- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 273
108th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 108-143
======================================================================
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2004
_______
September 5, 2003.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bond, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1584]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1584)
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, 2004, 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....................$122,740,712,000
Amount of appropriations, 2003.......................... 118,754,173,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2004........................ 122,140,905,000
Above estimates for 2004............................ 599,807,000
Above appropriations for 2003....................... 3,986,539,000
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......................... 72
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board............... 72
Department of the Treasury: Community development financial
institutions............................................... 73
Consumer Product Safety Commission........................... 75
Corporation for National and Community Service............... 75
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.................... 84
Department of Defense--Civil: Cemeterial expenses, Army...... 85
Department of Health and Human Services:
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences...... 85
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry......... 85
Environmental Protection Agency.............................. 86
Executive Office of the President:
Office of Science and Technology Policy.................. 110
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality.................................. 112
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector
General.................................................... 112
General Services Administration: Federal Consumer Information
Center..................................................... 113
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness..................... 114
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................ 115
National Credit Union Administration......................... 130
National Science Foundation.................................. 132
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................ 144
Selective Service System..................................... 145
Title IV--General provisions..................................... 147
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 148
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 148
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 149
INTRODUCTION
The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2004 provides a total of $122,740,712,000 in budget
authority, including approximately $32,706,712,000 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, and ensuring needed funds for our
Nation's space and scientific research programs. The Committee
paid special attention to the final report of the Columbia
Accident Investigation Board which was issued on August 26,
2003.
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 $29,314,729,000 in
discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs,
an increase of $2,795,257,000 above the fiscal year 2003
enacted level and $1,305,576,000 above the budget request. The
funds include $1,300,000,000 in emergency funding for Medical
Care. The Committee has made veterans programs the highest
priority in the bill. Increases in VA programs above the budget
request are recommended for medical care and medical research.
For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
Committee recommendation totals $36,085,777,000, an increase of
$876,869,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and
$157,645,000 above the budget request. 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 $8,182,718,000, an increase of
$104,656,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an
increase of $552,130,000 above the budget request.
The Committee recommendation for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration totals $15,338,907,000, the same as
the fiscal year 2003 level and $130,393,000 below the budget
request.
For the National Science Foundation, the Committee
recommendation totals $5,585,760,000, an increase of
$104,569,000 above the budget request. 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, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the National Science Foundation, the
Corporation for National and Community Service, and the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, to submit operating plans,
signed by the respective secretary, administrator, chief
executive officer, 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, 2003.................................... $58,100,432,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 60,718,865,000
Committee recommendation................................ 62,024,441,000
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Veterans Administration was established as an
independent agency by Executive Order 5398 of July 21, 1930, in
accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 1016). This
act authorized the President to consolidate and coordinate
Federal agencies especially created for or concerned with the
administration of laws providing benefits to veterans,
including the Veterans' Bureau, the Bureau of Pensions, and the
National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers. On March 15,
1989, VA was elevated to Cabinet-level status as the Department
of Veterans Affairs.
The VA's mission is to serve America's veterans and their
families as their principal advocate in ensuring that they
receive the care, support, and recognition they have earned in
service to the Nation. The VA's operating units include the
Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Benefits
Administration, National Cemetery Administration, and staff
offices.
The Veterans Health Administration develops, maintains, and
operates a national health care delivery system for eligible
veterans; carries out a program of education and training of
health care personnel; carries out a program of medical
research and development; and furnishes health services to
members of the Armed Forces during periods of war or national
emergency. A system of 162 hospitals, 864 outpatient clinics,
137 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 154
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 $62,024,441,000 for the Department
of Veterans Affairs, including $32,709,712,000 in mandatory
spending and $29,314,729,000 in discretionary spending. The
amount provided for discretionary activities represents an
increase of $1,305,576,000 above the budget request and
$2,795,157,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
The Committee once again has made VA its top priority in
the fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD bill. Specifically, the Committee
is committed to ensuring that veterans have access to the
quality medical care and services they deserve, in a timely
manner.
The Committee remains committed to funding fully the
medical care needs of VA's core constituency--service-
connected, lower income, and special needs veterans. VA,
unfortunately, has been overwhelmed by substantial increases in
users of the VA health care system. The demand for VA health
care has resulted in thousands of veterans waiting for medical
care and in many instances, waiting times of over 6 months.
Many believe that the demand and increase in users in the
VA health care system has been due to its generous health care
benefits (primarily prescription drug benefits), its vastly
improved quality access, and expanded eligibility and benefits
authorized by the Congress--the ``Veterans' Health Care
Eligibility Reform Act of 1996'' and the ``Veterans Millennium
Health Care Act of 1999.'' Prior to the Eligibility Reform Act
of 1996, VA generally targeted health care to its core
constituents--the service-connected, the lower income, and
those veterans requiring specialized services. However,
eligibility reform opened the door to all veterans and while
the benefit package varies among the priority groups
established under the 1996 Act, all veterans have shared equal
access once enrolled in the VA health care system.
The authorizing committees believed that the 1996 Act would
attract relatively few new users and would be budget neutral.
The authors of eligibility reform assumed that receipts from
first and third party payers, co-pays, and insurance, would
offset the cost of the services for Priority 8 veterans.
Further, eligibility reform was predicated on the enactment of
Medicare Subvention, whereby Medicare would reimburse VA for
treating Medicare-eligible veterans.
The General Accounting Office [GAO] found that eligibility
reform increased outpatient pharmacy use and expenditures among
all veterans. In its November 2002 report, GAO found that from
1996 through 2001, the number of Priority 7 veterans treated
has increased by almost eightfold (from 107,520 veterans to
827,722 veterans). VA spent $418,000,000 on outpatient pharmacy
benefits for non-core veterans in fiscal year 2001 and since
the implementation of eligibility reform in 1999, Priority 7
veterans' use of the pharmacy benefit has increased rapidly.
Specifically, the usage has increased from about 11,000,000 30-
day equivalents of drugs or supplies in fiscal year 1999 to
about 26,000,000 30-day equivalents in fiscal year 2001.
Further, GAO found that pharmacy usage among VA's core
constituents also has increased significantly. In particular,
VA spent $2,460,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 compared to
$1,900,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 for Priority 1-6 veterans.
The Millennium Act also increased VA medical care
expenditures by expanding long-term care for veterans. The Act
requires VA to provide institutional nursing care for 70
percent and above service-connected disabled veterans, making
non-institutional long-term care services a part of the basic
benefits package provided to all enrollees, and providing
emergency care services. VA projects these benefits to cost VA
an additional $740,000,000 annually.
Eligibility reform and the Millennium Act combined with the
improved VA's health care system and VA's favorable pharmacy
benefits compared to other providers has created the current
care quality and access problems for VA's core constituents.
These factors have resulted in 54 percent growth in total users
since 1996 with the non-core veterans groups comprising the
largest percentage increase. Despite record appropriation
funding increases over the past few years, VA continues to fail
to meet the needs of its core constituents. Some of its failure
has been due to the Department's inability to meet its own
collections goals and other significant management
inefficiencies.
To VA's credit, the Department has taken steps to address
the health care access problems for its core veterans by
prioritizing medical care for its core veterans and reducing
the waiting lines for medical care by suspending new
enrollments of higher income veterans and through collaborative
work with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement [IHI].
Further, the VA, the Department of Health and Human Services
[HHS], and the Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services [CMS]
are developing a new VA+Choice program. VA+Choice will offer
veterans a health care benefit package that is competitive with
those currently offered by Medicare organizations. VA projects
to enroll about 25,000 veterans within the first year,
beginning by October 2003. VA also plans for this program to be
revenue neutral and not use appropriated funds to supplement
the program. Further, the Department has made recent strides in
its medical care collections and management systems.
The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request
proposes a $1,300,000,000 increase for VA medical care to meet
the growing demand of users. The request, however, also
proposes a new $250 annual enrollment fee for nonservice-
connected Priority 7 veterans and all Priority 8 veterans, an
increase in outpatient and pharmacy co-pays for Priority 7 and
8 veterans, and a limitation on long-term care benefits.
The Committee recognizes that these policy initiatives are
consistent with the current practice of charging cost-share
costs to lower priority veterans and ensuring that VA's health
care remains focused on its core constituents. Nevertheless,
the Committee has not included these fee proposals in the bill
and believes that further debate is needed to understand fully
their implications. The Committee urges the authorizing
committees to examine these fee proposals.
The Committee recognizes that funding alone will not fully
address the medical care needs of VA's core constituents--
service-connected, lower income, and special needs veterans.
The Committee believes that the Department must ensure greater
accountability in the medical care system and improve its long-
standing management inefficiencies to ensure that it can assure
veterans and taxpayers that VA is providing quality, accessible
health care.
The Committee has provided $2,898,776,000 in additional
funding above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level for VA medical
care. This level is $1,570,000,000 above the fiscal year 2004
budget request. Further, with third party collections projected
to be $178,000,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level, VA medical
care will have $3,076,776,000 more than available in fiscal
year 2003. The Committee has also directed the Secretary to
continue providing priority access for treatment of veterans to
its core constituents. Further, the Committee has provided
discretionary authority to the Secretary to streamline the
process for filling privately written prescriptions for
veterans. Under this authority, the Committee directs the
Secretary to ensure that this process is budget neutral.
Lastly, the Committee encourages the Secretary to explore other
options allowed under current law related to co-pay structures.
The Committee expects that the significant funding increase
for medical care, coupled with additional administrative tools,
will allow the VA to address the quality and access medical
care needs of its core constituents.
The Committee has chosen not to use the administration's
new budget account structure without prejudice. The Committee
supports the administration's efforts to align costs and
funding with each program and to simplify the account
structure. The Committee encourages the administration to
continue these efforts in consultation with the Appropriations
Committees.
Veterans Benefits Administration
compensation and pensions
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $28,949,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 29,845,127,000
Committee recommendation................................ 29,845,127,000
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 recommends $29,845,127,000 for compensation
and pensions. This is an increase of $896,127,000 above the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the budget
request. This amount includes the cost of living adjustment for
fiscal year 2004.
The estimated caseload and cost by program follows:
COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2004 Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:
Compensation:
Veterans.................................... $2,466,212 $2,543,600 +$77,388
Survivors................................... 312,109 316,747 +4,638
Children.................................... 1,088 1,115 +27
Clothing allowance (non-add)................ (84,409) (86,681) (+2,272)
Pensions:
Veterans.................................... 342,815 339,905 -2,910
Survivors................................... 223,560 213,648 -9,912
Minimum income for widows (non-add)......... (0) (0) (0)
Burial allowances and service connected 94,138 94,977 +839
deaths.....................................
===========================================================
Funds:
Compensation:
Veterans.................................... 21,120,999,000 22,829,533,000 +1,708,534,000
Survivors................................... 3,947,369,000 4,060,390,000 +113,021,000
Children.................................... 18,418,000 19,166,000 +748,000
Clothing allowance.......................... 49,632,000 52,938,000 +3,306,000
OBRA Payments (Public Laws 101-508 and 102- 1,267,000 1,179,000 -88,000
568).......................................
Medical exams pilot program (Public Law 104- 50,192,000 50,439,000 +247,000
275).......................................
Pensions:
Veterans.................................... 2,568,099,000 2,643,048,000 +74,949,000
Survivors................................... 715,369,000 731,562,000 +16,193,000
Minimum income for widows................... .................. .................. ..................
Contract Medical Exam Pilot Program............. 558,000 561,000 +3,000
OBRA (Public Laws 101-508, 102-568, and 103-446) 7,296,000 6,787,000 -509,000
OBRA Payment to Medical Care (Public Laws 101- 8,575,000 9,090,000 +515,000
508 and 102-568)...............................
Payment to Medical Facilities (non-add)......... (1,072,000) (1,093,000) (+21,000)
Burial benefits................................. 157,225,000 157,253,000 +28,000
Other assistance................................ 3,467,000 3,509,000 +42,000
Unobligated balance and transfers............... +300,534,000 -720,328,000 -1,020,862,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation........................... 28,949,000,000 29,845,127,000 +896,127,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appropriation includes $17,617,000 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 2004 cost-of-
living increase of 2.0 percent for pension recipients.
The Committee notes the GAO's report on addressing the
Veterans Benefits Administration's [VBA] workforce needs in the
area of claims processing. GAO found that about 16 percent of
new examiners hired in fiscal year 2001 left VBA within 12
months of their hiring date. This rate was more than double the
rate for all VBA employees. The Committee urges VBA to
determine the reasons for this attrition rate and develop
methods to reduce the attrition.
readjustment benefits
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $2,264,808,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 2,529,734,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,529,734,000
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 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 recommends the budget estimate of
$2,529,734,000 for readjustment benefits. The amount
recommended is an increase of $264,926,000 above the fiscal
year 2003 enacted level.
The estimated caseload and cost for this account follows:
READJUSTMENT BENEFITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2004 Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of trainees:
Education and training: dependents.................... 56,314 59,128 +2,814
All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
Veterans and servicepersons....................... 328,244 332,026 +3,782
Reservists........................................ 91,090 94,734 +3,644
Vocational rehabilitation......................... 71,549 73,517 +1,968
Tuition assistance................................ 120,000 140,000 +20,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 667,197 699,405 +32,208
=====================================================
Licensing and certification tests......................... 7,500 15,000 +7,500
=====================================================
Funds:
Education and training: Dependents.................... $249,048,000 $266,749,000 +$17,701,000
All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
Veterans and servicepersons....................... 1,700,424,000 1,936,005,000 +235,581,000
Reservists........................................ 161,189,000 170,938,000 +9,749,000
Vocational rehabilitation......................... 216,079,000 225,911,000 9,832,000
Tuition assistance................................ 352,375,000 388,386,000 +36,011,000
Licensing and certification tests................. 2,594,000 5,371,000 +2,777,000
Housing grants.................................... 25,200,000 25,200,000 ................
Automobile and other conveyances.................. 37,832,000 38,532,000 +700,000
Work-study........................................ 46,440,000 46,440,000 ................
Payment to States................................. 14,000,000 18,000,000 +4,000,000
Reporting fees.................................... 3,500,000 3,600,000 +100,000
Unobligated balance and other adjustments \1\..... -543,873,000 -595,398,000 -51,525,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation............................. 2,264,808,000 2,529,734,000 +264,926,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes offsetting collections.
veterans insurance and indemnities
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $27,530,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 29,017,000
Committee recommendation................................ 29,017,000
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 recommends the budget estimate of $29,017,000
for veterans insurance and indemnities. This is an increase of
$1,487,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The
Department estimates there will be 4,110,960 policies in force
in fiscal year 2004 with a value of $703,970,770,000.
VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Program account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003.................. $437,522,000 $167,114,000
Budget estimate, 2004................. 305,834,000 154,850,000
Committee recommendation.............. 305,834,000 154,850,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 housing 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 $305,834,000, and
$154,850,000 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.
EDUCATION LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003.................... $1,000 $69,545
Budget estimate, 2004................... 1,000 ..............
Committee recommendation................ 1,000 70,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Committee recommends $1,000 for funding subsidy program
costs and $70,000 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.
Due to the lack of demand for the Education Loan program,
the administration has proposed the elimination of the program
and has not requested appropriations language for this program.
The program has not issued a loan in over 10 years. The
administration is expected to transmit legislation that
eliminates the program. Accordingly, the Committee defers
action on this program to the authorizing committee.
vocational rehabilitation loans program account
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003.................... $55,000 $286,764
Budget estimate, 2004................... 52,000 300,000
Committee recommendation................ 52,000 300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
This appropriation covers the funding subsidy cost of
direct loans for vocational rehabilitation of eligible veterans
and, in addition, it includes administrative expenses necessary
to carry out the direct loan program. Loans of up to $896
(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 Committee recommends the requested $52,000 for program
costs and $300,000 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 identifying program direct loans to $3,938,000. It is
estimated that VA will make 4,845 loans in fiscal year 2004,
with an average amount of $813.
Language was added allowing the principal amount of direct
loans to be calculated based on the subsidy appropriated for
the Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program account. The loan
level provided in the language should be considered an
estimate. The Committee directs the Department to monitor
carefully the program's loan activity and notify the Committee
during the year if it determines that it may exceed the loan
level amount.
native american veteran housing loan program account
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Administrative
expenses
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $554,373
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 571,000
Committee recommendation................................ 571,000
program description
This program will test the feasibility of enabling VA to
make direct home loans to native American veterans who live on
U.S. trust lands. It is a pilot program that began in 1993 and
expires on December 31, 2005. Subsidy amounts necessary to
support this program were appropriated in fiscal year 1993.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget estimate of $571,000
for administrative expenses associated with this program in
fiscal year 2004. 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 2004, will be borne by the ``Medical
care'' and ``General operating expenses'' appropriations.
The Committee is concerned that the homeless loan program
has not closed one loan since its inception in 1998. While VA
has re-tooled this program and made some limited progress over
the past year, the Committee is troubled that this program has
not gotten off the ground. Accordingly, the Committee directs
the Department to provide a status report on the program by no
later than March 1, 2004. The report should include information
on the number of loans closed, estimated number of veterans
served, and the total dollars (administrative, credit subsidy,
etc.) spent on the program since its inception.
Veterans Health Administration
MEDICAL CARE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total medical
Veterans direct Medical care care with
health care collections collections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003................................... $23,889,304,000 $1,386,000,000 $25,275,304,000
Budget estimate, 2004.................................. 25,218,080,000 2,141,409,000 27,359,489,000
Committee recommendation............................... 26,788,080,000 1,564,000,000 28,352,080,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] operates the
largest Federal medical care delivery system in the country,
with 162 hospitals, 43 domiciliaries, 137 nursing homes, and
864 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.
The Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care Collections
Fund [MCCF] was established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997
(Public Law 105-33). The Department deposits first-party and
pharmacy co-payments, third party insurance payments, enhanced
use collections, long-term care co-payments, Compensated Work
Therapy Program collections, Compensation and Pension Living
Expenses Program collections, Parking Program fees, and
collections from the sales of assets into the MCCF. These
collections are available until expended. The Committee has
accepted the administration's proposal to merge these accounts
together.
The Parking Program 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 to the MCCF and would be used to fund future
parking garage initiatives.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$26,788,080,000 for medical care, an increase of $2,870,000,000
over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $1,570,000,000
above the budget request. The Committee has designated
$1,300,000,000 as contingent emergency funds. The Committee has
recaptured $270,000,000 in prior year recoveries for medical
care use. In addition, VA has authority to retain co-payments
and third-party collections, estimated to total $1,564,000,000
in fiscal year 2004. The estimated medical care cost recovery
collections for fiscal year 2004 is a $178,000,000 increase
over the fiscal year 2003 collections level. Combined with the
appropriated funds, medical care would receive $3,076,776,000
more funds than the fiscal year 2003 level. Therefore, the
Committee's recommendation represents total resources for
medical care of $28,352,080,000.
The Committee has included bill language delaying the
availability until August 1, 2004, of $1,100,000,000 in the
equipment, lands, and structures object classifications.
The Committee has included bill language to make available
through September 30, 2005, up to $1,100,000,000 of the medical
care appropriation. This provides flexibility to the Department
as it continues to implement significant program changes.
The Committee has provided $1,300,000,000 in emergency
funding for medical care due to the unanticipated and urgent
need of veterans seeking medical treatment and services. The
Department has seen unprecedented growth in the number of
enrolled veterans since 1999. VA has seen an increase of
3,100,000 enrollees during this period and VA projects even
more growth in the program. Further, these emergency funds will
allow VA to treat unaccounted veterans from the current Iraqi
conflict and peacekeeping efforts around the world, including
the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, the Philippines, and Liberia.
The Committee has included bill language that directs the
Secretary to prioritize funding for treatment of its core
veterans--service-connected, lower income, homeless, and
special needs. The Committee has also included bill language
that prioritizes medical care funding on its primary medical
benefit package (such as those benefits defined under 38 C.F.R.
17.38) for its high priority veterans. The Committee has
included these directives to reinforce the Department's efforts
on refocusing its mission on serving its core constituents.
Further, the Committee has provided discretionary authority
to the Secretary to streamline the process for filling
privately written prescriptions for veterans. Under this
authority, the Committee expects the Secretary to exercise this
``medication-only'' benefit authority for limited and special
circumstances. In particular, the Committee urges the use of
this authority to address veterans who are adversely impacted
by the waiting time to see a clinician. The Committee also
supports the implementation of a pilot program to determine the
cost-effectiveness of a streamlined process for filling
privately written prescriptions. For example, the Secretary
could permit Medicare-eligible veterans to receive an
outpatient medication-only benefit and construct such a program
as proposed in S. 1153, the Veterans Prescription Drug
Assistance Act of 2003. Under any circumstance, the Committee
expects the Department to collect and independently verify data
on the costs and benefits of implementing a med-only benefit
process for veterans and directs the VA to submit a status
report to the Committee by no later than June 2, 2004. Lastly,
the Committee encourages the Secretary to explore other options
allowed under current law related to co-pay structures.
The Committee has not included the administration's request
to spend $50,000,000 in fiscal year 2004 to fund studies on the
cost-benefit of outsourcing VA functions. The Committee,
however, believes that VA should be able to assess the cost of
certain commercial, non-governmental type services such as
laundry, janitorial, and food services, which are already
privatized in many VA facilities.
CARES.--The Committee has provided bill language that
allows the Secretary to transfer up to $400,000,000 from
medical care to major construction for purposes of implementing
the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services or
``CARES'' program. The effectiveness and efficiency of VA's
medical care service delivery is dependent on the quality and
accessibility of its system. The VA, currently, is wasting
millions of dollars from the medical care account to maintain
and operate unnecessary and empty spaces in its medical care
inventory. Accordingly, the Committee has provided this
transfer authority to replace VA's unnecessary facilities and
spaces with new, modernized facilities closer to the current
and projected growing veteran population. The Committee
strongly believes that a significant upfront investment is
needed to address VA's aging and outdated medical
infrastructure. The Committee directs the Department to notify
the Committee prior to exercising this authority.
Homelessness.--According to the VA, the Department
estimates that it will spend $1,397,879,000 on treatment costs
for homeless veterans and another $174,001,000 on targeted
programs to assist homeless veterans in fiscal year 2004. The
Committee supports these expenditures and strongly believes
that treating homeless veterans should be one of the VA's
highest priorities, especially given the large population of
veterans that represent the overall homeless population. As
part of the administration's efforts coordinated through the
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH] to end chronic
homelessness in 10 years, the Committee urges the VA to develop
a strategy consistent with the administration's 10-year goal by
creating department-wide performance goals. These goals should
also address the VA's efforts in preventing homelessness among
veterans. Further, the Committee strongly urges the Department
to participate in local efforts on devising 10-year plans that
support the end of chronic homelessness. The Committee expects
the Department to work with the ICH on addressing these
matters.
The Committee urges the Department to continue its support
for the Brother Francis Shelter, which treats homeless veterans
in Anchorage, Alaska.
Integrative Healing Practices.--The Committee is aware of
significant improvements in patient care outcomes demonstrated
by integrative healing practices employed as adjuncts to
conventional biomedical methods. The Committee is supportive of
more definitive research to identify and evaluate integrated
healing practices that have efficacy for our veterans,
particularly those veterans suffering from Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder and other conditions exhibited by troops
returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations, Gulf War
Syndrome, and those who are terminally ill and in palliative or
end-of-life care. The Committee expects the Department to
collaborate as a full partner with the Department of Defense in
the VET-HEAL program--an Integrative Healing Practices for
Veterans Research Project--with a goal of identifying and
investigating those integrative healing practices appropriate
for inclusion in everyday VA patient care.
Anchorage Health Care Clinic.--The Committee notes that the
Department will not renew the existing lease for the clinic in
Anchorage, Alaska, which will expire in 2007. Instead, the
Department will replace the clinic with a new facility at the
Elmendorf AFB. To ensure that local veterans do not experience
any gap in medical coverage during this transition period, the
Committee strongly urges the Department to begin addressing
this issue with planning and design work, consistent with the
CARES protocols.
Clarksburg/Ruby Memorial Demonstration.--The Committee
supports continuation at current levels of the Clarksburg VAMC/
Ruby Memorial hospital demonstration project.
Elko County CBOC.--The Committee is aware that veterans in
Elko County, Nevada, must travel more than 200 miles for VA
medical care--either to the Community Based Outpatient Clinic
[CBOC] in White Pine County or to the medical center in Salt
Lake City--and that VA's market penetration in Elko County is
only 5 percent, one of the lowest rates in the country. The
Committee is aware that the Network Strategic Plan for VISN 19
includes a recommendation to locate a CBOC in Elko County and
encourages VA to implement this recommendation.
Rural Veterans Health Care Initiative.--The Committee
supports continuation at the current level of the Rural
Veterans Health Care Initiative at White River Junction, VT
VAMC.
Psychology Post-Doc Program.--The Committee recognizes the
VA's Psychology Post-Doctoral Training program and directs the
Department to provide a progress report by December 5, 2003 on
the number of training slots, their location, and progress in
their interdisciplinary training programs.
medical and prosthetic research
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $397,400,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 408,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 413,000,000
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 $413,000,000 for medical and
prosthetic research, which is $5,000,000 above the budget
request and $15,600,000 above the fiscal year 2003 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.
Human Identical Cytochromes.--The Committee is encouraged
by the potential results from research by the Nashville VA
Medical Center and Vanderbilt University Medical Center on
human identical cytochromes. Research in this field will
improve methods for the synthesis and characterization of drug
metabolites prior to initiating human testing. The Committee
urges the Department to evaluate this promising research and
consider possible funding options.
medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $74,230,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 79,146,000
Committee recommendation................................ 79,146,000
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.
Language to clarify the treatment of 2-year funding was
added to permit treating the operating dollars as one fund
during the first year of availability.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $79,146,000 for medical
administration and miscellaneous operating expenses, an
increase of $4,916,000 above the fiscal year 2003 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 2004 for facilities management support is
$8,426,000.
Departmental Administration
general operating expenses
Appropriations, 2003..................................\1\ $1,345,849,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 1,283,272,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,283,272,000
\1\ Includes $100,000,000 supplemental funding included in Public Law
108-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the budget request of
$1,283,272,000 for general operating expenses, a decrease of
$62,577,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The
amount provided includes $1,004,704,000 for the Veterans
Benefits Administration and $278,568,000 for general
administration. In addition to this appropriation, resources
are made available for general operating expenses through
reimbursements totaling $550,146,000 for fiscal year 2004, with
total estimated obligations of approximately $1,833,418,000.
The Committee recommends making available $64,000,000 of
the GOE appropriation for 2 years, and the current level of
$25,000 for official reception and representation expenses.
national cemetery administration
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $132,284,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 144,203,000
Committee recommendation................................ 144,203,000
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 of 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 157 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.
Language to clarify the treatment of 2-year funding was
added to permit treating the operating dollars as one fund
during the first year of availability.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $144,203,000 for the National
Cemetery Administration. This is an increase of $11,919,000
over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the
budget request.
office of the inspector general
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $57,623,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 61,750,000
Committee recommendation................................ 62,250,000
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 $62,250,000 for the Inspector
General. This is an increase of $4,627,000 above the fiscal
year 2003 enacted level and $500,000 above the budget request.
construction, major projects
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $99,128,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 272,690,000
Committee recommendation................................ 272,690,000
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,
Capital Asset Realignment Enhanced Services [CARES] activities,
assessment, and site acquisition where the estimated cost of a
project is more than the amount set forth in 38 U.S.C.
8104(a)(3)(A). Proceeds realized from Enhanced Use Lease
activities may also be transferred from the Medical Care
Collections Fund and merged with the major construction
account.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $272,690,000
for construction, major projects, $173,562,000 above the fiscal
year 2003 enacted level and the same level as the budget
request.
The following table compares the Committee recommendation
with the budget request.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available Committee
Location and description through 2003 2004 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans Health Administration [VHA]:
CARES Project--TBD \1\................................ ................ 183,000 183,000
Chicago, IL, new Inpatient Bed Building............... ................ ( \2\ ) ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal CARES...................................... ................ 183,000 183,000
Advance planning fund: Various stations................... ................ 15,000 15,000
Asbestos abatement: Various stations...................... ................ 5,000 5,000
Claims Analyses: Various locations........................ ................ 2,000 2,000
Judgment Fund: Various locations.......................... ................ 10,000 10,000
Hazardous Waste: Various locations........................ ................ 1,000 1,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other line-items.......................... ................ 33,000 33,000
=====================================================
Total Medical Care construction, major projects..... ................ 216,000 216,000
=====================================================
Veterans Benefits Administration [VBA].................... ................ 271 271
National Cemetery Administration [NCA]: \3\
Detroit, MI Area, Phase I Development................. ................ 8,700 8,700
Cemetery Expansion and Improvements:
Fort Snelling, MN, gravesite expansion and ................ 24,800 24,800
cemetery improvements............................
Barrancas, FL, gravesite expansion and cemetery ................ 12,000 12,000
improvements.....................................
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction........................ ................ 45,500 45,500
Design Fund: Various locations............................ ................ 6,000 6,000
Advance Planning Fund: Various locations.................. ................ 2,919 2,919
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other line-items.......................... ................ 8,919 8,919
-----------------------------------------------------
Total NCA construction, major projects.............. ................ 54,419 54,419
=====================================================
Staff Offices: Various locations.......................... ................ 2,000 2,000
=====================================================
Total construction, major projects.................. ................ 272,690 272,690
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Projects will be selected after the completion of the CARES studies and will be forwarded to Congress for
authorization and approval.
\2\ This project may be funded by enhanced-use revenues.
\3\ National Cemetery Administration major project requests do not include the purchase of pre-placed crypts,
which are funded by the Compensation and Pensions appropriation.
The Committee recommends the requested amount of
$183,000,000 for major construction projects approved through
the Department's Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced
Services [CARES] program. The Committee has also provided
transfer authority to shift funds from the medical care account
to the major construction account to support construction
projects approved through CARES. Combined with these
transferred funds, the Committee is providing up to
$583,000,000 for CARES.
The Committee also recommends the requested amounts for the
development of the Detroit, Michigan National Cemetery, and
expansion and improvements for Fort Snelling, Florida and
Barrancas, Florida National Cemeteries.
CARES.--The Committee remains strongly committed to the
Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services [CARES]
initiative to ensure the VA healthcare system can meet the
needs of veterans today and in the future.
The Committee supports the Department's efforts to complete
all remaining CARES plans for the rest of the Nation. The
Committee reiterates the directives regarding CARES from the
fiscal year 2003 conference report. Specifically, VA should
submit a 5-year strategic plan for capital asset management,
construction and improvement of all VA's infrastructure needs
including, but not limited to, major construction, minor
construction, research facilities, safety and seismic
improvements, and improved access for veterans. This report
should include estimated costs by VISN by year. The Committee
expects the Department to update this plan as necessary and to
keep the authorizing and appropriations committees informed of
any changes.
