carry out pilot 
        program for environmental response, natural resource 
        restoration and related activities.
      $250,000 for the Central California ozone study.
      $1,500,000 for the City of Fallon, Utah for arsenic 
        removal studies.
      $250,000 for the Northwest Straits Commission.
      $900,000 for the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana for a model 
        sewer improvement and stormwater retention project.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Hays, Kansas for the South 
        Russell County Water Project.
      $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.
      $1,000,000 for the Food and Agriculture Policy Research 
        Institute's Missouri watershed initiative project.

                      office of inspector general

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $34,019,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      34,019,000
Committee recommendation................................      34,019,000

                          program description

    The Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, 
evaluation, and investigation products and advisory services to 
improve the performance and integrity of EPA programs and 
operations.
    Trust fund resources are transferred to this account 
directly from the hazardous substance Superfund.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $34,019,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General, the same as the budget request. In addition, 
$11,867,000 will be available by transfer from the Superfund 
account, for a total of $45,886,000. The trust fund resources 
will be transferred to the inspector general ``General fund'' 
account with an expenditure transfer.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $23,878,400
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      25,318,400
Committee recommendation................................      25,318,400

                          program description

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $25,318,400 for buildings and 
facilities, $1,440,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level and the 
same as the budget request.

                     hazardous substance superfund


                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $1,267,206,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   1,268,135,200
Committee recommendation................................   1,274,645,560

                          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. Due to 
the site-specific nature of the Agency's Superfund program, 
site-specific travel is not considered part of the overall 
travel ceiling set for the Superfund account.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $1,274,645,560 for Superfund, an 
increase of $6,510,360 above the budget request and $7,439,560 
above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The amount provided 
includes $640,113,360 from general revenues, and the balance 
from the trust fund.
    Enforcement.--The Committee directs that Office of 
Enforcement Compliance Assurance (OECA) activities within the 
Hazardous Substance Superfund account be funded at no less than 
fiscal year 2001 levels. In addition, the Committee's 
recommendation includes $6,510,360 above the budget request to 
restore 68.1 workyears to OECA, to be restored in the following 
manner:
    To headquarters, 68.1 workyears are to be restored, of 
which: 5.6 workyears are to be restored to maximize PRP 
response, .6 workyears are to be restored to cost recovery, .2 
workyears are to be restored to develop IAGs with Federal 
facilities, 1.6 workyears are to be restored to civil 
enforcement, .9 workyears are to be restored to criminal 
enforcement, 1.5 workyears are to be restored to enforcement 
training, .4 workyears are to be restored to compliance 
incentives, and .2 workyears are to be restored to program 
management. In addition, the Committee directs EPA to continue 
the fiscal year 2001 level of workyear and funding support for 
IAG justice support, brownfields, data management, and 
environmental justice
    To EPA regional offices, 57.1 workyears are to be restored, 
of which: 37 workyears are to be restored to maximize PRP 
response, 15.9 workyears are to be restored to cost recovery, 
4.2 workyears are to be restored to develop IAGs with Federal 
facilities, and .2 workyears are to be restored to program 
management.
    The amount recommended also includes the full budget 
request of $94,977,400 for brownfields.

              leaking underground storage tank trust fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $71,937,400
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      71,937,400
Committee recommendation................................      71,947,400

                          program description

    The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizations Act of 1986 
[SARA] established the leaking underground storage tank [LUST] 
trust fund to conduct corrective actions for releases from 
leaking underground storage tanks containing petroleum and 
other hazardous substances. EPA implements the LUST program 
through State cooperative agreement grants which enable States 
to conduct corrective actions to protect human health and the 
environment, and through non-State entities including Indian 
tribes under section 8001 of RCRA. The trust fund is also used 
to enforce responsible parties to finance corrective actions 
and to recover expended funds used to clean up abandoned tanks.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $71,947,400 
for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, an increase 
of $10,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The 
Committee directs that not less than 85 percent of these funds 
be provided to the States and tribal governments.
    Enforcement.--The Committee directs that the Office of 
Enforcement Compliance Assurance (OECA) activities within the 
Leaking Underground Storage Trust Fund Account be funded at no 
less than fiscal year 2001 levels. The Committee's 
recommendation includes $9,590 to restore .1 workyears to the 
Office of Enforcement Compliance, to be restored to 
headquarters compliance assistance.

                           oilspill response


                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $14,967,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      14,967,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,986,000

                          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 preparing for and preventing 
releases of oil and other petroleum products in navigable 
waterways. Also EPA is reimbursed for incident specific 
response costs through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 
managed by the United States Coast Guard. EPA is responsible 
for: directing all cleanup and removal activities posing a 
threat to public health and the environment; conducting site 
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 for this appropriation are 
provided through the Oilspill Liability Trust Fund which is 
composed of fees and collections made through provisions of the 
Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the Comprehensive Oil Pollution 
Liability and Compensation Act, the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, 
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978, and 
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Pursuant to law, the 
Trust Fund is managed by the United States Coast Guard.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $14,986,000 for the oilspill 
response trust fund, $19,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted 
and the level budget request.
    Enforcement.--The Committee directs that Office of 
Enforcement Compliance Assurance (OECA) activities within the 
Oilspill Response accunt be funded at no less than fiscal year 
2001 levels. The Committee's recommendation includes $19,180 to 
restore .2 workyears to OECA, to be restored to EPA regional 
offices for civil enforcement. In addition, the Committee 
directs EPA to continue the fiscal year 2001 level of workyear 
and funding support for headquarters civil enforcement and 
compliance assistance.

                   state and tribal ASSISTANCE grants

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $3,620,756,800
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   3,288,725,400
Committee recommendation................................   3,603,015,900

                          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: Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds; 
United States-Mexico Border Program; and Alaska Native 
villages.
    It also contains the following environmental grants, State/
tribal program grants, and assistance and capacity building 
grants: (1) nonpoint source (sec. 319 of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act); (2) water quality cooperative 
agreements (sec. 104(b)(3) of FWPCA; (3) public water system 
supervision; (4) air resource assistance to State, regional, 
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; (17) enforcement and 
compliance assurance; (18) BEACHS Protection grants (sec. 406 
of FWPCA as amended); and (19) environmental information. As 
with the case in past fiscal years, no reprogramming requests 
associated with States and Tribes applying for Performance 
Partnership Grants need to be submitted to the Committee for 
approval should such grants exceed the normal reprogramming 
limitations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,603,015,900 
for State and tribal assistance grants, an increase of 
$314,290,500 over the budget request and a decrease of 
$17,740,900 below the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
    The Committee's recommendation does not include funding for 
the Administration's proposed State Enforcement Grants. 
Instead, the Committee directs EPA to continue the fiscal year 
2001 level of workyear and funding support for State pesticide 
enforcement grants, State toxics enforcement grants, and sector 
and multimedia enforcement grants.
    The Committee recognizes the critical need for substantial 
investments in our Nation's water infrastructure, and regrets 
that its recommendation cannot accommodate funding for the new 
Wet Weather grant program. The Committee acknowledges the 
enormous needs our communities face in seeking to upgrade 
combined sewer and sanitary sewer systems, and is deeply 
disappointed that the Administration chose to request funding 
for the Wet Weather program at the expense of the Clean Water 
State Revolving Loan Fund. This approach is specifically 
prohibited by the Wet Weather program authorization because it 
would weaken the clean water SRF. Instead, the Committee's 
recommendation has restored the Administration's $500,000,000 
cut to the clean water SRF, and will continue to provide 
targeted assistance to help communities meet combined and 
sanitary sewer needs.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the 
Administration's request of $25,000,000 for grants to be used 
in partnership with States and tribes to advance the National 
Environmental Information Exchange network (NEIEN) and State 
data integration efforts.
    The Committee's recommendation also includes the following:
      $850,000,000 for drinking water State revolving funds, 
        $26,815,000 above the budget request and the fiscal 
        year 2001 level.
      $1,350,000,000 for clean water State revolving funds, 
        $500,000,000 above the budget request and the same as 
        the fiscal year 2001 level.
      $75,000,000 for water and wastewater projects on the 
        United States-Mexico border. The Committee directs that 
        of the funds provided for the United States-Mexico 
        border projects, $4,000,000 shall be for the El Paso-
        Las Cruces Sustainable Water Project, and $2,000,000 
        shall be for the Brownsville water supply project. A 
        provision has been included restricting border 
        infrastructure funds to local communities that have a 
        local ordnance or zoning rule regarding development.
      $40,000,000 for rural and Alaskan Native villages to 
        address the special water and wastewater treatment 
        needs of thousands of households that lack basic 
        sanitation. The State of Alaska will provide a match of 
        25 percent.
      $140,000,000 for special needs infrastructure grants, as 
        follows:
      $1,000,000 for the County of Hawaii to upgrade its 
        drinking water system.
      $1,000,000 for the Grand Forks, North Dakota, water 
        treatment plant.
      $2,000,000 for West Georgetown, South Carolina, regional 
        wastewater treatment system.
      $3,000,000 for Fallon, Nevada for drinking water facility 
        construction.
      $1,000,000 for the Laurens, South Carolina, water and 
        sewer commission.
      $2,500,000 for the Pownal, Vermont, wastewater treatment 
        project.
      $1,000,000 for East St. Johnsbury, Vermont, wastewater 
        treatment project.
      $1,500,000 for the City of Mason, Iowa, drinking water 
        facility construction.
      $1,500,000 for the City of Des Moines for storm sewer 
        construction.
      $2,000,000 for the Milwaukee, Wisconsin Sewerage District 
        for continued renovations and repairs to the sewer 
        system.
      $1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure needs of 
        Minnesota's Mille Lacs regional wastewater treatment 
        plant.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Racine, Wisconsin, drinking 
        water treatment project.
      $2,000,000 for the City of Bremmerton, Washington, 
        combined sewer overflow project.
      $4,800,000 for biological nutrient removal upgrades at 
        the City of Salisbury, Maryland, wastewater treatment 
        plant.
      $1,500,000 for the Wahkiakum County Public Utility 
        District, Washington, drinking water facility project.
      $900,000 for North Sioux City, South Dakota, water and 
        sewer infrastructure needs.
      $2,000,000 for the Williston, North Dakota, drinking 
        water treatment project.
      $500,000 for the Santa Rosa, California, drinking water 
        infrastructure needs.
      $500,000 for the Los Banos, California, wastewater and 
        drinking water infrastructure project.
      $500,000 for Compton, California, sewer infrastructure 
        needs.
      $500,000 for Sacramento, California, combined sewer 
        system improvements.
      $250,000 for the Placer County, California, wastewater 
        treatment project.
      $500,000 for biological nutrient removal upgrades at the 
        Conococheague wastewater treatment plant, Washington 
        County, Maryland.
      $500,000 for Rock Falls, Illinois, wastewater treatment 
        improvements.
      $500,000 for Illinois' Clark-Edgar Rural Water District 
        drinking water project.
      $500,000 for the Monmouth, Illinois, storm sewer project.
      $500,000 for Galena, Illinois, wastewater treatment 
        improvements.
      $500,000 for the City of Paris, Illinois, for drinking 
        water infrastructure needs.
      $500,000 for the City of Macomb, Illinois, for drinking 
        water infrastructure needs.
      $2,000,000 for Aberdeen, South Dakota, drinking water 
        facility improvements.
      $1,200,000 for Hill City, South Dakota, water and sewer 
        infrastructure needs.
      $2,000,000 for the Orleans Parish, Louisiana, sanitary 
        sewer inflow infiltration project.
      $500,000 for East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, water 
        and sewer infrastructure needs.
      $3,000,000 for the Narragansett Bay Commission, Rhode 
        Island, for the combined sewer overflow project.
      $500,000 for the Town of Warren, Rhode Island, for sewer 
        infrastructure needs.
      $2,000,000 for Eastern Orange and Seminole Counties, 
        Florida, for wastewater treatment upgrades.
      $200,000 for Deer Lodge, Montana, sewer infrastructure 
        needs.
      $500,000 for the Galen Campus sewer upgrade project in 
        Anaconda, Montana.
      $2,000,000 for the Town of Millsboro, Delaware, for 
        wastewater infrastructure needs.
      $250,000 for Lake County, California, for the Clear Lake 
        Basin 2000 project.
      $2,000,000 for the City of Florence, Montana, for 
        wastewater treatment improvements.
      $2,000,000 for Vinalhaven, Maine for wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements.
      $2,000,000 for West Bottoms, Missouri, stormwater 
        improvements.
      $250,000 for wastewater treatment planning for South Two-
        Mile Prairie, Missouri.
      $2,000,000 for the City of Roswell, Georgia, Big Creek 
        Watershed drinking water and sewer infrastructure 
        needs.
      $2,000,000 for the Bristol County, Massachusetts, 
        combined sewer overflow projects.
      $3,000,000 for the City of Negaunee, Michigan, for 
        wastewater treatment upgrades.
      $1,000,000 for the Genesee County, Michigan, wastewater 
        treatment project.
      $1,000,000 for Vernon Township, New Jersey, for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
      $1,000,000 for drinking water infrastructure needs of 
        Encinitas and Folsom, California.
      $1,000,000 for drinking water infrastructure needs in the 
        New York City watershed.
      $1,500,000 for water and sewer infrastructure needs of 
        New Britain, Connecticut.
      $750,000 for the City of Gallup, New Mexico, to upgrade 
        its wastewater treatment plant.
      $1,000,000 for Camden, New Jersey, sewer infrastructure 
        needs.
      $1,000,000 for Sandy, Utah for water and sewer 
        infrastructure improvements.
      $700,000 for the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District 
        for a groundwater extraction treatment remedial 
        project.
      $1,000,000 for the Coudersport Borough, Eulalia Township 
        and Sweden Township in Potter County, Pennsylvania to 
        expand the sewer system.
      $1,000,000 for Pelican, Alaska water and sewer 
        improvements.
      $1,000,000 for the Ogden, Utah for final phase of sewer 
        improvements at the former Defense Depot Ogden.
      $500,000 for the City of Norfolk, Virginia, to update 
        wastewater pumping stations.
      $1,800,000 for Petersburg, Alaska for water and sewer 
        upgrades.
      $4,000,000 for Jefferson City, Mississippi for a water 
        and sewer improvements project.
      $1,500,000 for Lewis and Clark County for a wastewater 
        development project.
      $1,000,000 for the Towns of Naturita and Nucia, Colorado 
        to improve existing, antiquated potable water systems 
        to meet EPA standards.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Montrose, Colorado for the 
        Montrose Wastewater Inflow and Infiltration project.
      $500,000 for Rainbow City, Alabama for the construction 
        of an emergency response system for sewage lagoons.
      $500,000 for Byesville, Ohio for the Byesville Water 
        Treatment Plan.
      $3,000,000 for the City of Ocean Springs, Mississippi for 
        wastewater improvements.
      $500,000 for the City of Calais, Maine to develop a safe 
        drinking water system.
      $1,200,000 for the Dona Ana Mutual Domestic Water 
        consumers Association to upgrade water systems.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Akron, Ohio for its combined 
        sewer overflow long-term plan.
      $500,000 for the City of Port Clinton, Ohio for its 
        wastewater treatment plan.
      $1,000,000 for Lincoln, Nebraska for wastewater 
        management.
      $3,800,000 for the North and South Valley of the City of 
        Albuquerque and the County of Bernalillo, New Mexico 
        for a regional and wastewater project.
      $1,500,000 for the City of Berlin, New Hampshire for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
      $500,000 for Oxnard, California, area drinking water 
        infrastructure needs.
      $500,000 for Salem, New Hampshire to remediate the 
        contamination of private wells.
      $1,000,000 for Omaha, Nebraska to upgrade sewer and 
        sanitary water infrastructure.
      $1,000,000 for Henderson, North Carolina for the second 
        phase rehabilitation and expansion of the water 
        treatment facilities of the Kerr Lake Regional Water 
        System.
      $2,000,000 for Union County, Arkansas for a community 
        drinking water system.
      $2,000,000 for the City of Lawton, Oklahoma for the 
        rehabilitation of its wastewater infrastructure.
      $1,000,000 for the State of Arizona Water Infrastructure 
        Finance Authority for the City of Stafford Wastewater 
        Treatment Facility.
      $1,000,000 for the Southeast Alabama Regional Water 
        Authority for a water facility project.
      $700,000 for the Caroline County Dawn Sewer project in 
        Bowling Green, Virginia.
      $600,000 for Grant, Alabama for wastewater collection and 
        treatment facilities.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Jackson, Alabama for water 
        system improvements.
      $2,000,000 for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration 
        program in the greater Pittsburgh area.
      $1,000,000 for the Upper Milford Township Sewer Project 
        in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
      $1,800,000 of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough for sewer and 
        water improvements.
      $1,000,000 for Daviess County, Kentucky, for drainage 
        improvements.
      $750,000 for the City of Bancroft, Idaho, for water 
        system upgrades.
      $750,000 for the City of Burley, Idaho, to continue work 
        on a wastewater treatment system project.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Lebanon, Missouri, for a 
        stormwater overflow system.
      $1,000,000 for a Gravity Wastewater Collection System in 
        the Snowden and 6-Mile Communities in Charleston 
        County, South Carolina.
      $1,500,000 for Wasilla, Alaska water and sewer 
        improvements.
      $3,000,000 for the Girdwood, Alaska water extension.
      $3,000,000 for addressing above ground leaking fuel tanks 
        in Alaska.
      $500,000 for the City of Lake St. Louis, Missouri for a 
        Water Quality study of Peruque Creek Watershed.
      $900,000 for Bates County Commission, Missouri, to 
        coordinate and implement efforts to assist local 
        municipalities address their drinking water needs.
      $1,500,000 for Camden County Missouri Public Waste Water 
        facility for sewer and water improvements.
      $1,500,000 for the City of Cape Girardeau Missouri for 
        waste water and sewer improvements.
      $1,000,000 for the City of Lawrenceville, Illinois for a 
        wastewater treatment facility.
      $2,000,000 for the City of St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer 
        District for ongoing improvements.
      $2,000,000 for the City of Kansas City, Missouri for 
        Phase II stormwater sewer system in the Central 
        Industrial District.
      $1,000,000 for the Lower John Day Region in Oregon for a 
        water and wastewater treatment facilities.
      $1,000,000 for Jaffrey, New Hampshire, for a wastewater 
        treatment facility.
    EPA is to work with the grant recipients on appropriate 
cost-share arrangements consistent with past practice.
    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 is included, as the administration requested, 
regarding section 319 grants to Indian tribes.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    Bill language is included, as proposed by the 
Administration, regarding tribal set-asides for the Non-point 
Source (section 319) grants and the Clean Water SRF. Also 
included is bill language to continue to the transfer authority 
between the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs. The 
Committee's recommendation extends this authority for fiscal 
year 2002 only. The Administration had requested a permanent 
extension of this authority. The Committee has also included 
language, carried last year, regarding development along the 
US-Mexico border, as it relates to the colonias.

