- 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.