The Committee commends the Department for moving forward
with the implementation of the VISN 12 plan. The Committee is
pleased with VA's progress to date but encourages VA to proceed
expeditiously with both the outlease of the Lakeside property
at full market value and construction of the West Side bed
tower project. The Committee supports VA's intention to utilize
resources generated from the Lakeside outlease to fund all or
part of the West Side bed tower construction project. With
prior notification to the Committee, the VA may allocate major
construction funds appropriated for CARES to meet any funding
shortfalls due to delays in acquiring receipts/revenues for the
Lakeside property, for the West Side bed tower project. The
Committee urges VA to proceed with the design and construction
of both the West Side bed tower simultaneously with the
enhanced-use lease for the Lakeside property. The Committee
further directs VA to accomplish both of these projects in a
manner that minimizes service disruptions to local veterans.
Beckley, WV Nursing Home Care Unit.--The Committee urges
the VA to include sufficient funding in the 2005 budget request
for a new nursing home care unit at the Beckley, WV VAMC upon
confirmation that the project is consistent with the strategic
plans which emerges from the VISN 6 CARES process.
Lebanon VAMC.--The Committee recognizes the need for long-
term care enhancements to the Lebanon VA Medical Center and
encourages VA to continue to work with the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania to achieve those needs.
Denver VAMC.--The Committee supports the efforts to co-
locate the Denver VAMC with a new University of Colorado
Hospital at the Fitzsimons campus. The Committee encourages the
Department to continue working with the University of Colorado
and the Department of Defense in developing a cost-effective
and efficient plan to address the needs of local veterans.
CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $224,531,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 252,144,000
Committee recommendation................................ 252,144,000
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, CARES activities, assessment of needs,
architectural and engineering services, and site acquisition,
where the estimated cost of a project is equal to or less than
the amount set forth in 38 U.S.C. 8104(a)(3)(4). Public Law
106-117, the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act
of 1999, gave VA the authority to make capital contributions
from minor construction in enhanced-use leases. Proceeds
realized from Enhanced Use Lease activities may also be
transferred from the Medical Care Collections Fund and merged
with the minor construction account.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $252,144,000 for minor
construction, the same as the budget request and $27,613,000
above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The Committee is
aware of the authorizing committees' efforts to raise the
limitation on minor construction projects. The Committee
understands that the current limitation has not been raised for
several years despite the inflationary cost of construction,
and supports the authorizers' efforts to address this matter.
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 Department is
strongly encouraged to address this problem.
grants for construction of state extended care facilities
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $99,350,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 102,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 102,100,000
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 $102,100,000 for grants for the
construction of State extended care facilities, equal to the
budget request and $2,750,000 above the fiscal year 2003
enacted level. This program cost-effectively meets long-term
health care needs of veterans.
grants for the construction of state veterans' cemeteries
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $31,792,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 32,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 32,000,000
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 $32,000,000 for grants for
construction of State veterans' cemeteries in fiscal year 2004,
$208,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same
as the budget request.
Administrative Provisions
The Committee has included 13 administrative provisions
(Sections 101-113) carried in earlier bills and two new
administrative provisions. Among these are:
Section 107 enables VA to use surplus earnings from the
National service life insurance, U.S. Government life
insurance, and veterans special life insurance program to
administer these programs. This provision was included for the
first time in fiscal year 1996 appropriations legislation. The
Department estimates that $38,922,000 will be reimbursed to the
``General operating expenses'' account as a result of this
provision.
Section 108 extends the VA's Franchise Fund pilot program.
Section 109 enables the VA to reimburse accounts from
enhanced use lease proceeds.
Section 110 allows for fiscal year 2004 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.
Section 112 limits funds for medical treatment of non-
service connected veterans to those who have provided accurate
insurance annual income information.
The two new administrative provisions are as follows:
Section 114 allows medical care appropriations to provide
access to the various sources of collections, which are to be
deposited into the Medical Care Collection Fund, as well as
authorize expenditures for these activities.
Section 115 allows proceeds from Enhanced Use Leasing
Activities to be used for planning, and construction of major
and minor projects.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $35,208,908,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 35,928,132,000
Committee recommendation................................ 36,085,777,000
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 2004 an
appropriation of $36,085,777,000 for the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. This is $876,869 above the fiscal year
2003 enacted level and $157,645 above the budget request.
HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND
(INCLUDING RECISSION AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003.................................\1\ $17,111,613,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... ( \2\ )
Committee recommendation..............................\3\ 18,433,606,000
\1\ Includes an advance appropriation of $4,172,700,000 for fiscal year
2004.
\2\ The Administration proposed $12,535,201,000 through a new ``Housing
assistance for needy families'' account that was designed to transfer
authority for section 8 vouchers to States as a block grant. Under the
budget request, section 8 project-based assistance would be funded a
separate account.
\3\ Includes an advance appropriation of $4,200,000,000 for fiscal year
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding mainly for the section 8
programs, including tenant-based and project-based rental
assistance. Section 8 assistance is the principle appropriation
for Federal housing assistance and provides rental housing
assistance to over 3 million families. The account provides
funding for the renewal of the existing Section 8 contracts
covering Vouchers, Moderate Rehabilitation, Loan Management,
Property Disposition, New Construction/Substantial
Rehabilitation, and Preservation contracts. Further, it funds
incremental vouchers to assist non-elderly disabled families,
to provide vouchers for tenants that live in projects where the
owner of the project has decided to leave the section 8
program, or for replacement of units lost from the assisted
housing inventory (Tenant Protection vouchers), etc. 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. This account also
provides funding for the Contract Administrator program and
Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS]. The contract administrators are
responsible for the oversight and administration of section 8
project-based contracts such as Loan Management, Property
Disposition, Preservation, and New Construction/Substantial
Rehabilitation. Under FSS, families receive job training and
employment that should lead to a decrease in their dependency
on welfare programs and move towards economic self-sufficiency.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$18,433,606,000 for fiscal year 2004, including $4,200,000,000
as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1,
2004. These funds include $1,372,000,000 in funds that are
rescinded from unobligated balances remaining from funds
appropriated for this account in previous fiscal years. These
rescinded funds are for use in meeting section 8 needs in
fiscal year 2004.
Of these overall amounts, the Committee has allocated
$16,202,616,000 for the renewal of all expiring section 8
contracts; $461,329,000 for a central fund to be allocated by
HUD in support of section 8 contracts up to the authorized
section 8 contract level for all public housing agencies;
$252,203,000 for section 8 preservation contracts; $72,000,000
for family self-sufficiency contracts under section 23 of the
1937 Act; $1,339,448,400 for section 8 administrative costs;
$100,000,000 for section 8 project-based administration costs;
$3,010,000 for the working capital fund; and up to $3,000,000
for an outside audit to assess the current status of all funds
within the account, including the amount of all obligated and
unobligated for all programs for this fiscal year, prior, and
subsequent fiscal years. For purposes of this audit, the
Committee directs GAO to work with the outside auditors on the
status of this account. Finally, the Committee includes a
rescission of $1,372,000,000 from unobligated funds under the
section 8 tenant-based program from previous fiscal years in
support of section 8 needs in fiscal year 2004.
This account continues to fund all section 8 contracts in a
manner consistent with the implementation of the Section 8
program in the VA/HUD fiscal year 2003 Appropriations bill.
Under this approach, PHAs would receive funding from HUD for
all section 8 contracts that are currently in use and HUD would
maintain a central fund to provide additional section 8 funds
for PHAs that can fund additional section 8 voucher units up to
the authorized contract level. In many cases, PHAs would use
their reserves to meet the immediate housing needs of families
that can use vouchers to obtain housing up to the PHA's
authorized contract level. Once a PHA has exceeded the use of
50 percent of its reserve, HUD would be required to reimburse
the PHA for these funds. PHAs that have entered into contracts
for units in excess of their authorized contract level for
vouchers would be required to meet their authorized voucher
level no later than 60 days after the start of the fiscal year.
A PHA also could not award any additional vouchers (including
turnover vouchers) until the PHA is within its authorized
contract level.
While the Committee supports and understands the need for
PHAs to allocate to tenants more vouchers than are permissible
under their authorized contract levels, the Committee is very
concerned over intentional or negligent abuses of this
discretion. In particular, the Committee directs the Department
to make quarterly reports on PHA utilization rates and to
identify PHAs that have exceeded their authorized contract
levels by more than 5 percent.
The current section 8 funding structure was first
implemented in fiscal year 2003 as an alternative to the
previous funding model that required the funding of all section
8 contracts up to the authorized level, whether in use or not.
This previous funding structure resulted in the annual
availability for rescissions of unused funding in billions of
dollars and undermined the credibility of the account. While
the new structure is targeted to providing the funding needs of
all vouchers in use as well as providing adequate funds for all
vouchers that likely will be used, HUD does not have reliable
data for these purposes. The Committee directs HUD to develop a
real-time data model which will identify the actual use of all
vouchers (those in use and those that can and will be used up
to the authorized contract level). This HUD model is key to
ensuring that families with vouchers will not lose their
housing due to a lack of adequate funding or be denied the use
of vouchers to obtain housing.
The Committee is concerned that the Administration has not
adequately estimated the per-unit costs of vouchers or the
utilization rate. This is understandable since much of the
available voucher data is old and unreliable. Nevertheless, the
Committee has made a commitment to help low-income families
obtain affordable housing through the Section 8 programs.
Therefore, if the costs of the Section 8 programs exceed the
appropriated funding, as estimated by the Administration, the
Committee expects the Administration to submit a budget
amendment as part of any fiscal year 2004 supplemental
appropriations bill to provide the full funding of all section
8 needs.
To support this account, the Committee rejects the
Administration's proposal to establish a new account, the
Housing Assistance for Needy Families account, that is designed
as a transition account to allocate section 8 voucher funding
to States through a block grant. Under this proposal, HUD would
have continued to administer a Section 8 project-based housing
assistance program. The Committee agrees with the philosophical
approach of the Administration that States and localities are
in a better position to understand and meet the local housing
needs of low-income families. Nevertheless, the funding level
proposed by the Administration in this proposal is inadequate
to meet the State and local housing needs of low-income
families and is likely to result in a large funding shortfall
and an unfunded mandate over the foreseeable future.
HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $0
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 12,535,201,000
Committee recommendation................................ 0
The Committee does not adopt the budget proposal to fund
the proposed new section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (tenant-based
assistance) program as a separate new account but instead has
continued funding for these activities in the Housing
Certificate Fund. While the Committee believes that States and
localities are in a better position to address State and local
housing needs, the Committee is concerned that the block grant
proposal does not take into account the actual and future costs
associated with section 8 voucher needs. Until there is
reliable data on the current per-unit costs and utilization
rates of vouchers as well as assurances that the block grant
funding will meet all voucher needs, the Committee is not
inclined to consider fully the administration's block grant
proposal.
PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $0
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 4,823,405,000
Committee recommendation................................ 0
The Committee does not adopt the budget proposal to fund
the Section 8 project-based assistance program as a separate
new account but instead has continued to provide funding for
these programs in the Housing Certificate Fund.
PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $2,712,255,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 2,641,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,641,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding for modernization and capital
needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing
authorities), including management improvements, resident
relocation and homeownership activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,641,000,000
for the public housing capital fund, the same as the budget
request and $71,255,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level.
Of the amount made available under this section, up to
$55,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public
housing, and $15,000,000 is for the Neighborhood Networks
Initiative in public housing. Funds for the Neighborhood
Networks Initiative are provided to establish and operate
computer centers in and around public housing. These funds are
intended to allow residents of public housing access to the
technology skills that are increasingly important in the 21st
century workplace.
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 $50,000,000 for
emergency capital needs including $13,000,000 for troubled
PHAs.
The Committee does not accept the Administration's
legislative proposal to finance privately the capital needs of
public housing with secton 8 funds. The Committee is concerned
that the proposal could result in a loss of public housing
units, and would not benefit public housing units with the
greatest capital needs. The Committee agrees, however, that
PHAs should have the tools they need to finance improvements to
public housing units. New authority is needed so that public
housing authorities can use funds they receive to address
critical, deferred maintenance needs. The Committee includes an
administrative provision for loan and loan guarantee authority
to allow public housing authorities the flexibility to use
public housing funds to leverage private capital to
rehabilitate distressed units and develop public housing units
in mixed-income housing developments. The Committee also
includes a set-aside of up to $125,000,000 for grants and
credit subsidy to support this loan and loan guarantee program.
PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $3,576,600,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 3,574,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,576,600,000
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 $3,576,600,000
for the public housing operating fund, the same as the fiscal
year 2003 level and $2,600,000 more than 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 bill includes language from the fiscal
year 2003 appropriations bill that prohibits the use of
operating funds to pay for the operating expenses for a prior
fiscal year.
REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING [HOPE VI]
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $570,269,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 0
Committee recommendation................................ 195,115,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The ``Revitalization of severely distressed public
housing'' account makes 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 difficult to manage
effectively due to multiple deficiencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $195,115,000
for the ``HOPE VI'' account, $195,115,000 above the budget
request and $375,154,000 below the fiscal year 2003 level. The
Committee urges the Department to reconsider the elimination of
the HOPE VI program. This program has resulted in the funding
of innovative projects that work both as public and mixed-
income housing as well as building blocks to revitalizing
neighborhoods.
The Committee has included bill language to sunset the HOPE
VI program on September 30, 2006. This is an important program
that has revitalized many distressed properties as well as
being the anchor for the revitalization of many communities in
which these properties are located. As noted, the Committee is
disappointed that the Administration has eliminated HOPE VI
without proper review and without providing alternative
authority and funding to address the needs of the remaining
PHAs with obsolete units and those with substantial
rehabilitation needs.
In particular, since the inception of the HOPE VI program,
HUD has approved the demolition of some 140,000 units with a
replacement program of mixed income projects. And as noted,
these projects have leveraged new investments and revitalized
entire communities. Nevertheless, the Committee is disappointed
that HUD has failed to evaluate fully the impact of HOPE VI on
communities as well as failed to provide a new strategy to
continue needed revitalization efforts. The Committee expects
the Department to identify those practices used by PHAs that
have successfully implemented the HOPE VI program and either
work to extend the HOPE VI program or develop appropriate
alternative authorities that will continue the efforts of PHAs
to develop mixed income/public housing developments that can
continue to anchor the redevelopment of their communities. The
Committee stresses the importance of a meaningful
reauthorization process, and urges the Department to work with
the appropriate authorizing committees to make HOPE VI or a
successor program a meaningful program for the future.
The Committee also authorizes HUD to recapture funds for
use in awarding HOPE VI grants in fiscal year 2004 from HOPE VI
grants that were awarded in fiscal year 1997 and prior fiscal
years. Funds may only be recaptured where HUD determines a
project is less than 90 percent complete and the project is
unlikely to be completed successfully within the next 2 fiscal
years. In addition, HUD may not recapture funds from a HOPE VI
project that has unobligated funds due to litigation or a court
ordered consent decree. HUD is also required to develop an
alternative housing strategy to meet the needs of the tenants
in a failed HOPE VI project and may only recapture those funds
from the HOPE VI grant that are not needed to fund this housing
strategy. No additional funds may be used to fund an
alternative housing strategy or a project that meets the
requirements of a failed HOPE VI project. HUD also is consult
with the tenants and the PHA on an alternative housing strategy
unless HUD determines that efforts of the PHA or the tenants is
designed to undermine the recapture of the funds and the
development of the alternative housing strategy.
NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $644,782,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 646,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 646,600,000
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 $646,600,000 for the Native
American Housing Block Grant, of which $2,000,000 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 $1,818,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level.
The Committee continues to believe 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 $4,000,000 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.
As discussed last year, the Committee notes that there is
not a requirement that qualified Indian and Alaska Native owned
construction companies be given priority consideration in
construction of Indian housing. In many Indian and Native
communities, the unemployment rate exceeds 80 percent, and
housing contracts would provide much needed employment and
training opportunities for Native Americans living on
reservations and in Alaska Native villages. As with last year,
the Committee directs the agency and its grantees to give
priority consideration to qualified Native owned firms in the
design and construction of Indian housing. The Committee also
directs HUD to report on the use of Native owned firms under
this account by April 15, 2004.
INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $5,266,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,300,000
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 $5,300,000 in program subsidies to
support a loan guarantee level of $197,243,000. This is $34,000
more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $4,300,000
more than the budget request.
NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT
Appropriations, 2003.................................... ( \1\ )
Budget estimate, 2004................................... $10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 0
\1\ In fiscal year 2003, funding for this program was provided under the
Community Development Fund.
The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 creates
the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide
grants to the State of Hawaii's Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands [DHHL] for housing and housing related assistance to
develop, maintain and operate affordable housing for eligible
low-income Native Hawaiian families.
The Committee rejects the administration proposal to fund
this program as an independent account and continues to
recommend funding within the Community Development Fund.
NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $1,028,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,035,000
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 $1,035,000 in program subsidies to
support a loan guarantee level of $39,712,000. This is $7,000
more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $35,000 more
than the budget request.
Community Planning and Development
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $290,102,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 297,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 291,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA]
Program is designed to provide States and localities with
resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive
strategies for meeting the housing needs of persons living with
HIV/AIDS and their families.
Statutorily, 90 percent of appropriated funds are
distributed by formula to qualifying States and metropolitan
areas on the basis of the number and incidence of AIDS cases
reported to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by March
31 of the year preceding the appropriation year. The remaining
10 percent of funds are distributed through a national
competition.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $291,000,000
for this program, $898,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level and $6,000,000 less than the budget request.
The Committee also requires HUD to allocate these funds in
a manner that preserves existing HOPWA programs to the extent
those programs are determined to be meeting the needs of
persons with AIDS. The Committee includes legislation that
allocates the formula funding in a manner consistent with
fiscal year 2003 allocations.
OFFICE OF RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 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 2004 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 2003 level and $25,000,000 above the budget
request.
The Committee does not accept the administration's
recommendation to eliminate funding for this program. The
Committee believes that the Office of Rural Housing and
Economic Development plays an important role in HUD's community
development activities. Twenty-five percent of nonmetropolitan
homes are renter-occupied, and the high cost of housing burdens
those in rural areas, as it does in urban communities.
Furthermore, the Committee notes that the programs of the
Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development are
sufficiently different from the housing programs administered
by the Department of Agriculture to warrant separate
appropriations.
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, 2003.................................... $29,805,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 0
Committee recommendation................................ 0
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 $0 for this
program, $29,805,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level and the same as the budget request. As with the previous
Administration, the Committee believes that this program was
intended to be funded as a mandatory program and not as an
obligation of this bill. The Committee expects the Senate
Finance Committee to fund this program as mandatory. Moreover,
the Committee remains concerned over accountability in this
program and notes that the HUD Inspector General has been
critical about how many communities have implemented this
program and used EZ funds.
community development fund
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $4,904,909,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 4,716,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,950,000,000
program description
Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award
block grants to units of general local government and States
for the funding of local community development programs. A wide
range of physical, economic, and social development activities
are eligible with spending priorities determined at the local
level, but the law enumerates general objectives which the
block grants are designed to fulfill, including adequate
housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic
opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate
income. Grant recipients are required to use at least 70
percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit
low- and moderate-income persons.
Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community
development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective
formulas, one of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age
of housing stock. Seventy percent of appropriated funds are
distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are
distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting
designated amounts for special purpose grants and Indian
tribes.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,950,000,000
for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2004. This is
an increase of $234,000,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 2004 and $45,091,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level.
The Committee has included $4,545,700,000 for community
development block grants [CDBG]. Set-asides under this account
include $72,500,000 for native Americans; $3,300,000 for the
Housing Assistance Council; $2,600,000 for the National
American Indian Housing Council; $12,000,000 for the Self Help
Homeownership Opportunity Program; $35,500,000 for capacity
building of which $31,500,000 is for Capacity Building for
Community Development and Affordable Housing for LISC and the
Enterprise Foundation; and $52,500,000 for section 107 grants,
including $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; $3,000,000 for community development work study,
$11,000,000 for historically black colleges and universities,
of which up to $2,000,000 is for technical assistance,
$7,000,000 for insular areas; $4,000,000 for Community Outreach
Partnerships, and $7,500,000 for Hispanic-serving institutions.
The Committee includes $10,000,000 for assistance authorized
under the Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 under
section 107. The administration proposed to fund this program
in a separate account.
The Committee also includes $60,000,000 for the Youthbuild
program of which $10,000,000 is to develop programs in
underserved and rural areas. The Committee remains concerned
that this program has not developed a significant base of
support for funding outside the Federal funds made available
through this account.
The Committee also funds the Economic Development
Initiative at $140,000,000 and the Neighborhood Initiatives
program at $21,000,000.
The Economic Development Initiatives are as follows:
1. $3,000,000 for the City of Tuscaloosa for the 21st
Avenue Urban Renewal Project in Tuscaloosa, Alabama;
2. $400,000 for the University of South Alabama for
improvements related to the Mitchell College of Business
Library in Mobile, Alabama;
3. $75,000 for the Elmore County Economic Development
Authority for business and economic development activities in
Elmore County, Alabama;
4. $100,000 for the City of Millport, Alabama for
construction costs associated with the Regional Cultural
Center;
5. $200,000 for the Tuscaloosa County Commission for
Community Development in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama;
6. $100,000 for the Montgomery Boys and Girls Club, Alabama
for facility improvements;
7. $250,000 for the City of Fairhope, Alabama for
construction of the Fairhope Library;
8. $100,000 for the Huntsville/ Madison County Convention
and Visitor's Bureau for furnishing of the Visitor's Center in
Huntsville, Alabama;
9. $425,000 for the Crenshaw County Economic/ Industrial
Development Authority for industrial site preparation in
Crenshaw County, Alabama;
10. $100,000 for the Rockford Council of Arts and Crafts
for renovation of the Old Rockford School in Rockford, Alabama;
11. $150,000 for the City of Eufaula, Alabama for the Main
Street Revitalization project;
12. $100,000 for the City of Northport, Alabama for
community development;
13. $1,000,000 for the Anchorage Museum, Anchorage, Alaska
for facilities expansion;
14. $30,000 for the City of Palmer, Alaska for public
facility improvements;
15. $200,000 for the City of North Pole, Alaska for
recreation improvements;
16. $150,000 for Juneau, Alaska for port facilities;
17. $500,000 for the Bering Straits Native Corporation for
the Cape Nome quarry upgrade, Nome, Alaska;
18. $1,000,000 for the Tongass Coast Aquarium, Ketchikan,
Alaska for improvements;
19. $750,000 for the J.P. Jones Community Development
Center, Fairbanks, Alaska for improvements;
20. $400,000 for Love, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska for a social
service facility;
21. $1,000,000 for Cordova, Alaska costs associated with
the construction of a community center;
22. $750,000 for the Kenai Pensula Borough, Kenai, Alaska
for recreation facilities;
23. $500,000 for the City of Sitka, Alaska for the Sawmill
Cove jobs center;
24. $500,000 for the Valdez Senior Center, Valdez Alaska
for improvements;
25. $150,000 for the Anchorage Economic Development
Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska for a global logistics center;
26. $250,000 for the Alaska Aviation Heritage Museum,
Anchorage for improvements;
27. $500,000 for the Central Arkansas Resource Conservation
and Development Council in Helena, Arkansas for the Cherry
Street Historic Preservation Project;
28. $250,000 for the City of Conway, Arkansas for downtown
revitalization;
29. $250,000 for the City of Fort Smith, Arkansas for
streetscapes improvements to Garrison Avenue;
30. $250,000 for the Studio for the Arts in Pocahontas,
Arkansas for construction of a theatre;
31. $1,000,000 for the City of Inglewood, California for
the construction of a senior center;
32. $250,000 for the City of San Francisco, California for
the Old Mint redevelopment project;
33. $750,000 for the City of San Diego, California for the
construction of low income housing;
34. $250,000 for the Sacramento Housing and Development
Agency, California for the construction of new low income
housing;
35. $250,000 for the City of East Palo Alto, California to
build a new town civic center;
36. $1,000,000 for Fort Westernaire, Golden, Colorado for
the expansion of the Westernaire museum;
37. $200,000 for YouthBiz, Inc., Denver, Colorado for
construction needs related to an inner-city youth business
training program;
38. $1,000,000 for Colorado UpLift, Denver, Colorado for
construction needs related to a program benefiting ``at-risk''
inner-city youth in Denver;
39. $1,000,000 for the Denver Art Museum, Colorado for
continued design and development of the Center for American
Indian Art;
40. $200,000 for the City of Arvada, Colorado for the
design phase of the community's arts and humanities center;
41. $500,000 for Mercy Housing, Inc., Denver, Colorado for
the development of affordable housing in Durango, Colorado;
42. $500,000 for the City of Hartford, Connecticut for the
Hartford Home Ownership Initiative;
43. $250,000 for the Southside Institutions Neighborhood
Alliance, Hartford, Connecticut for rehabilitation to
dilapidated housing stock;
44. $500,000 for Sacred Heart Village, Inc., Wilmington,
Delaware to complete the construction of an affordable housing
facility for seniors;
45. $500,000 for the Wilmington Senior Center, Wilmington,
Delaware for renovations for the Lafayette Court senior
apartments;
46. $250,000 for the Greater Washington Urban League, in
Washington, DC for renovations to their new headquarters;
47. $500,000 for Miami Dade County, Florida for the
construction of the Miami Dade County Performing Arts Center;
48. $500,000 for Volusia County, Florida for the
construction of a community performing arts center;
49. $500,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Hawaii,
Nanakuli, Hawaii for the planning and construction of a new
facility;
50. $500,000 for the Oahu Continuum of Care, Wainae, Hawaii
for the construction and renovation of permanent supportive
housing;
51. $500,000 for the Hawaii Nature Center, Wailuku, Hawaii
for the Maui Renovation Project;
52. $500,000 for the County of Kauai, Hawaii to purchase a
building for a technology training facility;
53. $250,000 for the Kapahulu Senior Center, Honolulu,
Hawaii for improvements and renovations to the senior center;
54. $900,000 for the Clearwater Economic Development
Association, Idaho, to continue implementation of a Lewis and
Clark Bicentennial commemoration plan;
55. $800,000 for Boise State University, Idaho, for
construction on an Environmental Science and Economic
Development Building;
56. $900,000 for the City of Salmon, Idaho, for expansion
of the Sacajawea Cultural and Arts Center expansion;
57. $900,000 for the University of Idaho, for construction
related to a Performance and Education Facility;
58. $500,000 for Access Living, Chicago, Illinois for the
construction of a new community service facility;
59. $350,000 for Children's Advocacy Center, Chicago,
Illinois for costs associated with expansion;
60. $300,000 for the City of Des Plaines, Illinois for
infrastructure improvements;
61. $300,000 for the Chicago Department of Cultural
Affairs, Illinois for restoration of the Chicago Cultural
Center Domes;
62. $250,000 for the City of East Moline, Illinois for
necessary upgrades to infrastructure for economic development
purposes, including the Quarter project and revitalization of
the central business district;
63. $500,000 for improvements to the Field Museum, Chicago,
Illinois;
64. $250,000 for Manteno Township, Manteno, Illinois for
economic redevelopment activities;
65. $250,000 for the City of Springfield, Illinois for
infrastructure improvements to support economic development;
66. $800,000 for the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana for the
expansion of the Northeast Indiana Innovation Center;
67. $200,000 for the Indiana Association of Cities and
Towns, Indianapolis, Indiana for downtown revitalization;
68. $200,000 for the City of Anderson, Indiana for the
Anderson Business Center project;
69. $350,000 for the Delaware County Commissioners, City of
Muncie, Indiana for building improvements to the Fairgrounds
facilities;
70. $300,000 for the City of Council Bluffs, Iowa for the
23rd Avenue Housing Project;
71. $250,000 for the Scott County Housing Council,
Davenport, Iowa for the construction and rehabilitation of
housing;
72. $200,000 for the Iowa Department of Economic
Development for the enhancement of regional economic
development capabilities;
73. $250,000 for the Mid America Housing Partnership in
Cedar Rapids, Iowa for the housing trust fund;
74. $100,000 for the Iowa State Fair Board in Des Moines,
Iowa for a statewide awareness and education/exhibit;
75. $280,000 for the City of Waterloo, Iowa for the John
Deere brownfield and bio-based incubator project;
76. $300,000 for the Witwer Senior Center, Cedar Rapids,
Iowa for facility expansion and renovation;
77. $600,000 for the City of Clinton, Iowa for the Liberty
Square brownfields redevelopment project;
78. $2,000,000 for Catholic Housing of Wyandotte County,
St. Peter, Kansas for the development of affordable housing;
79. $1,000,000 for the El Zocalo Hispanic Community Center,
Wichita, Kansas for construction costs;
80. $500,000 for Railroad Heritage, Inc. for construction
costs associated with the Great Overland Station Renovation and
Restoration Project;
81. $3,000,000 for the H.L. Neblett Center in Owensboro/
Daviess County, Kentucky for the construction of a new
facility;
82. $500,000 for the Crittenden County Economic Development
Corporation in Marion, Kentucky, for the Marion/Crittenden
County Technology-Economic Development Training Center;
83. $100,000 for Harrison County, Kentucky for improvements
to the Harrison County Courthouse;
84. $400,000 for Hopkinsville, Kentucky for construction
related to the Hopkinsville-Christian County Conference and
Convention Center;
85. $500,000 for the Louisville Science Center, Kentucky
for renovation and construction related to the Science
Education Wing;
86. $500,000 for PACE Louisiana, New Orleans, Louisiana for
the renovation of a building for a senior adult day center;
87. $750,000 for the State of Louisiana for the Poverty
Point restoration project;
88. $250,000 to the Biomedical Research Foundation for the
InterTech Science Park;
89. $100,000 for the Comprehensive Central City Initiative
of New Orleans, Inc., Louisiana for neighborhood
revitalization;
90. $500,000 for the City of Alexandria, Louisiana for
redevelopment of the riverfront area;
91. $200,000 for the City of Opelousas, Louisiana for the
redevelopment of the historic downtown district;
92. $100,000 for the City of Bogalusa, Louisiana for
recreation improvements;
93. $100,000 for facility improvements at the American Rose
Center in Shreveport, Louisiana;
94. $500,000 for the City of Caribou, Maine to improve and
repair gymnasium and related facilities in the Armory building;
95. $125,000 for the Center Theater for the Performing Arts
in Dover-Foxcroft, Maine to improve and repair the Center
Theater;
96. $125,000 for the Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine to
improve and repair the Armory facility;
97. $220,000 for the University of Maine (Jonesboro and
Orono), Blueberry Hill Farm to renovate the blueberry research
facility;
98. $200,000 for the Central Maine Technical College-
Western Maine University and Technical Center, South Paris,
Maine to assist in development of technical college center;
99. $250,000 for the City of Bangor, Maine for further
development of the Penobscot Riverfront Park;
100. $250,000 for the City of Brewer, Maine to assist the
city's shoreline stabilization project;
101. $120,000 for Sagadahoc County, Maine to repair granite
steps at the Sagadahoc County Courthouse;
102. $210,000 for Town of Thomaston, Maine to fund
construction of sidewalk in business district;
103. $600,000 for the City of Baltimore, Maryland for the
Main Streets Initiative project;
104. $100,000 for the Baltimore Child Abuse Center in
Baltimore, Maryland for building renovations;
105. $500,000 for the B&O; Railroad Museum in Baltimore,
Maryland for building renovations;
106. $250,000 for the Great Blacks in Wax Museum in
Baltimore, Maryland for the Museum Expansion Project;
107. $250,000 for Harford County, Maryland for the Havre de
Grace Youth & Senior Center;
108. $500,000 for Howard County, Maryland for
Revitalization of the Route 1 Corridor;
109. $750,000 for Montgomery County, Maryland for
pedestrian linkages in Silver Spring;
110. $300,000 for the City of Gaithersburg, Maryland for
the Gaithersburg Youth Center;
111. $650,000 for Prince Georges' County, Maryland to
develop an African American Cultural & Community Center in the
Gateway Arts District;
112. $300,000 for Washington County, Maryland for the
Smithsburg Library;
113. $260,000 for the City of Laurel, Maryland for
improvements to Route 1;
114. $65,000 for the Woodlawn Community Education &
Development Association in Baltimore County, Maryland for the
Woodlawn Community Auditorium Project;
115. $250,000 for the City of District Heights, Maryland
for facade and building renovations in the city's commercial
area;
116. $1,500,000 for the Girl Scouts of the USA for youth
development initiatives in public housing;
117. $250,000 for Main South Community Development
Corporation, Worcester, Massachusetts for the Gardner-Kilby
Hammond Neighborhood Revitilization Project;
118. $250,000 for the City of Boston, Massachusetts for the
City of Boston Affordable Housing Environmental Remediation
Project;
119. $1,000,000 for the State of Michigan for costs
associated with the relocation of the A.E. Seaman Mineral
Museum;
120. $250,000 for the City of Detroit, Michigan for the
Detroit Riverfront revitalization project;
121. $250,000 for the FOCUS:HOPE Institute in Detroit,
Michigan for facilities renovation;
122. $500,000 for the City of Saginaw, Michigan for the
South Washington Street Improvement Initiative;
123. $500,000 for the Mexicantown Community Development
Corporation, Detroit, Michigan for the construction of a
welcome center;
124. $225,000 for the City Opera House Heritage
Association, Traverse City, Michigan for costs associated with
restoration;
125. $250,000 for the City of Parchment, Michigan for the
Parchment Brownfield Redevelopment Project;
126. $187,500 for the City of St. Paul, Minnesota for
rehabilitation needs at the Ames Lake Neighborhood/Phalen Place
Apartments;
127. $187,500 for the Shelter House in Willmar, Minnesota
for a new building project;
128. $187,500 for Heartland Corn Products in Winthrop,
Minnesota for the construction of a new facility;
129. $187,500 for the City of Roseau, Minnesota for the
rehabilitation of damaged housing;
130. $500,000 for the City of Tchula, for the development
of the Mississippi Municipal Complex;
131. $500,000 for the City of Oxford, Mississippi for the
City of Oxford Innovation and Outreach Center;
132. $1,000,000 for the City of Meridian, Mississippi for
the rehabilitation of the Riley Education and Performing Arts
Center;
133. $1,000,000 for Mississippi State University for the
renovation of the Lloyd-Ricks Building;
134. $250,000 for the City of Richton, Mississippi for
repairs associated with the City of Richton's Municipal
Complex;
135. $500,000 for the City of Brookhaven, Mississippi for
the rehabilitation of the Lincoln County and City of
Brookhaven's Courthouse;
136. $500,000 for the City of Pearl, Mississippi for the
renovation of the City of Pearl's Community Center;
137. $500,000 for the City of Holly Springs, Mississippi
for the North Memphis Street District Redevelopment and
Revitalization;
138. $250,000 for John C. Stennis Institute of Government,
Mississippi State, Mississippi, for the Capacity Development
Initiative;
139. $500,000 for the Tredegar National Civil War Center
Foundation for planning and construction of the Tredegar
National Civil War Center in Virginia;
140. $250,000 for the Stars and Stripes Museum/Library
Association in Stoddard County, Missouri for archiving facility
upgrades and equipment;
141. $500,000 for the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in
Kansas City, Missouri for renovations to the Buck O'Neil
Research and Education Center;
142. $90,000 for the Capitol City Area Council for Special
Services in Cole County, Missouri for costs associated with the
construction of the Low Income Family Program expansion;
143. $600,000 for the City of Maryville, Missouri for
neighborhood revitalization;
144. $1,000,000 for the Metropolitan Parks & Recreation
District in St. Louis, Missouri for feasibility, engineering,
and design of the Choteau Lake and Greenway Project;
145. $250,000 for the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning
Commission, Ashland, Missouri for construction costs related to
the Life Sciences Technology Incubator;
146. $500,000 for the City of Raytown, Missouri for
downtown revitalization;
147. $500,000 for the Urban League of Kansas City, Missouri
for costs associated with construction;
148. $500,000 for Grand Center, Inc. in St. Louis, Missouri
for construction of a multi-purpose facility for the Charmaine
Chapman Community Center;
149. $450,000 for the City of Clarksville, Missouri for
costs associated with construction of the Riverfront
Development Project;
150. $100,000 for the Eugene Field House Foundation in St.