                   Executive Office of the President


                Office of Science and Technology Policy

Appropriations, 2001....................................      $5,190,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       5,267,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,267,000

                          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 $5,267,000 for 
the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This amount is the 
same as the budget request and $77,000 above the fiscal year 
2001 enacted level.
    The Committee remains concerned about the impact NASA's 
latest space station cost over-run will have on both NASA-
supported research programs and the research capabilities of 
the International Space Station. The Committee believes the 
President's Science Advisor should play a critical role in the 
decision-making and re-scoping process the Administration is 
going through so that the International Space Station does not 
fall short of becoming the world class research facility it was 
always proposed to be. Similarly, the Committee believes the 
President's Science Advisor should play an integral role in 
advising the President on the appropriate balance among and 
between disciplines and agencies in the Federal R&D; portfolio. 
The Committee expects the Science Advisor will conduct 
effective outreach to the science and engineering community and 
become an active and influential advisor to the President on 
important public policy issues grounded in science and 
technology.
    The Committee notes that the government share for R&D; 
funding has declined substantially over the last 15 years. 
According to a recent report by the Council on Competitiveness, 
in real terms, the total Federal contribution to the Nation's 
R&D; portfolio dropped from 46 percent in 1985 to 27 percent in 
1999. However, industry's dependence on public R&D; for 
innovation remains very high. Over 73 percent of U.S. industry 
patents cite publicaly funded science as the basis for the 
invention. The Committee is concerned that further reductions 
in public funding for science and engineering could result in a 
decrease in the private sector's capacity to innovate.
    The Committee is similarly concerned with recent funding 
trends for Federal R&D; which have led to significant shifts 
within the balance of the Nation's research portfolio. A recent 
report by the National Academies' Board on Science, Technology, 
and Economic Policy concluded that between 1993 and 1999 
support for such fields as the geological sciences, chemical, 
electrical, and mechanical engineering, chemistry and physics 
are down by as much as 20 percent or more. The decline in 
research funding has contributed to a decline in enrollment of 
graduate students in these disciplines. These trends concern 
the Committee because the affected fields generate knowledge 
and trained personnel that are critically important for 
economic performance, national defense, and the health and well 
being of our citizens. The Committee directs the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy to assess the impact of these 
reductions on these public policy objectives. Based on this 
assessment, OSTP should develop an action plan to address these 
issues in the fiscal year 2003 budget request.
    The Committee is also concerned about the adequacy of this 
Nation's scientific and technical workforce, the Nation's 
dependency on foreign workers to meet our own scientific and 
technical workforce needs, and the efforts needed to boost the 
participation of women and minorities in the science and 
engineering workforce.
    The Committee urges OSTP to work with the relevant agencies 
on the development of policies and in the allocation of 
resources to address these issues effectively.
    The Committee reiterates its long standing interest in 
improving coordination and cooperation among the various R&D; 
agencies under the auspices of OSTP and the National Science 
and Technology Council (NSTC). The Committee expects the 
President's Science Advisor will quickly re-invigorate the NSTC 
process by defining a key set of strategic issues and 
establishing a small number of effectively led interagency 
committees to move these issues through the policy and budget 
processes.
    The Committee is strongly supportive of the interagency 
nanoscience and technology initiative and urges OSTP and the 
interagency working group to continue to refine and strengthen 
the emerging research, education and training objectives. As a 
supplement to the fiscal year 2001 request, the Administration 
produced a nanotechnology management and implementation plan. 
The report highlighted the key themes and management objectives 
as well as the various agencies' roles and responsibilities. 
The Committee directs OSTP and the National Science and 
Technology Council's nanotechnology working group to update 
that report as a supplement to the fiscal year 2003 budget 
request. The Committee is particularly interested in the 
efforts to transfer nanotechnology research results into 
applications and urges OSTP to ensure that the fiscal year 2003 
report address this issue in detail.
    For the past several years, the Committee has followed with 
interest the progress that has been made in high field nuclear 
magnetic resonance instrumentation and has requested OSTP to 
assess the future needs in this field. At present, the greatest 
impediment in this area is the lack of an available NMR with 
capabilities at 900Mz and higher. Several companies and the 
National High Magnetic Field Laboratory will soon test and 
possibly make available such an instrument. The Committee 
encourages OSTP and other agencies interested in this new 
technology to monitor the progress of these efforts closely. As 
these instruments become operative and available to the 
research community, it is expected that OSTP will move forward 
on an interagency initiative that will allow U.S. scientists to 
take full advantage of these new instruments. The Committee 
encourages novel linkages and collaborations among leading 
academic institutions and national laboratories to respond to 
these new opportunities.
    The Committee maintains significant interest in an 
integrated interagency ocean observing system. Such a system 
would bring together Federal, academic, State institutions, and 
industry into a coordinated system for monitoring U.S. marine 
waters. A coordinated national approach, linked effectively 
with similar programs in other nations, is an essential 
prerequisite for effective use and management of the oceans. 
The nation cannot realize the economic, social and security 
benefits of the oceans in a responsible, sustainable manner 
without such a program. A number of agencies including OSTP, 
NOAA, NSF, and the Office of Naval Research have varying 
interests and responsibilities in this area. The Committee 
directs OSTP, working through the National Science and 
Technology Council and with the external oceans community, to 
develop an interagency plan for the research, technology 
demonstration and ultimately, the implementation of an ocean 
observing system and submit this report to the Committee at the 
time the President's fiscal year 2003 budget is released.
    In the conference report that accompanied the Fiscal Year 
2001 Appropriations Act, the Committee directed OSTP to work 
with the National Security Council, NASA, and the Department of 
State to issue a clarification of the International Traffic in 
Arms Regulation (ITAR) to ensure that university collaborations 
and personnel exchanges are allowed to continue as they had 
under the long-standing fundamental research exception in the 
Export Administration Regulations. This clarification was to be 
issued within 120 days of enactment of the fiscal year 2001 
Act. Regrettably this clarification has not yet been issued. 
The Committee directs OSTP to complete the interagency 
consultation process and issue this clarification immediately.
    The Committee recognizes the administration's recent 
efforts to combat the fear and hysteria being generated around 
the use of biotechnology. Despite these efforts, misinformation 
about the scientific facts on biotechnology continue to be 
spread through various media outlets. Accordingly, the 
Committee urges the Science Advisor to work with other Federal 
research agencies such as NSF, the Department of Agriculture, 
the Food and Drug Administration, and EPA to develop a 
coordinated and coherent strategy to ensure that the public is 
informed and educated about the scientific facts and reasons 
behind biotechnology.

  Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality

Appropriations, 2001....................................      $2,893,620
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       2,974,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,974,000

                          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 $2,974,000 for the Council on 
Environmental Quality, an increase of $80,380 above the fiscal 
year 2001 enacted level.
    Bill language relative to the use of detailees has been 
continued again this year.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation


                      Office of Inspector General

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $33,585,948
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      33,660,000
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 the budget request of $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, 2001..................................\1\ $2,434,432,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   2,212,945,000
Committee recommendation...............................\2\ 3,277,945,000

\1\ Includes $1,297,140,000 in contingency funds.
\2\ Includes $2,000,000,000 in contingency funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $3,277,945,000 for the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. This appropriation provides 
funding for disaster relief, emergency management planning, 
emergency food and shelter and the Inspector General.

                            disaster relief


                     (including transfer of funds)

Appropriations, 2001..................................\1\ $1,596,480,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   1,369,399,000
Committee recommendation...............................\2\ 2,359,399,000

\1\ Includes $1,297,140,000 in contingency funds.
\2\ Includes $2,000,000,000 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 $359,399,000 for disaster relief, 
and an additional $2,000,000,000 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 Administration proposed in its budget for FEMA to 
reduce the Federal share of funding for hazard mitigation from 
75 percent to 50 percent. The Administration said that this 
would help to ensure that States and localities would make a 
significant commitment to preparing for disasters before they 
happen. Contrary to the Administration's assertion, the 
Committee believes that increasing the State and local share of 
costs for mitigation projects will result in fewer mitigation 
measures being accomplished. The FEMA Director also expressed 
``deep concerns'' about increasing the State and local cost 
sharing for hazard mitigation funding. Therefore, the Committee 
does not support the Administration's proposal and directs FEMA 
to continue to operate the hazard mitigation program with the 
existing 75/25 cost sharing formula.

            disaster assistance direct loan program account


                      (limitation on direct loans)

                            STATE SHARE LOAN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program     Administrative
                                              account        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001....................      $1,678,000        $427,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................         405,000         543,000
Committee recommendation................         405,000         543,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $543,000 in 
administrative expenses. For the cost of subsidizing the 
appropriation, the bill includes $405,000.

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $214,527,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     233,801,000
Committee recommendation................................     233,801,000

                          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 $233,801,000 for FEMA salaries and 
expenses. This is equal to the request and an increase of 
$19,274,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. In 
addition, the amount provided allows for the enhancements in 
terrorism-related programs as requested by the administration.
    The Committee's recommendation includes $11,000,000 to 
support FEMA's lead agency responsibilities for consequence 
management at the Olympics and Paralympics. The Committee 
supports the recent creation of the Office of National 
Preparedness to coordinate all Federal programs dealing with 
weapons of mass destruction consequence management, as directed 
by the President. FEMA should provide the Committee with a 
report, reflecting the input of all the Federal agencies 
involved in the President's consequence management activity, 
outlining the various roles and responsibilities of the 
agencies involved in this important initiative. This report 
should be submitted to the Committee by January 31, 2002.

                    office of the inspector general

Appropriations, 2001....................................      $9,978,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      10,303,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,303,000

                          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 $10,303,000 for the Office of the 
Inspector General, an increase of $325,000 above the fiscal 
year 2001 enacted level.
    Bill language has been retained which authorizes the FEMA 
Inspector General to serve also as the IG for the Chemical 
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

              emergency management planning and assistance

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $368,839,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     354,623,000
Committee recommendation................................     429,623,000

                          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 $429,623,000 for emergency 
management planning and assistance. This is an increase of 
$60,784,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level and $75,000,000 
above the request.
    The Committee has included in the bill $25,000,000 for the 
reinstatement of the Project Impact program. The Committee 
believes that Project Impact is a valuable effort that helps to 
raise visibility and awareness for the need for pre-disaster 
mitigation activities and directs FEMA to use these resources 
to continue the program in fiscal year 2002.
    The Committee has included $150,000,000 for the fire grant 
program. This is $50,000,000 more than the request and the 
fiscal year 2001 funding level. In response to the fiscal year 
2001 solicitation FEMA received more than 30,000 proposals 
requesting a total of nearly $3,000,000,000 for funds in the 
six eligible categories of training, wellness and fitness 
programs, vehicles, fire fighting equipment, personal 
protective equipment, and fire prevention programs.
    However, for many fire departments, the application process 
can be complex and burdensome. Many smaller fire companies do 
not have the resources to devote to preparing a lengthy 
application. Therefore, the Committee directs FEMA to simplify 
and streamline the application process for the fiscal year 2002 
solicitation. In addition, the Committee directs FEMA to create 
a permanent advisory committee comprised of local and State 
fire officials to advise the Director on ways to simplify the 
grant application process and improve the overall 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 2002 
are $1,000,000.

                       emergency food and shelter

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $139,692,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     139,692,000
Committee recommendation................................     139,692,000

                          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 $139,692,000 for the Emergency 
Food and Shelter Program, the same as the fiscal year 2001 
level and the budget request.

                     national flood insurance fund


                     (including 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 
$28,798,000 for administrative costs from the Flood Insurance 
Program for salaries and expenses. The Committee has also 
included bill language providing up to $76,381,000 for flood 
mitigation activities including up to $20,000,000 for expenses 
under section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act.
    The Committee directs FEMA to prepare a thorough cost-
benefit analysis and conduct extensive outreach to potentially 
affected communities prior to issuing any rule or regulation 
pertaining to insuring public buildings. The Committee expects 
this matter to be priority within the agency.
    The Committee is aware that the total cost of updating and 
modernizing flood maps is estimated at $700,000,000. The 
Committee's recommendation includes the $15,000,000 requested 
under the Disaster Relief Fund and the request to transfer up 
to an additional $7,000,000 in prior year flood insurance 
policy fee collections to support flood map modernization 
activities. The Committee strongly urges FEMA to consult with 
other Federal and State entities and its authorizing committees 
so that a viable program can be put in place to address the 
serious need for flood map modernization.
    The budget request includes a program to address the issue 
of repetitive loss properties within the National Flood 
Mitigation Program. The Committee is concerned that this new 
program could fall heavily on properties in lower income areas, 
such as older neighborhoods in communities built along rivers. 
The Committee also understands that authorization legislation 
dealing with this issue is under consideration by one or more 
congressional committees. The Committee urges FEMA to undertake 
a comprehensive study on repetitive loss and submit the report 
to the Committee by the end of March 2002. The study should 
include options that disclose the best means to ensure that the 
affected properties can be brought into compliance with flood 
risk standards. Options should address all available measures, 
such as the Increased Cost of Compliance program Congress 
enacted in the 1994 disaster relief act, and other public and 
private options.

                     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 fund

Appropriations, 2001....................................      $7,106,332
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       7,276,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,276,000

                          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 the budget request of $7,276,000 
for the Federal Consumer Information Center, an increase of 
$169,688 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
    The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from 
Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications, 
user fees from the public, and other income. FCIC's anticipated 
resources for fiscal year 2002 will total approximately 
$10,900,000.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration


Appropriations, 2001

                                                         $14,253,872,000

Budget estimate, 2002

                                                          14,511,400,000

Committee recommendation

                                                          14,561,400,000

                          GENERAL DESCRIPTION

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 
1958 to conduct space and aeronautical research, development, 
and flight activities for peaceful purposes designed to 
maintain U.S. preeminence in aeronautics and space. NASA's 
unique mission of exploration, discovery, and innovation is 
intended to preserve the United States' role as both a leader 
in world aviation and as the pre-eminent space-faring nation. 
It is NASA's mission to: advance human exploration, use and 
development of space; advance and communicate scientific 
knowledge and understanding of the Earth, the Solar System and 
the Universe; and research, develop, verify and transfer 
advanced aeronautics and space technologies.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $14,561,400,000 for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2002, an 
increase of $307,528,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted 
level.
    The Committee has modified the account structure as 
proposed under the budget request. The Committee has 
transferred the research program of the International Space 
Station (ISS) from the Human Space Flight Account to the 
Science, Aeronautics and Technology Account as requested by 
NASA and the Office of Management and Budget. All other ISS 
programs will remain within the Human Space Flight account.
    During fiscal year 2002 the Committee directs NASA to 
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 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, 2001....................................  $5,450,882,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   7,296,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   6,868,000,000