Louis, Missouri for the Eugene Field House restoration;
151. $500,000 for the Friends of the RB Project, Inc. in
Stockton, Missouri for costs associated with construction of
the Friends of RB Stockton Lake Community Project;
152. $1,000,000 for the University of Missouri-Kansas City
for construction of the Cardiovascular Proteomics Center;
153. $750,000 for the National Children's Cancer Society in
St. Louis, Missouri for construction;
154. $500,000 for the Daly Mansion Preservation Trust,
Hamiliton, Montana for the Marcus Daly Mansion Renovation
Project;
155. $500,000 for the Story Mansion, Bozeman, Montana for
historical renovations and improvements;
156. $650,000 for the Deaconess Billings Clinic, Billings,
Montana for additions to the research division;
157. $500,000 for St. Vincent's Foundation, Billings,
Montana for construction of a senior citizens facility;
158. $500,000 for the Big Sky Economic Development
Authority, Billings, Montana for economic development outreach;
159. $150,000 for the Great Falls Development Authority,
Great Falls, Montana for economic development outreach;
160. $500,000 for the Southwest Boys and Girls Club,
Bozeman, Montana for construction of a new facility;
161. $275,000 for the Northern Cheyenne Boys and Girls
Club, Lame Deer, Montana for construction costs;
162. $225,000 for Missoula Aging Services, Missoula,
Montana for expansions and renovations;
163. $250,000 for the Yellowstone Boys and Girls Ranch
Billings, Montana for construction costs;
164. $350,000 for the Bozeman Library, Bozeman, Montana for
renovations and infrastructure;
165. $250,000 for the City of Omaha, Nebraska for the North
24th Street Corridor Revitalization project;
166. $375,000 for the Omaha Performing Arts Society in
Omaha, Nebraska for construction costs associated with the
Omaha Performing Arts Center;
167. $625,000 for the North Omaha Housing Initiative in
Omaha, Nebraska for the development of affordable housing;
168. $750,000 for the City of Nashua, New Hampshire to
renovate and expand the Nashua Senior Center;
169. $500,000 for the City of Nashua, New Hampshire for the
restoration of Mines Falls Park;
170. $700,000 for the Greater Manchester YMCA, Manchester,
New Hampshire for renovation of facilities;
171. $550,000 for City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire to
assist in the creation of a safe pedestrian link (Portsmouth
Piscataqua Riverwalk) between scenic and historic destinations
and New Hampshire's only working deep-water seaport;
172. $100,000 for the Town of Troy, New Hampshire for the
Troy Economic Development Initiative;
173. $500,000 for the City of Claremont, New Hampshire, for
the Claremont Economic Development Initiative/Renovation of
Historic Mills;
174. $400,000 for the City of Concord, New Hampshire for
the renovation of Penacook Mills;
175. $1,000,000 for the State of New Jersey for
construction costs associated with the South Jersey Rural
Economic Development Corporation;
176. $1,000,000 for the New Jersey Community Development
Corporation in Paterson, New Jersey for construction of a
Transportation Opportunity Center;
177. $500,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Santa Fe, New
Mexico to construct a new facility;
178. $500,000 to the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, to
complete construction and renovation of buildings occupied by
the Cuidando los Ninos program for homeless children and
families (the John Marshal Renovation Project, Phase II,
Cuidando los Ninos site);
179. $700,000 for the Hobbs Industrial Air Park
redevelopment project in Hobbs, New Mexico;
180. $640,000 for the Village of Tijeras, New Mexico for
construction of an addition to the Tijeras Village Hall;
181. $360,000 for the Town of Taos, New Mexico, for the
DreamTree Project Transitional Living Program Apartments to
serve homeless, abused, and neglected youth;
182. $1,600,000 for the Town of Taos, New Mexico, to
complete construction and lining of the Paseo del Canon
Drainage Channel and related safety fencing;
183. $200,000 for Dona Ana County, New Mexico, for the
Veterans Memorial Wall to honor war veterans;
184. $250,000 for the Sephardic Community Center, Brooklyn,
New York for a building addition for seniors, adults, teenagers
and children;
185. $250,000 for the Broome-Tioga Workforce Development
System in New York to create a business incubator;
186. $250,000 for Schines Theatre, Auburn, New York for
restoration of the facility;
187. $250,000 for the Foothills Performing Arts Center,
Inc., Oneonta, New York for construction of a new facility;
188. $250,000 for the Nepperhan Valley Technology Center,
Yonkers, New York to develop a biotechnology incubator;
189. $250,000 for the Metropolitan Development Association
of Central New York in Syracuse, New York for VISION 2010;
190. $250,000 for Southern Tier Sports and Recreation
Center, Inc. in Binghamton, New York for development of a
Community Center Complex;
191. $350,000 for the City of North Las Vegas, Nevada for a
neighborhood beautification project;
192. $350,000 for the City of Reno, Nevada for the
construction of the Reno Homeless Resource Center;
193. $350,000 for the City of Las Vegas, Nevada for
improvements to a historic building;
194. $350,000 for Community Chest, Inc., Virginia City,
Nevada for construction of a youth and community resource
center;
195. $350,000 for the City of Reno through the Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce, Nevada for streetscaping improvements;
196. $200,000 for WestCare Foundation in Las Vegas, Nevada
for renovations of facilities;
197. $50,000 for the YMCA of Southern Nevada in Las Vegas
for facility renovations;
198. $1,000,000 for the V.I.C.T.M. Family Center in Washoe
County, Nevada for the construction of a facility for multi-
purpose social services referral and victim counseling;
199. $500,000 for Transylvania County, North Carolina for
construction of a library;
200. $300,000 for Bennett College, Greensboro, North
Carolina for a community revitalization project;
201. $100,000 for Mayland Community College, Spruce Pine,
North Carolina for the Hampshire Mill Building Reuse and Market
Study;
202. $100,000 for the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum,
Hatteras, North Carolina to complete construction;
203. $600,000 for the City of Rugby, North Dakota to
complete information technology and energy projects;
204. $400,000 for Lewis and Clark CommunityWorks, Bismark,
North Dakota for the Mandan Library Square project;
205. $500,000 for the Northwest Venture Communities Inc.,
Minot, North Dakota for the construction of the Northwest
Career and Technology Center;
206. $500,000 for Three Affiliated Tribes Tourism
Department, New Town, North Dakota for a cultural interpretive
center;
207. $500,000 for Sitting Bull College, Fort Yates, North
Dakota for a day care center;
208. $700,000 for Franklin County Metro Parks, Franklin
County, Ohio for the purchase of land in the Darby Creek
Watershed;
209. $1,000,000 for the City of Dayton, Ohio for the
development of structures in the W. Third Street Historic
District;
210. $500,000 for the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority
for the Northwest Ohio Brownfield Restoration Initiative;
211. $300,000 for the Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing
Program [CAMP], Ohio to renovate and continue construction of
the Cleveland Manufacturing Technology Complex [CMTC];
212. $450,000 for the Johnny Appleseed Heritage Center,
Inc. in Ashland County, Ohio for construction of facilities;
213. $800,000 to the Dayton Development Coalition for the
development of a commercial and industrial site near the
airport in Dayton, Ohio;
214. $250,000 to the Village of Cedarville, Ohio for the
construction of a library;
215. $1,000,000 for the Portland Development Commission,
Portland, Oregon for the South Waterfront Greenway Project;
216. $400,000 for the Portland Development Commission,
Portland, Oregon for affordable housing in North Macadam
Central District;
217. $200,000 for the City of Portland, Oregon for the
Central City Eastside Streetcar project;
218. $100,000 for the City of Astoria, Oregon for
restoration to the Astoria Column Cultural Heritage Center;
219. $50,000 for the Umatilla Community Recreation Center,
Oregon for construction;
220. $100,000 for Universal Community Homes in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to continue the conversion of more
than 500 parcels of land into for-sale units to low- and
moderate-income families;
221. $100,000 to the Erie Municipal Airport Authority in
Erie, Pennsylvania, for the redevelopment of the recently
acquired, former Fenestra window manufacturing facility to
serve the needs of major air express carriers as an on-airport
integrated service center;
222. $300,000 to the Community Initiatives Development
Corporation, Our City Reading, in Reading, Pennsylvania, for
the rehabilitation of abandoned houses and parks to provide
quality home ownership opportunities to low-income families;
223. $75,000 to the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for
the rehabilitation of the Blue Horizon Theater, which will
serve as an anchor in the Entertainment District;
224. $50,000 for the City of Erie, Pennsylvania, for site
preparation and redevelopment of the vacant and blighted
Koehler Brewery Building;
225. $150,000 for the Borough of Lehighton, Pennsylvania,
to establish a Market Towns Community Technology Center, which
will serve as a community technology center to support the
Corridor Market Towns regional revitalization initiative;
226. $125,000 for Downtown Chambersburg, Inc., in
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, to construct the Capitol Theatre
Center and preserve the 1927 Capitol Theatre as part of a
regional arts initiative;
227. $100,000 for the Chester Economic Development
Authority, in Chester, Pennsylvania, for the redevelopment of
the blighted and vacant waterfront district, including the
former PECO power station into office space;
228. $75,000 for the Warner Theater Preservation Trust, in
Erie, Pennsylvania, to restore and expand the historic Warner
Theater, which will serve as the centerpiece of a regional
performing arts venue;
229. $100,000 for Mt. Airy, USA, in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, to continue a redevelopment and urban renewal
initiative as part of neighborhood housing preservation
strategy aimed at revitalizing the community's main commercial
corridor, Germantown Avenue;
230. $100,000 for the City of Bradford, Pennsylvania, to
assist with the rehabilitation of the old City Hall Building as
the cornerstone of the city's urban redevelopment plan;
231. $250,000 for the Greater Wilkes-Barre Chamber of
Business and Industry, in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, for the
acquisition and redevelopment of the historic Irem Temple,
which will be converted into a cultural center;
232. $75,000 for Nueva Esparanza, in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, to create a Latino Corridor, as part of an inner
city development initiative to transform neighborhood vacant
lots and abandoned homes into a vibrant commercial corridor;
233. $150,000 for Jefferson Square Community Development
Corporation, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for a home
ownership development initiative aimed at rejuvenating the
inner-city through blight removal and construction of modern,
low-income homes;
234. $75,000 for Enterprise Center CDC, in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for the design and development of Enterprise
Heights, which will contain 50,000 square feet of new and
rehabilitated office and retail space;
235. $100,000 for the Urban Redevelopment Authority, in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to revitalize the Centre Avenue
Corridor through acquisition and redevelopment of vacant
structures and lots in the community;
236. $100,000 for the Allegheny County Department of
Economic Development in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, for the
redevelopment of the former U.S. Steel Carrie Furnace site, as
part of an effort to stabilize the community through the
integration of the former industrial area, the adjacent
neighborhoods and the riverfront;
237. $200,000 for the Allegheny County Department of
Economic Development for the construction of an Industrial Park
in McKeesport, Pennsylvania, including the rehabilitation of a
former USX Tube Works site utilizing high performance building
techniques;
238. $75,000 for the City of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, for
the Pine Street Neighborhood Development Project, including the
acquisition and demolition of a blighted warehouse, as well as
construction of affordable housing and an office building to
house area non-profit organizations, which will offer social
services to city residents;
239. $75,000 for the South Philadelphia Area Revitalization
Corporation, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the
construction of low-and moderate-income housing;
240. $100,000 for the Greater Johnstown Regional
Partnership, in Johnstown, Pennsylvania to construct a regional
technology center as part of a community revitalization
initiative;
241. $75,000 for the Columbia Alliance for Economic Growth,
in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, for technological infrastructure
improvements for the Bloomsburg Regional Technology Center;
242. $300,000 for the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania for
the development of an entertainment/retail complex;
243. $75,000 for the Historic Preservation Trust of
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, for rehabilitation of
facilities at the Thaddeus Stevens and Lydia Hamilton Smith
historic site;
244. $200,000 to the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to
support the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, which will
demolish abandoned homes as well as revitalize the Philadelphia
region;
245. $125,000 to the Ogontz Avenue Revitalization
Corporation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to assist with
substantial rehabilitation of severely deteriorated vacant
properties that will be developed as a part of the West Oak
Lane community development rebuilding initiative;
246. $75,000 to the National Trust for Historic Gettysburg
in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, for the restoration of the
historic Majestic Theater;
247. $100,000 to the Philadelphia Chinatown Development
Corporation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the construction
of a Chinatown Community Center;
248. $75,000 to the Invest Erie Community Development
Corporation in Erie, Pennsylvania, for the acquisition and
development of property to establish a Parade Street Plaza;
249. $700,000 for the Salvation Army of Rhode Island,
Providence, Rhode Island for construction of a day care center;
250. $130,000 for the City of North Providence, Rhode
Island for construction of a senior center;
251. $300,000 for the YMCA of Greater Providence, Rhode
Island for the Village of Promise project;
252. $300,000 for the Sexual Assault and Trauma Center of
Rhode Island, Providence, Rhode Island to purchase a building
for the Children's Advocacy Center;
253. $300,000 for the Providence Public Library, Rhode
Island for renovations;
254. $450,000 for the Johnston Senior Citizens Center,
Johnston, Rhode Island for the construction of a new senior
center;
255. $170,000 for AS220 and Perishable Theatre, Providence,
Rhode Island for building refurbishment;
256. $300,000 for the Pawtucket Armory Association in
Pawtucket, Rhode Island for the renovation of the Pawtucket
Armory as an arts center;
257. $200,000 for the Warwick Boys and Girls Club, Warwick,
Rhode Island for building renovations;
258. $150,000 for the Trinity Repertory Theatre,
Providence, Rhode Island for the construction of the Pell
Chafee Performance Center;
259. $100,000 for Travelers Air in Providence, Rhode Island
for building renovations;
260. $100,000 for the Institute for the Study and Practice
of Nonviolence for the renovation of the institute;
261. $100,000 for the Town of Bristol, Rhode Island for the
redevelopment of the waterfront complex;
262. $100,000 for the Roger Williams Park in Providence,
Rhode Island for the construction of the Botanical Gardens;
263. $50,000 for the Seabee Museum and Memorial park in
North Kingstown, Rhode Island for costs associated with
construction;
264. $50,000 for Harmony Hill School in Chepachet, Rhode
Island for construction of Harmony House II;
265. $1,000,000 for the Five Rivers Community Development
Corporation, Georgetown, South Carolina for economic
development and affordable housing;
266. $500,000 to the Winchester Conservation Museum,
Edgefield, South Carolina for expansion;
267. $2,000,000 for Wakpa Sica Historical Society in Fort
Pierre, South Dakota for the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Center;
268. $400,000 for the City of Parker, South Dakota for the
development of a community center;
269. $400,000 for the City of Beresford, South Dakota for
the Beresford Industrial Infrastructure Development project;
270. $200,000 for the Aberdeen Workforce Development
Council, Aberdeen South Dakota for costs associated with the
Workforce Development Center;
271. $50,000 for the Canton Economic Development
Corporation, Canton, South Dakota for infrastructure
development;
272. $350,000 for Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell,
South Dakota for facilities construction for the McGovern
Library and Center for Public Service;
273. $350,000 for the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota for
the expansion and rehabilitation of the Orpheum Theatre;
274. $200,000 for the City of Vermillion, South Dakota for
the expansion of the Center for Children and Families;
275. $100,000 for the City of Redfield, South Dakota for
renovations and improvements to the Carnegie Library;
276. $900,000 for the Five Points Commercial Development
Project in Knoxville, Tennessee to develop abandoned, blighted,
and underdeveloped commercial areas;
277. $500,000 for Rolling Mill Hills in Nashville,
Tennessee to revitalize distressed urban areas;
278. $500,000 for the New Town Center at Soulsville in
Memphis, Tennessee to support economic and community
development;
279. $500,000 for the Chattanooga Riverfront Development
Project, Chattanooga, Tennessee to create new park space and
other improvements along the riverfront;
280. $100,000 for the Historic Rugby Economic Development
Project in Rugby, Tennessee to develop new visitor facilities
and encourage economic growth;
281. $500,000 for the Tennessee State University
Communications Enhancement Initiative in Nashville, Tennessee
to complete a performing arts center and support community
programs;
282. $250,000 for the City of San Angelo, Texas for the
Innovative Low Income Housing Financing Initiative;
283. $450,000 for the Greater Kelly USA Development
Authority, San Antonio, Texas for the Kelly USA Economic
Development for Commerce for a manufacturing site served by
rail;
284. $200,000 for the City of Denton, Texas for the
downtown redevelopment and infrastructure improvements;
285. $100,000 for the City of Dallas, Texas for renovations
to the Texas Theater;
286. $300,000 for the City of Dallas, Texas for the Eagle
Ford Low Income Housing Project for the development of
affordable housing for low and moderate-income families;
287. $200,000 for the City of Beaumont, Texas for the
Downtown Improvement Program;
288. $200,000 for Camp Fire USA, Texas for costs associated
with multiple construction projects;
289. $200,000 for the Border Trade Alliance, Texas for the
Economic Health of the Southwest Border project;
290. $200,000 for the City of Austin, Texas for the SMART
(Safe, Mixed-Income, Accessible, Reasonably-Priced and Transit-
Oriented) Housing Program;
291. $300,000 for the Chinese Community Center, Houston,
Texas to develop a new center site;
292. $200,000 for Holt Hotel in Wichita Falls, Texas for
continued renovations to the Holt Hotel;
293. $200,000 for the Science Spectrum in Lubbock, Texas
for the Science Spectrum Aerospace Exhibit to design and
construct a 5,000 square foot permanent, hands-on exhibition
demonstrating the science and engineering principles of powered
flying machines, including aerospace concepts;
294. $400,000 for the City of Austin, Texas for renovations
needed, associated with the 2006 World Congress on Information
Technology, to the Austin Community Center;
295. $300,000 for the St. Philip's Development Board,
Dallas, Texas for the St. Philip's Neighborhood Development
Plan;
296. $1,000,000 for the City of Provo, Utah for the Pioneer
Neighborhood Revitalization project;
297. $1,000,000 for the City of Ogden, Utah for the Ogden
Central Neighborhood Redevelopment project;
298. $500,000 for the City of Logan, Utah for Northwest
Public Park project;
299. $500,000 for Salt Lake City, Utah for the Pete Suazo
Business Center to purchase building space;
300. $500,000 for Syracuse City, Utah for the Syracuse City
Senior Citizen and Community Center for construction;
301. $500,000 for the Vermont Institute of Natural Science,
Woodstock, Vermont for the construction of a wildlife
rehabilitation facility;
302. $400,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation
Board, Montpelier, Vermont for the creation of affordable
rental housing in downtown Brattleboro;
303. $100,000 for the City of Burlington, Vermont for the
construction of the Lake Champlain Navy Memorial;
304. $1,000,000 for the Vermont Center on Emerging
Technologies, Burlington, Vermont for the development of a
technology incubator;
305. $200,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation
Board, Montpelier, Vermont for construction of affordable
housing in St. Albans, Vermont;
306. $250,000 for the Northern Community Investment
Corporation, St. Johnsbury, Vermont for development of the
Newport Area Family Services project;
307. $400,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation
Board, Montpelier, Vermont for construction of affordable
housing in Essex, Vermont;
308. $150,000 for the Vermont Broadband Council to expand
broadband services in rural Vermont;
309. $1,200,000 for the City of Newport News, Virginia for
the development of the Newport News Fine Arts Center;
310. $300,000 for the Art Museum of Western Virginia,
Roanoke Virginia for the planning of the museum;
311. $500,000 for the Museum Development Authority,
Seattle, Washington for costs associated with brownfields
redevelopment;
312. $250,000 for the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing
Authority, Bremerton, Washington for downtown revitalization;
313. $250,000 for the Washington Technology Center in
Seattle for the Washington Nanotechnology Initiative;
314. $500,000 for the West Central Community Center,
Spokane, Washington for costs associated with expansion;
315. $300,000 for Lutheran Community Services Northwest,
SeaTac, Washington for the construction of a community services
building;
316. $500,000 for the Compass Center in Seattle, Washington
for the renovation and expansion of facilities;
317. $200,000 for Hope Home in Pasco, Washington for the
purchase and renovation of a home for its program;
318. $250,000 for the Walter Clore Wine and Culinary Center
in Prosser, Washington for costs associated with construction;
319. $250,000 for the Economic Alliance in Okanogan,
Washington for the construction of a business incubator;
320. $250,000 for the City of Manitowoc, Wisconsin for
economic development acitivities;
321. $200,000 for the Menomonee Valley Partners of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the redevelopment of a former rail
yard;
322. $100,000 for the West Central Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission of Eau Claire, Wisconsin for an economic
development initiative;
323. $100,000 for the City of Beloit, Wisconsin for the
redevelopment of a former industrial site;
324. $100,000 for Techstar of Milwaukee, Wisconsin for
economic development initiatives;
325. $500,000 for C-CAP, Inc., Waukesha, Wisconsin for
costs associated with the Low Income Housing Redevelopment
Project;
326. $250,000 for the City of Kenosha, Wisconsin for the
construction of affordable housing;
327. $250,000 for the City of Madison, Wisconsin for the
construction of low-income housing;
328. $500,000 for Appalachian Bible College, Beckley, West
Virginia to complete its library resource center;
329. $1,000,000 for the Huntington Area Development
Council, Huntington, West Virginia for the construction of a
business incubator;
330. $2,000,000 for West Virginia University in Morgantown
for the construction of a facility focused on forensic science
and biometrics research;
331. $1,000,000 for the University of Wyoming for the
construction of the Wyoming Technology Business Center.
The Neighborhood Initiatives grants are as follows:
1. $2,000,000 for the Denali Commission for the
rehabilitation and construction of affordable housing for
teachers in rural Alaska;
2. $4,000,000 for the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality for neighborhood restoration in Ottawa County;
3. $5,000,000 for the Grace Hill Neighborhood Health
Centers, Inc. for lead-abatement of housing in St. Louis,
Missouri;
4. $500,000 for the City of Denton, Texas for downtown
redevelopment;
5. $250,000 for the Garfield Family Intervention Center in
Birney, Montana for renovations;
6. $250,000 for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation,
Missoula, Montana for building construction;
7. $500,000 for the City of Fresno, California for the
Roeding Business Park Development project;
8. $750,000 for the City of Waterbury, Connecticut for the
demolition of blighted buildings;
9. $250,000 for the County of Hawaii for neighborhood
restoration in Hilo, Hawaii;
10. $500,000 for the Iowa Department of Economic
Development for the Main Street Iowa initiative;
11. $500,000 for the City of Waterloo, Iowa for the
redevelopment of the Rath area brownfields;
12. $300,000 for the City of Rockford, Illinois for a
neighborhood revitalization project in the North Mid Town Area;
13. $200,000 for the City of Indianapolis, Indiana for the
Tenth Street Revitalization Project;
14. $1,000,000 for MassDevelopment, Boston, Massachusetts
for the Lawrence Gateway/Quadrant Area Redevelopment Plan;
15. $500,000 for the City of Roseau, Minnesota for economic
redevelopment;
16. $250,000 for Rural Opportunities, Rochester, New York
for the Upstate New York Community and Business Development New
Market Initiative;
17. $1,000,000 for the City of Rock City, South Carolina
for the revitalization and the development of the Arcade-
Westside Area of Rock Hill;
18. $1,500,000 for the City of Beckley, West Virginia for
downtown revitalization;
19. $1,000,000 for East Baltimore Development Inc., in
Baltimore, Maryland for redevelopment activities in East
Baltimore.
20. $150,000 for Charles County, Maryland for the La Plata
Community Center.
The bill includes a number of technical corrections to
previous grant awards.
COLONIAS GATEWAY INITIATIVE
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $0
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 16,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 0
The Committee does not include $16,000,000 as requested by
the Administration for a new initiative in the Colonias.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
guarantee loans Program costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003.............. $275,000,000 $6,284,000
Budget estimate, 2004............. 0 0
Committee recommendation.......... 275,000,000 6,325,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 of publicly-owned real property,
housing rehabilitation, and other economic development
activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,325,000 for
program costs associated with the section 108 loan guarantee
program. This amount is $41,000 above the fiscal year 2003
enacted level and $6,325,000 more than the budget request. The
Administration recommended no funding for this program. While
the program has had an uneven history, it does afford some
communities the ability to leverage private capital for large
projects through a pledge of future CDBG funds.
Of the funds provided, $5,332,000 is for credit subsidy
costs to guarantee $275,000,000 in section 108 loan commitments
in fiscal year 2004, and $993,000 is for administrative
expenses to be transferred to the salaries and expenses
account.
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $24,837,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 0
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 about the same as the fiscal
year 2003 enacted level and $25,000,000 above the budget
request. The administration requested no funding for this
program. In order to allow greater flexibility, Brownfields
funds are no longer required to be tied to section 108
development funding.
home investment partnerships program
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $1,987,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 2,197,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,975,000,000
program description
Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as
amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.
This program provides assistance to States and units of local
government for the purpose of expanding the supply and
affordability of housing to low- and very low-income people.
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.
There is a 25-percent matching requirement for participating
jurisdictions which can be reduced or eliminated if they are
experiencing fiscal distress. Funding for the American Dream
Downpayment Assistance initiative is also provided through the
HOME program. This initiative provides downpayment assistance
to low income families to help them achieve homeownership.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,975,000,000
for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This amount is
$12,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and
$222,000,000 less than the budget request.
The Committee includes $18,000,000 for technical
assistance, the same amount as provided in fiscal year 2003. Of
this amount, $6,000,000 is for qualified non-profit
intermediaries to provide technical assistance to Community
Housing and Development Organizations [CHDOs]. The remaining
$12,000,000 is for intermediaries to provide technical
assistance to HOME participating jurisdictions. The Committee
objects to any proposal by the Department that ties the use of
HOME funds for homeownership to the allocation of funds under
the American Dream Downpayment Fund.
The Committee includes $50,000,000 for the Administration's
proposed American Dream Downpayment Fund. The Committee
supports expanding homeownership opportunities, but remains
concerned that this program lacks authorization and may be
implemented by States and localities as an eligible HOME
activity. The Committee supports efforts the Department may
undertake to educate communities on how to use HOME funds to
expand homeownership, and encourages the Department to use its
technical assistance funds towards this end.
Of the amount provided for the HOME program, $40,000,000 is
for housing counseling assistance. The Committee does not fund
housing assistance counseling in a new account, as proposed by
the Administration. The Committee views homeownership
counseling, including pre- and post-purchase counseling, as an
essential part of successful homeownership. The Committee
expects that this program will remain available to those
participating in all HUD's homeownership programs. The
Committee also urges HUD to utilize this program as a means of
educating homebuyers on the dangers of predatory lending, in
addition to the Administration's stated purpose of expanding
homeownership opportunities.
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $1,217,037,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 1,325,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,325,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Homeless Assistance Grants Program provides funding to
break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons
and families to permanent housing. This is done by providing
rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and
permanent housing, and supportive services to homeless persons
and families. The emergency grant is a formula funded grant
program, while the supportive housing, section 8 moderate
rehabilitation single-room occupancy program and the shelter
plus care programs are competitive grants. Homeless assistance
grants provide Federal support to one of the Nation's most
vulnerable populations. These grants assist localities in
addressing the housing and service needs of a wide variety of
homeless populations while developing coordinated Continuum of
Care [CoC] systems that ensure the support necessary to help
those who are homeless to attain housing and move toward self-
sufficiency.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,325,000,000 for homeless
assistance grants. The amount recommended is $107,963,000 more
than the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level and equal to the
budget request. Of the amount provided, $194,000,000 is to fund
Shelter Plus Care renewals on an annual basis and $12,000,000
is for technical assistance and management information system.
The Committee also has provided funds for the United States
Interagency Council on Homelessness through a new account
established under title III of this bill.
The Committee continues to believe that HUD and local
providers need to increase, over time, the supply of permanent
supportive housing for chronically homeless, chronically ill
people until the need is met at an estimated 150,000 units.
Accordingly, the Committee again includes a requirement that a
minimum of 30 percent of the funds appropriated under this
account be allocated to permanent housing. To this end, the
Committee urges the Department to use its technical assistance
funds to increase the capacity of homeless assistance providers
to finance, develop, and operate permanent supportive housing.
The Committee is concerned that the Department is not
taking the proper steps to ensure that Shelter Plus Care units
are targeted to chronically homeless individuals. The Committee
recognizes that the goal of creating 150,000 units of permanent
supportive housing will not succeed in ending chronic
homelessness if the Shelter Plus Care units are not properly
targeted. The Committee directs the Department to report to the
Committee by March 15, 2004 on how it is ensuring that Shelter
Plus Care grants are made to providers serving chronically
disabled, chronically homeless people.
The Committee remains supportive of the Department's
ongoing work on data collection and analysis within the
homeless programs. HUD should continue its collaborative
efforts with local jurisdictions to collect an array of data on
homelessness in order to analyze patterns of use of assistance,
including how people enter and exit the homeless assistance
system, and to assess the effectiveness of the homeless
assistance system. The Committee directs HUD to take the lead
in working with communities toward this end, and to analyze
jurisdictional data. The Committee directs HUD to report on the
progress of this data collection and analysis effort by no
later than March 12, 2004.
The Committee supports the U.S. Interagency Council on
Homelessness's [ICH] efforts to develop 10-year plans to end
chronic homelessness. For example, the U.S. Conference of
Mayors recently adopted a resolution encouraging cities to
create and implement performance based, results oriented
strategic plans to end chronic homelessness in 10 years.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department to develop
incentives or requirements, as necessary, under the McKinney-
Vento program that supports the development and implementation
of these 10-year plans.
The Committee remains concerned about the out-year costs of
renewing permanent housing programs. Therefore, the Committee
directs the Department to include 5-year projections, on an
annual basis, for the cost of renewing the permanent housing
component of the Supportive Housing Program and Shelter Plus
Care grants in its fiscal year 2005 budget justifications.
EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $100,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 0
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 funded by the Department of Homeland
Security's [DHS] Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] and
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 are restricted by
legislation from spending more than 3.5 percent of the funding
received for administrative costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee does not include the Administration's
proposal to transfer the Emergency Food and Shelter Program
from DHS to HUD. The Committee has provided funding for this
program within DHS.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANTS
The Committee includes a rescission of $30,000,000 from the
UDAG program, as requested by the Administration. This program
was terminated in 1990.
Housing Programs
HOUSING FOR SPECIAL POPULATIONS
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $1,027,081,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 0
Committee recommendation................................ 1,033,801,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account consolidates the housing for the elderly under
section 202 and housing for the disabled under section 811.
Under these programs, the Department provides capital grants to
eligible entities for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or
construction of housing. Up to 25 percent of the funding
provided for housing for the disabled may be made available for
tenant-based assistance under section 8.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,033,801,000
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 $250,515,000
for capital advances for housing for the disabled (section 811
housing). This is $9,650,000 more than the budget request in
section 202 housing for fiscal year 2003. Up to 25 percent of
the funding allocated for housing for the disabled can be used
to fund tenant-based rental assistance for the disabled.
The section 202 funds include up to $30,000,000 for the
conversion of section 202 housing to assisted living
facilities, and up to $50,000,000 for service coordinators. HUD
is directed to report by June 15, 2004 to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on the status of the conversion
program, including steps being taken to ensure funds are being
utilized. Of the funds provided, $30,000,000 is for the capital
grant program. The Committee intends that these funds are
available to both convert existing 202 properties to assisted
living as well as for substantial capital repairs. The
Committee urges HUD to work with the National Baptist
Convention Office of Housing Commission on providing affordable
housing for seniors and as an interface for technical
assistance.
The Committee is concerned about the growing costs of
renewal contracts within the elderly and disabled housing
programs. This legislation includes a new provision requiring
HUD to include individual line requests for all housing
assistance renewal requirements, including the amounts needed
for expiring elderly and disabled housing contracts.
FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND
(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized
HUD to establish a revolving fund into which rental collections
in excess of the established basic rents for units in section
236 subsidized projects are deposited. Subject to approval in
appropriations acts, the Secretary is authorized under the
Housing and Community Development Amendment of 1978 to transfer
excess rent collections received after 1978 to the Troubled
Projects Operating Subsidy program, renamed the Flexible
Subsidy Fund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve
as a repository of excess rental charges appropriated from the
Rental Housing Assistance Fund. Although these resources will
not be used for new reservations, they will continue to offset
Flexible Subsidy outlays and other discretionary expenditures.
RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The section 236 Rental Housing Assistance Program is
authorized by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as
amended. The section 236 program subsidizes the monthly
mortgage payment that an owner of a rental or cooperative
project is required to make. This interest subsidy reduces
rents for lower income tenants. Title V of the 1998
Appropriations Act established a program of rehabilitation
grants for owners of eligible projects.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has included a provision that provides for
the recapture of $303,000,000 from contract authority in excess
of funds needed under section 236 of the National Housing Act.
The Committee has dedicated these funds to other housing needs.
MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $12,915,000
Budget request, 2004.................................... 17,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,000,000
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 $13,000,000 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 $4,000,000 less than
the budget request and $85,000 more than the fiscal year 2003
enacted level.
federal housing administration
mutual mortgage insurance program account
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003................................ $100,000,000 $165,000,000,000 $345,568,000
Budget estimate, 2004............................... 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 359,000,000
Committee recommendation............................ 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 359,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
general and special risk program account
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003.................... $50,000,000 $23,000,000,000 $222,262,000 $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004................... 50,000,000 25,000,000,000 229,000,000 14,902,000
Committee recommendation................ 50,000,000 25,000,000,000 229,000,000 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 appropriations made in the FHA program
accounts to the HUD ``Salaries and expenses'' accounts.
Additionally, funds are also appropriated for administrative
contract expenses for FHA activities.
committee recommendation
The Committee has included the following amounts for the
``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program'' account: a limitation on
guaranteed loans of $185,000,000,000, a limitation on direct
loans of $50,000,000, and an appropriation of $359,000,000 for
administrative expenses. For the GI/SRI account, the Committee
recommends $25,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans,
a limitation on direct loans of $50,000,000, and $229,000,000
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 2004 for multifamily bridge loans and single
family purchase money mortgages to finance the sale of certain
properties owned by the Department. Temporary financing shall
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 will enable governmental and nonprofit
intermediaries to acquire properties for resale to owner-
occupants in areas undergoing revitalization.
The Committee remains concerned that HUD has failed to
calculate adequately the amount of credit subsidy necessary to
support its multifamily mortgage insurance programs. The
Committee continues to direct HUD to institute a computer
program that accurately identifies the risk of default and
financial risk to the insurance fund, including the ability to
mark to market each day. The Committee further directs HUD to
issue any premium changes through notice and comment rule
making, as required by law.
The Committee is disappointed by FHA's failure to notify
the appropriate Congressional committees that it may not have
had adequate authority to cover loan commitments for its FHA
Single Family Mortgage Insurance program in fiscal year 2003.
Without HUD's recent decision to delay the point of obligation
for the effective date of liability for FHA single family
mortgage insurance, HUD would have had to terminate its FHA
Single Family Mortgage Insurance program in August of 2003,
effectively stalling homeownership for many thousands of
families. While this legal decision appears appropriate, the
Committee is concerned that the Congress was never effectively
notified regarding the potential risk of termination of this
important homeownership program. To ensure that HUD provides
proper notification of the status of the FHA Single Family
Mortgage Insurance program in the future, the Committee directs
HUD to continue submitting reports required by section 3(b) of
Public Law 99-289 as well as weekly updates to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations regarding FHA's commitment
levels following notification that the FHA's mortgage insurance
commitments have exceeded 75 percent of the limit set forth in
this bill.
The Committee also continues to be disappointed by the slow
pace at which the Department is implementing the Asset Control
Area [ACA] program. The Committee recognizes that the
Department has made substantial changes to the Asset Control
Area program guidelines, including a fairer, more streamlined
discount structure on foreclosed properties. However, no Asset
Control Area contracts have been signed since this Committee
instructed the Department to resume the ACA program in H.R.
4775.
Contributing to the delay in implementation of the ACA
program is the fact that HUD continues to narrowly interpret
the statutory flexibility Congress provided when it created the
ACA program. The ACA program must remain sufficiently flexible
to allow the Department to be responsive to the unique needs of
each community. For example, HUD should allow ACA partners to
sell rehabbed properties at market value so that sales of HUD
properties do not undermine already unstable housing markets.
Any proceeds above eligible total development costs should be
used to further the goals of the ACA program. In addition, HUD
should allow ACA participants to rehabilitate a limited number
of multi-unit homes for rental housing for low-income people or
sell them for development of rental housing for low-income
people.
The Department has proposed a number of administrative
changes to the Asset Control Area program, including redefining
revitalization areas. The Committee directs the Department to
also consider high rates of default or foreclosure for single
family mortgages insured by FHA when determining revitalization
areas, as required by Public Law 105-276. Further, the
Committee directs the Department to submit a report that lists
all of the communities that lost their designation as
revitalization areas, and to provide a justification for that
change to the Committee by January 2, 2004. Until this program
is fully operational, the Committee directs HUD to award no
bonuses, step increases or other awards for the staff that have
primary responsibility for this program. This program
represents an opportunity to help rebuild distressed
communities through homeownership. HUD has no valid excuse for
its failure to implement this program in a timely manner. Both
the families who live in these distressed communities and
communities themselves have been disadvantaged because of HUD's
continuing failure to move forward with a program that should
be considered a priority program within the FHA housing
portfolio.
The Committee is concerned that the Section 242 Hospital
Insurance program's focus in a single state constitutes
unacceptably high risk and that the Department should take
steps to reduce the 83 percent portfolio concentration in New
York in order to ensure the long-term viability of the program
and mitigate risks for the General Insurance Fund. Therefore,
the Committee directs HUD to report to the Committee by June
30, 2004 on its efforts to reduce geographic concentration of
risk in the Section 242 program not later than 180 days after
the enactment of this act. The Committee also directs HUD in
this report to identify alternatives to HUD's underwriting of
hospitals as well as assess the overall financial risk to HUD
in underwriting hospital insurance, how risk is assessed and
ways to mitigate and minimize this risk. This report should
include an assessment of private and public investment in
hospitals and healthcare facilities as well as how the
marketplace works in meeting the healthcare facility needs of
rural and urban areas. The Department is directed to consult
with HHS on these issues for the final report.
The Committee urges the Department to take more proactive
steps to prevent foreclosures in its FHA single family
programs. The Committee directs FHA to require one or more of
the following: an appraisal conducted by a State certified
appraiser, with experience in the market and certified by the
city; a home inspection; or the presence of someone with a
fiduciary responsibility to the buyer, such as a buyer's
realtor, or other agent representing the buyer's interest,
during the purchase of FHA-insured houses in revitalization
areas. The Committee also urges the Department to reinstitute
its long standing policy which required that new homes
purchased with FHA insurance receive either an FHA-certified
inspection or a 10-year insurance-backed warranty.
The Committee has included bill language to require the
Department to promulgate a regulation to institute a ``good
neighbor'' policy in the multi-family housing insurance program
at FHA. The Committee intends for this regulation to allow HUD
to preclude certain buyers from purchasing foreclosed
properties during the disposition process. The Committee
directs the FHA to institute a policy that allows it to prevent
the sale of HUD properties, from HUD, or from State and local
governments, to people with demonstrated patterns of severe
housing code violations. Bill language is included to require
the regulation be issued within 90 days of enactment.
Government National Mortgage Association
guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
$200,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
10,276,000
Budget estimate, 2004:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
200,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
10,695,000
Committee recommendation:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
200,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
10,695,000
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 $10,695,000 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 $10,695,000 for administrative expenses, the
same as the budget request and an increase of $419,000 above
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
Policy Development and Research
research and technology
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $46,695,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 51,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 47,000,000
program description
Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970,
as amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to undertake programs of research,
evaluation, 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 seek 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 $47,000,000 for research and
technology activities in fiscal year 2003. This amount is
$305,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and
$4,000,000 below the budget request. Of this funding,
$7,500,000 is for 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. The
Committee also supports the continuing research on promising
technologies for the manufactured housing industry.
In addition, because in the past HUD has used this office's
broad authority to administer new and unauthorized programs,
the Office of Policy Development and Research 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, 2003.................................... $45,601,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 50,000,000
program description
The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding
for both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the
Fair Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP].
The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local
agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968, as amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale,
rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of
brokerage services. The major objective of the program is to
assure prompt and effective processing of title VIII complaints
with appropriate remedies for complaints by State and local
fair housing agencies.
The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by
section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1987, as amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed
to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to
public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating
or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair
housing opportunities.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommendation provides $50,000,000, of which
$23,000,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP]
and no more than $27,000,000 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, 2003.................................... $174,856,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 136,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 175,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1992 established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act under which HUD is authorized to make grants to
States, localities and native American tribes to conduct lead-
based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities in
private low-income housing. This has become a significant
health hazard, especially for children. According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], some 890,000
children have elevated blood levels, down from 1.7 million in
the late 1980s. Despite this improvement, lead poisoning
remains a serious childhood environmental condition, with some
4.4 percent of all children aged 1 to 5 years having elevated
blood lead levels. This percentage is much higher for low-
income children living in older housing.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $175,000,000 for lead-based paint
hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2004.
This amount is $39,000,000 more than the budget request and
$144,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted 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 supports the research being conducted by the National
Foundation for Environmental Education on black mold, and
encourages the Department to use funds provided for the Healthy
Homes Initiative to fund this type of research.
The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the lead hazard
reduction demonstration program which was established in fiscal
year 2003 to focus on major urban areas where children are
disproportionately at risk for lead poisoning.
As previously discussed, there remains significant lead
risks in privately-owned housing, particularly in unsubsidized
low-income units. For that reason, approximately 1 million
children under the age of 6 in the United States suffer from
lead poisoning. While lead poisoning crosses all socioeconomic,
geographic, and racial boundaries, the burden of this disease
falls disproportionately on low-income and minority families.
In the United States, children from poor families are eight
times more likely to be poisoned than those from higher income
families. Nevertheless, the risks associated with lead-based
paint hazards can be addressed fully over the next decade.
As noted last year, the urban lead hazard reduction program
is designed to target funding to major urban areas where the
lead hazard risk for low-income children under the age of 6 is
greatest. Qualified applicants are the 25 major urban areas
identified by the Secretary as having: (1) the highest number
of pre-1940 units of rental housing; (2) significant
deterioration of paint and; (3) a disproportionately high
number of documented cases of lead-poisoned children. At least
80 percent of funds must be used for abatement and interim
control of lead-based paint hazards. Further, the program
targets abatement to units that serve low-income families. In
order to ensure that occupants of all units in multi-family
housing developments are adequately protected by lead hazard
reduction activities, grantees are permitted to treat all
residential units in structures with 5 or more units, a
majority of which are occupied by low-income families, as
though they were occupied entirely by low-income people. As a
condition of assistance, each major urban area shall submit a
detailed plan for use of funds that demonstrates sufficient
capacity acceptable to the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development. The plans should identify units with the most
significant risk, and should include strategies to reduce the
risk of lead hazards and to mobilize public and private
resources.
The Committee also encourages HUD to work with grantees on
its lead-based paint abatement hazards programs so that
information is disclosed to the public on lead hazard
abatements, risk assessment data and blood lead levels through
publications and internet sites such as Lead-SafeHomes.info.
The Committee also includes $5,000,000 in the Neighborhood
Initiative program to begin a lead-based paint abatement pilot
program in St. Louis to be coordinated by the Grace Hill
Neighborhood Health Centers to eliminate the source of lead
paint poisoning within the city's large, aging housing stock.
The Committee is aware of highly successful lead paint
abatement efforts in Milwaukee and Baltimore and strongly
recommends that the St. Louis effort use and adopt the best
practices from those cities and other successful efforts to
help perfect a model program that could be used as a nation-
wide model.
Management and Administration
salaries and expenses
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian
FHA GNMA CDBG Title VI housing Native
Appropriation funds funds funds transfer block Hawaiian Total
grant loan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003.............................................. 526,852 544,639 10,276 993 199 149 35 1,083,143
Budget estimate, 2004............................................. 536,000 564,000 10,695 1,000 250 150 35 1,112,130
Committee recommendation.......................................... 547,000 564,000 10,695 1,000 150 250 35 1,122,130
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The ``Salaries and expenses'' account finances 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 administrative support in areas such
as accounting, personnel management, contracting and
procurement, and office services.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,112,130,000
for salaries and expenses. This amount is $28,987,000 more than
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the budget
request. The appropriation includes the requested amount of
$564,000,000 transferred from various funds from the Federal
Housing Administration, $10,695,000 transferred from the
Government National Mortgage Association, $1,000,000 from the
community development block grant funds, $150,000 from title
VI, $250,000 from the Native American Housing Block Grant, and
$35,000 from the Native Hawaiian Housing Program.
The Committee remains concerned over HUD's hiring practices
which resulted in the Department hiring some 268 full time
equivalents [FTEs] over its requested 9,100 FTEs for fiscal
year 2003. In many cases, these employees were hired without
regard to office and program needs or pursuant to HUD's own
staffing plan. The Committee directs HUD to report quarterly to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on all hiring
within the Department, including justifications for any
significant increase in FTEs for any particular office or
activity.
The Committee also is concerned with the Department's
misunderstanding of the fiscal year 2003 bill and report
language for this account which resulted in the removal of all
authority for appropriations law from the Office of the General
Counsel to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and the
Office of Budget. This bill reaffirms the overall
responsibility of the HUD General Counsel for appropriation law
issues within HUD. The Committee notes that a legal opinion
issued by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of
Justice on August 8, 2003 stated unequivocally that, while the
VA-HUD fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Act provided authority
for the HUD Chief Financial Officer to investigate potential
and actual violations of all appropriations law, nothing in
that law removed overall authority for appropriations law
issues from the Office of the General Counsel. The Committee
expects HUD to follow this opinion and reinstate the authority
of the Office of the General Counsel for overall appropriation
law issues. In addition, the Committee remains very concerned
that any efforts to limit authority for violations of the Anti-
Deficiency Act and other appropriations laws to the Office of
the CFO and the Budget Office will create unacceptable
conflicts of interest with regard to the normal
responsibilities of the CFO and the Budget Office.
In addition, the Department is prohibited from employing
more than 77 schedule C and 20 noncareer senior executive
service employees. The Committee understands that the
Department is staffed largely by personnel who are close to
retirement and at the top of the civil service pay schedule.
The Committee encourages HUD to implement hiring practices that
result in the hiring of young professionals who can gain
experience and advancement.
Office of Inspector General
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug
FHA funds by elimination
Appropriation transfer grants Total
transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003............................ $73,674,000 $23,343,000 .............. $97,017,000
Budget estimate, 2004........................... 76,080,000 24,000,000 .............. 100,080,000
Committee recommendation........................ 78,000,000 24,000,000 .............. 102,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
This appropriation will finance all salaries and related
expenses associated with the operation of the Office of the
Inspector General [OIG].
committee recommendations
The Committee recommends an overall funding level of
$102,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This
amount is $4,983,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level
and $1,920,000 above the budget request. This funding level
includes $24,000,000 by transfer from various FHA funds. The
Committee commends OIG for its commitment and its efforts in
reducing waste, fraud and abuse in HUD programs.
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $274,504,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 276,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 240,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The working capital fund, authorized by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, finances information
technology and office automation initiatives on a centralized
basis.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $240,000,000 for the working
capital fund for fiscal year 2004. These funds are $36,300,000
below the budget request and $34,504,000 below the fiscal year
2003 level.
CONSOLIDATED FEE FUND
(RESCISSION)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $8,000,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 0
Committee recommendation................................ 0
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 all unobligated
balances from the fee fund, as requested by the Administration.
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $29,805,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 32,415,000
Committee recommendation................................ 32,415,000
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 $32,415,000 for the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is the same as the
budget request and $2,610,000 more than the fiscal year 2003
enacted level.
The Committee remains very concerned regarding the
competency of this office to provide the necessary financial
oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This concern was
reinforced by OFHEO's failure to identify recent accounting and
management irregularities at Freddie Mac. While it appears that
Freddie Mac is in good financial shape, it is not clear whether
OFHEO would have identified the financial irregularities if
Freddie Mac had been in financial risk. Because of these
irregularities the Committee believes OFHEO must be competant
and capable to identify all accounting and management
irregularities, regardless of immediate financial risk.
Administrative Provisions
The Committee recommends 25 administrative provisions. A
brief description follows.
Sec. 201. Promotes the refinancing of certain housing
bonds.
Sec. 202. Provides free speech protections.
Sec. 203. Technical correction for the allocation of HOPWA
funding.
Sec. 204. Requires HUD to award funds on a competitive
basis unless otherwise provided.
Sec. 205. Allows funds to be used to reimburse GSEs and
other Federal entities for various administrative expenses.
Sec. 206. Limits HUD spending to amounts set out in the
budget justification.
Sec. 207. Clarifies expenditure authority for entities
subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
Sec. 208. Requires HUD to submit certain additional
information as part of its annual budget justifications.
Sec. 209. Requires HUD to maintain section 8 assistance on
properties occupied by elderly or disabled families.
Sec. 210. Exempts Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi from the
requirement of having a PHA resident on the board of directors
for fiscal year 2004. Instead, the public housing agencies in
these States are required to establish advisory boards that
include public housing tenants and section 8 recipients.
Sec. 211. Sunsets the HOPE VI program on September 30,
2006.
Sec. 212. Requires quarterly reports on all uncommitted,
unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD programs.
Sec. 213. Requires HUD to report on the number of units
being assisted under section 8 and the per unit cost of these
units.
Sec. 214. Provides correction to HOPWA funding for
Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Sec. 215. Extends the authority to waive the 40 percent
rent ceiling under section 8 for certain projects.
Sec. 216. Makes section 811 housing eligible for service
coordinators.
Sec. 217. Revises formula for the payment of debentures
under FHA.
Sec. 218. Renames Interagency Council on the Homeless.
Sec. 219. Establishes new FHA mortgage insurance program to
reform bad credit.
Sec. 220. Provides access to new data to vertify section 8
rents.
Sec. 221. Facilitates the financing of rehabilitation and
development of public housing.
Sec. 222. Corrects salary requirements for the United
States Interagency Council on Homelessness.
Sec. 223. Changes management of funding for nonentitlement
areas in Hawaii.
Sec. 224. Establishes new requirements for the disposition
of HUD-owned multifamily housing.
Sec. 225. Makes a technical correction to section 217 of
Public Law 107-73 with respect to the re-use of funds
originally made available for the Hollander Ridge HOPE VI grant
award.
TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $35,017,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 32,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 35,000,000
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, including 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 $35,000,000 for the American
Battle Monuments Commission. This amount is $2,600,000 above
the budget request and $17,000 below the fiscal year 2003
enacted level. The Committee has provided additional funds to
support the ongoing Normandy visitor center project
($1,720,000) and to restore funding for salaries and expenses
($880,000).
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $6,408,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 8,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board was
authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to
investigate accidental releases of certain chemical substances
resulting in, or that may cause, serious injury, death,
substantial property damage, or serious adverse effects on
human health. It became operational in fiscal year 1998.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the budget request of $8,000,000
for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, equal
to the budget request and $1,592,000 above the fiscal year 2003
level.
The Committee recognizes that the Board has accepted the
FEMA IG's recommendations to rectify certain unacceptable
deficiencies, and has taken strong steps to implement the IG's
recommendations. The Committee continues to support the FEMA
IG's ongoing review of the Board's activities and remains
concerned regarding the Board's ability to meet mission
requirements.
The Committee also believes that the Board should be
working with the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] in
identifying critical requirements for the protection of
chemical and related industrial plants from the risk of
terrorist attack. The Committee directs the Board to report to
the Committee by April 20, 2005 on its contributions to these
efforts and its relationship with the DHS.
As provided in previous fiscal years, for this fiscal year
and hereafter, 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 30th of 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, 2003.................................... $74,512,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 51,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 70,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund makes
investments in the form of grants, loans, equity investments,
deposits, and technical assistance grants to new and existing
community development financial institutions [CDFIs], through
the CDFI program. CDFIs include community development banks,
credit unions, venture capital funds, revolving loan funds, and
microloan funds, among others. Recipient institutions engage in
lending and investment for affordable housing, small business
and community development within underserved communities. The
CDFI Fund administers the Bank Enterprise Award [BEA] Program,
which provides a financial incentive to insured depository
institutions to undertake community development finance
activities. The CDFI Fund also administers the New Markets Tax
Credit Program, a newly created program that will provide an
incentive to investors in the form of a tax credit, which is
expected to stimulate private community and economic
development activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for the CDFI Fund,
which is $4,512,000 below the fiscal year 2003 level and
$19,000,000 above the administration's request. The Committee
is disappointed with the Administration's proposed reductions
to CDFI and BEA. Both are important programs and play an
important role in underserved communities.
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 the same as the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The Committee has included this
set-aside in fiscal year 2004 because the Native American,
Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiian communities have been
historically underserved by CDFIs. The Committee directs the
Fund to submit an update to its 5-year strategic plan to the
Committee that outlines its efforts to improve the economic
needs of Native Americans. This report is due to the Committee
by April 20, 2004.
The Committee provides funds to restore proposed cuts to
the financial assistance, technical assistance and Bank
Enterprise Award programs. The Committee directs the CDFI Fund
to make funds for financial assistance available to CDFIs
regardless of their size and to continue the Small and Emerging
CDFI Assistance program. The Committee is concerned about the
Fund's new Hot Zones strategy which targets CDFI Program
funding to distressed areas rather than to underserved
populations. The Committee believes that the CDFI Fund should
continue to provide capital to poor and underserved
populations, regardless of the poverty rates for the
surrounding area.
The Committee is concerned that the CDFI Fund's recent
changes to Investment Areas distress criterion will negatively
impact rural areas. CDFI no longer considers out-migration and
population loss as criteria for determining Investment Areas
eligible for CDFI Fund targeting. Between 1990 and 2000, nearly
one-third of the nation's rural counties lost 10 percent of
their population, contributing to a loss of businesses and high
unemployment. Poverty and unemployment rates often appear
relatively low in rural communities because low-income and
employed residents move away. Thus, out-migration and
population loss can be crucial distress indicators for rural
America, and the Committee believes that CDFI must take these
factors into account as separate eligibility criteria. As such,
the Committee directs the CDFI Fund to restore out-migration
and population loss as criteria in determining Investment Areas
for fiscal year 2004.
The Committee remains concerned over the CDFI Fund's lack
of data on its programs' outputs and outcomes. The Committee
has difficulty making funding decisions for the Fund without an
accurate accounting of the activities that the Fund has
contributed to in low-income communities. The Committee
recognizes that this has been a long-standing problem with the
CDFI Fund, and urges the Administration to improve its
monitoring systems. This is especially important now that the
CDFI Fund will have administrative responsibilities for the New
Markets Tax Credit Program.
Consumer Product Safety Commission
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $56,629,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 60,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 60,000,000
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 $60,000,000 for the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, equal to the budget request and an
increase of $3,371,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level.
Corporation for National and Community Service
Appropriations, 2003....................................\1\ $384,172,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 597,742,000
Committee recommendation................................ 484,075,000
\1\ Includes rescission of $48,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL 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 education 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, the Chief
Executive Officer, and the Chief Financial Officer are
appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed
by the Senate.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $484,075,000 for the Corporation
for National and Community Service, an increase of $99,902,000
over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $113,667,000 below
the budget request.
In addition to the normal operating plan requirements as
directed in this report, the Committee directs the Corporation
to notify the Chair of the Committee prior to each
reprogramming of funds in excess of $100,000 between programs,
activities, or elements.
NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS
OPERATING EXPENSES
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003 \1\................................ $378,211,000
Budget estimate, 2004 \2\............................... 592,742,000
Committee recommendation................................ 452,575,000
\1\ Includes $20,367,000 for salaries and expenses.