                          general description

    NASA's ``Human Space Flight'' account provides for human 
space flight activities, and for safety, mission assurance and 
engineering activities supporting the Agency. The HSF 
activities are centered around the operation of the Space 
Shuttle as well as high priority investments to improve the 
safety of the Space Shuttle and required construction projects 
in direct support of the Shuttle program. This appropriation 
also provides for salaries and related expenses (including 
travel); design, repair, rehabilitation, and modification of 
facilities and construction of new facilities; maintenance and 
operation of facilities; and other operations activities 
supporting human space flight programs; and space operations, 
safety, mission assurance and engineering activities that 
support the Agency.
    The Human Exploration and Development of Space (HEDS) 
Enterprise seeks to expand the frontiers of space and knowledge 
by exploring, using and enabling the development of space. HEDS 
seeks ways to improve human possibilities both on Earth and in 
space, such as: how systems can be designed to make possible 
safe and efficient human exploration and commercial development 
of space; what resources the solar system may provide, where 
they are, and whether they are accessible for human use; how 
human productivity in and beyond Earth orbit can be assured.
    The Space Shuttle is a partially reusable space vehicle 
that provides several unique capabilities to the United States 
space program. These include retrieving payloads from orbit for 
reuse, servicing and repairing satellites in space, safely 
transporting humans to and from space, launching ISS 
components, providing an assembly platform in space and 
operating and returning space laboratories. In fiscal year 
2002, seven flights are planned including a dedicated 
microgravity research flight, a Hubble Telescope servicing 
mission (HST-3B) and five ISS assembly and servicing missions. 
The proposed budget also supports key Space Shuttle safety 
investments as part of the Integrated Space Transportation 
Plan.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee has provided $6,868,000,000 for the Human 
Space Flight account. This amount is $428,000,000 less than the 
President's request for these activities in fiscal year 2002 
and $1,417,118,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 level.
    Space Station.--The Committee is deeply troubled by the 
latest major cost overrun on the International Space Station 
program. The Committee appreciates the complexity of this 
program and is proud of the success to date in assembling the 
components in orbit. However, the Committee has lost confidence 
in the program's ability to responsibly manage the budget and 
avert the type of crisis that the program has created. In 
February 2001, the program reported a stunning $4,000,000,000 
overrun over 5 years. Then after NASA insisted that the 
$4,000,000,000 estimate was conservative and represented the 
high mark, the Committee learned in June 2001 that the overrun 
increased by another $800,000,000, bringing the total overrun 
to $4,800,000,000. This represents a stunning 114 percent 
overrun for the development and operations of the program, 
which is all the more amazing since the program reported less 
than a year ago no such overrun. Currently, even after 
proposing to eliminate hardware to support more than three crew 
members and cutting research equipment by $1,000,000,000, the 
program still reports it is $500,000,000 short in fiscal year 
2004 through fiscal year 2006.
    The Committee is deeply concerned that this mismanagement 
is not only a threat to the completion of Station, but 
represents a grave risk to other important programs within the 
agency. The Committee will not accept any proposal that seeks 
to fund Station cost growth through offsets taken from other 
NASA Enterprises. The Committee directs NASA to avoid such 
offsets and warns that any such attempts will seriously 
undermine continued Committee support for the Station program.
    Despite this fiscal mismanagement, the Committee is 
committed to completing a Space Station; one that is capable of 
supporting world-class research. The Committee supports the 
Administration's approach to reining in Station cost growth, 
reforming program management to avoid cost overruns in the 
future, and creating an independent panel to validate the 
budget estimates and management reforms.
    The Committee is taking the following steps to address this 
situation. First, in order to ensure the continued assembly and 
safe operation of the Station, the Committee provides 
$1,681,300,000 in fiscal year 2002 for Station development and 
operations. This funding level is below the President's request 
due to the transfer of Space Station research funds from the 
Human Space Flight account to the Science, Aeronautics and 
Technology account and a general reduction of $150,000,000 from 
the Space Station budget. Within the general reduction, 
$50,000,000 is redirected to the Space Shuttle for safety 
upgrades. The Committee takes this general reduction without 
prejudice in light of the construction delays and uncertainty 
over the Space Station's final design.
    Second, in order to better control Station costs for 
development and operations, the Committee establishes in bill 
language annual spending limits on Station development and 
operations that equals $6,678,400,000 in aggregate from fiscal 
year 2002 to fiscal year 2006. Moreover, any proposal to exceed 
these limits, or enhance Station design above the U.S. core 
complete, must be accompanied by a Presidential certification 
that states that the additional funds are a priority, cost 
estimates are well understood and independently validated, and 
it is affordable without any offsets to science and technology 
programs contained in other NASA Enterprises.
    Third, in order to ensure world-class research aboard 
Station, the Committee: (1) adds $50,000,000 to NASA's 
$283,600,000 request for Station research to increase funding 
for life and micro-gravity research; (2) transfers the 
$333,600,000 Station research budget, which includes the 
$50,000,000 increase for research, from the Human Space Flight 
appropriation account to the Science, Aeronautics, and 
Technology appropriation account; (3) places Station research 
under the management of the Office of Biological and Physical 
Research (OBPR); (4) directs OBPR to rebalance funding, as 
appropriate, between ground and flight activities while 
minimizing funds for lower priority supporting activities; (5) 
directs NASA to award during fiscal year 2002 one or more 
definition studies for a non-government organization to manage 
the Station research program; and (6) provides bill language 
that limits transfer authority into the Science, Aeronautics, 
and Technology (SAT) account; no funds may be transferred from 
the SAT account to the Human Space Flight account.
    Finally, in order to ensure adequate crew time for Station 
research, the Committee directs NASA to create a special task 
group, with members independent of the Space Station program 
and reporting directly to the NASA Administrator, that will 
develop and assess low cost options for enhancing crew time for 
Station research above the 20 hours per week projected for a 
three-person crew, particularly in the post-2005 time frame. No 
option should cost NASA more than $300,000,000 in aggregate 
from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2007. Options should 
include operational approaches that allow the three crew 
members to spend more time on research; extended Shuttle visits 
that allow the Shuttle crew of five to seven astronauts to 
spend more time aboard Station; and opportunities with the 
international partners, including possible purchases of Soyuz 
vehicles through common operations offsets and other means, 
that allow additional full time crew members above the three 
planned. In particular, extended Shuttle visits may allow 
additional habitation space for increased science research 
while providing crew return capability.
    The task group should also openly solicit ideas from U.S. 
industry on innovative approaches to increasing crew time for 
research, as well as to enhance research flight opportunities, 
either on Station or on other platforms. The results of this 
task group should be submitted to the Committee by February 
2002.
    Space Shuttle.--The Committee has increased funding for 
safety upgrades to the Space Shuttle by $50,000,000 over the 
budget request for fiscal year 2002. Furthermore, the operating 
plan should prioritize the specific allocation for these funds, 
including individual projects with cost caps per project. In 
addition, NASA should outline in a report by February 1, 2002 
how its upgrades program is integrated with the overall vision 
to switch to an alternative to the space shuttle later in the 
decade and a specific plan to show how the investment strategy 
in these upgrades does not diminish potential investment in a 
man-rated new launch vehicle.
    The Committee believes their is no higher priority than 
improving the safety and reliability of the Shuttle orbiters. 
The Shuttle remains the cornerstone of our Nation's heavy 
launch capability and is critical to the future of the Space 
Station and scientific research. Given the continued reliance 
on the Shuttle and the absence of an alternative vehicle, the 
Committee is concerned about the age of the Shuttle fleet and 
the potential impact on the budget out-years. While NASA has 
done a good job at improving safety, reliability and 
performance of the Shuttle, it will face increasing challenges 
as the Shuttle and the Shuttle infrastructure continue to age. 
The Committee notes that both the Shuttle and the supporting 
infrastructure will need substantial investments in future 
years in order to maintain the integrity of the Shuttle 
program. Therefore, the Committee urges NASA and the Office of 
Management and Budget to provide sufficient resources to 
upgrade Shuttle hardware and supporting infrastructure in 
fiscal year 2003 and beyond.
    Human Exploration and Development of Space.--The Committee 
reduces funding for the engineering and technical base of the 
human exploration and development of space by $20,000,000. 
Given the delays in implementing this initiative, the Committee 
makes this reduction without prejudice.
    The Committee strongly supports the mission and work of the 
National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI), which is 
leading the national effort to carry out the research required 
to assure safe, human exploration in space. The NSBRI sponsors 
and performs fundamental and applied space biomedical research 
that supports NASA's Human Exploration and Development of Space 
(HEDS) Strategic Plan.
    Space Operations.--The Committee has reduced the amount 
provided for space operations by $25,000,000 below the budget 
request, for a total fiscal year 2002 budget of $457,200,000 
and directs NASA to achieve these savings through the transfer 
of the former telecommunications and mission operations 
directorate (TMOD) work, including relevant engineering 
activities, to the consolidated space operations contract 
(CSOC) by not later than November 15, 2001. The Committee notes 
that CSOC has provided lower cost, high quality space 
operations services to multiple NASA users and believes that 
the TMOD transfer into CSOC will substantially help create a 
more robust and efficient space operations structure within 
NASA. The Committee also believes that there are significant 
savings beyond the level anticipated by this adjustment to the 
fiscal year 2002 budget, provided NASA cooperates fully in this 
transition to managing space operations.
    The Committee's directive is consistent with its past 
direction to NASA on space operations, first outlined in Senate 
Report 105-53 in which the Agency was directed to include 
``commonality of functions'' in the CSOC program. NASA exempted 
TMOD functions from CSOC despite their comparable relationship 
to other such functions in space and earth science as well as 
human space flight. NASA should submit to the Committee a 
transition plan for this transfer activity by October 15, 2001, 
including any proposed adjustments to exempt mission critical 
personnel from this transfer, capped at not more than 100 full-
time equivalents (FTEs).
    The Committee also directs NASA to submit by August 1, 2001 
a detailed accounting of all TMOD related funds, cross-walked 
by all relevant program and sub-program elements in the fiscal 
year 2002 NASA Budget Estimates, using as the baseline for such 
estimates the January 2000 TMOD Congressional study (page 
three) that identified between $174,000,000 and $190,000,000 in 
TMOD costs for fiscal year 2002. Only approximately 
$129,400,000 of those costs are carried currently under the 
space operations program element, inappropriately exempting 
almost one-third of TMOD's total costs from the consolidated 
resource schedule on space operations called for by Senate 
Report 105-216. Upon the submission of this detailed TMOD 
budget crosswalk, the Committee will entertain a redistribution 
of the proposed reduction among multiple program elements prior 
to Conference.

                  SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, and TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $6,177,080,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   7,191,700,000
Committee recommendation................................   7,669,700,000