\2\ Includes $21,600,000 for salaries and expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
program description
The National and Community Service programs operating
expenses account funds all programs and activities authorized
by the National and Community Service Act of 1993. This account
covers two of the three main components to the AmeriCorps
program (the AmeriCorps State and National, and AmeriCorps
National Civilian Community Corps [NCCC]); Learn and Serve;
Innovation, Demonstration, and Assistance activities
(authorized under subtitle H); program administration for State
commissions; audits and evaluations; and the Points of Light
Foundation. Funding for AmeriCorps supports costs for volunteer
stipends and education benefits. Education benefits are
deposited into the National Service Trust, which provides a
secure repository for education awards earned by eligible
AmeriCorps members who successfully complete a term of service.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $452,575,000 for the Corporation's
programs operating expenses. This appropriation provides
$340,000,000 for AmeriCorps (not including NCCC); $43,000,000
for Learn and Serve; $25,000,000 for NCCC; $14,575,000 for
subtitle H fund activities; $12,000,000 for State
administrative expenses; $3,000,000 for audits and evaluations;
$5,000,000 for America's Promise; and $10,000,000 for the
Points of Light Foundation.
AmeriCorps.--The Committee recommends $340,000,000 for
AmeriCorps grants, National Direct and State funds, and
education awards. This amount is $66,787,000 above the fiscal
year 2003 enacted level and $93,242,000 below the budget
request.
The Committee did not appropriate the full budget request
level for the AmeriCorps program due to the new funding
procedures implemented after the submission of the budget
request last fall and the bill's requirement to reduce the
Federal share of member costs. These new factors will allow the
Corporation to support the same level of membership as
requested but at a lower cost to the taxpayer. Therefore, the
Committee's recommended funding level will support up to 75,000
new volunteers for the AmeriCorps program. Further, the
Committee directs the Corporation to comply fully with the
Inspector General's [IG] July 24, 2003 report recommendations
and prohibits the expenditure of AmeriCorps funds until the IG
has certified that the Corporation has complied fully with the
IG's recommendations. In addition, the Committee has included
report language under the salaries and expenses account that
prohibits bonuses and salary increases for senior level
management until the Corporation has complied fully with the
IG's recommendations.
The Committee remains extremely concerned about the
Corporation's mismanagement of the AmeriCorps program. Last
year, the Corporation over-approved the AmeriCorps program by
about 22,000 members resulting in a suspension of the program
and the need for additional appropriated funds into the
National Service Trust fund. More troubling to the Committee is
the IG's recent finding in its July 24, 2003 report that the
Corporation violated the Anti-Deficiency Act [ADA] by approving
more AmeriCorps members than could be financially supported.
According to the IG, the primary causes for the ADA violation
were ``inadequate oversight, flawed membership and financial
reporting systems, job responsibilities for key personnel that
were either not well-defined or adhered to, and a lack of
effective communication among Corporation managers.'' The IG
also found that the Corporation violated two provisions in its
authorizing statute related to the National Service Trust.
The Committee recognizes and applauds the efforts of the
Corporation, especially the Chief Financial Officer [CFO] and
her staff, in addressing the management problems of the
AmeriCorps program. However, the IG stated in his July 24, 2003
report that ``internal control weaknesses still pose a threat
to the financial integrity of the Corporation and the National
Service Trust.'' Further, the IG stated that ``Unless
effectively addressed, these weaknesses could also result in
future violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act.'' Accordingly,
the Committee has included restrictions on the expenditure of
AmeriCorps funds to ensure that the Corporation complies with
the law and demonstrates financial and management competency.
While the over-enrollment problems were initially created
several years ago, the Corporation's senior leadership failed
to respond to the problems in a timely manner. According to the
Office of Inspector General [OIG], senior Corporation
leadership was aware of the over-enrollment problems as far
back as the summer of 2002. A senior Corporation manager
informed the Corporation's leadership that ``estimated
enrollment could reach 58,000 by year end, and that down the
line the Corporation would have to be sure the Trust had
sufficient funds to handle the increased enrollments.'' This
official sent subsequent messages to the Corporation's
leadership about the over-enrollments. Despite warnings from
staff, senior leadership including the CEO, the CEO's senior
aide, the Chief Operating Officer, and the Director of
AmeriCorps did not act. The Corporation acted after the new
Chief Financial Officer assumed duties in November 2002 and
enrollments to the AmeriCorps program were suspended.
When the Committee was first notified of the over-
enrollment problem, the General Accounting Office [GAO] and the
Corporation's Office of Inspector General [OIG] was contacted
to examine fully the causes of the problem. The auditors found
that the Corporation had violated its own authorizing
legislation by approving more AmeriCorps positions than it
could financially support. Further, GAO concluded that the
Corporation did not comply with the law on recording its
financial liabilities for the National Service Trust.
The auditors also identified several factors that led to
the Corporation's incorrect accounting practice. The factors
included inappropriate obligation practices, little or no
communication among key Corporation executives, too much
flexibility given to grantees regarding enrollments, and
unreliable data on the number of AmeriCorps participants. The
OIG noted a number of practices that violated the Corporation's
own handbook rules including AmeriCorps program officers
approving additional enrollments in excess of the originally
approved levels.
The OIG also noted that the administration's fiscal year
2002 budget request contributed to the insolvency of the Trust
fund to cover the AmeriCorps program liabilities by not
requesting any funds for the Trust. According to the
Corporation's own budget justifications for fiscal year 2002,
no new budget authority was required in fiscal year 2002
because among other factors, it assumed a program budget based
on ``no growth in the number of AmeriCorps members in 2002''
and an ``assumption that AmeriCorps will remain at 48,000
members beyond 2002.''
The Committee also notes that the administration's fiscal
year 2003 budget for the AmeriCorps program proposed
$57,000,000 for the Trust fund to support 74,000 AmeriCorps
members and to fund 8,000 high school scholarships.
To ensure that the Corporation was able to meet its
commitments to the program and to ensure current level services
for the AmeriCorps program, the Congress appropriated
$275,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. This represented a
$35,500,000 increase over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.
In response to the Corporation's revised request, the
conference committee designated $100,000,000 to the Trust Fund
to ensure solvency in the program and to allow the Corporation
to enroll 50,000 new members in fiscal year 2003.
The administration subsequently requested and the Congress
approved a deficiency appropriation of $64,000,000 to fund
previous years' commitments to the AmeriCorps program. This
request was made after the administration realized that the
Corporation had incorrectly calculated its legal liabilities
for past enrollments. The Committee reminds the Corporation of
the requirements attached to the fiscal year 2003 Emergency
Wartime supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108-11) in
which the funds were made contingent upon the submission of an
Anti-Deficiency Act report to the Congress, which has yet to be
submitted.
Further, the Congress passed an accounting correction bill
(the Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act) in June 2003 to remedy
the Corporation's incorrect funding practices for the
AmeriCorps programs. The Committee took these actions to ensure
that the AmeriCorps program was maintained at current service
levels despite the Corporation's mismanagement. However, the
Committee still expects the Corporation to address fully the
culture and management controls of the AmeriCorps programs to
ensure that past failures do not reoccur.
The Committee has not designated a specific allocation for
the National Service Trust fund to allow greater flexibility in
the AmeriCorps program. The Committee, however, expects the
Corporation to determine and designate a specific amount for
the Trust consistent with its estimate of AmeriCorps members it
expects to support in fiscal year 2004 and consistent with the
funding formula requirements established under the Strengthen
AmeriCorps Program Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-45). The
Committee expects the Corporation to provide this detailed
information in the operating plan and expects the operating
plan to contain detailed information on its membership level
estimates, Trust and program grant allocations, and details on
its compliance with Public Law 108-45, including the
assumptions used in its methodology for calculating service
award liability.
The Committee directs the Corporation to provide monthly
reports to the Committees on Appropriations and the
Corporation's Inspector General on the actual and projected
year-end level of AmeriCorps membership enrollment, usage, and
earnings, and the financial status of the Trust fund (revenue,
expenses, outstanding liabilities, reserve, etc.). Further, the
Committee directs the Chief Executive Officer, the Director of
AmeriCorps, and the Chief Financial Officer to certify that the
information in these reports is accurate and independently
verified. If the year-end projections are expected to exceed
the levels that can be supported financially by the
Corporation, the Committee expects the Corporation to take
immediate corrective actions and notify the Committee.
Within the amount provided, the Committee is providing
$50,000,000 for national direct grantees. Further, the
Committee is designating $5,000,000 for national service
scholarships for high school students and $4,900,000 for the
Promise Fellows program.
The Committee remains concerned about the Corporation's
efforts to reduce grantee reliance on Federal funding and the
Federal costs per program participant. The Committee reminds
the Corporation that these goals have been a long-standing
requirement in the VA-HUD bill. While the Committee appreciates
the Corporation's sustainability report submitted last April,
the Committee strongly believes that more aggressive measures
must be taken by the Corporation to comply with the letter and
spirit of the sustainability requirement. Accordingly, the
Committee directs the Corporation to require sustainability as
a criterion in its competitive grant programs and require
organizations to provide information in its applications on all
of its funding sources, including all Federal, other public,
and private sources. Further, the Committee directs the
Corporation to increase the matching requirements for those
organizations that have received more than $3,000,000 on
average for the past 3 years. At a minimum, the Corporation
should increase the match by 50 percent and consider an
incremental increase in the match requirement on an annual
basis. Further, the Committee directs the Corporation to
publish in its fiscal year 2005 budget justifications a list of
recipients that have received more than $500,000 and the amount
of other Federal and non-Federal funds that it received.
The Committee has also addressed the bill's long-standing
requirement that the Corporation reduce the total Federal costs
per participant by requiring the Corporation to reduce the
costs by at least 10 percent in fiscal year 2004. Based on
recent data from the Corporation, the Corporation spends about
$16,000 per AmeriCorps members for program and education award
costs. The Committee strongly believes that the goal to reduce
costs by 10 percent is achievable given the recent upsurge in
private corporate interest in the AmeriCorps program. Further,
the Committee has included bill language that shifts the
education award only authority from the H fund to the regular
AmeriCorps program account. This flexibility will allow the
Corporation to fund more AmeriCorps members at a lower cost,
consistent with its agreement established several years ago
with Senator Grassley.
The Committee bill includes language that requires the
Inspector General [IG] to conduct random audits of AmeriCorps
grantees. The Committee included this provision because of
continuing concerns over the lack of accountability and
oversight in the AmeriCorps program. For example, two
Corporation-funded programs in Terre Haute, Indiana, gave
members credit for service that was inappropriate under the
grants. These activities included life guarding, babysitting
and cutting lawns. In this case, only one of 25 AmeriCorps
members interviewed by the IG had completed the hours required
to earn an education award. Nevertheless, all 25 AmeriCorps
members were certified as having met the requirements for the
education award. The Indiana Commission repaid $237,000 to the
Corporation.
While the IG has made progress in identifying and
addressing examples of fraud and abuse, the Committee
understands that the Corporation does not have the proper
management information systems to track grants or ensure
appropriate use and accountability. Because of the long-term
nature of this problem, the Committee is requiring the
Inspector General to conduct random audits of the grantees that
administer activities under the AmeriCorps programs and to
debar any grantee that has been determined to have committed
any substantial violations of the requirements of the
AmeriCorps programs, including any grantee that has been
determined to have violated the prohibition of using Federal
funds to lobby the Congress. The Committee directs the IG to
audit all grantees at least once over the next 5 years and
report to Congress annually on all audits. The Committee also
directs the IG to include in the audits for the first year all
the nonprofits that are in the top 10 percent of the grantees
receiving the largest AmeriCorps grants.
The Committee encourages the Corporation to support
volunteers or organizations that mobilize unpaid volunteers for
community activities. In other words, by moving away from
``retail'' activities to ``wholesale'' activities, the
Corporation could expand its reach to more citizens who wish to
respond to the call to service.
Within the amount provided, the Committee directs the
Corporation to continue at least the current level of support
for programs designed to help teach children to read by the
third grade and for activities dedicated to developing computer
and information technology skills for students and teachers in
low-income communities. Further, the Committee directs the
Corporation to support activities designed to assist the needs
of veterans, especially homeless veterans.
Innovation, Demonstration.--The Committee recommends
$14,575,000 for innovation, demonstration, and assistance
activities. Within this amount, the Committee recommends
$5,000,000 for challenge grants; $2,000,000 for next generation
grants; $500,000 for Martin Luther King Jr. Day grants;
$100,000 for the Fellowship program; $300,000 for Freedom
scholarships; $250,000 for faith-based activities; $725,000 for
Service Learning Clearinghouse and Exchange; $2,000,000 for
training and technical assistance; and $4,000,000 for
disability programs. The Committee has not funded activities
that serve other Federal agencies and offices. The Committee
expects the administration to fund those activities from the
relevant agencies and offices and establish appropriate
transfer authority in cases where the Corporation is
administering programs on the agency's behalf.
The Committee directs the Corporation to comply with the
challenge grant funding requirements established under the
conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations
Resolution, 2003.
NCCC.--The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the
National Civilian Community Corps [NCCC]. This is the same
funding level as provided in fiscal year 2003.
Learn and Serve.--The Committee recommends $43,000,000 for
school-based and community-based service learning programs.
This is the same funding level as provided in fiscal year 2003.
State Administration.--The Committee recommends $12,000,000
for State commission administrative expenses. The Committee
directs the Corporation to address immediately the management
problems identified by the Office of Inspector General. The
Committee strongly urges the Corporation to withhold additional
grant awards to those State commissions that have not taken
corrective actions in response to the OIG audits.
Audits and Evaluations.--The Committee recommends
$3,000,000 for audits and evaluations. Of the funds provided
for audits and evaluations, the Committee has provided
$2,000,000 to evaluate and conduct performance measurement
audits of the AmeriCorps program.
The Committee appreciates the Corporation's recent efforts
to develop a performance measurement system to assess the
impact of the AmeriCorps program. Nevertheless, to date, the
Corporation is unable to provide performance data on neither
the impact of AmeriCorps nor the actual costs of the program.
As noted in the administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool
[PART], the AmeriCorps program received an overall weighted
score of 36 percent and a rating of ``results not documented.''
The PART analysis found that the AmeriCorps program's current
goals are neither specific nor measurable and the Corporation
is unable to track program outcomes and use this information to
shape funding decisions. The Committee directs the Corporation
to submit a report to the Committee by no later than February
21, 2004 on its efforts to address its performance measurements
weaknesses.
In addition, the Committee has allocated $1,000,000 for a
contract with the National Academy of Public Administration
[NAPA] to conduct a comprehensive review of the leadership,
operations and management of the Corporation. The Committee
expects NAPA to pursue those areas within this broad framework
that, in its judgment, warrant review. However, the Committee
is particularly interested in the areas of financial
management, field and headquarters organization structure,
business processes, grant program structure and operations,
human resources management, and interactions with involved
State and local entities and other stakeholders. The Committee
directs the Corporation to award this contract within 3 months
of the enactment of this bill, and directs NAPA to issue a
final report no later than 12 months after the signing of the
contract.
Points of Light.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for
the Points of Light Foundation. Of the amounts provided, the
Foundation may set-aside $2,500,000 for its endowment fund.
America's Promise.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for
America's Promise.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... ( \1\ )
Budget estimate, 2004................................... ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation................................ $25,000,000
\1\ These funds were included under the program account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Corporation's activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000
for salaries and expenses. The Committee reiterates the
directive under the program account that the Corporation must
fund all staffing needs from the salaries and expenses account.
Within the amount provided, the Committee directs the
Corporation to fund those staff positions that the Corporation
previously funded within subtitle H authorities. This past
practice by the Corporation was an inappropriate use of
Innovation funding. The Committee has consolidated all salaries
and expenses under this new account to improve accountability
and transparency to these activities. Under this account, the
Committee has provided $18,300,000 for salaries and benefits,
$400,000 for travel, $2,300,000 for technology, $2,000,000 for
other administrative expenses (rent, supplies, equipment,
etc.), and $2,000,000 for the Office of Chief Financial Officer
for purposes of addressing the Corporation's management
problems. The Committee directs the Office of Chief Financial
Officer to control and oversee the allocation and expenditure
of funds under this account, including all salary increases and
bonuses. The Committee also prohibits the Corporation from
providing bonuses or salary increases to senior level managers
unless the IG certifies that the Corporation has complied with
the recommendations in the IG's July 24, 2003 National Service
Trust report. Further, the Committee directs the Corporation to
provide a breakdown of funds under this account by office and
activity in its fiscal year 2005 budget justification.
The Committee is aware of and deeply troubled by long-
standing problems with the Corporation's Alternative Personnel
System [APS]. A recent Inspector General [IG] investigation of
the APS identified and confirmed many problems with the
Corporation's administration of the APS, including but not
limited to: the Corporation's longstanding practice of failing
to adequately budget for employee raises; the lack of clarity
in the system, which leads to confusion among managers and
employees; and the Corporation's failure to negotiate a
competitive status agreement with the Office of Personnel
Management [OPM]. The Corporation is directed to report within
60 days of this bill's enactment on measures taken to address
the concerns identified by the IG and to implement the IG's
recommendations.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $5,961,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,500,000
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 $6,500,000 for
the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This amount is
$1,500,000 above the budget request and $539,000 above the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The Committee is providing
additional funds to support the OIG's review and audit of the
Corporation's grant management and oversight activities due to
the continuing problems ranging from inadequate record-keeping,
to improper counting of service hours by AmeriCorps members and
programs, to fraud and abuse.
The Committee directs the OIG to continue reviewing the
Corporation's management of the National Service Trust fund.
The Committee is primarily interested in the Corporation's
efforts to address its accounting procedures and obligation
practices. The Committee directs the OIG to review the monthly
Trust reports and to notify the Committees on Appropriations on
the accuracy of the reports.
The Committee is aware of concerns raised about the
Corporation's administration of the 2003 AmeriCorps grant
process, and directs the IG to audit the process and report to
the Committee by February 6, 2004.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
The Committee has included two administrative provisions
carried in prior year appropriations acts.
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $14,233,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 16,220,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,220,000
program description
The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was established by
the Veterans' Judicial Review Act. The court is an independent
judicial tribunal with 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 unconstitutional
or otherwise 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 $16,220,000
for the Court of Appeals for Veterans claims, an increase of
$1,987,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
salaries and expenses
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $32,234,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 25,961,000
Committee recommendation................................ 32,000,000
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, 2002,
Arlington and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries
contained the remains of 295,799 persons and comprised a total
of approximately 652 acres. There were 4,022 interments and
2,283 inurnments in fiscal year 2002; 2,283 interments and
2,700 inurnments are estimated for the current fiscal year; and
3,925 interments and 2,775 inurnments are estimated for fiscal
year 2004.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $32,000,000 for the Army's
cemeterial expenses. This amount is $6,039,000 above the budget
request and $234,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
The Committee has provided additional funds to accelerate
Arlington Cemetery's data automation project, to address the
Cemetery's distressed headstones, and to continue developing
phase II of project 90.
Department of Health and Human Services
National Institutes of Health
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $83,528,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 78,774,000
Committee recommendation................................ 78,774,000
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, as amended, to conduct
multidisciplinary research and training activities associated
with the Nation's Hazardous Substance Superfund program, and in
section 126(g) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizations
Act of 1986, to conduct training and education of workers who
are or may be engaged in activities related to hazardous waste
removal or containment or emergency response.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $78,774,000 for the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which is the same
as the budget request and $4,754,000 below the fiscal year 2003
enacted level.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $82,262,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 73,467,000
Committee recommendation................................ 73,467,000
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 $73,467,000 for the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR], which is the
same as the budget request and $8,795,000 below the fiscal year
2003 enacted level. The ATSDR is directed to assess the level
of lead poisoning of families, especially children, at the Tar
Creek Superfund site in Oklahoma. A report to Congress on this
assessment is due no later than July 31, 2004.
Environmental Protection Agency
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $8,078,062,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 7,630,538,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,182,718,000
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 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, 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 $8,182,718,000 for EPA.
This is an increase of $552,180,000 above the budget request
and an increase of $104,656,000 above the fiscal year 2003
enacted level.
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.
The Committee supports the overall funding level in the
President's Budget Request for homeland security within EPA of
some $123,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, including $50,793,000
in Science and Technology, $18,754,000 in Environmental Program
Management, $37,021,000 in Superfund, $5,000,000 in State and
Tribal Assistance Grants, and $11,500,000 in Buildings and
Facilities. In particular, the Committee directs the Agency to
provide by March 31, 2004 a full accounting regarding how these
funds have been or will be invested and how the use of these
funds will be coordinated within the national strategy being
implemented by the Department of Homeland Security.
The Committee directs EPA to round all programs to the
nearest thousand dollar and requests that the budget submission
for fiscal year 2005 propose funding at no less than the
nearest thousand dollar.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $715,579,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 731,483,000
Committee recommendation................................ 715,579,000
program description
EPA's ``Science and technology'' account provides funding
for the scientific knowledge and tools necessary to support
decisions on preventing, regulating, and abating environmental
pollution and to advance the base of understanding on
environmental sciences. These efforts are conducted through
contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with
universities, industries, other private commercial firms,
nonprofit organizations, State and local government, and
Federal agencies, as well as through work performed at EPA's
laboratories and various field stations and field offices. In
addition, Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund resources
are transferred to this account directly from the Hazardous
Substance Superfund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $715,579,000 for science and
technology, $15,904,000 below the budget request and the same
as the enacted level. In addition, the Committee recommends the
transfer of $45,000,000 from the Superfund account, for a total
of $760,579,000 for science and technology.
The Committee supports the budget request for the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance [OECA] activities within
the Science and Technology.
The Committee recommends the transfer of $45,000,000 to
``Science and Technology'' from the ``Hazardous Substance
Superfund'' account for ongoing research activities in a manner
consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request:
-$5,000,000 for particulate matter, for a total of
$35,000,000, an increase of $4,914,000 above the 2003
level;
-$5,000,000 for communicating information research, for a
total of $10,743,000, an increase of $835,000 above the
2003 level;
-$10,000,000 for research to support emerging issues, for a
total of $31,471,000, an increase of $2,320,000 above
the 2003 level;
-$40,678,600 as a general reduction, subject to normal
reprogramming guidelines;
+$1,500,000 for the Centers for Children's Environmental
Health and Disease Prevention Research, for a total of
$7,500,000, equal to the 2003 level;
+$4,875,000 for the STAR fellowship program, for a total of
$9,750,000, equal to the 2003 level;
+$5,000,000 for small system arsenic removal research, for a
total of $11,700,000, equal to the 2003 level. The
Committee directs EPA to report by April 7, 2004, on
the current status of the demonstrations to implement
low-cost treatment technology for arsenic removal,
including benchmarks and targets for continued
implementation of these technologies.
In addition, the Committee recommends the following
increases to the budget request:
+$3,600,000 for the American Water Works Association Research
Foundation;
+$3,600,000 for the Water Environment Research Foundation;
+$600,000 for a National Academy of Sciences study of the
health risks to children from residential lead
contamination;
+$500,000 for the New England Green Chemistry Consortium;
+$500,000 for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology
Research;
+$750,000 for the Integrated Public/Private Energy and
Environmental Consortium [IPEC] to develop cost-
effective environmental technology, improved business
practices, and technology transfer for the domestic
petroleum industry;
+$1,000,000 for the National Environmental Respiratory Center
at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute;
+$3,900,000 for the Mine Waste Technology Program at the
National Environmental Waste Technology, Testing, and
Evaluation Center;
+$500,000 for the Center for the Study of Metals in the
Environment;
+$1,200,000 for the Center for Air Toxic Metals at the Energy
and Environmental Research Center;
+$750,000 for Clean Air Counts of Northeastern Illinois to
develop an innovative and cost effective method to
reduce smog-causing emissions in the Chicago
metropolitan region. The funding will provide support
for an ongoing partnership involving EPA, the
Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, Illinois EPA, and the Delta
Institute;
+$1,500,000 for the Connecticut River Airshed-Watershed
Consortium;
+$250,000 for acid rain research at the University of
Vermont;
+$100,000 for the University of Vermont's Proctor Maple
Research Center to continue mercury deposition
monitoring effects;
+$100,000 for the University of Vermont's land use mapping
initiative;
+$200,000 for the Vermont Department of Agriculture to work
with conservation districts and local communities to
reduce nonpoint source run-off in the Allen Brook
watershed;
+$425,000 for the Southwest Clean Air Quality Agency's
Columbia Gorge Air Quality Technical Foundation Study;
+$400,000 for the Clark County Department of Air Quality
Management/Desert Research Institute in Nevada for the
ozone transport monitoring project;
+$400,000 to demonstrate containment and disposal
technologies associated with the Arnold Heights project
in California;
+$425,000 for Southeastern Louisiana University for the
Turtle Cove research station;
+$1,000,000 for the National Jewish Medical and Research
Center in Colorado;
+$300,000 for Utah State University for monitoring and
assessment activities related to freshwater ecosystems;
+$1,000,000 for the Houston Advanced Research Center and the
University of Texas Air Quality Study;
+$750,000 for the Mickey Leland Urban Air Toxics Research
Center;
+$1,000,000 for the University of South Alabama for the
Center for Estuarine Research;
+$2,000,000 for an air quality program for Anchorage, Alaska;
+$800,000 for Ohio University's Air Quality Center to develop
an advanced modeling program on air quality issues in
the Ohio River valley region;
+$1,000,000 to the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in
Missouri for a Parasitic Nematode Controls research
project;
+$500,000 to the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in
Missouri for the development of technologies for
environmental phytoremediation and the development of
technologies for extending the environmentally safe use
of biotechnology for phytoremediation, and for the
production of novel materials and compounds in plants;
+$800,000 for Montec Research in Butte, Montana to research
pilot scale enzyme catalyzed processes;
+$750,000 for the Frank M. Tejeda Center for Excellence in
Environmental Operations at Texas A&M;
+$800,000 for the University of Northern Iowa for new
environmental technologies for small businesses;
+$1,000,000 for the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management for the Alabama Water and Wastewater
Training Program;
+$1,000,000 for the Desert Research Institute for western
Nevada regionally-based clean water activities.
The Committee urges the EPA Office of Research and
Development to continue with the research, development and
validation of new and revised, alternative chemical screening
and prioritization methods which reduce, refine or replace
animal studies (such as rapid, non-animal screens and
Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships [QSAR]) for
potential inclusion in EPA's current and future relevant
chemical evaluation programs. These activities shall be
designed in consultation with EPA's Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxic Substances.
The EPA is directed to contract with the National Research
Council [NRC] to conduct a study to develop a research agenda
for interpreting human biomonitoring data. The study should
identify the key uncertainties in estimating the exposure,
health effects and human risks potentially associated with
biomonitoring data and propose research to address these
uncertainties. The report should include approaches to improve
the future collection of biomonitoring data so that the data is
more useful for health risk evaluations.
The Committee continues to be concerned about whether there
are significant health and safety risks related to CCA-treated
consumer products, including playground equipment, decks,
mulch, picnic tables, walkways/boardwalks, landscaping timers
and fences. In a February 2002 report required by the
Committee, EPA informed the Committee that the Agency is
currently conducting a risk assessment of CCA-treated consumer
products. More than a year later, that risk assessment has not
been completed; and, significantly, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission [CPSC] has completed a report on the risks posed to
children and documented that CCA-treated wood playground
equipment will lead to as many as from 2 children to 100
children out of 1,000,000 being at risk of becoming ill from
bladder and/or lung cancer. For these reasons, the Committee
directs the Agency to complete its risk assessment by October
31, 2003, and directs the CPSC to commence final hearings on
its study's finding.
With regard to the Agency's risk assessment, the Committee
expects this assessment to include concrete findings and
conclusions about whether there are significant health and
safety risks of CCA-treated wood products. The Committee also
expects the assessment to include recommendations on ways to
mitigate potential risks, and any Agency's plans, as determined
necessary, to conduct public education to ensure that
consumers, local governments, and school systems are aware of
potential risks and ways to mitigate them.
environmental programs and management
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $2,097,879,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 2,219,659,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,219,659,000
program description
The Agency's ``Environmental programs and management''
account includes the development of environmental standards;
monitoring and surveillance of pollution conditions; direct
Federal pollution control planning; technical assistance to
pollution control agencies and organizations; preparation of
environmental impact statements; enforcement and compliance
assurance; and assistance to Federal agencies in complying with
environmental standards and insuring that their activities have
minimal environmental impact. It provides personnel
compensation, benefits, and travel and other administrative
expenses for all agency programs except hazardous substance
Superfund, LUST, Science and Technology, Oil Spill Response,
and OIG.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $2,219,659,000 for environmental
programs and management, the same as the budget request and
$121,780,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
The Committee supports the budget request for the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance [OECA] activities within
the Environmental Programs and Management Account which would
fund 100 FTEs over the fiscal year 2003 funding level.
The Committee strongly supports the EPA Brownfields program
at the Budget Request of $30,000,000 within this account. The
Committee notes that the inclusion of these funds in
conjunction with funding of $160,500,000 in the States and
Tribal Assistance Grants account for Brownfields activities
results in a total of $190,500,000 being available for
Brownfields activities in fiscal year 2004.
The Committee directs the following funding levels for
programs in this account:
$5,500,000 for Environmental Justice which is the same as
the budget request and approximately the same as the 2003
program level;
$19,500,000 for the National Estuary program which is
approximately the budget request;
$50,300,000 for the Energy Star program which is the budget
request;
$33,500,000 for Regulatory Development;
$10,000,000 for the Great Lakes Legacy Act program which is
$5,000,000 less than the budget request and $10,000,000 more
than the 2003 program level;
$14,000,000 for RCRA Waste Reduction;
$9,000,000 for Environmental Education. This program was
eliminated in the budget request;
$20,000,000 for Data Standards which is a reduction of
$3,270,800 from the budget request and $17,489,700 more than
the fiscal year 2003 level;
$25,000,000 for Data Management which is a reduction of
$1,299,200 from the budget request and an increase of
$5,810,600 more than the fiscal year 2003 level;
$43,000,000 for Drinking Water implementation;
$26,000,000 for Drinking Water regulations;
$10,000,000 for Geospatial;
$45,000,000 for Information Technology Management;
$120,000,000 for Management Services and Stewardship;
$38,000,000 for Regional Management which is a reduction of
$1,311,100 from the budget request and an increase of
$6,000,000 over the fiscal year 2003 level.
The Committee recommends a general reduction of
$42,020,300, subject to normal reprogramming requirements.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request:
+$16,000,000 for rural water technical assistance activities
and groundwater protection, including $9,000,000 for
the National Rural Water Association, $3,500,000 for
Rural Community Assistance Program, $750,000 for the
Ground Water Protection Council, $750,000 for the Water
Systems Council to assist in the effective delivery of
water to rural citizens nationwide, and $2,000,000 for
the source water protection program;
+$2,000,000 for NRWA to assist small water systems to conduct
vulnerability assessments;
+$2,000,000 for EPA's National Computing Center to provide
for remote mirroring of all critical information and
related systems to achieve a Continuance of Operations
[COOP]/Disaster Recovery Capability;
+$5,000,000 for America's Clean Water Foundation for
implementation of on-farm environmental assessments for
livestock operations;
+$2,000,000 for the Coeur d'Alene Basin commission to
continue a program for environmental response, natural
resource restoration and related activities;
+$2,500,000 for the Southwest Center for Environmental
Research and Policy;
+$4,000,000 for the Small Public Water System Technology
Centers at Western Kentucky University, the University
of New Hampshire, the University of Alaska-Sitka,
Pennsylvania State University, the University of
Missouri-Columbia, Montana State University, the
University of Illinois, and Mississippi State
University;
+$500,000 for the Kenai River Center in Kenai, Alaska;
+$500,000 for the State of New Hampshire for the New
Hampshire Estuaries Project;
+$3,000,000 for the Univeristy of Oklahoma for surface water
treatment, monitoring and environmental remediation of
mine-waste tailings in the Tar Creek and Spring Creek
watersheds in Ottawa County, Oklahoma;
+$1,000,000 shall be made available to the State of Alaska to
conduct a mercury testing program on seafood;
+$2,000,000 for EPA Regional 10 for environmental compliance;
+$500,000 for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services for a milfoil and invasive species removal
program;
+$1,000,000 for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for the
development of innovative cleanup technologies for
environmental contamination of soil and water;
+$500,000 for University of Louisville Center for
Infrastructure Research in Kentucky for research of
ways to address problems caused by obsolete designs,
aging facilities and growing demands on water,
wastewater and sewer infrastructure;
+$500,000 for the Western Kentucky University Center for
Wastewater Research for research on wastewater and
management issues;
+$1,000,000 for the Watershed of the Ozarks in Missouri for
the Valley Mill Watershed Project;
+$1,000,000 for the University of Missouri at Columbia for
the Innovative Technologies for Nutrient Management
Project;
+$1,000,000 for the Missouri Pork Producers Association for
the development of environmental processes for
agricultural producer certifications;
+$450,000 for the Village of Questa, New Mexico for an impact
study on the quality of groundwater and surface water
sources and for costs related to mine reclamation;
+$750,000 for the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission to complete a riverwide TMDL review of
Dioxin and PCBs;
+$750,000 for wellcare funding for Ohio's Water System
Council;
+$2,000,000 for Chesapeake Bay small watershed grants. 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. This increase will result in a total of
$22,777,700 available in fiscal year 2004 for the
Chesapeake Bay Program, which is $126,000 above the
fiscal year 2003 program level;
+$1,500,000 for the Lake Champlain Basin Program, for a total
program level of $2,455,000;
+$1,825,000 for the Long Island Sound Program, for a total
program level of $2,302,000;
+$750,000 for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation for
Lake Ponchartrain water quality improvement projects;
+$250,000 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
Prince Georges County, Maryland, including $500,000 for
storm drains and trash traps;
+$250,000 for the Midwest Technology Assistance Center at the
University of Illinois;
+$500,000 for the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation
District for toxic pollutant control;
+$500,000 for the Center for Agricultural and Rural
Development at Iowa State University for the Resource
and Agricultural Policy Systems program;
+$500,000 for the Small Business Pollution Prevention Center
at the University of Northern Iowa;
+$500,000 for the painting and coating assistance initiative
through the University of Northern Iowa;
+$500,000 for the Department of Water Supply, County of Maui,
Hawaii for the upcountry Maui lead-water reduction
plan;
+$250,000 for the Economic Development Alliance of Hawaii
promote biotechnology to reduce pesticide use;
+$400,000 for the County of Hawaii and the Hawaii Island
Economic Development Board for community-based waste
recycling and reuse system;
+$200,000 for the Milwaukee Community Services Corps for a
phytoremediation treatability plan;
+$300,000 for the Great Lakes Indian and Wildlife Commission;
+$250,000 for the Northwest Straits Commission for Washington
State University's beach watchers program;
+$500,000 for the Columbia Basin Groundwater Management Area;
+$350,000 for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
tribal water quality program;
+$300,000 for the Walker Lake Working Group in Nevada for
scientific, analytical, and other technical assistance
to evaluate solutions for the restoration of Walker
Lake;
+$200,000 to the Walker Lake Paiute Tribe to conduct
environmental remediation of ordnance and other toxic
materials on tribal lands;
+$325,000 for the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe for an environmental
characterization study of mine drainage on the Owybee
River, riparian areas, and other areas on the Tribe's
Duck Valley Reservation;
+$750,000 for the University of West Florida's PERCH program;
+$200,000 for pollution prevention of Wreck Pond and nearby
beaches in Spring Lake, New Jersey;
+$250,000 for a storm water research initiative at the
University of Vermont;
+$500,000 for New Bedford, Massachusetts, for environmental
education and science programs;
+$250,000 for the North Carolina Rural Center for statewide
planning and technical assistance;
+$200,000 for the Northeast Waste Management Officials
Association [NEWMOA];
+$200,000 for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management [NESCAUM];
+$2,000,000 for the National Alternative Fuels Training
Consortium; and
+$500,000 for the Clinton River Watershed Initiative in
Michigan.
The Great Lakes Legacy Act, enacted in November 2002,
authorizes appropriations for remediation of sediment
contamination in the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Committee
strongly encourages EPA to promulgate rules implementing this
program before the end of fiscal year 2004.
The Agency is directed to continue to provide the current
level of support for water quality monitoring along the New
York-New Jersey shoreline.
The Committee notes that in 2000 the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that EPA was
improperly regulating recycling by using an overly broad
definition of ``discarded material.'' The Committee encourages
EPA to promulgate a rule in fiscal year 2004, revising the
regulation of recycling under 40 CFR Part 261, by limiting the
definition of ``discarded material'' to materials that are
``disposed of, abandoned or thrown away'', not those materials
that are legitimately and safely recycled, reclaimed or reused.
The Committee also supports EPA's work to examine the
effectiveness of the current comparable fuel program to
supplement domestic energy sources with industrial materials,
and encourages EPA to promulgate a rule in fiscal year 2004
allowing additional industrial materials to be safely used as
fuels.
The Committee includes full funding for the Endocrine
Disruptor Screening program [EDSP]. These funds are critical to
ensuring that the proposed screens and tests for this program
are adequately validated prior to the EPA requiring them for
its screening and testing program.
The Committee has included a total of $21,000,000 for the
HPV and VCCEP programs in recognition of the substantial amount
of data that EPA is receiving and must process. EPA must be
able to assess this data in a timely and meaningful way for
integration into its risk-based chemical management programs.
EPA also is directed to continue to provide funding for
implementation of its voluntary children's chemical evaluation
program [VCCEP] to ensure that the EPA will be able to
effectively analyze the results of the program.
The Committee also directs EPA to provide equal access to
the benefits of the Energy Star Labeled Homes program to all
sectors of the affordable housing industry. In particular, the
Committee directs EPA to work with the manufactured housing
industry on ways for manufactured housing to avail itself of
the Energy Star Labeled Homes program.
Within the funds provided, the Agency is directed to
contract with an independent research organization, within 60
days of enactment of this Act, to complete a comprehensive
study of jobs created by water infrastructure funding.
The Committee is concerned that the Agency has not yet
awarded fiscal year 2003 funding appropriated for the
University of Nevada, Reno to conduct water testing and related
studies of the arsenic problem and its impact in Fallon,
Nevada, and consequently, this important work has been unable
to begin. The Committee directs the Agency to award this grant
expeditiously and without further delay or imposition of
additional review procedures. The Committee further directs the
Agency to allow only the University of Nevada, Reno to assess
appropriate overhead fees for this grant.
The Committee believes that a strong criminal enforcement
program is essential to reducing pollution and protecting
public health, and is concerned that the Agency has not devoted
adequate resources to the program, leading to staffing and case
backlogs. While the Committee also supports the Agency's
compliance assistance and monitoring activities, these
activities should be complementary to traditional criminal
enforcement activities, not in lieu of them. Similarly, the
Agency's increased criminal activities related to homeland
security should be conducted in addition to, not at the expense
of, the traditional criminal enforcement program. The Committee
therefore directs the Agency to report by January 30, 2004,
with a plan to reduce case backlogs and ensure adequate
resource and staffing levels.
office of inspector general
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $35,766,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 36,808,000
Committee recommendation................................ 36,808,000
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 $36,808,000 for the Office of
Inspector General, the same as the budget request and
$1,597,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level. In addition,
$13,214,000 will be available by transfer from the Superfund
account, for a total of $50,022,000. The trust fund resources
will be transferred to the inspector general ``General fund''
account with an expenditure transfer.
buildings and facilities
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $42,639,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 42,918,000
Committee recommendation................................ 42,918,000
program description
The appropriation for buildings and facilities at EPA
provides for the design and construction of EPA-owned
facilities as well as for the repair, extension, alteration,
and improvement of facilities utilized by the Agency. These
funds correct unsafe conditions, protect health and safety of
employees and Agency visitors, and prevent deterioration of
structures and equipment.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $42,918,000 for buildings and
facilities, $279,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level and the
same as the budget request.
hazardous substance superfund
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $1,264,614,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 1,389,716,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,265,000,000
program description
On October 17, 1986, Congress amended the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
[CERCLA] through the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 [SARA]. SARA reauthorized and expanded the
Hazardous Substance Superfund to address the problems of
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and spills. Specifically,
the legislation mandates that EPA: (1) provide emergency
response to hazardous waste spills; (2) take emergency action
at hazardous waste sites that pose an imminent hazard to public
health or environmentally sensitive ecosystems; (3) engage in
long-term planning, remedial design, and construction to clean
up hazardous waste sites where no financially viable
responsible party can be found; (4) take enforcement actions to
require responsible private and Federal parties to clean up
hazardous waste sites; and (5) take enforcement actions to
recover costs where the fund has been used for cleanup. 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 $1,265,000,000 for Superfund,
$386,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and
$124,716,000 below the budget request. Of these funds,
$879,460,000 is for Superfund response and cleanup activities;
$148,000,000 is for enforcement activities; $140,500,000 for
management and support; $13,214,000 for transfer to the Office
of the Inspector General; $45,000,000 for transfer to the
Science and Technology account for research and development
activities; and up to $38,826,000 for reimbursable interagency
activities. Changes to these funding levels shall be made
pursuant to normal reprogramming requirements.
The Committee notes that with the maturity of the Superfund
program, many sites on the National Priority List are entering
the final stages of the Superfund ``pipeline'' when site
remediation and long-term response actions occur. The Committee
notes that the EPA Inspector General [IG] found that EPA spent
only 16 percent of its annual appropriation to fund site remedy
construction and long-term response activities. The Committee
is concerned that EPA is not dedicating enough funds to actual
remediation and Superfund close-out activities. The Committee
expects EPA to allocate no less than 22 percent of its annual
appropriation for these activities. Further, the Committee
directs the EPA IG to conduct a comprehensive audit of fiscal
years 2002 and 2003 Superfund expenditures to assess the use of
funds in Superfund clean-ups and make recommendations for
enhancing the completion of final cleanup and remediation
activities in the Superfund program.
leaking underground storage tank trust fund
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $71,843,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 72,545,000
Committee recommendation................................ 72,545,000
program description
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizations Act of 1986
[SARA] established the leaking underground storage tank [LUST]
trust fund to conduct corrective actions for releases from
leaking underground storage tanks containing petroleum and
other hazardous substances. EPA implements the LUST program
through State cooperative agreement grants which enable States
to conduct corrective actions to protect human health and the
environment, and through non-State entities including Indian
tribes under section 8001 of RCRA. The trust fund is also used
to enforce responsible parties to finance corrective actions
and to recover expended funds used to clean up abandoned tanks.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the budget request of $72,545,000
for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, an
increase of $702,000 over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
The Committee directs that not less than 85 percent of these
funds be provided to the States and tribal governments.
oil spill response
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $15,480,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 16,209,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,209,000
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 to prepare for and prevent 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 as amended. Pursuant to law, the Trust Fund is managed by
the United States Coast Guard.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends $16,209,000 for the oil spill
response trust fund, the same as the budget request and
$729,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted and the level
budget request.
STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $3,834,905,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 3,121,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,814,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The ``State and tribal assistance grants'' account funds
grants to support the State revolving fund programs; State,
tribal, regional, and local environmental programs; and special
projects to address critical water and waste water treatment
needs.
Included in this account are funds for the following
infrastructure grant programs: Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds; United States-Mexico Border Program;
Alaska Native villages; and Brownfield infrastructure projects.
It also contains the following categorical environmental
grants, State/tribal program grants, and assistance and
capacity building grants: (1) air resource assistance to State,
regional, local, and tribal governments (secs. 105 and 103 of
the Clean Air Act); (2) radon State and Tribal grants; (3)
water pollution control agency resource supplementation (sec.
106 of the FWPCA); (4) BEACHS Protection grants (sec. 406 of
FWPCA as amended); (5) nonpoint source (sec. 319 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act); (6) wetlands State program
development; (7) water quality cooperative agreements (sec.
104(b)(3) of FWPCA; (8) targeted watershed grants; (9) public
water system supervision; (10) underground injection control;
(11) Drinking Water Program State Homeland Security
Coordination grants; (12) hazardous waste financial assistance;
(13) Brownfields cleanup grants; (14) underground storage
tanks; (15) Pesticides Program implementation; (16) lead
grants; (17) toxic substances compliance monitoring; (18)
pesticides enforcement; (19) the Environmental Information
Exchange Network; (20) pollution prevention; (21) enforcement
and compliance assurance; and, (22) Indians general assistance
grants. As with the case in past fiscal years, reprogramming
requests associated with Performance Partnership Grants need
not be submitted to the Committee for approval should such
grants exceed the normal reprogramming limitations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,814,000,000
for State and tribal assistance grants, an increase of
$692,800,000 over the budget request and is $20,905,000 below
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
The Committee recommends the following funding levels for
programs in this account:
(1) $1,350,000,000 for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan
Fund. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003 level and
$500,000,000 more than the budget request.
(2) $850,000,000 for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund. This amount is the same as fiscal year 2003 level and the
budget request.
(3) $16,000,000 for the Targeted Watershed Grants program.
This is a $5,000,000 reduction from the budget request. This
reduction is due to uncertainties regarding the basis for
selecting watersheds for funding, and the impact of the
program.
(4) $228,550,000 for Section 103 and 105 State and Local
Assistance grants.
(5) $196,000,000 for the Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Grants program. This is a $42,000,000
reduction from the budget request. The Committee believes there
is overlap with other Agricultural programs and an inadequate
plan for the use of this funding.
(6) $200,400,000 for the Section 106 State Pollution
Control Grant Program, which includes support for State Total
Maximum Daily Load programs. This amount is $20,023,000 above
the 2003 level.
(7) $45,000,000 for Alaska 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 25 percent match.
(8) $3,500,000 for remediation of above ground leaking fuel
tanks in Alaska as authorized by Public Law 106-554.
(9) $20,000,000 for Information Exchange Network grants.
The Committee supports the Agency's efforts to build an
internet-based system that will enable environmental
information exchanges among States, tribes, localities, the
regulated community, the public and the Agency.
(10) $50,000,000 for high priority water and wastewater
facilities in the area of the United States-Mexico border,
including $7,000,000 for the El Paso-Las Cruces Sustainable
Water Project and $2,000,000 for the Brownsville water supply
project.
(11) $14,900,000 for the Wetland program which is a
reduction of $5,100,000 from the budget request. This program
would be funded at the 2003 level. The Committee supports this
program but believes that States still need time to develop a
comprehensive plan to ensure the success of the program;
(12) $4,700,000 for the Lead-Based Risk Reduction program
which is $9,000,000 less than the budget request. The Committee
has supported strongly efforts to reduce lead-based paint
hazard reduction programs in other areas of the bill and
supports this program. However, the Committee notes that the
EPA has been consistently carrying over between $9,000,000 and
nearly $15,000,000 over the past 5 years. This carryover
ensures the ability of the EPA to maintain consistent funding
for States and localities;
The Committee includes no funds for the Homestake Mine
which is a State and corporate responsibility. The Committee
includes no new funds for a special drinking water grant for
Puerto Rico as requested by the Administration.
The Committee includes $130,000,000 for targeted project
grants. These grants include a local match of 45 percent for
all grants utilized unless a hardship waiver is provided by the
EPA. The EPA is directed to expedite any request for a waiver
and assist any communities that are likely to qualify for a
waiver in processing such a request. In addition, for these
targeted project grants, the Committee recognizes the
administrative burden on recipients from having to comply with
similar and sometimes duplicative administrative and procedural
requirements attendant to receiving both a grant under this
heading and a loan under a State water pollution control or
drinking water revolving fund. In these cases, the Committee
intends the responsibility for these grants to become the
responsibility of the applicable State water pollution control
or drinking water revolving fund in accordance with existing
cost and administrative requirements. The targeted project
grants are as follows:
1. $700,000 for the Coosa Valley Water Supply District for
development of a surface water supply in St. Clair County,
Alabama;
2. $2,000,000 to the Tom Bevill Reservoir Management Area
Authority for Construction of a drinking water reservoir in
Fayette County, Alabama;
3. $450,000 to the Southwest Alabama Regional Water Supply
District for regional water supply distribution in Thomasville,
Alabama;
4. $100,000 to the Town of Hodges, Alabama for the Hodges
water improvement project;
5. $150,000 to the Town of Double Springs, Alabama for
water system improvements;
6. $250,000 for Smith's Sewer and Water Authority for sewer
system expansion in Smith, Alabama;
7. $100,000 to the Water and Sewer Boards of the Cities of
Brent and Centreville for court ordered repairs to the system
to mitigate water pollution in Centreville, Alabama;
8. $250,000 to the City of Athens Utilities for commercial
sewage extension in Athens, Alabama;
9. $100,000 to the City of Camden, Alabama for water and
sewer infrastructure improvements;
10. $250,000 for the Waterworks Boards of Section and
Dutton for water distribution system expansion and upgrade in
Jackson County, Alabama;
11. $150,000 for the Cherokee County Commission for Weiss
Lake Area system improvements in Centre, Alabama;
12. $2,000,000 for Anchorage, Alaska for water and sewer
upgrades in West Anchorage;
13. $1,500,000 for Fairbanks, Alaska for water system
upgrades;
14. $1,000,000 for North Pole, Alaska for water and sewer
improvements;
15. $985,000 for Palmer, Alaska for a water main;
16. $768,000 for Sitka, Alaska for Japonski Island water
supply improvements;
17. $925,000 for Wasilla, Alaska for water and sewer
improvements;
18. $1,000,000 for the City of Scottsdale, Arizona for the
Arsenic Removal Project;
19. $650,000 for the Town of Greers Ferry, Arkansas for
drinking water infrastructure improvements;
20. $650,000 for the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
21. $1,000,000 for the Santa Clara Valley Water District,
California for perchlorate groundwater clean-up;
22. $500,000 for the City of Ukiah, California for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
23. $500,000 for the West Valley Water District, California
for the Inland Empire Perchlorate Force Wellhead Treatment;
24. $500,000 for Madera County, California for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
25. $500,000 for the City of Santa Ana, California for
water infrastructure improvements;
26. $200,000 for Ventura County, California for sewer
infrastructure improvements;
27. $1,000,000 for the Town of Rico, Colorado for the
construction of a wastewater treatment plant and sewer system;
28. $1,000,000 for the Brownsville Water District, Colorado
for the construction of a sanitary sewer collection system and
interceptor line;
29. $1,000,000 for the Englewood/Littleton Bi-City
Wastewater Treatment Plant, Colorado for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
30. $500,000 for the Town of East Hampton, Connecticut for
drinking water infrastructure improvements;
31. $500,000 for the City of New Britain, Connecticut for
drinking water infrastructure improvements;
32. $300,000 for the Town of Southington, Connecticut for
drinking water infrastructure improvements;
33. $600,000 for the City of Wilmington, Delaware for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
34. $1,000,000 for the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach
County, Florida for continued construction of the Tri-County
Biosolids Pelletization Facility;
35. $300,000 for the Northwest Florida Management District
for the Escambia County Utility Authority Water Reclamation
Project;
36. $300,000 for the Metropolitan North Georgia Water
Planning District for water infrastructure improvements;
37. $750,000 for the City of Forsyth, Georgia for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
38. $1,000,000 for Oahu County and Kauai County, Hawaii for
water infrastructure improvements;
39. $2,000,000 for the City of Ottumwa, Iowa for the
separation of combined sewers;
40. $200,000 for the City of Carroll, Iowa for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
41. $1,500,000 for the City of Sioux City, Iowa for the
construction of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant;
42. $2,000,000 for Shoshone County, Idaho, for Burke Canyon
Water and Sewer Improvements;
43. $500,000 for the City of Burley, Idaho, for
construction on its Wastewater Treatment System Project;
44. $500,000 for Galesburg Sanitary District, Illinois for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
45. $500,000 for the Villiage of Franklin Park, Illinois
for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
46. $500,000 for Lake County, Illinois for water and
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
47. $500,000 for the City of Galena, Illinois to expand and
improve wastewater facilities;
48. $200,000 for the City of Wilmington, Illinois for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
49. $200,000 for the Delaware County Commissioners, Eaton,
Indiana for water system improvements;
50. $200,000 for the City of Elwood, Indiana for sewer
infrastructure improvements;
51. $250,000 for Vanderburgh County/City of Evansville,
Indiana for wastewater system improvements;
52. $100,000 for the City of Martinsville, Indiana for
water infrastructure improvements;
53. $1,000,000 for the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana for
water infrastructure improvements;
54. $2,000,000 for the City of Hutchison, Kansas for
groundwater remediation;
55. $1,000,000 for the City of Roeland Park, Kansas for
stormwater infrastructure improvements;
56. $500,000 to the South Woodford Water District in
Woodford County, Kentucky, for the South Woodford Water
District System Improvement Project;
57. $500,000 to the Hardin County Water District No. 2 in
Hardin County, Kentucky, for the Elizabethtown Loop Project;
58. $2,000,000 to the Intermodal Transportation Authority
in Bowling Green, Kentucky, for Kentucky TriModal Transpark
Water and Sewer Improvements;
59. $1,000,000 for Sanitation District Number One in
Kentucky for water infrastructure improvements;
60. $700,000 for the Ohio County Regional Wastewater
District, Kentucky for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
61. $300,000 for the State of Kentucky for water
infrastructure improvements in Union County;
62. $1,000,000 for the City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana for
water infrastructure improvements;
63. $750,000 for the City of Monroe, Louisiana for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
64. $750,000 for the Town of Gramercy, Louisiana for
drinking water infrastructure improvements;
65. $700,000 for the City of St. Martinville, Louisiana for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
66. $500,000 for the City of Gardiner, Maine for sewer
infrastructure improvements;
67. $250,000 for the Town of Machias, Maine for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
68. $250,000 for Indian Township, Maine for improvements to
wastewater facilities;
69. $1,000,000 for the Town of Westernport, Maryland for
sewer infrastructure improvements;
70. $500,000 for Chestertown, Maryland for water
infrastructure improvements;
71. $500,000 for the Town of Delmar, Maryland for water
infrastructure improvements;
72. $500,000 for the Town of Crisfield, Maryland for water
infrastructure improvements;
73. $500,000 for the Town of Hurlock, Maryland for water
infrastructure improvements;
74. $500,000 for the Town of Snow Hill, Maryland for water
infrastructure improvements;
75. $1,000,000 for Harford County, Maryland for the Oaklyn
Manor Project;
76. $600,000 for the Cities of New Bedford and Fall River,
Massachusetts for combined sewer overflow mitigation in Bristol
County;
77. $1,000,000 for the City of Benton Harbor, Michigan for
water infrastructure improvements;
78. $400,000 for Crystal Falls Township, Michigan for water
infrastructure improvements;
79. $1,000,000 for the City of Saginaw, Michigan for sewer
infrastructure improvements;
80. $400,000 for Genesee County Drain Commission, Michigan
for the North-East Relief Sewer and Kearsley Creek Interceptor
project;
81. $1,500,000 for the City of Joplin, Missouri for the
Shoal Creek Pre-treatment facility and Silver Creek parallel
relief;
82. $300,000 for the City of Mille Lacs, Minnesota for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
83. $500,000 for the City of Moorhead, Minnesota for water
infrastructure improvements;
84. $450,000 for the City of Pascagoula, Mississippi for
stormwater and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
85. $1,000,000 for the City of Forest, Mississippi for
water infrastructure improvements;
86. $200,000 for the City of Gulfport, Mississippi for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
87. $1,000,000 for the West Rankin Metropolitan Water and
Sewer Authority, Rankin County, Mississippi for water
infrastructure improvements;
88. $500,000 for the City of Tchula, Mississippi for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
89. $500,000 for the City of Meridian, Mississippi for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
90. $500,000 for the City of Jackson, Mississippi for
wastewater system improvements;
91. $1,000,000 for the City of St. Joseph, Missouri for
sewer infrastructure improvements;
92. $750,000 for Monroe City, Missouri for water main
replacement and water line extension;
93. $1,000,000 for the Cities of Peculiar and Raymore,
Missouri for the Cass County Watershed Expansion Project;
94. $700,000 for the City of Pacific, Missouri for sewer
infrastructure improvements;
95. $750,000 for Northwest Missouri Regional Council of
Governments for regional drinking water projects;
96. $750,000 for the City of Lebanon, Missouri for sewer
infrastructure improvements;
97. $400,000 for Wright City, Missouri for the construction
of an elevated water storage tank;
98. $150,000 for Steelville, Missouri for completion of its
water service project, well and water storage tank;
99. $500,000 to the City of St. Louis Department of Public
Utilities Water Division for the Columbia Bottoms Wellfield
Development Project in St. Louis, Missouri;
100. $300,000 for the City of Helena, Montana for Phase 1
of Helena's Missouri River Water Treatment Plant
reconstruction;
101. $1,000,000 for the Missouri River Water Project,
Helena, Montana for a wastewater treatment facility;
102. $600,000 for the City of Kalispell, Montana for
wastewater treatment improvements;
103. $500,000 for the City of Missoula, Montana for the
Rattlesnake Water Project;
104. $350,000 for the City of Red Lodge for a wastewater
treatment facility;
105. $350,000 for the City of Manhattan, Montana for a
wastewater treatment facility;
106. $300,000 for the City of Wisdom, Montana for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
107. $400,000 for the City of Hamilton, Montana for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
108. $300,000 for the City of Omaha, Nebraska for the
separation of combined sewers;
109. $375,000 for the City of Omaha, Nebraska for the
construction of combined sewer separation systems;
110. $375,000 for the City of Lincoln, Nebraska for the
construction of combined sewer separation systems;
111. $100,000 for the Town of Hawthorne, Nevada for sewer
infrastructure improvements;
112. $1,000,000 for the Virgin Valley Water District,
Nevada for drinking water infrastructure improvements;
113. $1,000,000 for Washoe County, Nevada for the North
Lemmon Valley Artificial Recharge Project;
114. $600,000 for Clark County, Nevada for water
infrastructure improvements;
115. $500,000 for the City of Berlin, New Hampshire, for
the Berlin Waterworks water distribution system improvements;
116. $500,000 for the Town of Colebrook, New Hampshire for
drinking water infrastructure improvements;
117. $300,000 for the Town of Rollingsford, New Hampshire
for wastewater treatment improvements;
118. $350,000 for the Town of Jaffrey, New Hampshire for
wastewater treatment improvements;
119. $500,000 for the City of Nashua, New Hampshire for a
Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement project;
120. $500,000 for the City of Manchester, New Hampshire for
the Phase 1 Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement project;
121. $350,000 for the City of Rochester Waterworks, New
Hampshire for the extension of Rochester, New Hampshire sewer
line;
122. $1,000,000 for the City of Camden, New Jersey for the
Von Neida Park Wastewater Management project;
123. $700,000 for Rockland County in New York, for the
Western Ramapo, New Jersey, sewer extension;
124. $300,000 for the City of Gallup, New Mexico for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
125. $2,000,000 for the Valley Utilities Project in the
City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, New Mexico;
126. $1,000,000 for the City of Espanola, New Mexico, for
water and wastewater system improvements;
127. $1,000,000 for the City of Los Lunas, New Mexico, for
the interceptor sewer line project;
128. $250,000 for the City of Oswego, New York for water
infrastructure improvements;
129. $250,000 for the City of Corning, New York for a
reservoir project;
130. $1,000,000 for the Village of Lake Placid, New York
for water infrastructure improvements;
131. $1,000,000 for the Neuse Regional Water and Sewer
Authority in Kinston, North Carolina for drinking water
infrastructure improvements;
132. $550,000 for the City of Devils Lake, North Dakota for
water infrastructure improvements;
133. $900,000 for the City of Grafton, North Dakota for the
Grafton Water Treatment Plant;
134. $200,000 for the City of Park River, North Dakota for
water infrastructure improvements;
135. $550,000 for the City of Riverdale, North Dakota for
the Riverdale Regional Water Treatment Facility;
136. $300,000 for Dickey Rural Water Users Association in
Southeast, North Dakota for the Southeast Regional Expansion
Project;
137. $900,000 for Guernsey County, Ohio to build the
Claysville-Cumberland Waterline;
138. $900,000 for the City of Delphos, Ohio to construct a
reservoir, surface water treatment plant, and associated
piping;
139. $300,000 to the Village of Millersburg, Ohio to
upgrade the Millersburg Wastewater Treatment Plant;
140. $900,000 to the City of Van Wert, Ohio to increase the
size of the drinking water reservoir;
141. $500,000 to Fulton County, Ohio to prevent landfill
leachate flows into surface water by improving the cap and
leachate collection system at the Fulton County Landfill;
142. $1,500,000 for the City of Lawton, Oklahoma for the
Southwest Water Treatment Plant:
143. $750,000 to the Warrenton Municipal Wastewater Out-
fall/Tie-In Project, Oregon;
144. $500,000 for the City of Irrigon, Oregon for water
infrastructure improvements;
145. $500,000 for the City of Portland, Oregon for its wet
weather demonstration project;
146. $2,000,000 for the Three Rivers Wet Weather
Demonstration program to develop innovative, cost-effective
solutions to assist municipalities to eliminate sewer overflows
in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania;
147. $750,000 to the Cambria Somerset Authority for the
Quemahoning Reservoir water supply project to provide water to
communities in Somerset and Cambria Counties, Pennsylvania;
148. $300,000 to the City of Lancaster to construct an
advanced ultrafiltration membrane water treatment system in
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania;
149. $250,000 to Jersey Shore Borough for water
infrastructure improvements in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania;
150. $250,000 to the Summit Township Sewer Authority for a
public sanitary sewer system extension in Erie County,
Pennsylvania;
151. $250,000 to Tuscarora Township for East Waterford
sanitary sewer system upgrades in Juniata County, Pennsylvania;
152. $200,000 to Newport Borough Water Authority for a
river filtration system and distribution line replacement in
Perry County, Pennsylvania;
153. $1,450,000 for the Narragansett Bay Commission, Rhode
Island for combined sewer overflow infrastructure improvements;
154. $500,000 for the Pascoag Utility District, Rhode
Island for water infrastructure improvements;
155. $440,000 for the City of Providence, Rhode Island for
water infrastructure improvements;
156. $500,000 for the Town of Jamestown, Rhode Island for
water infrastructure improvements;
157. $500,000 for the Pawtucket Water Supply Board, Rhode
Island for the renovation of Central Falls Pipe;
158. $100,000 for the Prudence Island Water Utility, Rhode
Island for water infrastructure improvements;
159. $1,200,000 for the Town of Ravenel, South Carolina for
construction of a main sewer transmission line along U.S. Hwy
17;
160. $1,000,000 for the Commission of Public Works of the
City of Charleston, South Carolina for wastewater tunnel
replacement;
161. $1,000,000 for the City of Corsica, South Dakota for
water infrastructure improvements;
162. $1,000,000 for the City of Lennox, South Dakota for
water infrastructure improvements;
163. $200,000 for the City of Sisseton, South Dakota for
water infrastructure improvements;
164. $1,000,000 for the City of Hartford, South Dakota for
drinking water infrastructure improvements;
165. $100,000 for the City of DeSmet, South Dakota for
water infrastructure improvements;
166. $600,000 for the City of Jackson, Tennessee for the
Sandy Creek Sanitary Sewer Overflow Project;
167. $1,400,000 for the City of Newport, Tennessee for the
Newport Utility District to expand drinking water services and
improve wastewater treatment;
168. $1,300,000 for San Antonio Water Systems, San Antonio,
Texas for Brooks City-Base water infrastructure improvements;
169. $1,200,000 for the City of Austin, Texas for sanitary
sewer overflow mitigation;
170. $600,000 for Daggett County, Utah for the Dutch John
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements;
171. $500,000 for the City of Riverton, Utah for water
infrastructure improvements;
172. $650,000 for Iron County, Utah for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
173. $250,000 for the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy
District, Utah for a groundwater extraction and treatment
remedial project;
174. $500,000 for Park City, Utah for Spiro and Judge
Tunnel Water Treatment Facility;
175. $500,000 for the City of Sandy, Utah for water and
stormwater infrastructure improvements;
176. $500,000 for the City of Orem, Utah for water
infrastructure improvements;
177. $300,000 for Fairfax County, Virginia for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
178. $400,000 for the City of Norfolk, Virginia for the
Prentis Park Water and Sewer Rehabilitation;
179. $300,000 for the City of Lynchburg, Virginia for
combined sewer overflow controls;
180. $500,000 for the City of Lakewood, Washington for
sewer infrastructure improvements;
181. $1,000,000 for the City of Sunnyside, Washington for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
182. $750,000 for the Skagit Public Utility District,
Washington for sewer improvements for the Similk Beach
Community;
183. $450,000 for the Vashon Sewer District, Washington for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
184. $1,000,000 for the Town of Waitsfield, Vermont for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
185. $1,500,000 for the Champlain Water District, Vermont,
for Chittenden County stormwater infrastructure improvements;
186. $1,700,000 for the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin for
sewer infrastructure improvements;
187. $500,000 for the City of Racine, Wisconsin for water
infrastructure improvements.