                          Program Description

    NASA's ``Science, aeronautics and technology'' account 
provides funding for science, aeronautics and technology 
activities supporting the Agency. These activities include 
space science, biological and physical research, Earth science, 
aerospace technology and academic programs. This appropriation 
also provides for salaries and related expenses (including 
travel); design, repair, rehabilitation, and modification of 
facilities and construction of new facilities; maintenance and 
operation of facilities; and other operations activities 
supporting science, aeronautics, and technology programs.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $7,669,700,000 for the Science, 
Aeronautics and Technology account, an increase of $478,000,000 
above the President's request and $1,492,620 above the fiscal 
year 2001 enacted level.
    Space Science.--The activities of NASA's Space Science 
Enterprise seek to chart the evolution of the universe, from 
origins to destiny, and understand its galaxies, stars, 
planetary bodies, and life. The Enterprise asks basic questions 
that have eternally perplexed human beings, such as how the 
universe began and evolved and whether there is other 
intelligent life in the universe. The Space Science Enterprise 
develops space observatories and directs robotic spacecraft 
into the solar system and beyond to investigate the nature of 
the universe.
    The quest for this information, and the answers themselves, 
is intended to maintain scientific leadership, excite and 
inspire our society, strengthen education and scientific 
literacy, develop and transfer technologies to promote U.S. 
competitiveness, foster international cooperation to enhance 
programs and share their benefits, and set the stage for future 
space ventures.
    The Committee has made the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
      -$50,000,000 from Mars Surveyor (future Surveyor 
        projects), subject to a detailed plan on future Mars 
        missions beyond the proposed 2007 mission submitted to 
        the Committee by January 8, 2002.
      -$48,600,000 from focused research and technology for the 
        Europa Orbiter/X-2000 program addressed below in the 
        future outer planets program.
      +$43,600,000 for focused research and technology for a 
        consolidated future outer planets program in which all 
        missions, including the Europa Orbiter, are to be 
        competed through a full and open announcement of 
        opportunity for industry and academia. NASA should 
        proceed with the selection of Europa science 
        instruments as planned and should require that all 
        proposals for the Europa spacecraft accommodate the 
        proposed suite of instruments selected. No reduction 
        for instrument support to the selected science teams 
        should be made in fiscal year 2002.
      +$5,000,000 for focused research and technology for Sun-
        Earth connections (SEC) for the Solar Probe mission. 
        NASA should consolidate management for this mission 
        with its existing SEC/Living With a Star program in 
        lieu of the proposed termination. Selection of a Solar 
        Probe spacecraft should be competed through a full and 
        open announcement of opportunity for industry and 
        academia.
      +$20,000,000 for focused research and technology for Sun-
        Earth connections (SEC) for the Future Living With A 
        Star (LWS) program, restoring the program to the 
        funding profile in the 2001 budget. The Committee 
        believes that understanding solar variability and its 
        effect on earth and mankind is of paramount importance 
        as we strive to understand our galaxy. Increasing our 
        knowledge of the effects of solar variability and 
        disturbances on terrestrial climate change and being 
        able to provide advanced warning of energetic particle 
        events that affect the safety of humans and space 
        flight are also of particular importance. The proposed 
        funding restoration will allow LWS to proceed on the 
        original NASA plan of Sun-Earth connected System 
        Science whereby both the Solar Dynamics Observatory and 
        the Geospace Missions Network will proceed in a 
        coordinated manner to attain the program objectives.
      +$2,500,000 for the JASON Foundation.
      +$3,000,000 for a center on life in extreme thermal 
        environments at Montana State University.
      +$2,000,000 for space radiation research at the 
        University of Missouri-Columbia.
      +$1,000,000 for Virginia Commonwealth University for the 
        development of advanced material for batteries and fuel 
        cells.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of $92,100,000 
for advanced technology development related to the Next 
Generation Space Telescope (NGST) and expects NASA to 
vigorously pursue the development of the NGST and submit an 
out-year budget plan for soliciting development and management 
proposals with the goal of a launch in 2007.
      -$25,000,000 from solar system exploration research and 
        technology for funds requested for the ``quick sprint 
        to Pluto'' propulsion initiative.
      +$25,000,000 for the Pluto Kuiper Express (PKE) mission. 
        The Committee has deferred, without prejudice, the 
        inclusion of full funding for the PKE. It has however, 
        included $25,000,000 for it by eliminating the proposed 
        $25,000,000 for the ``quick sprint to Pluto'' 
        propulsion initiative contained in the core research 
        and technology line for solar system exploration. The 
        Committee directs NASA to remain on schedule with its 
        plan for source selection in September as the Committee 
        expects to address the issue of full funding for PKE in 
        Conference.
    Earth Science.--The activities of NASA's Earth Science 
Enterprise seek to understand the total Earth system and the 
effects of humans on the global environment. This pioneering 
program of studying global climate change is developing many of 
the capabilities that will be needed for long-term environment 
and climate monitoring and prediction. Governments around the 
world need information based on the strongest possible 
scientific understanding. The unique vantage-point of space 
provides information about the Earth's land, atmosphere, ice, 
oceans, and biota as a global system, which is available in no 
other way. In concert with the global research community, the 
Earth Science Enterprise is developing the understanding needed 
to support the complex environmental policy decisions that lie 
ahead.
    The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
      +$7,500,000 for EOS Follow-on projects for the 
        tropospheric (global) winds mission only, to be 
        acquired through a commercial data purchase only. The 
        Committee takes notable exception to NASA's refusal to 
        abide by Congressional directive in last year's 
        conference report directing the Agency to initiate an 
        RFP for such a data purchase. In fact, the Committee is 
        dismayed that NASA has allocated these funds apparently 
        for trade studies on the subject, ignoring the 
        compelling requirement to proceed with this mission. In 
        a report to Congress in 1998, NOAA stated, ``inadequate 
        wind data coverage over the oceans bordering the United 
        States has been a chronic problem that impacts accuracy 
        potential for improved 1-5 day forecasts''. Ironically, 
        NASA's own earth science enterprise strategy suggests 
        that a satellite that measures winds, and can 
        transition to an operational system for NOAA, is among 
        the highest priority in the Research Strategy. 
        Tropospheric Winds are the highest priority ``Required 
        Knowledge'' in the Prediction Objective, one of five 
        key science questions. Moreover, a stated Strategic 
        Priority is to ``collaborate with operational agencies 
        and commercial concerns to demonstrate remote sensing 
        capabilities that they want to incorporate in their 
        decision support systems''.
      +$31,100,000 for the EOSDIS program element, with 
        adjustments as follows:
        +$40,000,000 for the EOSDIS Core System only for a 
            total program level in 2002 of $138,200,000. Of 
            this additional $40,000,000, $27,500,000 shall be 
            for the Synergy program to develop additional end 
            uses for EOS data and to support on going efforts 
            to provide additional applications for this data 
            through new and existing infomarts. The additional 
            $12,500,000 shall be used for ECS to expand its 
            data processing and distribution capacity to meet 
            the needs of the diverse EOS user community, as 
            well as implement system adjustments to lower the 
            systems' future operations and maintenance 
            requirements.
      -$8,900,000 for the EOS Federation.
      -$15,000,000 from EOS algorithm development.
      +$2,000,000 for joint weather and ocean research at the 
        University of Massachusetts and University of Alaska.
      +$3,500,000 for the University of Montana for an 
        International Earth Observing System Natural Resource 
        Training Center.
      +$500,000 for the Morehead State University Space Science 
        Center for the reconstruction of the ADAS satellite 
        tracking system. These funds are not intended to 
        support faculty positions.
      +$1,500,000 for research at the Bio-MEMS Microtechnology 
        Center at the University of Louisville.
      +$2,000,000 for the University of Mississippi 
        Geoinformatics Center.
    In addition, the Committee expects NASA to develop a long-
term plans to partner with U.S. universities and industry in a 
variety of NASA-related science research, including research 
related to nanotechnology, information technology and remote 
sensing. These are all areas of investment that have a 
commercial application that will have an increasing impact on 
society, the economy, and quality of life. As previously 
discussed, the most obvious and immediate area of impact has 
been in the U.S. commercial remote sensing industry which is 
being carried out at the Stennis Space Center (SSC) as NASA's 
lead center for commercial remote sensing. The Committee 
strongly supports the partnership programs developed by the SSC 
that have included research programs with private companies, 
universities, States, units of local government as well as 
other government agencies.
    The Committee supports the efforts of NASA and SSC to 
expand this program to other university and private 
partnerships throughout the country, and consistent with the 
fiscal year 2001 Statement of Managers to the VA/HUD bill, to 
develop with universities, existing Applications Centers, and 
other cognizant Federal agencies, mechanisms through which 
current private and public remote sensing and related 
technologies will be made readily available to State and local 
government, public agencies and private organizations for 
applications in agriculture, flood mapping, environmental 
protection, urban planning, firefighting and other land-use 
issues. The Committee expects NASA, as a continuation of 
current efforts, to report no later than March 15, 2002 on an 
implementation plan for partnerships that cover every region of 
the Nation. In order to maximize this directive, the Committee 
includes the following adjustments to the budget--
      +$1,500,000 for George Mason University's Center for 
        Earth Observing and Space Research;
      +$3,000,000 for the University of South Mississippi for 
        research into remotely sensed data for coastal 
        management;
      +$2,000,000 for the National Space Science and Technology 
        Center to support the development of the Southeastern 
        Virtual Consortium for Extreme Event Research (SEVEER) 
        to conduct research on atmospheric natural hazards;
      +$1,000,000 for the Mid-America Geospatial Information 
        Center at the University of Texas for equipment 
        upgrades to use remote sensing data from NASA to assess 
        the impact of drought, invasive plant species, 
        hurricanes, wildfires, oil spills, toxic waste releases 
        and flash floods;
      +$1,500,000 for Idaho State University for the Temporal 
        landscape Change Research program; and
      +$500,000 for Utah State University to develop an 
        Intermountain Region Digital Image Archive and 
        Processing Center for Landscape Analysis, Planning and 
        Monitoring.
    Biological and Physical Research.--NASA's Biological and 
Physical Research (BPR) Enterprise recognizes the essential 
role biology will play in the 21st century and pursues the core 
of biological and physical sciences research needed to support 
NASA's strategic objectives. BPR fosters and enhances rigorous 
interdisciplinary research, closely linking fundamental 
biological and physical sciences in order to develop leading-
edge, world-class research programs. BPR uses the unique 
characteristics of the space environment to understand 
biological, physical, and chemical processes, conducting 
science and technology research required to enable humans to 
safely and effectively live and work in space, and transferring 
knowledge and technologies for Earth benefits. BPR also fosters 
commercial space research by the private sector toward new or 
improved products and/or services on Earth, in support of the 
commercial use of space.
    The Committee has transferred the Space Station research 
program to the Office of Biological and Physical research as 
requested by NASA and the Office of Management and Budget. In 
addition, the Committee has increased funding for Space Station 
research by $50,000,000 over the budget request for a total of 
$333,600,000 for Space Station research.
    In previous years, the Committee has expressed its intent 
that scientific research remain one of NASA's top priorities. 
However, delays in the construction of the Station and NASA 
reliance on the Shuttle for ISS construction have significantly 
reduced the opportunities for life and microgravity research. 
Therefore, the Committee directs NASA to include as part of its 
study of the ISS research program, opportunities for space-
based life and micro-gravity research earlier in the ISS 
program, including, but not limited to, flying research 
payloads on Shuttle missions to the ISS, using extended 
duration orbiters and building ISS research facilities.
    Aero-Space Technology.--NASA's Aerospace Technology 
Enterprise works to maintain U.S. preeminence in aerospace 
research and technology. The Enterprise aims to radically 
improve air travel, making it safer, faster, and quieter as 
well as more affordable, accessible, and environmentally sound. 
The Enterprise is also working to develop more affordable, 
reliable, and safe access to space; improve the way in which 
air and space vehicles are designed and built; and ensure new 
aerospace technologies are available to benefit the public.
    NASA's Aeronautics program pioneers the identification, 
development, verification, transfer, application and 
commercialization of high-payoff aeronautics technologies. 
Activities pursued as part of this Enterprise emphasize 
customer involvement, encompassing U.S. industry, the 
Department of Defense, and the Federal Aviation Administration. 
NASA is playing a leadership role as part of a Government-
industry partnership to develop breakthrough technology that 
will help the aviation community cut the fatal accident rate 5-
fold within 10 years and 10-fold within 20 years. NASA also 
supports the development of technologies to address airport 
crowding, aircraft engine emissions, aircraft noise, and other 
issues that could constrain future U.S. air system growth. The 
Committee has made the following adjustments to the budget 
request:
      +$10,000,000 for vehicle systems technology to initiate a 
        basic research program in supersonic transport 
        technology. The Agency is directed to make this effort 
        substantially different from the former high-speed 
        research program by focusing its objectives on 
        overcoming the barriers needed to achieve an 
        economically viable and environmentally friendly 
        supersonic transport. The Committee notes that DARPA is 
        phasing down its program in supersonic technology 
        research, it has outlined meaningful focused research 
        objectives on which NASA should build.
      +$15,000,000 for the advanced aircraft program, divided 
        equally between flight research and propulsion and 
        power research. The Committee expects NASA to submit a 
        report by April 15, 2002 on the value of this program 
        and in possible continued synergies for NASA to develop 
        dual use aeronautic research and technology activities.
      +$15,000,000 for NASA's rotorcraft program, including 
        full funding at the enacted level for the joint NASA-
        Army university centers component.
      +2,500,000 for the Hubble Telescope Project at the 
        Composite Technology Institute, Bridgeport, West 
        Virginia.
      +$15,000,000 for the ultra-efficient engine technology.
      +$20,000,000 for aviation safety.
      +$2,000,000 for a comprehensive study of NASA's 
        aeronautical test and evaluation facilities, including 
        wind tunnels, including a 10-year plan to revitalize 
        and potentially consolidate this infrastructure so as 
        to make U.S. facilities more competitive with state-of-
        the-art requirements. To the extent practical, NASA 
        should engage the relevant participants from the 
        Department of Defense and U.S. industry to make this 
        plan as comprehensive as possible. The results of this 
        plan should be submitted to the Committee by September 
        1, 2002.
      +$2,000,000 for advanced research in opto-electronics at 
        Montana State University.
      +$2,500,000 for an aerospace technology complex at the 
        Delaware Aerospace Education Foundation in Kent County, 
        Delaware.
      +$2,000,000 for the National Technology Transfer Center 
        at Wheeling Jesuit University.
      +$1,500,000 for the Tulane University Institute for 
        Macromolecular Engineering and Sciences, New Orleans, 
        Louisiana.
      +$6,500,000 for upgrades to the Stennis Space Center E-
        complex propulsion test facilities, of which $1,500,000 
        is for completion of the Test Operations Building for 
        the E-complex. The Committee expects any additional 
        upgrades to be included as part of the fiscal year 2003 
        budget request or a justification as to why these 
        capital needs should be deferred.
      +$3,500,000 for an addition to the main administration 
        building at the Stennis Space Center. Because many of 
        the needs at Stennis are the result of DOD staffing 
        demands, consideration for additional capital funds 
        should be from within the DOD budget.
      -$15,000,000 from the 2nd generation RLV program due to a 
        large unobligated balance of funds from prior year 
        appropriations and concern that the program's deadlines 
        for final selection of a candidate vehicle to replace 
        the space shuttle are slipping. The Committee believes 
        that this program's milestones and schedule needs to be 
        better coordinated and integrated with any planned 
        investments in the upgrade of the shuttle to maximize 
        the cost-effective return on investment to the 
        taxpayers in space transportation.
      +$1,700,000 for the Independent Verification and 
        Validation Facility (IV&V;), Fairmont, West Virginia.
    The Committee recognizes the Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) 
as a National Center for Commercial Launch Services and directs 
NASA to designate Wallops as a potential launch and recovery 
site for flight demonstration, testing and validation of space 
transportation technologies in the upcoming solicitation for 
Alternate Access to Space (AAS) and all future Space Launch 
Initiative (SLI) 2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle and AAS 
solicitations. NASA is directed to report to the Committees on 
Appropriations by March 1, 2002 on the feasibility of 
implementing a test launch capability at WFF for mission 
support and infrastructure required for these test flight 
demonstrations. Furthermore, the Committee provides an 
additional $10,000,000 from within the Science, Aeronautics and 
Technology accounts, for the Wallops Launch Range, for 
infrastructure improvements and technology upgrades to maintain 
range capabilities.
    Academic Programs.--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 $19,100,000,000 for the National 
Space Grant College and Fellowship Program. This funding is the 
same as the fiscal year 2001 level and the President's request 
for fiscal year 2002. This program is a valuable tool in 
developing educational partnerships in support of science, 
mathematics, technology, engineering and geography.
    The Committee recommendation has included $10,000,000 for 
the NASA EPSCoR Program, $5,400,000 above the budget request 
and the same as the fiscal year 2001 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 commends the California Science Center for 
its proposed Environmental Science Learning Center (ESLC). The 
ESLC, the only facility in the country combining a major 
science center, an adjacent science focused neighborhood 
elementary school, and teacher professional development center 
in one location, will provide a one of a kind national model 
for informal environmental science education which supports and 
complements the efforts of schools throughout the State.
    The Committee has provided $82,100,000 for NASA's minority 
university research and education activities. This amount is 
$26,225,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and the 
same as the President's budget request.
    The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
      +$5,000,000 for the planetarium for the Clay Center of 
        the Arts and Sciences in Charleston, West Virginia;
      +$2,000,000 for the Northern Great Plains Space Sciences 
        and Technology Center at the University of North 
        Dakota;
      +$1,500,000 for research on flight communications 
        technology at the University of Connecticut;
      +$1,000,000 for the Science Discovery Outreach Center at 
        the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, North 
        Carolina;
      +$1,000,000 for the Chabot Observatory and Science Center 
        in California;
      +$750,000 for the Des Moines Science Center, Des Moines, 
        Iowa;
      +$2,000,000 for non-destructive evaluation research at 
        Iowa State University;
      +$4,000,000 for infrastructure needs at Mauna Kea 
        Astronomy Education Center at the University of Hawaii 
        at Hilo;
      +$1,000,000 for the NASA/Bishop Museum partnership in 
        Honolulu, Hawaii;
      +$1,500,000 for the Wisconsin Initiative for Math, 
        Science, and Technology education at the University of 
        Wisconsin--Green Bay;
      +$1,000,000 for polymer research at Tulane University in 
        New Orleans, Louisiana;
      +$250,000 for St. Mary's County Public School Technology 
        Center, St. Mary's County, Maryland;
      +$1,000,000 for high definition telemedicine technology 
        development at Florida Atlantic University;
      +$3,000,000 for construction of a life sciences facility 
        at Brown University;
      +$2,000,000 for instrumentation and laboratory 
        development at Rowan University in New Jersey;
      +$2,000,000 for photonics research at the University of 
        Maryland, Baltimore County;
      +$5,000,000 for infrastructure improvements at the School 
        of Science and Mathematics at the College of Charleston 
        in South Carolina;
      +$3,000,000 for Purdue University for a nanotechnology 
        program;
      +$3,000,000 for the U.S. Space and Rocket Center for the 
        construction of a new educational training center;
      +$1,500,000 for the University of Missouri's Center for 
        Gender Physiology for infrastructure needs;
      +$1,500,000 for Muhlenberg College in Lehigh County, 
        Penn. to develop a national model for using NASA data 
        and technologies in the K-12 and higher education 
        classroom;
      +1,000,000 for the Texas Engineering Experiment center at 
        Texas A&M; University to support the Space Engineering 
        Institute;
      +$2,500,000 for the Center for Space Sciences at Texas 
        Tech University;
      +$2,000,000 for multi-user scientific equipment for the 
        Life Sciences Center at the University of Missouri-
        Columbia;
      +$3,000,000 for the Challenger Learning Center in Kenai, 
        Alaska for the final phase of construction of 
        dormitories for the use of visiting students. These are 
        the last funds to be made available to this center; and
      +$500,000 for the Southeast Missouri State University's 
        NASA Educator Resource Center.
      +$1,000,000 for a Challenger Learning Center in Ferguson/
        Florissant, Missouri.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $22,949,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      23,700,000
Committee recommendation................................      23,700,000

                          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 $23,700,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
the same as the President's budget request. The Committee 
commends the NASA IG's diligence in 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


                     (including transfer of funds)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Direct loan       Administrative     Revolving loan
                                                             limitation          expenses           program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001...................................     $1,500,000,000           $296,303         $1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002..................................      1,500,000,000            309,000          1,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................      1,500,000,000            309,000          1,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 
$309,000 in fiscal year 2002. The Committee recommends a 
limitation of $1,500,000,000 for the principal amount of new 
direct loans to member credit unions, and provides $1,000,000 
for loans and technical assistance to community development 
credit unions. These amounts are equal to the budget request 
and the fiscal year 2001 enacted levels.
    In the fiscal year 2001 VA, HUD appropriations legislation, 
the Committee lifted the cap on loans to member credit unions 
from $600,000,000 to $1,500,000,000 to meet potential liquidity 
demands under special situations. The Committee has again set 
the cap at this higher level even though it appears that 
liquidity demand remains low. Nevertheless, as part of the 
Committee's oversight functions, the Committee directs the 
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) to provide reports 
on the amount of lending activities under CLF. This information 
should be provided to the Committee on a monthly basis through 
September 2002.
    The Committee's recommendation also includes $650,000 for 
loans to community development credit unions and $350,000 for 
technical assistance to low-income and community development 
credit unions. The Committee is supportive of these activities 
but stress the importance of coordinating these activities with 
other similar Federal efforts by the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development and the Community Development Financial 
Institutions Fund. The Committee urges NCUA to work with these 
other Federal entities.

                      National Science Foundation

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $4,416,390,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   4,472,520,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,672,520,000

                          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 research 
and education programs that promote the progress of science and 
engineering in the United States. The Foundation supports 
research in all major scientific and engineering disciplines, 
through grants, contracts, and other forms of assistance 
awarded to more than 2,000 colleges and universities, nonprofit 
organizations, small businesses, and other organizations in all 
parts of the United States. The Foundation also supports 
international programs and unique, large scale, national user 
research facilities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $4,672,520,000 for the National 
Science Foundation for fiscal year 2002. This amount is 
$256,130,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and 
$200,000,000 above the budget request

                    RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2001....................................  $3,342,630,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................   3,326,981,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,514,481,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The research and related activities appropriation addresses 
the Foundation's three strategic outcomes: people--developing a 
diverse, internationally competitive and globally-engaged 
workforce of scientists, engineers, and well-prepared citizens; 
ideas--enabling discovery across the frontiers of science and 
engineering, connected to learning, innovation, and service to 
society; and tools--providing broadly accessible, state-of-the-
art information bases and shared research and education tools. 
Research activities will contribute to the achievement of these 
outcomes through expansion of the knowledge base; integration 
of research and education; stimulation of knowledge transfer 
among academia and the public and private sectors; and bring 
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 and related logistical support and the 
Science and Technology Policy Institute.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $3,514,481,000 for research and 
related activities. This amount is $171,851,000 more than the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $187,500,000 above the 
budget request. The Committee's recommendation makes the 
following changes to the budget request:
      +$75,000,000 for disciplinary research;
      +$25,000,000 for nanoscience and engineering research:
      +$25,000,000 for information technology research;
      +$10,000,000 for plant genome research;
      +$5,000,000 for mathematics
      +$25,000,000 for major research instrumentation;
      +$10,000,000 for regional innovation clusters;
      +$12,500,000 for increased energy and fuel costs for 
        polar activities, the academic fleet, the Ocean 
        Drilling Program, and other national NSF user 
        facilities facing significantly increased energy costs.
    The Committee applauds the Foundation's proposal for 
increasing the stipend levels for graduate students in its 
education programs. The Committee's support for this issue is 
reflected in the education and human resources account. 
However, the Committee notes the Foundation supports four times 
as many graduate students through its research and related 
activities appropriation than it does through its graduate 
programs in the education and human resources appropriation. 
The Committee urges the Foundation to also emphasize, through 
its research grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements, 
enhanced stipend levels for graduate students and post-doctoral 
students. The fiscal year 2002 operating plan should provide 
information detailing how the Foundation will achieve this 
objective.
    The Committee has provided an additional $25,000,000 to the 
request for nanoscience and engineering. Nanotechnology 
represents the next frontier in science and engineering with 
the possibility of revolutionizing nearly every aspect of 
society--from manufacturing to disease diagnosis and treatment 
to computing and communications. These funds will allow the 
Foundation to expand research at the molecular and atomic 
scales and develop new techniques to aid in the application of 
nanotechnology research results. The Committee is strongly 
supportive of the Foundation's efforts in this area and expects 
the Administration will continue to emphasize this initiative 
as part of its inter-agency R&D; planning process.
    In the area of information technology research, the 
Committee has provided an additional $25,000,000 to the 
request. This brings the information technology research 
program in this account to a level of $241,000,000, an increase 
of 12 percent instead of the Administration's proposal that 
would have essentially level funded this critical research 
initiative. These funds will support research on software, 
networking, scalability, and communications. In addition to 
these research funds, $55,000,000 is provided in the major 
research equipment account for terascale computing systems. 
This brings the Foundation's total information technology 
program to $296,000,000, an increase of $37,000,000 or 14 
percent over last year's level.
    The Committee expects the Foundation will continue to be 
guided in its management of the information technology research 
program by the recommendations of the President's Information 
Technology Advisory Committee. For example, the Committee 
expects NSF to provide an increased ratio of grants at higher 
funding levels and for longer duration than what it has 
typically funded. The Committee also applauds the Foundation's 
efforts under the Next Generation Internet program in providing 
high-speed networking access to remote and hard to reach areas 
and encourages NSF to continue these efforts. Finally, the 
Committee urges NSF to use its information technology funding 
to support the needs of other disciplines. For example, the 
plant genome research community has significant information 
technology needs in the bioinformatics area. The Committee 
urges the Foundation to allocate a portion of the information 
technology research funding for bioinformatics.
    The Committee's recommendation includes $75,000,000 for the 
plant genome initiative, an increase of $10,000,000 over the 
request. Over the last 3 years the plant genome program has 
generated massive amounts of data on major crop plants and 
model organisms. The Committee urges the Foundation to 
emphasize the use these datasets and resources to identify, 
isolate, and investigate genes associated with plant processes 
of economic importance, including nutritional quality, 
production of industrial chemicals, disease resistance, and 
tolerance to environmental stresses. The Committee also 
supports the recent recommendations of the Interagency Working 
Group on Plant Genomes that significant funding be invested in 
high-throughput sequencing of the gene-rich regions of 
economically important crops, such as corn, wheat, and barley. 
Recent advances in technology have made it feasible and cost-
effective to sequence the gene-rich regions of large, complex 
plant genomes. The Committee expects NSF to fund such an 
initiative that invests in high-throughput sequencing, 
including full-length cDNA sequencing, of economically 
important crops, such as corn, wheat, and barley. This 
initiative will help to ensure that fundamental genetic 
information is publicly accessible to all public and private 
plant breeders and geneticists.
    Mathematics is a vital tool in everything from climate 
research to computational software. For that reason, the 
Committee has provided a total of $25,000,000 for this 
initiative, $5,000,000 more than the budget request.
    The Committee has provided $75,000,000 for the major 
research instrumentation program. This is $25,000,000 more than 
the request and equal to the fiscal year 2001 funding level. 
The Committee continues to remain concerned about the ability 
of smaller institutions to adequately participate in the 
Foundation's programs. Of particular interest to the Committee 
is the infrastructure needs of non-Ph.D degree and minority 
institutions. The Committee directs the Foundation to use the 
additional $25,000,000 to specifically support the merit-based 
instrumentation needs of these smaller research institutions.
    According to the Council on Competitiveness, the ability to 
successfully compete is concentrated in regions where public 
and private institutions, resources, and public policies are 
strategically combined to produce high-value products, 
services, and jobs. These so-called regional innovation 
clusters consist of competing and cooperating companies, 
suppliers, institutions of higher education that focus on 
research, education, and training, and other organizations. 
Regions with strong innovation clusters not only have higher 
rates of innovation, but also higher productivity growth, new 
business formation, jobs, and wages. The Committee has provided 
$10,000,000 for a regional innovation cluster initiative to 
support the development and implementation of strategic 
regional innovation plans, local and regional leadership 
initiatives that mobilize and enhance innovation assets, 
university-based knowledge transfer and innovation initiatives, 
and identify best practices in regional innovation development 
and university knowledge and technology transfer activities.
    The Committee is aware that certain activities are under 
stress due to increased fuel and energy costs such as polar 
research and related logistical activities. Therefore the 
Committee has provided an additional $12,500,000 for polar 
activities, the academic fleet, the ocean drilling program, and 
other major national NSF user facilities to assist in dealing 
with these increased costs.
    The National Academy of Sciences Astronomy and Astrophysics 
Committee's Decadal Survey has recommended, as one of its most 
important priorities, the Telescope Systems Instrumentation 
Program. This effort is to provide cutting edge instrumentation 
and other infrastructure improvements to the Nation's astronomy 
observatories as well as provide access to non-federally funded 
telescopes for the general astronomy community. The Committee 
notes that the astronomy subactivity request included 
$9,000,000 for the ALMA radio telescope. Since the Committee 
has addressed support for ALMA in the major research equipment 
account, these resources should be redirected into the 
astronomical sciences program element with $4,000,000 to be 
used for the TSIP initiative and $5,000,000 to augment 
individual investigator support. The Committee has also 
provided the budget request for the additional operational 
enhancements for the Very Long Array (VLA) radio telescope in 
Socorro, New Mexico, and the Green Bank Observatory and Robert 
C. Byrd Radio Telescope in West Virginia. The Committee expects 
the Foundation will continue its support for both Green Bank 
and the VLA in future years. Finally, the Advanced Technology 
Solar Telescope (ATST) has been identified as the most 
important initiative in ground-based astronomy over the next 
decade in the Decadal Survey. It will play a major role in our 
understanding of stellar structure, plasma physics, and sun-
earth interactions and will complement many planned space 
missions. The NSF is urged to support preparatory work for the 
ATST, including a survey of adequate sites and development of 
adaptive optics technologies, at a sufficient level to enable 
this program to be undertaken by 2005.
    The Committee is aware that a unique opportunity may be 
available to acquire the Homestake Mine in Lead, South Dakota 
for a world-class underground laboratory for physics, geology, 
and extreme biology. The Committee has provided $10,000,000 in 
this appropriation explicitly for the work necessary to 
maintain the site's integrity, complete the review and 
determine the feasibility of this project. The Committee 
expects that this review will be completed expeditiously and 
that a decision regarding this proposal will be reflected in 
the fiscal year 2003 budget. The Committee also expects that 
any funding provided to preserve the integrity of the site will 
be subject to appropriate peer-review, and directs that such 
review take place expeditiously given the need to preserve the 
site and address workforce needs.
    The Committee is aware of several exciting ongoing NSF 
initiatives in the behavioral sciences. The Committee continues 
to believe that NSF must take specific steps to support young 
behavioral science investigators to ensure an adequate supply 
of high quality researchers in this discipline in the future. 
The Committee, therefore, reiterates its past support and 
encouragement for this area and expects NSF support for this 
area of science will gain strength in fiscal year 2003. The 
Committee also believes that research on how people think, 
learn, remember, work in groups, apply learned information in 
new ways and other related research holds a great deal of 
potential for enhancing educational practices and increasing 
student achievement. The Committee applauds the Foundation for 
its priority support for the science of learning and expects 
that it will continue.
    The congressional mandate for several important long-
standing NSF reports was eliminated in 1995. One of the reports 
is the National Science Board's ``Science and Engineering 
Indicators,'' which provides the Congress important information 
regarding the condition of the Nation's research and education 
enterprise. The Committee anticipates that authorizing 
legislation may restore the mandate for these reports and 
therefore urges the Foundation and the Board to continue to 
produce and provide them to the Congress consistent with 
previous legislative requirements.
    The Committee remains concerned about long-term planning 
and priority setting for NSF's major program initiatives. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs NSF to provide 5-year plans 
for its multi-disciplinary programs, such as information 
technology research and nanotechnology, which specifies the 
funding level and justification for each program. These 5-year 
plans should be included in the fiscal year 2003 budget 
justifications.
    The Committee is troubled by the recent findings by the 
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) on the 
Foundation's peer review system. In its February 2001 report, 
``A Study of the National Science Foundation's Criteria for 
Project Selection,'' NAPA found that NSF is unable to assess 
the criteria to encourage a broader range of institutions or 
greater participation of under-represented minority 
researchers. In other words, while NSF claims to be making 
efforts to assist smaller research institutions and minorities, 
in practice, this does not occur. NAPA recommended that NSF 
should institute broader-based review panels by bringing in 
participants from a wider range of institutions, disciplines, 
and under-represented minorities. The Committee urges NSF to 
immediately institute changes to its peer review process that 
reflect these recommendations.
    The Committee supports the continued funding of the 
International Arctic Research Center (IARC) under a recently 
approved 3 year, $15,000,000 cooperative agreement between NSF 
and the Center. The Committee recognizes the contributions of 
IARC, which has become one of the leading research institutions 
on global climate change in the arctic region. The Committee 
held a field hearing on May 29, 2001 in Fairbanks, Alaska on 
global climate change in the arctic region to highlight the 
importance of this issue. Witnesses from both the Federal 
Government and research community stressed the importance of 
increasing our knowledge and understanding of climate change 
impacts and potential consequences. The Committee acknowledges 
the importance of this research and urges the Foundation to 
work with other Federal agencies and increase its research 
support for the arctic region.
    The Committee commends the Foundation's Office of Polar 
Programs for its support on global climate change research in 
the arctic region. The Committee directs the Foundation to 
consult with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration to determine the feasibility of establishing the 
Barrow Arctic Research Center and submit a report to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations with its 
recommendations, including cost estimates, by April 1, 2002.

                        MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $121,330,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      96,332,000
Committee recommendation................................     108,832,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The major research equipment activity supports 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 technology and will offer significant 
expansion of opportunities, often in new directions, for the 
science and engineering community. Start-up commissioning, on-
going operations and maintenance costs of the facilities are 
provided through the research and related activities 
appropriation account.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $108,832,000 
for major research equipment. This amount is $12,498,000 less 
than the fiscal year 2001 appropriation and $12,500,000 above 
the budget request.
    The Committee has provided $16,900,000 for the Large Hadron 
Collider, $24,400,000 for the Network for Earthquake 
Engineering Simulation, $55,000,000 for Terascale Computing 
Systems, and $12,500,000 for initial construction of the 
Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) radio telescope.
    The Committee supports initiation of construction of the 
ALMA radio telescope and has provided the necessary resources 
to start construction. ALMA has conducted thorough design and 
development, established management systems for proper 
technical and organizational support, and entered into 
international cooperative agreements. ALMA is also listed as 
one of the highest priority projects in ground based astronomy. 
Nevertheless, due to problems raised by the Inspector General 
in a recent audit report on another large scale project, the 
Committee directs NSF to withhold the expenditure of the ALMA 
funds until it has been able to adequately assure the Committee 
that NSF has established management and financial controls so 
that capital construction expenditures are derived solely from 
the major research equipment appropriation account. The 
Committee directs the Foundation to include details of its 
management and financial controls at the earliest opportunity 
but no later than the fiscal year 2002 operating plan 
submission.
    The Committee directs NSF to continue to provide multi-year 
budgets and milestones in the Justification of Estimates for 
all projects funded or proposed to be funded through the major 
research equipment account. Additionally, the Committee directs 
the Foundation to also include within the Justification of 
Estimates for the major research equipment account information 
on potential new starts that are undergoing planning and 
development. Displayed in priority order, the information on 
these potential projects should include multi-year budget 
estimates, the status of the project's development, a time line 
for its consideration by the NSF including National Science 
Board review and approval, the rationale for its priority 
ranking, and other relevant information such as contingency 
funding needs, if necessary. The Committee appreciates that 
scientific opportunities and technological modifications may 
become available unexpectedly that could lead to changes in 
project readiness and priority within this account. By 
including the requested information in each year's annual 
budget, the Foundation will keep the Committee more adequately 
informed of such developments.
    The Committee encourages the Foundation to move forward 
with the South Pole Station Antarctic Muon and Neutrino 
Detector (AMANDA) project to its next phase, called IceCube. 
The Committee is advised the National Science Board has 
recently approved this project. AMANDA's technological approach 
has proven successful at detecting high-energy atmospheric 
neutrinos. Continued development is expected to lead to a new 
era in astronomy in which scientists will have unique 
opportunities to analyze some of the most distant and 
significant events in the formation and evolution of the 
universe.

                     EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $785,620,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     872,407,000
Committee recommendation................................     872,407,000

                          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 systemic reform, new 
instructional material and techniques, and enrichment 
activities for teachers and students. Undergraduate initiatives 
support course, curriculum and laboratory improvement; 
scholarships and other undergraduate student assistance; and 
advanced technological education at 2-year colleges. Graduate 
level support is directed primarily to research and teaching 
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. In addition to this appropriation, the 
Foundation provides additional support for math and science 
education activities through the receipt and expenditure of H-
1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Fees provided through Public Law 
105-277, as amended.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $872,407,000 
for education and human resources. This amount is $86,787,000 
more than the fiscal year 2001 level and equal to the request.
    The Committee is supportive of the new Math and Science 
Partnerships program, but only to the extent it actually builds 
on and includes the local, urban and rural systemic reform, and 
teacher and student development programs currently being 
supported by NSF. The Committee recommends a total of 
$190,000,000 for this program; $130,000,000 is provided in this 
appropriation and the remainder is to be derived from the H-1B 
Nonimmigrant Petitioner Receipts the agency receives for 
Private-Public Partnerships in K-12 education. The Committee 
directs the Foundation to submit a report with the fiscal year 
2002 operating plan that outlines how the educational systemic 
reform and elementary and secondary education efforts will be 
supported within this new program. The report should also 
include a management plan that reflects advice from the 
education directorate's advisory committee and policy direction 
from the National Science Board.
    In last year's report the Committee expressed its deep 
disappointment that the Administration had attempted to 
terminate the Office of Innovation Partnerships. The Committee 
reversed that proposal and funded the OIP at $10,000,000. 
Regrettably, once again the Administration has proposed the 
termination of this innovative program which is designed to 
enhance technology transfer activities as well as assist the 
needs of smaller research institutions. The Committee is 
adamant that the Foundation should support this effort and has 
provided $15,000,000 for reinstatement and growth of this 
program. In addition, the Committee is providing $85,000,000 
for the EPSCoR program in this account. This is $10,000,000 
above the request. An additional $25,000,000 in co-funding for 
EPSCoR is provided through the research and related activities 
account bringing the total amount available for NSF EPSCoR 
activities to a level of $110,000,000. The Committee encourages 
NSF to consider an application from Rhode Island to qualify for 
the EPSCoR program.
    The Committee remains troubled by the declining supply of 
scientists and engineers being produced in this country. 
Industry is becoming more dependent on foreign workers to fill 
their workforce needs due to declining interest among students 
to enter science and engineering. To assist in addressing this 
problem, within the undergraduate education subactivity, 
$20,000,000 is added specifically for a new undergraduate 
workforce initiative. The Committee expects NSF to use these 
additional funds to establish a new merit-based, competitive 
grants program for colleges and universities for increasing the 
number of undergraduate degree recipients in science and 
engineering. The types of projects NSF should support include 
undergraduate traineeships; targeted mentoring relationships 
for students for under-represented groups; internships offered 
in partnership with industry; and innovative uses of digital 
technologies particularly at institutions serving economically 
disadvantaged students. NSF should submit a report outlining 
how it will proceed with this new program as part of the its 
fiscal year 2002 operating plan.
    Continuing with the workforce theme, the Committee concurs 
with the priority the Foundation has attached to increasing 
financial support for graduate students. Increasing stipends 
within the NSF graduate education programs is one strategy to 
attract more U.S. citizens to graduate education in science and 
engineering. Currently, the average stipend level for graduate 
education in science and engineering is less than half the 
average wage for bachelor's degree recipients. This wide 
disparity may be a significant factor in declining graduate 
school enrollments for science and engineering. A recent survey 
found that 57 percent of baccalaureate recipients did not apply 
to science and engineering graduate programs for financial 
reasons. This is particularly true for under-represented 
minorities. Therefore, the Committee has increased the graduate 
education subactivity request by $15,000,000. These additional 
funds are to be used to increase the stipends for graduate 
students by nearly 20 percent to a level of $21,500.
    The Committee is not in accord with the Foundation's 
proposal to freeze funding for women, minorities, and other 
under-represented groups in science and engineering. Therefore, 
the Committee recommends an increase of $10,000,000 for the 
human resource development subactivity, of which $8,000,000 is 
to establish an initiative that will stimulate the competitive 
research capacity of historically black colleges and 
universities that provide doctoral degrees in science and 
engineering; and $2,000,000 is to augment the ongoing 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities-Undergraduate 
Program (HBCU-UP) to $16,000,000. An additional $4,000,000 from 
the research and related activities appropriations account is 
also to be available for the HBCU-UP program. The Committee is 
aware the current program solicitation restricts eligibility to 
certain institutions. The Committee strongly believes the HBCU-
UP program should be open to all HBCU's that offer degrees in 
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology.
    The Committee strongly supports the Foundation's Tribal 
Colleges program. The Committee understands that in the fiscal 
year 2001 competition, the Foundation included Alaskan Native 
serving institutions and Native Hawaiian serving institutions 
as eligible entities to receive funds from this program. The 
Committee appreciates the Foundation's assistance in helping 
these entities and expects it to continue this policy.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2001....................................    $160,540,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................     170,040,000
Committee recommendation................................     170,040,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The salaries and expenses appropriation provides funds for 
staff salaries, benefits, travel, training, rent, advisory and 
assistance services, communications and utilities expenses, 
supplies, equipment, and other operating expenses necessary for 
management of the agency's research and education activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $170,040,000 
for salaries and expenses. This is equal to the request and 
represents an increase of $9,500,000 above the fiscal year 2001 
level. The increase will cover costs for statutory pay raises, 
space rental increases, and oversight travel associated with 
program management.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2001....................................      $6,270,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................       6,760,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,760,000

                          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 $6,760,000 for 
the Office of Inspector General. This amount is $490,000 over 
the fiscal year 2001 level and equal to the budget request. In 
light of the efforts to expand the Foundation over the next 5 
years, the Committee requests the Office of Inspector General 
to analyze the adequacy of the agency's staffing and management 
plans. A preliminary report is to be provided to the Committee 
in March 2002 and a final report in July 2002.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $89,802,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      95,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     100,000,000

                          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 215 NeighborWorks organizations 
serve over 1,600 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 $100,000,000 for the Neighborhood 
Reinvestment Corporation, $5,000,000 above the budget request 
and $10,198,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The 
Committee has also included a set-aside of $10,000,000 as 
requested by the administration for its section 8 homeownership 
program.
    The Committee is very supportive of the efforts of the 
Corporation and the NeighborWorks organization in 
providing homeownership counseling 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.
    The Committee is also concerned about the shortage of 
available, affordable rental housing across the nation. The 
Corporation has been successfully producing mixed-income 
affordable rental housing through the use of ``mutual housing'' 
models. Accordingly, the Committee has provided $5,000,000 
above the budget request to the Corporation to expand its 
mutual housing program. The Committee directs the Corporation 
to include details on how many additional affordable, rental 
housing units have been created through its mutual housing 
program in its fiscal year 2003 budget justifications. The 
Corporation should also include information on the number of 
families served that have incomes below 30 percent of the area 
median income. There is a substantial shortage of available, 
affordable housing for these extremely low-income families 
throughout the Nation, and the Committee urges the Corporation 
to continue its efforts to meet the housing needs of these 
families. The Committee also directs the Corporation to 
increase its efforts in smaller metropolitan areas and rural 
areas where very serious housing problems exist.