The Committee includes $160,500,000 for Brownfields
activities within this account. These funds augment funding of
$30,000,000 included in the Environmental Programs and
Management account for fiscal year 2004. This is a $20,000,000
reduction to this program from the budget request. The
Committee strongly supports this program but is disappointed in
the revolving loan component of the Brownfields program that
has resulted in only five clean-ups being completed over the
life of the program. EPA has awarded some $112,000,000 to 142
entities to capitalize these revolving loan funds.
Unfortunately, only about $11,000,000 in loans have been made
throughout the Nation by 24 entities. This means that 118
entities or some 83 percent of all entities have never made a
loan. The Committee directs EPA to report on the status of the
revolving loan fund component and the success of any efforts to
make this program work more effectively.
The Committee has included bill language, as carried in
previous appropriations acts, to clarify that drinking water
health effects studies are to be funded through the science and
technology account.
The Committee has also included bill language, as requested
by the administration and as carried in previous appropriations
acts, to: (1) extend for an additional year the authority for
States to transfer funds between the Clean Water SRF and the
Drinking Water SRF; (2) waive the one-third of 1 percent cap on
the Tribal set aside from non-point source grants; (3) increase
to 1.5 percent the cap on the Tribal set-aside for the Clean
Water SRF; and (4) require that any funds provided to address
the water infrastructure needs of colonias within the United
States along the United States-Mexico border be spent only in
areas where the local governmental entity has established an
enforceable ordinance or rule which prevents additional
development within colonias that lacks water, wastewater, or
other necessary infrastructure.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Cooperative Agreements with Tribes.--The Committee has
included bill language, as proposed in the budget request and
as carried in previous appropriations acts, permitting EPA, in
carrying out environmental programs required or authorized by
law in the absence of an acceptable tribal program, to use
cooperative agreements with federally-recognized tribes and
inter-tribal consortia.
Pesticide Tolerance Processing Fees.--As has been the case
for the last several years to ensure adequate resources for the
EPA's pesticide re-registration program, the Committee has
included bill language which authorizes for 1 year the
collection by EPA of $21,500,000 in maintenance fees. This
provision expires on September 30, 2004. The bill also
prohibits the use of funds to promulgate a new regulation to
implement changes in the payment of pesticide tolerance fees as
proposed at 64 Federal Register 31040, or any similar proposal;
and prohibits the collection of pesticide registration fees if
a new maintenance fee has gone in effect.
The bill includes two provisions to reform the EPA
Brownfields program. The first provision extends eligibility to
Brownfields sites that were purchased prior to the enactment of
the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfield
Revitalization Act of 2001. The second provision allows the EPA
to permit the use of funds for reasonable administrative costs.
The bill includes a provision that clarifies an existing
exemption in the Clean Air Act that farm and construction
equipment which are smaller than 175 horsepower are exempt from
state regulation for emissions but remain subject to EPA
regulation.
Executive Office of the President
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $5,333,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 7,027,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,027,000
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 94-282)
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; reviews and
analyzes, with the Office of Management and Budget, the
research and development budgets for all Federal agencies; 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 $7,027,000 for
the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This amount is the
same as the budget request and $1,694,000 above the fiscal year
2003 enacted level.
The Committee believes the President's Science Advisor
should continue to 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 also expects the Science Advisor will conduct
effective outreach to the science and engineering community and
be 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.
However, industry's dependence on public R&D; for innovation
remains very high. Nearly three quarters of U.S. industry
patents cite publicly 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 also concerned about the adequacy of this
Nation's scientific and technical workforce, 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 is strongly supportive of the interagency
nanoscience and technology initiative and urges OSTP to
continue to strengthen the emerging research, education, and
training objectives of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
[NNI]. The Committee is particularly interested in the planned
efforts to transfer nanotechnology research results generated
from the NNI into applications and urges OSTP to continue to
address this issue. The Committee notes that the request by the
administration for the multi-agency NNI will effectively be
double the amount funded for nanotechnology in fiscal year
2004.
The Committee understands that prior to 1989, the National
Institutes of Health [NIH] provided indirect cost
reimbursements to the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] in
compliance with Public Law 90-31. However, the NIH stopped
providing these reimbursements after 1989. Accordingly, the
Committee strongly urges OSTP to assist the VA and the NIH to
negotiate a fair and equitable agreement for VA to receive
reimbursement from NIH for facility costs incurred while
conducting NIH-sponsored research.
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $3,011,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 3,328,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,328,000
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, 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 $3,328,000 for the Council on
Environmental Quality, an increase of $317,000 above the fiscal
year 2003 enacted level and equal to the budget request. The
Committee directs CEQ to provide quarterly reports on all
ongoing activities, including use of detailees and agency
representatives.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $30,848,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 30,125,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,848,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The FDIC Office of Inspector General conducts audits,
investigations, and other reviews to assist and augment the
FDIC's contribution to the stability of, and public confidence
in, the Nation's financial system. A separate appropriation
more effectively ensures the OIG's independence consistent with
the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended and other
legislation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $30,848,000 for the FDIC inspector
general, the same as the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and
$723,000 more than the budget request. Funds are to be derived
by transfer from the bank insurance fund, the savings
association insurance fund, and the FSLIC resolution fund.
General Services Administration
federal citizen information center fund
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $11,466,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 17,643,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,000,000
program description
The Federal Citizen Information Center [FCIC] successfully
brings together an array of U.S. Government information and
services and makes them easily accessible to the public.
Whether citizens need information on the web, via e-mail, in
print, or over the telephone, FCIC is their help desk for
everyday life--giving answers and assistance they trust about
the things that matter.
Originally established within the General Services
Administration [GSA] by executive order on October 26, 1970, to
help Federal departments and agencies promote and distribute
printed consumer information, FCIC has evolved and consolidated
a variety of complementary functions to augment the original
print and media channels through which it informed the public.
On January 28, 2000, the FCIC assumed responsibility for
the operations of the Federal Information Center [FIC] program.
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,
contractual services are used to respond to public inquiries
via the nationwide toll-free National Contact Center.
On June 30, 2002, FCIC assumed operational control of the
FirstGov.gov website, the official portal of the U.S.
Government, and became a critical part of GSA's newly
established Office of Citizen Services and Communications. This
Office brings together all of GSA's citizen-centered programs.
The new Office serves as a central Federal gateway for
citizens, businesses, other governments, and the media to
easily obtain information and services from the Government.
Under this new organization, FCIC remains committed to its
consumer and citizen information outreach mission mandate but
adds additional channels to broaden its scope to provide all
citizens with access to the information and services available
from the Government. On March 31, 2003, FCIC began accepting e-
mail and fax inquiries from the public through the FirstGov.gov
website and responds to them at its National Contact Center.
Public Law 98-63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a
revolving fund for the FCIC. Under this fund, FCIC activities
are financed from the following: annual appropriations from the
general 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 $14,000,000 for the Federal
Citizen Information Center, an increase of $2,534,000 above the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $3,643,000 below the budget
request.
The appropriation will be augmented by a projected $560,000
reimbursements from Federal agencies for distribution of
consumer publications, user fees from the public, and other
income. FCIC's anticipated resources for fiscal year 2004 will
total approximately $14,560,000.
As FCIC responsibilities continue to expand to better serve
the public within a recently established GSA organization, the
Committee emphasizes that the funds appropriated from this
account are available solely for FCIC staffing and activities
to achieve its core mission as presented to and approved by the
Committee.
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
OPERATING EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $1,490,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... \1\ 1,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,500,000
\1\ Funded under the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is an
independent agency created by the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act of 1987 to coordinate and direct the multiple
efforts of Federal agencies and other designated groups. The
Council was authorized to review Federal programs that assist
homeless persons and to take necessary actions to reduce
duplication. The Council can recommend improvements in programs
and activities conducted by Federal, State and local government
as well as local volunteer organizations. The Council consists
of the heads of 18 Federal agencies such as the Departments of
Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services,
Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education,
Labor, and Transportation; and other entities as deemed
appropriate.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the United States
Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH], the same level as
the budget request and $10,000 more than the fiscal year 2003
enacted level. These funds are for carrying out the functions
authorized under section 203 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act.
The Committee, however, expects HUD to continue providing
administrative support for the Council as mandated under
section 204(d) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
The Committee fully supports the ongoing work of the ICH to
develop a comprehensive and coordinated strategy for ending and
preventing homelessness. To that end, the Committee supports
the ICH's efforts to work with local and State governments in
developing and implementing performance based, results oriented
strategic plans to end chronic homelessness in 10 years.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $15,338,907,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 15,469,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,338,907,000
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 $15,338,907,000 for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2004, the
same as the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $130,393,000
below the President's request.
The Committee has modified the account structure as
proposed under the budget request of NASA. The Committee has
transferred the appropriate activities to reflect the two newly
created accounts of Science, Aeronautics and Exploration, and
Space Flight Capabilities. Science, Aeronautics and Exploration
will contain the enterprises of Space Science, Earth Science,
Biological and Physical Research, Aeronautics, and Education.
The Space Flight Capabilities account will contain the funding
for the International Space Station [ISS], Space Shuttle, Space
Flight Support, and Crosscutting Technology. The account of the
Office of the Inspector General will remain unchanged. These
account revisions were made to better accomodate NASA's
transition to full cost accounting.
In addition, NASA is at a crossroad in its history. Because
of the tragic loss of the Shuttle Columbia, the Committee
believes that both the Congress and NASA must make a renewed
commitment to safety as the highest priority in the NASA
budget. While safety has always been our highest priority for
NASA, something went terribly wrong on that tragic day in
February when the Shuttle Columbia crashed to earth and seven
of our bravest astronauts died. We know more about the Columbia
tragedy now that the Columbia Accident Investigations Board
[CAIB] has issued its final report. The findings are disturbing
but provide a foundation for NASA to assess and institute the
substantial reforms that must be made to make a return to
flight both safe and successful.
As part of this reform process, the Committee directs NASA
to submit a comprehensive plan within 4 months of enactment of
this Act that will respond to the CAIB report as well as
address other staffing, systemic and program shortcomings in
NASA programs. The plan should also include an assessment of
any proposed investments that NASA considers critical to the
reform of the agency and the success of its missions. Finally,
the plan is expected to provide a 10-year funding profile for
implementing proposed reforms with benchmarks that are designed
to ensure a robust and safe return to flight.
Moreover, NASA's existing budget profile already maps out
an aggressive role for the United States in both manned and
unmanned space exploration. However, the potential out-year
costs are substantial and will likely be very difficult to
sustain. This difficulty will be compounded further by whatever
NASA proposes in the way of reforms and investments in response
to the final findings of the CAIB. In addition, the Committee
believes that there must be a renewed commitment to a
replacement of the Shuttle as the primary vehicle for manned
space flight. While this commitment may begin with an increased
investment and new timetable for the Orbital Space Plane [OSP],
the Committee understands that NASA sees the OSP, not as a
shuttle replacement, but as a crew return vehicle from the ISS
in times of emergency and as a crew and supply transport
vehicle otherwise. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that a
replacement for the Space Shuttle must be considered a priority
as part of any plan for a return to flight and the Committee
directs NASA to include plans and benchmarks for the
replacement of the Space Shuttle as part of its comprehensive
plan in response to the CAIB.
During fiscal year 2004 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 a separate 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.
The Committee also expects NASA to continue its work on
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.
The Committee remains very concerned over the inefficient
use of funds by NASA. The Committee understands that most of
the programs and activities funded by NASA are very difficult
and technologically challenging and are what laypersons
jokingly refer to as ``rocket science.'' Nevertheless, where
there are delays in programs and activities, NASA often ends up
paying the additional costs necessary to support a standing
army of contractors and related employees for little or no work
in order to protect the institutional memory of the delayed
program or activity, regardless of the reason for the delay. In
these cases, NASA and the American taxpayer get little in
return. The Committee directs NASA to report within 4 months of
the date of enactment on various options to reduce the costs
associated with these delays, including new requirements for
what constitutes ``core'' staff and ``core'' program needs.
These costs are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain and
have resulted in funding shortfalls that have to be compensated
through reserves maintained for other projects and activities.
SPACE FLIGHT CAPABILITIES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $6,165,658,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 7,782,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,582,100,000
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
NASA's ``Space Flight Capabilities'' [SFC] account provides
for the Space Flight and Crosscutting Technology Programs. The
Space Flight Program includes the International Space Station
[ISS], the Space Shuttle Program, and Space and Flight Support.
The Crosscutting Technology Program includes Space Launch
Initiative, Mission & Science Measurement Technology, and
Commercial Technology Partnerships.
The SFC appropriation includes both the direct and the
indirect costs supporting the Programs, and provides for all of
the research; development; operations; salaries and related
expenses; design, repair, rehabilitation, and modification of
facilities, and construction of new facilities; maintenance,
and operation of facilities; and other general and
administrative activities supporting the Space Flight
Capabilities programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has provided $7,582,100,000 for the Space
Flight Capabilities account. This amount is $200,000,000 below
the President's request for these activities in fiscal year
2004 and $1,416,442,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level.
Space Shuttle.--The Committee believes there is no higher
priority than improving the safety and reliability of the
remaining Shuttle orbiters. The Shuttle remains the cornerstone
of our Nation's heavy launch capability and is critical to the
future of the International Space Station [ISS] and scientific
research. The future of the ISS, and other U.S. manned space
flight missions for the rest of the decade are contingent upon
having a working Shuttle fleet that is as safe as possible.
While it is expected that NASA will do its best work at making
the Shuttle a safe vehicle, it will face increasing challenges
as the Shuttle and the Shuttle infrastructure continue to age.
The Committee notes that prior to the Columbia accident,
both the Shuttle and the supporting infrastructure were
expected to need substantial investments in future years in
order to maintain the integrity of the Shuttle program. Now
that the CAIB has released its final findings, it is expected
that NASA will establish an aggressive schedule and provide
sufficient resources to upgrade Shuttle hardware and supporting
infrastructure in fiscal year 2004 and beyond.
As discussed in previous years, the Committee remains
committed to the continued safety of the Shuttle program as its
highest priority and looks forward to addressing the
recommendations of the CAIB and working with NASA in order to
provide the necessary funds to ensure the future success of the
shuttle fleet. It is of paramount importance that there be
transparency in all documentation of shuttle safety provided to
the Committee, and that this information contain details of
NASA's current safety efforts, as well as any future plans that
may develop out of the CAIB report.
Moreover, now that the recommendations of the CAIB have
become available, and NASA has the opportunity to decide on how
best to implement fixes in order to return the shuttle to
flight, the Committee directs NASA to keep the Committee
informed, in writing, of any reprogramming of funds related to
the shuttle program, as well as including the outyear impacts
on all activities involved in the reprogramming.
The Committee is very concerned that the NASA response to
the CAIB report will require a major restructuring of the
Shuttle program if not the entire agency. These reforms also
are likely to require substantial additional funds which the
Committee expects will be consistent with the comprehensive
plan requested by the Committee for the reform of the shuttle
program and agency. Nevertheless, the Committee is confident in
the ability of the strong leadership in place at NASA and looks
forward to working with NASA to ensure a safe and successful
return to flight.
The Committee believes that implementing the
recommendations of the CAIB, particularly as it pertains to the
management of the HEDS Enterprise, will be the greatest
challenge facing the agency. The list of potential
recommendations and their impact on NASA's entire management
structure could have a profound impact on NASA's future. Under
current plans, NASA believes the Shuttle will need to fly until
the year 2020. During the next decade, NASA also has plans to
launch the Orbital Space Place, or some other vehicle to
supplement the Shuttle, to support the operation of the Space
Station. With NASA planning to manage two manned vehicles in
the near future, the Committee believes it is absolutely
critical that NASA implement the safety recommendations of the
CAIB as they pertain to the management of the HEDS Enterprise.
Due to the uncertainty of how NASA intends to implement the
final CAIB recommendations for the return to flight of the
Shuttle, the Committee recommends that funding for the Shuttle
be $3,968,400,000, the same as the level within the request of
the administration. This will allow NASA to have funds readily
available to make a return to flight as soon, and as safely as
possible.
More importantly, the shuttle funds are provided as a
discrete budget line, with this account dedicated solely to
shuttle funding needs. NASA may seek additional funds by
transfer from the ISS funds within this account.
The Committee directs NASA to continue its oversight of the
contractors involved with all aspects of the Shuttle and its
infrastructure. While NASA ultimately bears the responsibility
for assuming the safety and integrity of the Shuttle program,
it also relies upon contractors to do a vast majority of the
work. The oversight role that NASA plays cannot be taken
lightly, but it is all who are involved in the Shuttle program
that must bear responsibility for making the program as safe as
possible to insure the success of the Shuttle program.
The Committee is concerned about the current inventory of
parts for the shuttle fleet. With the need for specialized
equipment in order to maintain the safety of the remaining
shuttle fleet, it is expected that NASA have appropriate
inventory of parts available in order to keep the orbiter fleet
from experiencing further delay. The reliance on the Shuttle
for at least the next decade and beyond should be reason enough
to ensure appropriate levels of replacement parts in order to
keep shuttles flying on schedule once the shuttle program has
returned to flight. The Committee directs NASA to provide the
Committee with a report detailing the shortfalls in shuttle
part inventory, the plans on how to correct these shortfalls,
and the cost implications of keeping adequate resources
available. This report should be submitted to the Committee no
later than 60 days after enactment of this bill.
The Committee notes its strong support and approval of the
actions of the current Administrator, Mr. Sean O'Keefe, whose
leadership has been instrumental in moving NASA beyond the
Columbia tragedy and in a position where it will be able to
make a successful return to flight. Mr. O'Keefe made numerous
reforms to the administration of NASA programs before the
Columbia tragedy and has continued these efforts with regard to
both the Shuttle program and all other aspects of NASA program
administration and management.
On May 12, 2003, the Administrator re-established the Space
Flight Advisory Committee [SFAC]. The Committee supports the
re-activation of this Committee and believes its mission is
more important than ever. Before and after the creation of an
independent oversight board by Congress, the Committee believes
SFAC can serve a valuable role by providing the Congress with
an independent assessment of the Agency's progress in
implementing the recommendations of the CAIB as well as an
overall assessment of the Shuttle program. The Committee
directs the SFAC to report directly and independently to the
Congress by April 1, 2004 on NASA's implementations of the CAIB
recommendations as well as an overall assessment of the Shuttle
program. The Committee provides $3,000,000 to the SFAC from
within available funds for this purpose.
The Committee finds that the Aerospace Safety Advisory
Panel, a commission established by statute after the Apollo
fire, did not materially factor into the intended effort to
provide clear ``warning signs'' prior to the Columbia accident,
nor did it provide the required checks and balances in its
review of the safety procedures at NASA to observe the culture
deficiencies cited by the Columbia Accident Investigation
Board. As such, the Administrator should reconstitute this
statutory panel to appoint recognized safety, management and
engineering experts from industry and academia with a renewed
charge to provide the checks and balances necessary. This
should include, but not be limited to, an examination of the
annual budget for shuttle operations, management and safety to
advise of its adequacy prior to the annual budget submission.
The Administrator should appoint leading experts in these
fields, and consider drawing from the ``Stafford-Covey Task
Group'' Return To Flight membership. Further, the Safety
Advisory Panel shall also provide the Committee with a report,
at the time of the annual budget submission, in order for the
Committee to better asses the budget for the Shuttle program in
terms of safety, upgrades, operations, and overall management
of the Shuttle program.
The Committee also expects regular consultations by NASA on
all proposed changes to investments in the Shuttle program.
These consultations should occur before final decisions are
made to the program.
Space Station.--The International Space Station [ISS] was
expected to reach a significant milestone in February of 2004
of core complete. With seven shuttle flights necessary for the
construction of the ISS to reach core complete, there is still
a significant amount of assembly and logistical support needed
in order to reach this construction milestone.
Instead, of reaching core complete, the ISS is now being
regularly transported by and supplied through Russian built
Progress and Soyuz capsules. While these capsules are capable
to transport both crew and supplies, the Committee is concerned
that reliance on these vehicles, while not optimal, may have to
continue for an extended time into the future.
The Committee also is concerned about the present situation
aboard the ISS which involves a 2 person crew with
approximately 120 hours a week of availability for activities.
According to NASA, of those 120 hours, 111 are consumed by
activities that do not utilize the science endeavors that the
ISS is being constructed to facilitate. During these 111 hours,
astronauts are engaged in activities involving maintenance,
planning, and ISS systems operation. While these activities are
crucial for the on-board operation of the ISS, there are only 9
hours a week available to the crew for continuing to support
prioritized science activities.
The Committee recognizes that the Aerospace Safety Advisory
Panel has analyzed the risks involved in maintaining a crew of
two on the ISS and has determined that a crew of two is
feasible. Given the potential of having crews of two aboard the
ISS for an undetermined amount of time, the Committee asks that
resources to continue to keep a crew at the ISS be identified
and made available as NASA works through the reccomendations of
the CAIB report. The reliance on ISS partners to provide the
resources to procure vehicles that are now even more essential
than planned should allow the ISS partners the opportunity to
further show their commitment to the ISS, as well as give NASA
the opportunity to take the time necessary to make
modifications to the Shuttle for continued construction of the
ISS.
As soon as the Shuttle is available to provide access to
the ISS, the Committee is adamant that NASA provide the
Committee with a plan detailing the steps necessary to reach US
Core Complete, as well as the outyear costs associated with the
revised schedule.
Space Launch Initiative.--The Space Launch Initiative [SLI]
began in 2001 as a key component of the ISTP, with a goal to
provide the necessary technology development, risk reduction,
and systems analysis to enable NASA to proceed into full scale
development of a 2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle. The
goal of SLI is to provide safe, reliable, and affordable access
to space and to extend the boundaries of human space flight.
SLI consists of two significant programs, the Orbital Space
Plane [OSP], and the Next Generation Launch Technology [NGLT]
program.
The Committee understands that the role of the OSP is to
provide a crew return capability from the ISS by approximately
2010. Once this occurs, it will then evolve into a complement
to the Shuttle for taking crew into space, and will enable a
transition path to future reusable launch vehicle systems. It
is expected that the OSP program will provide the opportunity
to support crew transport to and from space by 2012. It is
clear to the Committee that some type of vehicle will be
necessary to supplement the aging Shuttle fleet, and that such
a vehicle should be made available as quickly, and as safely as
possible.
The Committee is skeptical that the OSP is the only
approach for NASA to move astronauts to and from the ISS. As
previously noted, the ISS is currently being serviced, and
crews are being transferred using Russian vehicles. This
technology has been employed by NASA for a number of missions,
and the ISS has relied on these vehicles since the Columbia
tragedy and we continue to expect to rely on these Russian
vehicles at least for the near term. Therefore, NASA should not
limit itself to RLV technology alone, but should also explore
other future options for servicing the ISS in light of the loss
of Columbia.
The Committee does not want to repeat the mistakes of the
Space Station, where poor management and lack of independent
oversight resulted in major cost overruns, to occur with the
Orbital Space Plane. Therefore, the Committee directs the
Administrator to create an independent oversight committee,
modeled after the International Space Station Management and
Cost Evaluation Task Force, to examine the design, technology
readiness and cost estimates for the Orbital Space Plane. The
Administrator shall use available funds within the Science,
Aeronautics and Exploration account to provide sufficient
resources for this Commission this fiscal year. This oversight
committee shall report to the Administrator and the Committees
on Appropriations by June 1, 2004 on their findings.
The NGLT program is experimental in nature and was created
from the consolidation of the remaining technology development
activities from the former Second Generation RLV with the Space
Transfer and Launch Technology Program to ensure a coordinated
technology effort. The goal of the NGLT program is to develop
technology to make next generations of launch systems more
affordable and more reliable, in support of the Agency's
Integrated Space Transportation Plan. It is anticipated that,
as the high risk technologies are developed and further
refined, they will be moved into programs at NASA that will
utilize the results, thus freeing NGLT to pursue other
technologies. The Committee instructs NASA to determine the
best candidates for the NGLT, as well as when these
technologies will be able to be used in conjunction with other
NASA activities. It is also assumed that if technologies being
developed are not progressing as intended, that a thorough
review of each project will occur, and that those projects
showing a lack of progress will be terminated.
In particular, the Committee is concerned that NASA has not
maintained control over its investment in NGLT. The Committee
believes out-year costs cannot be maintained at the current
level assuming the current projections on the out-year funding
for other NASA priorities.
The Committee directs NASA to submit a report by January
31, 2004 on the outyear costs for projects within the NGLT
program, the criteria being used to select technologies for
investment, and the metrics used to determine whether projects
within NGLT are progressing, or should be permanently shut
down.
SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, AND EXPLORATION
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $9,147,815,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 7,660,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,730,507,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
NASA's ``Science, Aeronautics and Exploration'' [SAE]
account provides funding for the Space Science, Earth Science,
Biological and Physical Research, Aeronautics and Education
Programs. The SAE appropriation includes both the direct and
the indirect costs supporting the Programs, and provides for
all of the research; development; operations; salaries and
related expenses; design, repair, rehabilitation, and
modification of facilities and construction of new facilities;
maintenance and operation of facilities; and other general and
administrative activities supporting SAE programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $7,730,507,000 for the Science,
Aeronautics and Exploration account, an increase of $69,607,000
above the President's request and $1,417,308,000 below the
fiscal year 2003 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,
are 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 opportunities presented under the new Project
Prometheus are both compelling and will be revolutionary to how
space research is done. The additional power resources
developed through nuclear power will provide scientists with
unprecedented ability to collect data though powerful
scientific instruments. The Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter [JIMO]
will use breakthrough nuclear propulsion and power systems to
fuel an ambitious mission to Jupiter's icy moons, which
scientists believe may harbor organic material, and lay the
groundwork for even more ambitious exploration missions in the
coming decades. The technology to develop such capabilities
does not come easily, or without the need for substantial
resources. It has been estimated that the cost of Project
Prometheus through 2012 will be on the order of $8,000,000,000
to $9,000,000,000. This ambitious project, and the resources it
will consume, will require NASA to make trade-offs over the
next decade, but if successful, could change the potential
scientific payoff for all missions after a successful JIMO
mission.
The Committee is concerned that the current uncertainties
in the mission design, and the dependence on the development of
new technologies for success, will cause Prometheus to incur
additional unanticipated costs and potential delays. The
Committee directs NASA to provide specific milestones and
funding paths for all elements of Project Prometheus, and to
report on these items, with any updated funding and out-year
implications on a quarterly basis. Again, NASA needs to provide
the Committee with an analysis of all out-year costs, including
those targeted to shuttle reform, as to how NASA will
accommodate the projected budgets of all NASA programs,
including reserves. A report on these costs based on a 10-year
funding profile is due no later than May 1, 2004.
The Committee has made the following adjustments to the
budget request:
A decrease of $20,000,000 for the JIMO. The Committee notes
that JIMO received $20,000,000 in unanticipated funding in
fiscal year 2003. This funding was done in advance of the new
initiative and is considered to have been used to initiate JIMO
earlier than previously planned by NASA. The $72,600,000
recommended by the Committee, when combined with the advance
funding of $20,000,000 from the previous year will provide NASA
with the full requested amount, albeit over a 2-year period.