                        Selective Service System


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2001....................................     $24,426,144
Budget estimate, 2002...................................      25,003,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,003,000

                          Program Description

    The Selective Service System [SSS] was reestablished by the 
Selective Service Act of 1948. The basic mission of the System 
is to be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces 
adequate to ensure the security of the United States during a 
time of national emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have 
relied on volunteers to fill military manpower requirements. 
However, the Selective Service System remains the primary 
vehicle by which men will be brought into the military if 
Congress and the President should authorize a return to the 
draft.
    In December 1987, Selective Service was tasked by law 
(Public Law 100-180, sec. 715) to develop plans for a 
postmobilization health care personnel delivery system capable 
of providing the necessary critically skilled health care 
personnel to the Armed Forces in time of emergency. An 
automated system capable of handling mass registration and 
inductions is now complete, together with necessary draft 
legislation, a draft Presidential proclamation, prototype forms 
and letters, et cetera. These products will be available should 
the need arise. The development of supplemental standby 
products, such as a compliance system for health care 
personnel, continues using very limited existing resources.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,003,000 
for the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as 
the budget request for fiscal year 2002 and an increase of 
$576,856 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommends inclusion of 27 general provisions 
previously enacted in the 2001 appropriations act. They are 
largely standard limitations which have been carried in the VA, 
HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill in the past.

  COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 7 of Rule XVI requires that Committee reports on 
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment 
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.''

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

    Housing certificate fund: $15,658,769.
    Fair housing activities: $45,899,000.
    HOME Investment Partnerships Program: $1,796,040,000.
    Homeless assistance grants: $1,022,745,000.
    Community development block grants: $5,012,993,000.
    Rural housing and economic development: $25,000,000.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

    Community Development Financial Institutions Fund: 
$100,000,000.

                   CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

    Salaries and expenses: $56,200,000.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Environmental programs and management: $2,061,996,000.
    Science and technology: $665,672,000.
    State and tribal assistance grants: $2,572,234,000.
    Superfund: $1,274,646,000.

                  FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

    Salaries and expenses: $203,801,000.
    Emergency management planning and assistance: $259,623,000.
    Emergency food and shelter: $139,692,000.

                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

    Federal Consumer Information Center: $7,276,000.

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, en bloc, an original fiscal year 2002 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
related agencies appropriations bill, S. 1215, and an original 
fiscal year 2002 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing 
and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies appropriations 
bill, S. 1216, each subject to amendment and each subject to 
its budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29-0, a quorum 
being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Mrs. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine

 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.''

                        NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                     TITLE II--MORGAGE INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


      Sec. 203. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (c)(1) The Secretary is authorized to fix premium charge 
for the insurance of mortgages under the separate sections of 
this title but in the case of any mortgage such charge shall be 
not less than an amount equivalent to one-fourth of 1 per 
centum per annum nor more than an amount equivalent to 1 per 
centum per annum of the amount of the principal obligation of 
the mortgage outstanding at any time, without taking into 
account delinquent payments or prepayments: Provided, That 
premium charges fixed for insurance (1) under section 245, 247, 
251, 252, or 253, or any other financing mechanism providing 
alternative methods for repayment of a mortgage that is 
determined by the Secretary to involve additional risk, or (2) 
under subsections (n) [and (k)] are not required to be the same 
as the premium charges for mortgages insured under the other 
provisions of this section, but in no case shall premium 
charges under subsection (n) [or (k)] exceed 1 per centum per 
annum: Provided, That any reduced premium charge so fixed and 
computed may, in the discretion of the Secretary, also be made 
applicable in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe to 
each insured mortgage outstanding under the section or sections 
involved at the time the reduced premium charge is fixed. Such 
premium charges shall be payable by the mortgagee, either in 
cash, or in debentures issued by the Secretary under this title 
at par plus accrued interest, in such manner as may be 
prescribed by the Secretary: Provided, That debentures 
presented in payment of premium charges shall represent 
obligations of the particular insurance fund or account to 
which such premium charges are to be credited: Provided 
further, That the Secretary may require the payment of one or 
more such premium charges at the time the mortgage is insured, 
at such discount rate as he may prescribe not in excess of the 
interest rate specified in the mortgage. If the Secretary finds 
upon the presentation of a mortgage for insurance and the 
tender of the initial premium charge or charges so required 
that the mortgage complies with the provisions of this section, 
such mortgage may be accepted for insurance by endorsement or 
otherwise as the Secretary may prescribe; but no mortgage shall 
be accepted for insurance under this section unless the 
Secretary finds that the project with respect to which the 
mortgage is executed is economically sound. In the event that 
the principal obligation of any mortgage accepted for insurance 
under this title is paid in full prior to the maturity date, 
the Secretary is further authorized in his discretion to 
require the payment by the mortgagee of an adjusted premium 
charge in such amount as the Secretary determines to be 
equitable, but not in excess of the aggregate amount of the 
premium charges that the mortgagee would otherwise have been 
required to pay if the mortgage had continued to be insured 
until such maturity date; and in the event that the principal 
obligation is paid in full as herein set forth, the Secretary 
is authorized to refund to the mortgagee for the account of the 
mortgagor all, or such portion as he shall determine to be 
equitable, of the current unearned premium charges theretofore 
paid: Provided, That with respect to mortgages (1) for which 
the Secretary requires, at the time the mortgage is insured, 
the payment of a single premium charge to cover the total 
premium obligation for the insurance of the mortgage, and (2) 
on which the principal obligation is paid before the number of 
years on which the premium with respect to a particular 
mortgage was based, or the property is sold subject to the 
mortgage or is sold and the mortgage is assumed prior to such 
time, the Secretary shall provide for refunds, where 
appropriate, of a portion of the premium paid and shall provide 
for appropriate allocation of the premium cost among the 
mortgagors over the term of the mortgage, in accordance with 
procedures established by the Secretary which take into account 
sound financial and actuarial considerations.
      (2) 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), and each mortgage that is 
insured under subsection (k) or section 234(c), shall be 
subject to the following requirements:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        rental housing insurance

      Sec. 207. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (c) To be eligible for insurance under this section a 
mortgage on any property or project shall involve a principal 
obligation in an amount--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) not to exceed, for such part of the property or 
        projects as may be attributable to dwelling use 
        (excluding exterior and land improvements as defined by 
        the Secretary), [$30,420] $38,025 per family unit 
        without bedroom, [$33,696] $42,120 per family unit with 
        one bedroom, [$40,248] $50,310 per family unit with two 
        bedrooms, [$49,608] $62,010 per family unit with three 
        bedrooms, and [$56,160] $70,200 per family unit with 
        four or more bedrooms, or not to exceed [$9,000] 
        $11,000 per space; except that as to projects to 
        consist of elevator-type structures the Secretary may, 
        in his discretion, increase the dollar amount 
        limitations per family unit to not to exceed [$35,100] 
        $43,875 per family unit without a bedroom, [$39,312] 
        $49,140 per family unit with one bedroom, [$48,204] 
        $60,255 per family unit with two bedrooms, [$60,372] 
        $75,465 per family unit with three bedrooms, and 
        [$68,262] $85,328 per family unit with four or more 
        bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate for the 
        higher costs incident to the construction of elevator 
        type structures of sound standards of construction and 
        design; and except that the Secretary may, by 
        regulation, increase any of the foregoing dollar amount 
        limitations contained in this paragraph by not to 
        exceed 110 percent in any geographical area where the 
        Secretary finds that cost levels so require and not to 
        exceed 140 percent where the Secretary determines it 
        necessary on a project-by-project basis, but in no case 
        may any such increase exceed 90 percent where the 
        Secretary determines that a mortgage purchased or to be 
        purchased by the Government National Mortgage 
        Association in implementing its special assistance 
        functions under section 305 of this Act (as such 
        section existed immediately before November 30, 1983) 
        is involved.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


     rehabilitation and neighborhood conservation housing insurance

    Sec. 220. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (B) * * *
                    (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (iii) not to exceed, for such part of the property 
        or project as may be attributable to dwelling use 
        (excluding exterior land improvements as defined by the 
        Secretary), [$30,420] $38,025 per family unit without a 
        bedroom, [$33,696] $42,120 per family unit with one 
        bedroom, [$40,248] $50,310 per family unit with two 
        bedrooms, [$49,608] $62,010 per family unit with three 
        bedrooms, and [$56,160] $70,200 per family unit with 
        four or more bedrooms, except that as to projects to 
        consist of elevator-type structures the Secretary may, 
        in his discretion, increase the dollar amount 
        limitations per family unit not to exceed [$35,100] 
        $43,875 per family unit without a bedroom, [$39,312] 
        $49,140 per family unit with one bedroom, [$48,204] 
        $60,255 per family unit with two bedrooms, [$60,372] 
        $75,465 per family unit with three bedrooms, and 
        [$68,262] $85,328 per family unit with four or more 
        bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate for the 
        higher costs incident to the construction of elevator-
        type structures of sound standards of construction and 
        design; and except that with respect to rehabilitation 
        projects involving not more than five family units, the 
        Secretary may by regulation increase by 25 per centum 
        any of the foregoing dollar amount limitations 
        contained in this clause which are applicable to units 
        with two, three, or four or more bedrooms: Provided, 
        That the Secretary may, by regulation, increase any of 
        the foregoing dollar amount limitations contained in 
        this clause (as determined after the application of the 
        preceding proviso) by not to exceed 110 percent in any 
        geographical area where the Secretary finds that cost 
        levels so require and by not to exceed 140 percent 
        where the Secretary determines it necessary on a 
        project-by-project basis, but in no case may any such 
        increase exceed 90 percent where the Secretary 
        determines that a mortgage purchased or to be purchased 
        by the Government National Mortgage Association in 
        implementing its special assistance functions under 
        section 305 of this Act (as such section existed 
        immediately before November 30, 1983) is involved): 
        Provided further, That nothing contained in this 
        subparagraph shall preclude the insurance of mortgages 
        covering existing multifamily dwellings to be 
        rehabilitated or reconstructed for the purposes set 
        forth in subsection (a) of this section: And provided 
        further, That the Secretary may further increase any of 
        the dollar amount limitations which would otherwise 
        apply for the purpose of this clause by not to exceed 
        20 per centum if such increase is necessary to account 
        for the increased cost of the project due to the 
        installation therein of a solar energy system (as 
        defined in subparagraph (3) of the last paragraph of 
        section 2(a) of this Act) or residential energy 
        conservation measures (as defined in section 210(11)(A) 
        through (G) and (I) of Public Law 95-619) in cases 
        where the Secretary determines that such measures are 
        in addition to those required under the minimum 
        property standards and will be cost-effective over the 
        life of the measure; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      Sec. 221. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (d) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (i) * * *
                    (ii) not exceed, for such part of the 
                property or project as may be attributable to 
                dwelling use (excluding exterior land 
                improvements as defined by the Secretary), 
                [$33,638] $42,048 per family unit without a 
                bedroom, [$38,785] $48,481 per family unit with 
                one bedroom, [$46,775] $58,469 per family unit 
                with two bedrooms, [$59,872] $74,840 per family 
                unit with three bedrooms, and [$66,700] $83,375 
                per family unit with four or more bedrooms; 
                except that as to projects to consist of 
                elevator-type structures the Secretary may, in 
                his discretion, increase the dollar amount 
                limitations per family unit to not to exceed 
                [$35,400] $44,250 per family unit without a 
                bedroom, [$40,579] $50,724 per family unit with 
                one bedroom, [$49,344] $61,680 per family unit 
                with two bedrooms, [$63,834] $79,793 per family 
                unit with three bedrooms, and [$70,070] $87,588 
                per family unit with four or more bedrooms, as 
                the case may be, to compensate for the higher 
                costs incident to the construction of elevator-
                type structures of sound standards of 
                construction and design; and except that the 
                Secretary may, by regulation, increase any of 
                the foregoing dollar amount limitations 
                contained in this clause and by not to exceed 
                110 percent in any geographical area where the 
                Secretary finds that cost levels so require and 
                by not to exceed 140 percent where the 
                Secretary determines it necessary on a project-
                by-project basis, but in no case may any such 
                increase exceed 90 percent where the Secretary 
                determines that a mortgage purchased or to be 
                purchased by the Government National Mortgage 
                Association in implementing its special 
                assistance functions under section 305 of this 
                Act (as such section existed immediately before 
                November 30, 1983) is involved; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (4) * * *
                    (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (ii) not exceed, or such part of the 
                property or project as may be attributable to 
                dwelling use (excluding exterior land 
                improvements as defined by the Secretary), 
                [$30,274] $37,843 per family unit without a 
                bedroom, [$34,363] $42,954 per family unit with 
                one bedroom, [$41,536] $51,920 per family unit 
                with two bedrooms, [$52,135] $65,169 per family 
                unit with three bedrooms, and [$59,077] $73,846 
                per family unit with four or more bedrooms; 
                except that as to projects to consist of 
                elevator-type structures the Secretary may, in 
                his discretion, increase the dollar amount 
                limitations per family unit to not to exceed 
                [$32,701] $40,876 per family unit without a 
                bedroom, [$37,487] $46,859 per family unit with 
                one bedroom, [$45,583] $56,979 per family unit 
                with two bedrooms, [$58,968] $73,710 per family 
                unit with three bedrooms, and [$64,730] $80,913 
                per family unit with four or more bedrooms, as 
                the case may be, to compensate for the higher 
                costs incident to the construction of elevator-
                type structures of sound standards of 
                construction and design; and except that the 
                Secretary may, by regulation, increase any of 
                the foregoing dollar amount limitations 
                contained in this clause by not to exceed 110 
                percent in any geographical area where the 
                Secretary finds that cost levels so require and 
                by not to exceed 140 percent where the 
                Secretary determines it necessary on a project-
                by-project basis, but in no case may any such 
                increase exceed 90 percent where the Secretary 
                determines that a mortgage purchased or to be 
                purchased by the Government National Mortgage 
                Association in implementing its special 
                assistance functions under section 305 of this 
                Act (as such section existed immediately before 
                November 30, 1983) is involved;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      Sec. 231. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (c) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (2) not to exceed, for such part of the property or 
        project as may be attributable to dwelling use 
        (excluding exterior land improvement as defined by the 
        Secretary), [$28,782] $35,978 per family unit without a 
        bedroom, [$32,176] $40,220 per family unit with one 
        bedroom, [$38,423] $48,029 per family unit with two 
        bedrooms, [$46,238] $57,798 per family unit with three 
        bedrooms, and [$54,360] $67,950 per family unit with 
        four or more bedrooms; except that as to projects to 
        consist of elevator-type structures the Secretary may, 
        in his discretion, increase the dollar amount 
        limitations per family unit to not to exceed [$32,701] 
        $40,876 per family unit without a bedroom, [$37,487] 
        $46,859 per family unit with one bedroom, [$45,583] 
        $56,979 per family unit with two bedrooms, [$58,968] 
        $73,710 per family unit with three bedrooms, and 
        [$64,730] $80,913 per family unit with four or more 
        bedrooms, as the case may be, to compensate for the 
        higher costs incident to the construction of elevator-
        type structures of sound standards of construction and 
        design; and except that the Secretary may, by 
        regulation, increase any of the foregoing dollar amount 
        limitations contained in this paragraph by not to 
        exceed 110 percent in any geographical area where the 
        Secretary finds that cost levels so require and by not 
        to exceed 140 percent where the Secretary determines it 
        necessary on a project-by-project basis, but in no case 
        may any such increase exceed 90 percent where the 
        Secretary determines that a mortgage purchased or to be 
        purchased by the Government National Mortgage 
        Association in implementing its special assistance 
        functions under section 305 of this Act (as such 
        section existed immediately before November 30, 1983) 
        is involved: Provided, That the Secretary may further 
        increase the dollar amount limitations which would 
        otherwise apply for the purpose of this section by not 
        to exceed 20 per centum if such increase is necessary 
        to account for the increased cost of the project due to 
        the installation therein of a solar energy system (as 
        defined in subparagraph (3) of the last paragraph of 
        section 2(a) of this Act) or residential energy 
        conservation measures (as defined in section 210(11) 
        (A) through (G) and (I) of Public Law 95-619) in cases 
        where the Secretary determines that such measures are 
        in addition to those required under the minimum 
        property standards and will be cost-effective over the 
        life of the measure;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


mortgage insurance for nursing homes, intermediate care facilities, and 
                          board and care homes

      Sec. 232. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            [(4)(A) With respect to nursing homes and 
        intermediate care facilities and combined nursing home 
        and intermediate care facilities, the Secretary shall 
        not insure any mortgage under this section unless he 
        has received, from the State agency designated in 
        accordance with section 604(a)(1) or section 1521 of 
        the Public Health Service Act for the State in which is 
        located the nursing home or intermediate care facility 
        or combined nursing home and intermediate care facility 
        covered by the mortgage, a certification that (i) there 
        is a need for such home or facility or combined home 
        and facility, and (ii) there are in force in such State 
        or in the municipality or other political subdivision 
        of the State in which the proposed home or facility or 
        combined home and facility is to be located reasonable 
        minimum standards of licensure and methods of operation 
        governing it. No such mortgage shall be insured under 
        this section unless the Secretary has received such 
        assurance as he may deem satisfactory from the State 
        agency that such standards will be applied and enforced 
        with respect to any home or facility or combined home 
        and facility located in the State for which mortgage 
        insurance is provided under this section. If no such 
        State agency exists, or if the State agency exists but 
        is not empowered to provide a certification that there 
        is a need for the home or facility or combined home and 
        facility as required in clause (i) of the first 
        sentence, the Secretary shall not insure any mortgage 
        under this section unless (i) the State in which the 
        home or facility or combined home and facility is 
        located has conducted or commissioned and paid for the 
        preparation of an independent study of market need and 
        feasibility that (I) is prepared in accordance with the 
        principles established by the American Institute of 
        Certified Public Accountants; (II) assesses, on a 
        marketwide basis, the impact of the proposed home or 
        facility or combined home and facility on, and its 
        relationship to, other health care facilities and 
        services, the percentage of excess beds, demographic 
        projections, alternative health care delivery systems, 
        and the reimbursement structure of the home, facility, 
        or combined home and facility; (III) is addressed to 
        and is acceptable to the Secretary in form and 
        substance; and (IV) in the event the State does not 
        prepare the study, is prepared by a financial 
        consultant who is selected by the State or the 
        applicant for mortgage insurance and is approved by the 
        Secretary; and (ii) the State complies with the other 
        provisions of this subparagraph that would otherwise be 
        required to be met by a State agency designated in 
        accordance with section 604(a)(1) or section 1521 of 
        the Public Health Service Act. The proposed mortgagor 
        may reimburse the State for the cost of the independent 
        feasibility study required in the preceding sentence. 
        In the case of a small intermediate care facility for 
        the mentally retarded or developmentally disabled, or a 
        board and care home housing less than 10 individuals, 
        the State program agency or agencies responsible for 
        licensing, certifying, financing, or monitoring the 
        facility or home may, in lieu of the requirements of 
        clause (i) of the third sentence, provide the Secretary 
        with written support identifying the need for the 
        facility or home.]
                    (A)(i) The Secretary, in conjunction with 
                the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
                shall require satisfactory evidence that a 
                nursing home, intermediate care facility, or 
                combined nursing home and intermediate care 
                facility will be located in a State or 
                political subdivision of a State with 
                reasonable minimum standards of licensure and 
                methods of operation for such homes, 
                facilities, or combined homes and facilities. 
                The Secretary shall also require satisfactory 
                assurance that such standards will be applied 
                and enforced with respect to the home, 
                facility, or combined home or facility.
                    (ii) The Secretary shall establish the 
                means for determining need and feasibility for 
                the home, facility, or combined home and 
                facility. If the State has an official 
                procedure for determining need for such homes, 
                facilities, or combined homes and facilities, 
                the Secretary shall also require that such 
                procedure be followed before the application 
                for insurance is submitted, and the application 
                shall document that need has also been 
                established under that procedure.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      Sec. 234. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) not to exceed, for such part of the project as 
        may be attributable to dwelling use (excluding exterior 
        land improvements as defined by the Secretary), 
        [$30,420]  $38,025 per family unit without a bedroom, 
        [$33,696] $42,120 per family unit with one bedroom, 
        [$40,248] $50,310 per family unit with two bedrooms, 
        [$49,608] $62,010 per family unit with three bedrooms, 
        and [$56,160] $70,200 per family unit with four or more 
        bedrooms; except that as to projects to consist of 
        elevator-type structures the Secretary may, in his 
        discretion, increase the dollar amount limitations per 
        family unit to not to exceed [$35,100] $43,875 per 
        family unit without a bedroom, [$39,312] $49,140 per 
        family unit with one bedroom, [$48,204] $60,255 per 
        family unit with two bedrooms, [$60,372] $75,465 per 
        family unit with three bedrooms, and [$68,262] $85,328 
        per family unit with four or more bedrooms, as the case 
        may be, to compensate for higher costs incident to the 
        construction of elevator-type structures of sound 
        standards of construction and design; except that each 
        of the foregoing dollar amounts is increased to the 
        amount established for a comparable unit in section 
        221(d)(3)(ii); and except that the Secretary may, by 
        regulation, increase any of the foregoing dollar amount 
        limitations contained in this paragraph and by not to 
        exceed 110 percent in any geographical area where the 
        Secretary finds that cost levels so require and by not 
        to exceed 140 percent where the Secretary determines it 
        necessary on a project-by-project basis, but in no case 
        may any such increase exceed 90 percent where the 
        Secretary determines that a mortgage purchased or to be 
        purchased by the Government National Mortgage 
        Association in implementing its special assistance 
        functions under section 305 of this Act (as such 
        section existed immediately before November 30, 1983) 
        is involved; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    mortgage insurance for hospitals

      Sec. 242. [12 U.S.C. 1715z-7] (a) The purpose

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (d) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      [(4) The Secretary shall not insure any mortgage under 
this section unless he has received, from the State agency 
designated in accordance with section 604(a)(1) or section 1521 
of the Public Health Service Act for the State in which is 
located the hospital covered by the mortgage, a certification 
that (A) there is a need for such hospital, and (B) there are 
in force in such State or the political subdivision of the 
State in which the proposed hospital would be located 
reasonable minimum standards of licensure and methods of 
operation for hospitals. No such mortgage shall be insured 
under this section unless the Secretary has received such 
assurance as he may deem satisfactory from the State agency 
that such standards will be applied and enforced with respect 
to any hospital located in the State for which mortgage 
insurance is provided under this section. If no such State 
agency exists, or if the State agency exists but is not 
empowered to provide a certification that there is a need for 
the hospital as set forth in clause (A) of the first sentence, 
the Secretary shall not insure any mortgage under this section 
unless (A) the State in which the hospital is located has 
conducted or commissioned and paid for the preparation of an 
independent study of market need and feasibility that (i) is 
prepared in accordance with the principles established by the 
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants; (ii) 
assesses, on a marketwide basis, the impact of the proposed 
hospital on, and its relationship to, other health care 
facilities and services, the percentage of excess beds, 
demographic projections, alternative health care delivery 
systems, and the reimbursement structure of the hospital; (iii) 
is addressed to and is acceptable to the Secretary in form and 
substance; and (iv) in the event the State does not prepare the 
study, is prepared by a financial consultant selected by the 
State and approved by the Secretary; and (B) the State complies 
with the other provisions of this paragraph that would 
otherwise be required to be met by a State agency designated in 
accordance with section 604(a)(1) or section 1521 of the Public 
Health Service Act. The proposed mortgagor may reimburse the 
State for the cost of the independent feasibility study 
required in the preceding sentence.]
            (4)(A) The Secretary, in conjunction with the 
        Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall require 
        satisfactory evidence that the hospital will be located 
        in a State or political subdivision of a State with 
        reasonable minimum standards of licensure and methods 
        of operation for hospitals and satisfactory assurance 
        that such standards will be applied and enforced with 
        respect to the hospital.
            (B) The Secretary shall establish the means for 
        determining need and feasibility for the hospital. If 
        the State has an official procedure for determining 
        need for hospitals, the Secretary shall also require 
        that such procedure be followed before the application 
        for insurance is submitted, and the application shall 
        document that need has also been established under that 
        procedure.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


       RENTAL AND COOPERATIVE HOUSING FOR LOWER INCOME FAMILIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 236.

    (g)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3) The authority under paragraph (2) to retain and use 
excess charges shall apply--

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (A) during fiscal year [2000 and 2001]fiscal years 
        2000, 2001, and 2002, to all project owners 
        collecting such excess charges; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                adjustable rate single family mortgages

      Sec. 251. (a) * * *
      (b) The Secretary shall [issue regulations requiring that 
the mortgagee make available to the mortgagor, at the time of 
loan application, a written explanation of the features of the 
adjustable rate mortgage, including a hypothetical payment 
schedule that displays the maximum potential increases in 
monthly payments to the mortgagor over the first 5 years of the 
mortgage term.] require that the mortgagee make available to 
the mortgagor, at the time of loan application, a written 
explanation of the features of an adjustable rate mortgage 
consistent with the disclosure requirements applicable to 
variable rate mortgages secured by a principal dwelling under 
the Truth in Lending Act.
      (c) The aggregate number of mortgages and loans insured 
under this section in any fiscal year may not exceed 30 percent 
of the aggregate number of mortgages and loans insured by the 
Secretary under this title during the preceding fiscal year.
    (d)(1) The Secretary may insure under this subsection a 
mortgage that meets the requirements of subsection (a), except 
that the effective rate of interest--
            (A) shall be fixed for a period of not less than 
        the first 3 years of the mortgage term;
            (B) shall be adjusted by the mortgagee initially 
        upon the expiration of such period and annually 
        thereafter; and
            C) in the case of the initial interest rate 
        adjustment, is subject to the one percent limitation 
        only if the interest rate remained fixed for five or 
        fewer years.
    (2) The disclosure required under subsection (b) shall be 
required for a mortgage insured under this subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       TITLE V--MISCILLANEOUS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



direction to the secretary to require mortgagees with above normal 
  rates of early, serious defaults and claims to submit reports and 
  take corrective action

    [Sec. 533. (a) To reduce losses in connection with mortgage 
insurance programs under this Act, the Secretary shall review, 
at least once a year, the rate of early serious defaults and 
claims involving mortgagees approved under this Act. On the 
basis of this review, the Secretary shall notify each mortgagee 
which, as determined by the Secretary, had a rate of early 
serious defaults and claims during the preceding year which was 
higher than the normal rate for the geographic area or areas in 
which that mortgagee does business. In the notification, the 
Secretary shall require each mortgagee to submit a report, 
within a time determined by the Secretary, containing the 
mortgagee's (1) explanation for the above normal rate of early 
serious defaults and claims; (2) plan for corrective action, if 
applicable, both with regard to (A) mortgages in default; and 
(B) its mortgage-processing system in general; and (3) a 
timeframe within which this corrective action will be begun and 
completed. If the Secretary does not agree with this timeframe 
or plan, a mutually agreeable timeframe and plan will be 
determined.
    [(b) Failure of the mortgagee to submit a report required 
under subsection (a) within the time determined by the 
Secretary or to commence or complete the plan for corrective 
action within the timeframe agreed upon by the Secretary may be 
cause for suspension of the mortgagee from participation in 
programs under this Act.]
    Sec. 533. Review of Mortgagee Performance and Authority to 
Terminate.--
    (a) Periodic Review of Mortgagee Performance.--To reduce 
losses in connection with single family mortgage insurance 
programs under this Act, at least once a year the Secretary 
shall review the rate of early defaults and claims for insured 
single family mortgages originated or underwritten by each 
mortgagee.
    (b) Comparison With Other Mortgagees.--For each mortgagee, 
the Secretary shall compare the rate of early defaults and 
claims for insured single family mortgage loans originated or 
underwritten by the mortgagee in an area with the rate of early 
defaults and claims for other mortgagees originating or 
underwriting insured single family mortgage loans in the area. 
For purposes of this section, the term ``area'' means each 
geographic area in which the mortgagee is authorized by the 
Secretary to originate insured single family mortgages.
    (c) Termination of Mortgagee Origination Approval.--(1) 
Notwithstanding section 202(c) of this Act, the Secretary may 
terminate the approval of a mortgagee to originate or 
underwrite single family mortgages if the Secretary determines 
that the mortgage loans originated or underwritten by the 
mortgagee present an unacceptable risk to the insurance funds. 
The determination shall be based on the comparison required 
under subsection (b) and shall be made in accordance with 
regulations of the Secretary. The Secretary may rely on 
existing regulations published before this section takes 
effect.
    (2) The Secretary shall give a mortgagee at least 60 days 
prior written notice of any termination under this subsection. 
The termination shall take effect at the end of the notice 
period, unless the Secretary withdraws the termination notice 
or extends the notice period. If requested in writing by the 
mortgagee within 30 days of the date of the notice, the 
mortgagee shall be entitled to an informal conference with the 
official authorized to issue termination notices on behalf of 
the Secretary (or a designee of that official). At the informal 
conference, the mortgagee may present for consideration 
specific factors that it believes were beyond its control and 
that caused the excessive default and claim rate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                      TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                      CHAPTER 13--NATIONAL HOUSING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                   SUBCHAPTER II--MORTGAGE INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    Sec. 1715e. Cooperative housing insurance
    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (2) not to exceed, for such part of the property or 
        project as may be attributable to dwelling use 
        (excluding exterior land improvements as defined by the 
        Secretary), [$30,420] $38,025 per family unit without a 
        bedroom, [$33,696] $42,120 per family unit with one 
        bedroom, [$40,248] $50,310 per family unit with two 
        bedrooms, [$49,608] $62,010 per family unit with three 
        bedrooms, and [$56,160] $70,200 per family unit with 
        four or more bedrooms, and not to exceed 98 per centum 
        of the amount which the Secretary estimates will be the 
        replacement cost of the property or project when the 
        proposed physical improvements are completed: Provided, 
        That as to projects to consist of elevator-type 
        structures the Secretary may, in his discretion, 
        increase the dollar amount limitations per family unit 
        to not to exceed [$35,100] $43,875 per family unit 
        without a bedroom, [$39,312] $49,140 per family unit 
        with one bedroom, [$48,204] $60,255 per family unit 
        with two bedrooms, [$60,372] $75,465 per family unit 
        with three bedrooms, and [$68,262] $85,328 per family 
        unit with four or more bedrooms, as the case may be, to 
        compensate for the higher costs incident to the 
        construction of elevator-type structures of sound 
        standards of construction and design:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1968

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                homeownership for lower income families

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


      Sec. 106. (a)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (c) Grants for Homeownership Counseling Organizations.--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            [(9) Termination.--The provisions of this 
        subsection shall not be effective after September 30, 
        2000.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
   INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000, PUBLIC LAW 106-74

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



             Office of Federal Housing Enterprize Oversight

    Sec. 201 * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            hopwa technical

    Sec. 225. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the amount allocated for fiscal year 2000, and the amounts that 
would otherwise be allocated for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal 
year 2002, to the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf 
of the Philadelphia, PA-NJ Primary Metropolitan Area (hereafter 
``metropolitan area''), under section 854(c) of the AIDS 
Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)),

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                            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 2002: Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and
 Independent Agencies:
    General purpose, defense................................          138          138           NA           NA
    General purpose, non-defense............................       83,915       83,915           NA           NA
    General purposes, total.................................       84,053       84,053       88,791   \1\ 88,431
    Mandatory...............................................       26,898       27,304       26,662       26,143
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2002....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........   \2\ 64,803
    2003....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........       25,836
    2004....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        8,904
    2005....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        4,466
    2006 and future years...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        4,730
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2002           NA       31,665           NA        5,896
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2002
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                             compared with (+ or -)
                                Item                                       2001       Budget estimate     Committee    ---------------------------------
                                                                      appropriation                     recommendation        2001
                                                                                                                         appropriation   Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              TITLE I                                ...............

                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                  Veterans Benefits Administration

Compensation and pensions..........................................      22,766,276       24,944,288       24,944,288       +2,178,012   ...............
Readjustment benefits..............................................       1,634,000        2,135,000        2,135,000         +501,000   ...............
Veterans insurance and indemnities.................................          19,850           26,200           26,200           +6,350   ...............
Veterans housing benefit program fund program account (indefinite).         165,740          203,278          203,278          +37,538   ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................            (300)            (300)            (300)  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................         161,644          164,497          164,497           +2,853   ...............
    Administrative savings from prohibiting new Vendee Home Loans..  ...............          -1,000   ...............  ...............          +1,000
Education loan fund program account................................               1                1                1   ...............  ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................              (3)              (3)              (3)  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................             220               64               64             -156   ...............
Vocational rehabilitation loans program account....................              52               72               72              +20   ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................          (2,726)          (3,301)          (3,301)           (+575)  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................             431              274              274             -157   ...............
Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account...............             531              544              544              +13   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Veterans Benefits Administration......................      24,748,745       27,473,218       27,474,218       +2,725,473           +1,000

                   Veterans Health Administration

Medical care.......................................................      19,338,948       20,304,742       20,704,742       +1,365,794         +400,000
    Delayed equipment obligation...................................         898,020          675,000          675,000         -223,020   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................................      20,236,968       20,979,742       21,379,742       +1,142,774         +400,000

    (Transfer to general operating expenses).......................        (-28,134)  ...............  ...............        (+28,134)  ...............
    (Transfer to Parking revolving fund)...........................         (-2,000)  ...............  ...............         (+2,000)  ...............

Medical care cost recovery collections:
    Offsetting receipts............................................        -637,594         -691,000         -691,000          -53,406   ...............
    Appropriations (indefinite)....................................         637,594          691,000          691,000          +53,406   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total available..............................................     (20,874,562)     (21,670,742)     (22,070,742)     (+1,196,180)       (+400,000)

Medical and prosthetic research....................................         350,228          360,237          390,000          +39,772          +29,763
Medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses........          61,864           67,628           67,628           +5,764   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Veterans Health Administration........................      20,649,060       21,407,607       21,837,370       +1,188,310         +429,763

                    Departmental Administration

General operating expenses.........................................       1,047,690        1,194,831        1,194,831         +147,141   ...............
    Offsetting receipts............................................         (36,520)  ...............  ...............        (-36,520)  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Program Level.........................................      (1,084,210)      (1,194,831)      (1,194,831)       (+110,621)  ...............

    (Transfer from medical care)...................................         (28,134)  ...............  ...............        (-28,134)  ...............
    (Transfer from national cemetery)..............................            (125)  ...............  ...............           (-125)  ...............
    (Transfer from inspector general)..............................             (28)  ...............  ...............            (-28)  ...............

National Cemetery Administration...................................         109,647          121,169          121,169          +11,522   ...............
    (Transfer to general operating expenses).......................           (-125)  ...............  ...............           (+125)  ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................          46,362           48,308           48,308           +1,946   ...............
    (Transfer to general operating expenses).......................            (-28)  ...............  ...............            (+28)  ...............
Construction, major projects.......................................          65,895          183,180          155,180          +89,285          -28,000
Construction, minor projects.......................................         161,644          178,900          178,900          +17,256   ...............
    Miscellaneous appropriations (Public Law 106-554)..............           8,821   ...............  ...............          -8,821   ...............
    (Transfer to Parking Revolving Fund)...........................         (-4,500)  ...............  ...............         (+4,500)  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................................         170,465          178,900          178,900           +8,435   ...............

Grants for construction of State extended care facilities..........          99,780           50,000          100,000             +220          +50,000
Grants for the construction of State veterans cemeteries...........          24,945           25,000           25,000              +55   ...............
    (Transfer to Parking Revolving Fund)...........................          (6,500)  ...............  ...............         (-6,500)  ...............
Parking Revolving Fund.............................................  ...............           4,000            4,000           +4,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental Administration...........................       1,564,784        1,805,388        1,827,388         +262,604          +22,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title I, Department of Veterans Affairs...............      46,962,589       50,686,213       51,138,976       +4,176,387         +452,763

          (Limitation on direct loans).............................          (3,029)          (3,604)          (3,604)           (+575)  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
          Consisting of:
              Mandatory............................................     (24,585,866)     (27,308,766)     (27,308,766)     (+2,722,900)  ...............

              Discretionary........................................     (22,376,723)     (23,377,447)     (23,830,210)     (+1,453,487)       (+452,763)

                              TITLE II

            DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                     Public and Indian Housing

Housing Certificate Fund...........................................       9,719,477       15,717,392       11,458,769       +1,739,292       -4,258,623
    Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2002........................       4,190,760   ...............  ...............      -4,190,760   ...............
    Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2003........................  ...............  ...............       4,200,000       +4,200,000       +4,200,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total funding................................................      13,910,237       15,717,392       15,658,769       +1,748,532          -58,623

Rescission of unobligated balances: Section 8 recaptures                 -1,828,967   ...............        -615,000       +1,213,967         -615,000
 (rescission)......................................................
Public housing capital fund........................................       2,993,400        2,293,400        2,943,400          -50,000         +650,000
Public housing operating fund......................................       3,234,868        3,384,868        3,384,868         +150,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................       6,228,268        5,678,268        6,328,268         +100,000         +650,000

Drug elimination grants for low-income housing.....................         309,318   ...............         300,000           -9,318         +300,000
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing (HOPE VI).....         573,735          573,735          573,735   ...............  ...............
Native American housing block grants...............................         648,570          648,570          648,570   ...............  ...............
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account.................           5,987            5,987            5,987   ...............  ...............
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................         (71,956)        (234,283)        (234,283)       (+162,327)  ...............
Native Hawaiian housing loan guarantee fund........................  ...............  ...............           1,000           +1,000           +1,000
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................  ...............  ...............         (40,000)        (+40,000)        (+40,000)
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, Public and Indian Housing.............................      19,847,148       22,623,952       22,901,329       +3,054,181         +277,377

                 Community Planning and Development

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS........................         257,432          277,432          277,432          +20,000   ...............
Rural housing and economic development.............................          24,945   ...............          25,000              +55          +25,000
Empowerment zones/enterprise communities...........................          74,835          150,000           75,000             +165          -75,000
    Rural empowerment zones........................................          14,967   ...............  ...............         -14,967   ...............
    Miscellaneous appropriations (Public Law 106-554)..............         109,758   ...............  ...............        -109,758   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................................         199,560          150,000           75,000         -124,560          -75,000

Community development block grants.................................       5,046,423        4,801,993        5,012,993          -33,430         +211,000
    Miscellaneous appropriations (Public Law 106-554)..............          65,983   ...............  ...............         -65,983   ...............
Section 108 loan guarantees:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................      (1,261,000)        (608,696)        (608,696)       (-652,304)  ...............
    Credit subsidy.................................................          28,936           14,000           14,000          -14,936   ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................             998            1,000            1,000               +2   ...............
Brownfields redevelopment..........................................          24,945           25,000           25,000              +55   ...............
HOME investment partnerships program...............................       1,796,040        1,796,040        1,796,040   ...............  ...............
Homeless assistance grants.........................................       1,022,745        1,022,745        1,022,745   ...............  ...............
Shelter Plus Care..................................................          99,780           99,780           99,780   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Community planning and development....................       8,567,787        8,187,990        8,348,990         -218,797         +161,000

                          Housing Programs

Housing for special populations....................................         993,809        1,001,009        1,001,009           +7,200   ...............
    Housing for the elderly........................................        (779,000)        (783,286)        (783,286)         (+4,286)  ...............
    Housing for the disabled.......................................        (217,000)        (217,723)        (217,723)           (+723)  ...............

                   Federal Housing Administration

FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance program account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................    (160,000,000)    (160,000,000)    (160,000,000)  ...............  ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................        (250,000)        (250,000)        (250,000)  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................         330,160          336,700          336,700           +6,540   ...............
    Negative subsidy \1\...........................................      -2,241,059       -2,323,000       -2,323,000          -81,941   ...............
    Administrative contract expenses...............................         159,648          160,000          160,000             +352   ...............
    Additional contract expenses...................................           3,991            1,000            1,000           -2,991   ...............
    Streamlined downpayment requirements...........................           6,985   ...............  ...............          -6,985   ...............
FHA--General and special risk program account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................     (21,000,000)     (21,000,000)     (21,000,000)  ...............  ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................         (50,000)         (50,000)         (50,000)  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................         210,990          216,100          216,100           +5,110   ...............
    Negative subsidy...............................................         -99,780         -225,000         -225,000         -125,220   ...............
    Subsidy........................................................         100,778           15,000           15,000          -85,778   ...............
    Guaranteed loans credit subsidy (emergency funding) (Public Law          39,912   ...............  ...............         -39,912   ...............
     106-554)......................................................
    Non-overhead administrative expenses...........................         143,683          144,000          144,000             +317   ...............
    Additional contract expenses...................................           6,985            4,000            4,000           -2,985   ...............
    Manufactured housing fees trust fund...........................  ...............          17,254           17,254          +17,254   ...............
        Offsetting collections.....................................  ...............         -17,254          -17,254          -17,254   ...............
    Savings from cancelling S. 1029................................  ...............  ...............          -8,000           -8,000           -8,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Housing Administration........................      -1,337,707       -1,671,200       -1,679,200         -341,493           -8,000

              Government National Mortgage Association

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program
 account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................    (200,000,000)    (200,000,000)    (200,000,000)  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................           9,362            9,383            9,383              +21   ...............
    Offsetting receipts............................................        -346,237         -382,000         -382,000          -35,763   ...............

                  Policy Development and Research

Research and technology............................................          53,382           43,404           53,404              +22          +10,000

                 Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Fair housing activities............................................          45,899           45,899           45,899   ...............  ...............

          Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes

Lead hazard reduction..............................................          99,780          109,758          109,758           +9,978   ...............

                    Millenial Housing Commission

Gifts and donations................................................  ...............           1,500   ...............  ...............          -1,500

                   Management and Administration

Salaries and expenses..............................................         542,072          556,067          556,032          +13,960              -35
    Transfer from:
        Limitation on FHA corporate funds..........................        (518,000)        (530,457)        (530,457)        (+12,457)  ...............
        GNMA.......................................................          (9,383)          (9,383)          (9,383)  ...............  ...............
        Community Planning and Development.........................          (1,000)          (1,000)          (1,000)  ...............  ...............
        Title VI...................................................            (150)            (150)            (150)  ...............  ...............
        Indian Housing.............................................            (200)            (200)            (200)  ...............  ...............
        Native Hawaiian Housing....................................  ...............  ...............             (35)            (+35)            (+35)
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Salaries and expenses.............................      (1,070,805)      (1,097,257)      (1,097,257)        (+26,452)  ...............

Office of Inspector General........................................          52,541           61,555           66,555          +14,014           +5,000
    (By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds)...............         (22,343)         (22,343)         (22,343)  ...............  ...............
    (By transfer from Drug Elimination Grants).....................         (10,000)  ...............  ...............        (-10,000)  ...............
    (By transfer from Public Housing Oper Subsidy).................  ...............         (10,000)  ...............  ...............        (-10,000)
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of Inspector General...........................         (84,884)         (93,898)         (88,898)         (+4,014)         (-5,000)

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.....................          21,952           27,000           27,000           +5,048   ...............
    Offsetting receipts............................................         -21,952          -27,000          -27,000           -5,048   ...............
Consolidated fee fund (rescission).................................  ...............          -6,700           -6,700           -6,700   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Development       28,527,836       30,580,617       31,024,459       +2,496,623         +443,842
       (net).......................................................

              Appropriations.......................................     (26,166,043)     (30,587,317)     (27,446,159)     (+1,280,116)     (-3,141,158)
              Rescissions..........................................     (-1,828,967)         (-6,700)       (-621,700)     (+1,207,267)       (-615,000)
          Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................      (4,190,760)  ...............  ...............     (-4,190,760)  ...............
          Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2003..................  ...............  ...............      (4,200,000)     (+4,200,000)     (+4,200,000)

          (Limitation on direct loans).............................        (300,000)        (300,000)        (300,000)  ...............  ...............
          (Limitation on guaranteed loans).........................    (382,332,956)    (381,842,979)    (381,882,979)       (-449,977)        (+40,000)
          (Limitation on corporate funds)..........................        (551,076)        (563,533)        (563,568)        (+12,492)            (+35)
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                             TITLE III                               ...............

                        INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                American Battle Monuments Commission

Salaries and expenses..............................................          27,938           28,466           28,466             +528   ...............

           Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

Salaries and expenses..............................................           7,483            7,621            7,621             +138   ...............

                     Department of the Treasury

            Community Development Financial Institutions

Community development financial institutions fund program account..         117,740           67,948          100,000          -17,740          +32,052

                 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Salaries and expenses..............................................          52,384           54,200           56,200           +3,816           +2,000

           Corporation for National and Community Service

National and community service programs operating expenses.........         457,491          411,480          415,480          -42,011           +4,000
    Rescission.....................................................         -29,933   ...............  ...............         +29,933   ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................           4,989            5,000            5,000              +11   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................................         432,547          416,480          420,480          -12,067           +4,000

                Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Salaries and expenses..............................................          12,418           13,221           13,221             +803   ...............

                    Department of Defense--Civil

                     Cemeterial Expenses, Army

Salaries and expenses..............................................          17,910           18,437           18,437             +527   ...............

              Department of Health and Human Services

                    National Institute of Health

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences................          62,861           70,228           70,228           +7,367   ...............

             Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry...................          74,835           78,235           78,235           +3,400   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Department of Health and Human Services...............         137,696          148,463          148,463          +10,767   ...............

                  Environmental Protection Agency

Science and Technology.............................................         694,469          640,538          665,672          -28,797          +25,134
    Miscellaneous appropriations (Public Law 106-554)..............             998   ...............  ...............            -998   ...............
    Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund....................          36,420           36,891           36,891             +471   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science and Technology.............................         731,887          677,429          702,563          -29,324          +25,134

Environmental Programs and Management..............................       2,083,396        1,972,960        2,061,996          -21,400          +89,036

Office of Inspector General........................................          34,019           34,019           34,019   ...............  ...............
    Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund....................          11,475           11,867           11,867             +392   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, OIG................................................          45,494           45,886           45,886             +392   ...............

Buildings and facilities...........................................          23,878           25,318           25,318           +1,440   ...............

Hazardous Substance Superfund......................................       1,167,426        1,268,135        1,274,646         +107,220           +6,511
    Delay of obligation............................................          99,780   ...............  ...............         -99,780   ...............
    Transfer to Office of Inspector General........................         -11,475          -11,867          -11,867             -392   ...............
    Transfer to Science and Technology.............................         -36,420          -36,891          -36,891             -471   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Hazardous Substance Superfund......................       1,219,311        1,219,377        1,225,888           +6,577           +6,511

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program...........................          71,937           71,937           71,947              +10              +10

Oil spill response.................................................          14,967           14,967           14,986              +19              +19

State and Tribal Assistance Grants.................................       2,614,974        2,232,943        2,572,234          -42,740         +339,291
    Categorical grants.............................................       1,005,782        1,055,782        1,030,782          +25,000          -25,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, STAG...............................................       3,620,756        3,288,725        3,603,016          -17,740         +314,291
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, EPA...................................................       7,811,626        7,316,599        7,751,600          -60,026         +435,001

                 Executive Office of the President

Office of Science and Technology Policy............................           5,190            5,267            5,267              +77   ...............
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental                  2,894            2,974            2,974              +80   ...............
 Quality...........................................................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................................           8,084            8,241            8,241             +157   ...............

               Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Office of Inspector General (transfer).............................         (33,660)         (33,660)         (33,660)  ...............  ...............

                Federal Emergency Management Agency

Disaster relief....................................................         299,340        1,369,399          359,399          +60,059       -1,010,000
    (Transfer out).................................................         (-2,900)         (-2,900)         (-2,900)  ...............  ...............
    Contingent emergency appropriations............................       1,297,140   ...............       2,000,000         +702,860       +2,000,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................       1,596,480        1,369,399        2,359,399         +762,919         +990,000

Radiological emergency preparedness fund...........................  ...............          -1,000           -1,000           -1,000   ...............
Disaster assistance direct loan program account:
    State share loan...............................................           1,674              405              405           -1,269   ...............
        (Limitation on direct loans)...............................         (25,000)         (25,000)         (25,000)  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................             426              543              543             +117   ...............
Salaries and expenses..............................................         186,589          203,801          203,801          +17,212   ...............
    Defense function...............................................          27,938           30,000           30,000           +2,062   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         214,527          233,801          233,801          +19,274   ...............

Office of Inspector General........................................           9,978           10,303           10,303             +325   ...............
Emergency management planning and assistance.......................         249,103          234,623          259,623          +10,520          +25,000
    Defense function...............................................          19,956           20,000           20,000              +44   ...............
    Firefighting \2\...............................................          99,780          100,000          150,000          +50,220          +50,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         368,839          354,623          429,623          +60,784          +75,000

    (By transfer)..................................................          (2,900)          (2,900)          (2,900)  ...............  ...............
Emergency food and shelter program.................................         139,692          139,692          139,692   ...............  ...............

National Flood Insurance Fund:
    (Limitation on administrative expenses):
        Salaries and expenses \3\..................................          25,679           28,798           28,798           +3,119   ...............
        Flood mitigation \3\.......................................          77,137           76,381           76,381             -756   ...............
        (Transfer out).............................................        (-20,000)        (-20,000)        (-20,000)  ...............  ...............
National Flood Migration Fund (by transfer)........................         (20,000)         (20,000)         (20,000)  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Emergency Management Agency...................       2,434,432        2,212,945        3,277,945         +843,513       +1,065,000

          Appropriations...........................................      (1,137,292)      (2,212,945)      (1,277,945)       (+140,653)       (-935,000)
          Contingent emergency appropriations......................      (1,297,140)  ...............      (2,000,000)       (+702,860)     (+2,000,000)

                  General Services Administration

Federal Consumer Information Center Fund...........................           7,106            7,276            7,276             +170   ...............

           National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Human space flight.................................................       5,450,882        7,296,000        6,868,000       +1,417,118         -428,000
Science, aeronautics and technology................................       6,177,080        7,191,700        7,669,700       +1,492,620         +478,000
Mission support....................................................       2,602,961   ...............  ...............      -2,602,961   ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................          22,949           23,700           23,700             +751   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NASA..................................................      14,253,872       14,511,400       14,561,400         +307,528          +50,000

                National Credit Union Administration

Central liquidity facility:
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................      (1,500,000)      (1,500,000)      (1,500,000)  ...............  ...............
    (Limitation on administrative expenses, corporate funds).......            (296)            (309)            (309)            (+13)  ...............
    Revolving loan program.........................................             998            1,000            1,000               +2   ...............

                    National Science Foundation

Research and related activities....................................       3,279,769        3,263,981        3,451,481         +171,712         +187,500
    Defense function...............................................          62,861           63,000           63,000             +139   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................       3,342,630        3,326,981        3,514,481         +171,851         +187,500

Major research equipment...........................................         121,332           96,332          108,832          -12,500          +12,500
Education and human resources......................................         785,620          872,407          872,407          +86,787   ...............
Salaries and expenses..............................................         160,536          170,040          170,040           +9,504   ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................           6,266            6,760            6,760             +494   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NSF...................................................       4,416,384        4,472,520        4,672,520         +256,136         +200,000

               Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation...............          89,802           95,000          100,000          +10,198           +5,000

                      Selective Service System

Salaries and expenses..............................................          24,426           25,003           25,003             +577   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title III, Independent agencies.......................      29,852,846       29,404,820       31,197,873       +1,345,027       +1,793,053

              Appropriations.......................................     (29,852,846)     (29,404,820)     (31,197,873)     (+1,345,027)     (+1,793,053)
              Rescissions..........................................        (-29,933)  ...............  ...............        (+29,933)  ...............

          (Limitation on direct loans).............................      (1,525,000)      (1,525,000)      (1,525,000)  ...............  ...............
          (Limitation on corporate funds)..........................            (296)            (309)            (309)            (+13)  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                          OTHER PROVISIONS

Filipino veterans provision........................................           2,993   ...............  ...............          -2,993   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Grand total (net)............................................     105,346,264      110,671,650      113,361,308       +8,015,044       +2,689,658
              Appropriations.......................................    (101,717,264)    (110,678,350)    (107,783,008)     (+6,065,744)     (-2,895,342)
              Rescissions..........................................     (-1,858,900)         (-6,700)       (-621,700)     (+1,237,200)       (-615,000)
              Contingent emergency appropriations..................      (1,297,140)  ...............      (2,000,000)       (+702,860)     (+2,000,000)
          Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................      (4,190,760)  ...............      (4,200,000)         (+9,240)     (+4,200,000)
          (By transfer)............................................         (66,560)         (66,560)         (56,560)        (-10,000)        (-10,000)
          (Transfer out)...........................................        (-22,900)        (-22,900)        (-22,900)  ...............  ...............
          (Limitation on direct loans).............................      (1,828,029)      (1,828,604)      (1,828,604)           (+575)  ...............
          (Limitation on guaranteed loans).........................    (382,332,956)    (381,842,979)    (381,882,979)       (-449,977)        (+40,000)
          (Limitation on corporate funds)..........................        (551,372)        (563,842)        (563,877)        (+12,505)            (+35)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not included in fiscal year 2001 CSBA tables.
\2\ Fiscal year 2001 enacted in Public Law 106-554.
\3\ Fiscal year 2001 funding scored as non-add.