The Committee has made the following adjustments to the
budget request:
An increase of $3,000,000 for Solar Probe mission within
available funds;
An increase of $1,000,000 to Utah State University, Logan,
Utah for the Calibration Center;
An increase of $1,500,000 to Montana State University-
Bozeman for the Center for Studying Life in Extreme
Environments;
An increase of $750,000 to Montana State University-Bozeman
for the Space Science and Engineering Lab;
An increase of $1,000,000 to the University of Idaho in
Moscow, Idaho for advanced microelectronics and biomolecular
research;
An increase of $1,500,000 to Glenn Research Center for
Advance Power Systems Institute;
An increase of $2,000,000 to New Mexico State University
for the ultra-long balloon program to augment planned flights
and technology development;
An increase of $2,000,000 to Texas Tech University in
Lubbock, Texas for equipment at the Experimental Sciences
Building;
An increase of $1,000,000 to the University of Texas,
Austin for nanomedicine;
An increase of $1,000,000 to Texas A&M; University in
College Station for the Space Engineering Institute;
An increase of $2,000,000 for Stennis Space Center for the
commercial technology program;
An increase of $1,400,000 to the University of New Orleans,
Louisiana for the Composites Research Center of Excellence and
for the development of advanced metallic joining technologies
at Michoud Space Center;
An increase of $2,500,000 to Marshall University,
Bridgeport, West Virginia for the Hubble Telescope Project;
An increase of $2,300,000 to the University of North
Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota for the Northern Great Plains
Space Science and Technology Center;
An increase of $2,000,000 for University of Maryland,
Baltimore County for photonics research.
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 must
be addressed.
The Committee has made the following adjustments to the
budget request:
A decrease of $11,000,000 from Global Climate Change
Research Initiative;
A decrease of $15,000,000 from Earth Science Applications;
An increase of $11,000,000 for mission formulation studies
for EOS follow-on missions;
An increase of $25,000,000 for EOSDIS Core System Synergy
Program.
Future EOSDIS.--The Committee supports NASA's decision to
guarantee that the future data system will be evolutionary in
nature. Such an approach must maximize the utilization of the
existing operational ground system while allowing for the
introduction of new capabilities as new technologies develop.
Utilizing the existing EOSDIS Core System, the Committee
expects NASA to develop the initial baseline architecture and
information technology blueprint for this system. The
architecture should guarantee the system's resilience to
accommodate various flight models and schedules, as well as
permit the maximum number of end users from the scientific,
educational, governmental and commercial sectors.
An increase of $1,500,000 to George Mason University,
Fairfax, Virginia for the Center for Earth Observing and Space
Research Mid-Atlantic Geospatial Information Consortium;
An increase of $1,000,000 to Utah State University, Logan,
Utah for the Intermountain Region Digital Image Archive and
Processing Center;
An increase of $2,500,000 to the University of Mississippi
for the Enterprise for Innovative Geospatial Solutions;
An increase of $2,000,000 to Mississippi State University
for the Geospatial and Natural Resources Institute;
An increase of $1,600,000 to the University of New Mexico
for the Center for Rapid Environmental Assessment and Terrain
Evaluation;
An increase of $3,000,000 for the University of Alaska for
weather and ocean research;
An increase of $1,000,000 for the Pacific Northwest
Collaboratory at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to
demonstrate real-time applications of earth science data.
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.
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 the
current stand down of the Shuttle fleet have significantly
reduced the opportunities for life and microgravity research in
the near term. The Committee urges NASA to resume, as
practically as possible, scientific research in this area, as
well as to fully employ all resources currently available to
further research in this area until regular operations on the
ISS are resumed.
The Committee has made the following adjustments to the
budget request:
An increase of $1,000,000 to Glenn Research Center for the
John Glenn Biomedical Engineering Consortium;
An increase of $1,250,000 to Space Sciences Inc. for
microgravity related pharmaceutical development;
An increase of $2,500,000 for Marshall Space Flight Center
for the Propulsion Materials Microgravity Research project;
An increase of $2,000,000 for the University of Missouri
Bioinformatics Consortium for equipment purchase;
An increase of $1,500,000 for Truman State University Life
Sciences for laboratory equipment.
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. 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 is concerned with the steady decline during
recent years in the aeronautics research and technology
request. NASA's failure to reverse this trend over the next
several years is even more alarming. Further, the United States
faces major foreign competition in the commercial aviation
arena. The Europeans have stated in their ``Vision 2020,'' that
they intend to dominate the commercial aviation global market
by 2020 through their investment in aeronautics R&D.; The
Committee feels that the vitality of U.S. aviation should not
be left behind. The Committee is committed to the research NASA
conducts in aeronautics, and to the benefits, both in safety
and economically, that will be made available to the public
through NASA led research.
The Committee also supports NASA's investment in the Mobile
Broadband Network and urges NASA and the Ames Research Center
to work with the Department of Homeland Security to continue
research into highly secure communications systems that will
benefit local, State and Federal governments.
The Committee urges NASA to move forward with
implementation of the Wallops Flight Facility Mission 2005
Strategic Plan and encourages further cooperation between
Wallops and the Marshall Space Flight Center.
The Committee has made the following adjustments to the
budget request:
An increase of $5,000,000 for the development of an
aeronautics research budget covering the next 5 years. It is
expected that air traffic management will also be included
within this budget. Funds shall be allocated to the National
Institute for Aerospace for contracting with industry and
academia to prepare such a budget plan no later than March 1,
2004;
An increase of $15,000,000 for future aircraft research
with a priority on supersonic flight technologies;
An increase of $15,000,000 for future aviation systems
including a priority on aviation security and air traffic
management;
An increase of $15,000,000 for continued development of
flight technologies with direct application to military
vehicles;
An increase of $3,000,000 to Wichita State University,
Wichita, Kansas for the National Center for Composite Materials
Performance;
An increase of $1,000,000 to Wichita State University,
Wichita, Kansas for the Critical Aircraft Icing project;
An increase of $2,000,000 to Glenn Research Center for the
commercial technology program;
An increase of $2,500,000 to Stennis Space Center for
infrastructure improvements;
An increase of $1,000,000 to Stennis Space Center for
relocation of the visitors center. NASA is also directed to
submit a funding plan to the Committee for the visitors center;
An increase of $1,000,000 to the Delaware Aerospace
Education and Foundation, Kent County, Delaware;
An increase of $2,000,000 to Wheeling Jesuit University for
the National Technology Transfer Center.
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 recommends the following adjustments to the
budget request:
An increase of $600,000 to the Challenger Center in Kenai,
Alaska;
An increase of $1,000,000 to the Virginia Commonwealth
University, Richmond, Virginia for advance research in
batteries and fuel cells;
An increase of $1,500,000 to the University of Montana in
Missoula, Montana for the National Space Privatization Program;
An increase of $2,000,000 for the Denver Museum of Nature
and Science in Denver, Colorado for equipment for the Space
Science Museum;
An increase of $1,500,000 for the Adventure Science Center
in Nashville, Tennessee for the Sudekum Planetarium;
An increase of $500,000 for the University of Northern Iowa
in Cedar Falls, Iowa for the Existing Business Enhancement
Program;
An increase of $1,300,000 for Iowa State University for the
PIPELINES Project;
An increase of $1,000,000 for the Metropolitan School
District of Decatur Township Indiana for the Challenger
Learning Center Expansion;
An increase of $1,700,000 for Northern Kentucky University/
University of Louisville for a digital science center;
An increase of $2,000,000 for the University of Alabama in
Huntsville for the Center for Modeling Simulation and Analysis;
An increase of $1,000,000 for the Oregon Museum of Science
and Industry for the space science education distance learning
program;
An increase of $1,000,000 for Southeast Missouri State
University for the NASA ERSC Outreach Project;
An increase of $1,500,000 for Dominican University's Center
for Science and Technology for project based learning;
An increase of $200,000 to Wheeling Jesuit University for
Classroom of the Future;
An increase $2,000,000 to the University of Connecticut for
the Center for Land Use Education and Research;
An increase of $2,000,000 to Iowa State University, Ames,
Iowa for non-destructive evaluation studies;
An increase of $500,000 to the Des Moines Science Center,
Des Moines, Iowa;
An increase of $2,000,000 for the School of Science and
Mathematics at the College of Charleston, Charleston, South
Carolina;
An increase of $3,000,000 to the University of Hawaii, Hilo
for the Mauna Kea Astronomy Education Center;
An increase of $1,500,000 to Space Education Initiative,
Wisconsin for the Wisconsin Geoscience Education initiative;
An increase of $1,000,000 to the Youth Achievers Committee
of New Jersey, Burlington County, New Jersey for the Youth
Achievers Committee Science and Math Initiative;
An increase of $500,000 to the University of Vermont,
Burlington, Vermont for the Center for Advanced Computing;
An increase of $1,000,000 to Wayne State University,
Detroit, Michigan for the Center of Smart Sensors and
Integrated Microsystems;
An increase of $1,000,000 for Wellpinit School District in
Wellpinit, Washington for the Virtual Classroom Project;
An increase of $1,500,000 for the Mitchell Institute,
Portland, Maine for science and engineering education.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $25,434,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 26,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 26,300,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Inspector General was established by the
Inspector General Act of 1978. The Office is responsible for
providing agencywide audits 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 $26,300,000 for fiscal year 2004,
the same as the budget request and $866,000 above the fiscal
year 2003 enacted level. The Committee commends the NASA IG's
diligence in addressing issues of fraud and abuse.
As a high profile agency within the Federal Government,
NASA has been the target of numerous attacks against its IT
infrastructure. The NASA IG has waged a battle with the sole
purpose of being able to provide cyber-security for NASA in
order to keep the data collected by the agency safe. With this
effort in mind, the Committee notes its awareness that there
are technologies that have been developed commercially to
provide vulnerability management that can help identify network
susceptibility to intrusion and to reduce risk exposure. For
example, nCircle has a product that provides real time analysis
of network vulnerabilities, and System Detection Inc. has
developed software that identifies anomalies in computer
networks. Other IT related products are also available and
could be of benefit to NASA, and to other agencies, in
maintaining a high degree of IT security. The Committee urges
NASA, and the NASA OIG, in particular, to assess the
effectiveness of these technologies and to use appropriate
funding for procurement if such technologies are determined to
be beneficial to NASA's IT security. In particular, because of
the high commitment of the NASA IG to computer security, the
Committee directs the IG to assess the status of computer
security within NASA and the IT that is available in the
marketplace, and to report to the Congress by May 15, 2004 on
overall IT weaknesses within NASA.
The Committee also directs the NASA IG to review NASA's
contract procedures and conventions to determine if there are
ways to reform the process and reduce the costs of NASA
programs and activities. In particular, many NASA contract
provisions require NASA to pay for significant cost overruns
and, in cases of program delays, significant costs associated
with staffing that appears to be maintained solely to ensure
the preservation of the institutional memory for the delayed
program or activity. The Committee agrees that institutional
memory is critical to the success of many if not all NASA
programs which are in most cases exceedingly complex.
Nevertheless, these costs are substantial and, in some cases,
may be unwarranted or unnecessary. As a result, the Committee
believes that contract reform should be considered a priority
as part of NASA's overall restructuring in response to the
CAIB. The Committee expects the NASA IG to work with NASA to
identify and implement reform of NASA's contract process and
procedures. The NASA IG is directed to report on these efforts
and issues no later than June 1, 2004.
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.
NASA has continued to ask Congress to look at the human
capital challenges within the agency. The Committee is aware
that the Senate has, for its consideration, S. 610 that
addresses the tools NASA deems necessary to address human
capital needs at the agency and will monitor the progress of
this legislation. The Committee is also aware of the challenges
faced by NASA in the area of human capital and is conscious of
the over 3-to-1 ratio of workers over 60 to those who are under
30. This imbalance did not appear suddenly, but has come about
over time and will likely take time to correct. This also is a
Government-wide problem and is consistent with projected
retirements at other agencies throughout the Government. In
addition, the human capital options that NASA desires will have
more than an impact on the workforce at NASA, it will also have
a budgetary impact if the proposed changes are enacted.
Therefore, the Committee directs NASA to provide a report that
quantifies the budgetary impacts of the changes to the hiring
and retention of human capital, and the effects of such
spending in the outyears, as proposed by NASA and expects this
report to be provided to the Committee no later than 30 days
after the enactment of this bill.
The Committee is also concerned about the management
structure at NASA. The CAIB report contains comments about the
management structure of the shuttle program and possibly NASA
as a whole. The Committee believes that now is an appropriate
time to conduct a complete review of NASA's organizational,
programmatic, and personnel structures. The Committee is
particularly interested in reviewing the field and headquarters
organizational structures, business processes, human resources
management, and program structures and operations. It is
expected that this review will take into account any
recommendations of the CAIB, as well as the proposed human
capital issues contained in NASA's report that is due no later
than 30 days after the enactment of this bill. The Committee
has allocated $2,000,000 within the amounts appropriated to
NASA for a contract with the National Academy of Public
Administration (the Academy) to conduct this study. The
Committee understands that NASA is already working with NAPA on
developing a study and commends NASA for these efforts.
Consequently, the Committee expects NASA to award this contract
to the Academy within 3 months after the signing of NASA's
fiscal year 2004 appropriation bill, and that the Academy will
issue a final report no later than 18 months after the signing
of the contract.
National Credit Union Administration
central liquidity facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct loan Administrative
limitation expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2003.............. $1,500,000,000 $309,000
Budget estimate, 2004............. 1,500,000,000 310,000
Committee recommendation.......... 1,500,000,000 310,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). The
CLF is a mixed-ownership Government corporation managed by the
National Credit Union Administration Board and 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 CLF, 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 CLF are stock subscriptions from credit unions and
borrowings.
The CLF may borrow funds from any source, with the amount
of borrowing limited 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
$310,000 in fiscal year 2004. The Committee recommends a
limitation of $1,500,000,000 for the principal amount of new
direct loans to member credit unions. These amounts are the
same as the budget request. Funds provided for administrative
expenses are $1,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
The Committee directs the National Credit Union
Administration [NCUA] to continue to provide reports on the
lending activities under CLF. This information should be
provided to the Committee on a quarterly basis through
September 2004.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $993,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,500,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Community Development Revolving Loan Fund Program
[CDRLF] was established in 1979 to assist officially designated
``low-income'' credit unions in providing basic financial
services to low-income communities. Low-interest loans and
deposits are made available to assist these credit unions.
Loans or deposits are normally repaid in 5 years, although
shorter repayment periods may be considered. Technical
assistance grants are also available to low-income credit
unions. Until fiscal year 2001, only earnings generated from
the CDRLF were available to fund technical assistance grants.
Grants are available for improving operations as well as
addressing safety and soundness issues.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides $1,500,000 for loans and technical
assistance to community development credit unions. This funding
level is $500,000 above the budget request and the fiscal year
2003 enacted level. The Committee has provided additional funds
to provide additional technical assistance grants to low-income
credit unions in rural areas.
The Committee's recommendation includes $700,000 for loans
to community development credit unions and $800,000 for
technical assistance to low-income and community development
credit unions. The Committee supports NCUA's outreach to low-
income, rural and underserved communities through the Technical
Assistance Grants program. The Committee encourages NCUA to
continue to develop technical assistance efforts in rural areas
in order to assist in the further expansion of basic financial
and related services to members which otherwise might not be
available in the community. The Committee also supports NCUA's
efforts in providing an alternative to predatory lenders by
consistently reaching out to offer financial services,
products, and education in the community.
National Science Foundation
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $5,309,951,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 5,481,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,585,760,000
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 and education in all major scientific and engineering
disciplines, through grants, cooperative agreements, 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 $5,585,760,000 for the National
Science Foundation for fiscal year 2004. This amount is
$275,810,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and
$104,560,000 above the budget request.
The Committee continues to be supportive of the efforts
achieved in the National Science Foundation Authorization Act
of 2002 (Public Law 107-368) and the pursuit of a doubling path
for NSF funding. However, due to funding constraints, the
Committee is not able to provide such funding at this time, but
will continue to pursue these efforts in the future.
The Committee notes that productivity growth, powered by
new knowledge and technological innovation, makes the economic
benefits of a comprehensive fundamental research and education
enterprise abundantly clear. New products, processes, entire
new industries, and the employment opportunities that result,
depend upon rapid advances in research and their equally rapid
movement into the marketplace. In today's global economy,
continued progress in science and engineering and the transfer
of the knowledge developed is vital if the United States is to
maintain its competitiveness.
The Committee reiterates its long standing requirement for
reprogramming, initiation of new programs or activities, and
reorganizations. The Committee directs the Foundation to notify
the chairman and ranking minority member prior to each
reprogramming of funds in excess of $250,000 between programs,
activities, or elements unless an alternate amount is specified
elsewhere by the Committee. The Committee expects to be
notified of reprogramming actions which involve less than the
above-mentioned amount if such actions would have the effect of
changing the 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.
RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $4,056,460,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 4,106,360,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,220,610,000
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;
international activities; and will 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 integrative activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,220,610,000
for research and related activities. This amount is
$164,150,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and
$114,250,000 above the budget request.
Within the amount for research and related activities, the
following specific funding levels for each of NSF's research
activities are as follows: $577,220,000 for Biological
Sciences, $609,390,000 for Computer and Information Science,
$550,000,000 for Engineering, $692,210,000 for Geosciences,
$1,085,870,000 for Mathematical and Physical Sciences,
$206,740,000 for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences,
$273,660,000 for Polar Research Programs, $68,070,000 for
Antarctic Logistical Support, and $157,450,000 for Integrative
Activities.
The Committee supports fully the Foundation's efforts to
push the boundaries of science and technology issues,
especially in the areas of information technology,
biotechnology, and the administration's focus on
nanotechnology. The Committee also applauds the Foundation's
efforts to address the problem of science and mathematics
education among K-12, undergraduate, and graduate students.
However, in order for the Foundation to reach successfully its
research and education goals, it must reach out to individuals
and schools that have not participated fully in NSF's programs.
Accordingly, the Committee remains concerned about programs
designed to assist minorities, women, and schools that have not
received significant Federal support.
To improve planning and priority-setting for the Foundation
and improve the Committee's efforts to understand NSF's long-
term budgeting, the Committee directs NSF to continue to
provide multi-year budgets for all of its multi-disciplinary
activities. While the Foundation has provided outyear budgets
for projects under its Major Research Equipment and Facilities
Construction account, only 1 year budgets have been generally
provided for its activities under the R&RA; and Education and
Human Resources accounts. The Committee is concerned that NSF
has taken on more significant initiatives that often require
multi-year funding to meet its research goals, but has not
provided the Committee with documentation that identifies these
types of initiatives and their long-range budget implications.
For example, NSF has major efforts in the areas of information
technology, biocomplexity, and nanotechnology, as well as
funding mid-level projects that do not require funding through
the MREFC account that may not need approval of the National
Science Board. Accordingly, the Committee directs NSF to
include the outyear budget impacts and needs of all these major
multi-disciplinary and mid-level activities, in the annual
operating plan and in future budget requests.
The Committee recommends $90,000,000 for the Plant Genome
Research Program and supports the Foundation's request for
funding the ``2010 Project.'' The Committee expects the
Foundation to continue its support for structural and
functional plant genomic research on economically significant
crops. The Committee directs the Foundation to implement
Section 8(3)(c) related to the plant genome program included in
the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-368). The Committee expects the Foundation to
provide details on its implementation plans in its fiscal year
2004 operating plan. The Committee recognizes the findings of
the Interagency Working Group [IWG] on Plant Genomes, which
recommended spending at least $320,000,000 over 5 years in new
funds on plant genome research.
The ``2010 Project'' is expected to create needed genome-
wide tools that will lead to more rapid advances in functional
genomics research in valuable food crops. The Committee
encourages NSF to work with the IWG on Plant Genomes to make
use of the important tools that will be developed through the
``2010 Project.'' The Committee is also excited by NSF's
supported research in nutritional genomics, which will lead to
the discovery in plants of key genes controlling metabolic
pathways that lead to production of vitamins, essential amino
acids, antioxidants, and accumulation of minerals essential for
human nutrition. This research could substantially improve the
nutritional quality and health benefit of eating normal
portions of fruits and vegetables, which would greatly benefit
people in developing countries. The Committee encourages NSF
and the IWG on Plant Genomes to work together in developing
recommendations for the Committee concerning research and
training in nutritional genomics.
To further NSF's major initiatives, the Committee
recommends $25,130,000 in additional funding to enhance its
Computer and Information Science and Engineering [CISE]
activities. Information Technology Research within CISE is
funded at $233,240,000. The fundamental research done within
this program has helped in the understanding of computing,
communications, and information systems. The funds provided
will further this research in the areas of large-scale
networking, new high end architectures, high data volume
instruments, and information management. Within the funds for
CISE, the Committee also provides $25,000,000 for
cyberinfrastructure in order to enable new types of research
based on the massive data resources available to researchers.
The Committee recommends $275,000,000 for the multi-agency
nanotechnology initiative. The Committee believes that the
recommended level of funding will allow the Foundation to
continue to be the largest Federal agency for this initiative
in a field that is still in its beginning stages. This
represents an increase of $25,000,000 above the requested
level. Of these additional funds for nanotechnology, the
following increases should be added to NSF activities already
in the request made by the administration: $5,000,000 within
CISE; $10,000,000 within Engineering; and $10,000,000 within
Math and Physical Sciences.
There are continued concerns about the Foundation taking on
another major interagency initiative when its administrative
resources have remained relatively flat. With these concerns in
mind, NSF is encouraged to provide the proper resources within
NSF to facilitate this Federal leadership role in
nanotechnology. The Committee also expects the Foundation to
continue working with the Office of Science and Technology
Policy in carefully crafting a detailed, rational long-term
strategy with performance outcome measurements for the
nanotechnology initiative.
The Committee recognizes the significant infrastructure
needs of our Nation's research institutions, especially for
smaller research and minority institutions that have not
traditionally benefited from Federal programs. The Committee is
especially concerned about the larger schools receiving a
disproportionate share of scarce Federal resources from
indirect cost reimbursements to fund infrastructure needs. As a
result, the Committee recommends $115,000,000 for the
Foundation's Major Research Instrumentation [MRI] account to
address the infrastructure needs of research institutions. NSF
is encouraged to continue targeting these funds in assisting
those research institutions which tend to be underrepresented.
To ensure that minority serving institutions are also a focus
of MRI funding, within the amount provided for MRI, $30,000,000
should be used to provide instruction in digital and wireless
network technologies, and enhance the Nation's digital and
wireless infrastructure at these institutions.
The Committee notes that the Federal Oceanographic
Facilities Committee [FOFC] has recognized the impending need
to recapitalize the academic research fleet and recently
completed, ``Charting the Future for the National Academic
Research Fleet--A Long Range Plan for Renewal.'' The report
outlines the state of the fleet and charts a path for
maintaining fleet capabilities. Because there is no detailed
plan outlining how the Government will manage the procurement
and construction of the vessels, the Committee directs the
Foundation to develop a plan in consultation with all
participating agency partners. The plan should be submitted to
the Committee no later than 6 months after the enactment of
this Act.
The Committee is concerned that NSF has not proposed to
maintain adequately its existing astronomy facilities. Support
for enhanced operations, maintenance, and development of new
instrumentation at the Very Large Array and the Very Long
Baseline Array in New Mexico and the Green Bank Telescope in
West Virginia continues to be a priority for the Committee.
These astronomy facilities need to be supported in their
operations, and new instrumentation and upgrades must be
provided to keep them as world class facilities. The Committee
provides the National Radio Astronomy Observatories [NRAO]
$55,310,000 for annual operations. Also within the increase
provided for NRAO, the Committee approves $9,400,000
specifically to continue the Expanded Very Large Array program,
and $10,300,000 for the Green Bank Observatory. The Committee
is also aware that the rail upon which the Green Bank telescope
turns is showing premature wear and will require either
retrofitting or replacement. For the purpose of engineering
studies and cost for repair or replacement, in addition the
Committee is providing $4,600,000 in funding out of the funds
provided in the Math and Physical Sciences activity.
The Polar Programs activity receives an increase of
$11,800,000 above the requested amount. Within these additional
funds, $6,000,000 is intended to address unexpected incurred
costs associated with additional efforts in providing fuel to
research facilities in Antarctica. These necessary efforts
included additional ice breaking requirements and additional
fuel transportation costs.
The Committee fully supports the Foundation's fiscal year
2004 priority for Arctic research under its Study of
Environmental Arctic Change [SEARCH] program. Accordingly, the
Committee has provided $5,800,000 within NSF's Office of Polar
Programs to support SEARCH infrastructure needs, including
research support for the Barrow Arctic Research facility.
The Committee remains supportive of the International
Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska and strongly urges
the Foundation to continue its support for the center.
The Committee noted in the fiscal year 2002 bill that it
was 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 does not believe NSF has made adequate progress
in this matter and directs NSF to institute immediately changes
to its peer review process that reflect these recommendations.
The Partnerships for Innovation [PFI] program, which was
created in fiscal year 2000, was expected to address the needs
of smaller research institutions and other underfunded
entities, as well as enhance infrastructure that is necessary
to foster and sustain innovation for the long term. The
Committee acknowledges that the request for this year is double
that from last year and recommends $10,000,000 for the PFI
program, the same as the request by the administration.
Finally, the Committee recognizes the Foundation's funded
research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences [SBE]
area. The Committee recognizes that, in conjunction with the
2000 census, the collection of data for the National Survey of
College Graduates 2003 will begin and provides the funding
necessary to complete this survey. The survey provides data on
the scientific and engineering workforce of the country, and
occurs once every decade to reflect the results of the
Decennial Census. The Committee is also interested in SBE
activities intended to raise science literacy, which is a
problem in this country that will impact the economic health
and competitiveness of the Nation.
The Committee notes that NSF is investing in a multi-year
priority area of research in Human and Social Dynamics, and
recognizes that this research will play a role in understanding
the complex problems facing our Nation.
MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $148,538,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 202,330,000
Committee recommendation................................ 149,680,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The major research equipment and facilities construction
appropriation supports the acquisition, procurement,
construction, and commissioning 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. Preliminary design and development
activities, and 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 $149,680,000
for major research equipment and facilities construction. This
amount is $1,140,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level and $52,650,000 below the budget request.
The Committee has provided $51,040,000 for the Atacama
Large Millimeter Array [ALMA], $43,730,000 for EarthScope, and
$35,460,000 for the IceCube Neutrino Observatory. The Committee
has also provided $10,060,000 for Terascale Computing,
$8,090,000 to continue the construction of the Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation [NEES], and $1,300,000 for
funding of the current South Pole Station modernization
efforts. Due to budgetary constraints, no funding is provided
for new starts within this account for fiscal year 2004.
Further, the Committee is awaiting the results of the
National Academy of Sciences work on developing a set of
criteria that can be used to rank and prioritize the
Foundation's large research facilities. The Committee
anticipates that the Academy's work will lead to a priority-
setting process that is fair and rational. While the Foundation
has made some strides in addressing the Committee's concerns
that the current process appears subjective and ad hoc, the
Committee believes that questions about the process still
remain.
The Committee also recognizes the continuing weaknesses in
the Foundation's management and oversight of its large research
facilities. The Committee is encouraged by the recent hiring of
a permanent senior management level official in charge of
overseeing NSF's large research facilities and looks forward to
working with the new deputy director, the National Science
Board, and the NSF Office of Inspector General in addressing
the Foundation's management issues.
In addition to funding large research facilities under the
major research equipment and facilities construction [MREFC]
account, the Foundation supports smaller projects through its
research and related activities [R&RA;] account. The Committee
directs the Foundation, in consultation with the National
Science Board, to develop clear and definitive criteria that
define projects under both the MREFC and R&RA; accounts.
Further, the Committee directs the Foundation to identify all
equipment, infrastructure-related, and facilities with an
estimated cost of over $5,000,000 in its fiscal year 2005
budget submission to the Congress. Lastly, the Committee
directs the Deputy Director of Large Facility Projects to
develop immediately internal guidelines and a central tracking
system of all research projects, regardless of cost, to ensure
adequate oversight.
In fiscal year 2001, the Foundation provided funds to
design and model test a vessel to replace the R/V Alpha Helix.
With that phase completed, the Committee urges the Foundation
to consider the inclusion of funding in its fiscal year 2005
budget to begin construction of a new research vessel to
replace the R/V Alpha Helix.
EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $903,171,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 938,040,000
Committee recommendation................................ 975,870,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The education and human resources appropriation supports a
comprehensive set of programs across all levels of education in
science, technology, engineering and mathematics [STEM]. The
appropriation supports activities that unite school districts
with institutions of higher learning to improve precollege
education. Other precollege activities include development of
the next generation of precollege STEM education leaders;
instructional materials; and the STEM instructional workforce.
Undergraduate activities support curriculum, laboratory, and
instructional improvement; expand the STEM talent pool; attract
STEM participants to teaching; augment advanced technological
education at 2-year colleges; and develop dissemination tools.
Graduate support is directed to research and teaching
fellowships and traineeships, and linking precollege systems
with higher education to improve the instructional workforce.
Programs also seek to broaden the participation of groups
underrepresented in the STEM enterprise; build State and
regional capacity to compete successfully for research funding;
and promote informal science education. Ongoing evaluation
efforts and research on learning strengthen the base for these
programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $975,870,000
for education and human resources [EHR]. This amount is
$72,700,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and
$37,830,000 more than the budget request. The Committee also
notes that NSF will not receive any funds associated with the
H-1B Visa account due to expiration of the legislation in
fiscal year 2003, which has supplemented EHR activities in the
past.
The Committee is deeply disappointed by the
administration's lack of support in its budget request for
assisting smaller research institutions and minorities. The
Committee is particularly troubled by the continued lack of
support provided to the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research [EPSCoR]. The Committee has provided
$100,000,000 to EPSCoR, an increase of $10,590,000 over last
year's enacted level and $25,000,000 over the budget request.
The Committee believes that high-speed network connections and
advanced technology resources provided by the Research
Infrastructure Improvement program, are crucial to the success
of underrepresented (most notably, rural areas) areas and
institutions and encourages NSF to ensure that EPSCoR states
are able to fully participate in research partnerships. The
Committee directs NSF to submit a report by May 1, 2004 on the
status of all the States participating in EPSCoR. There is an
expectation that States will graduate from EPSCoR and instead
States have apparently begun to view the program as an
``entitlement''. NSF is expected to assess what changes should
be made to the program to ensure States begin to graduate.
The undergraduate ``tech talent'' expansion program is
increased by $23,000,000 above the request of the
administration. The Committee strongly encourages NSF to
continue support for this plan for undergraduate science and
engineering education. This program will continue to help
colleges and universities increase the number of U.S. citizens,
and permanent residents, pursue degrees in STEM fields. At a
time when enrollment in STEM fields of study have declined for
several years, it is important that NSF use its position to
support students working towards degrees in these areas.
The Committee is also providing an additional $7,710,000
above the budget request to the Advanced Technological
Education program. This important NSF program supports
undergraduate science education activities at the Nation's
community colleges.
To address the importance of broadening science and
technology participation to minorities, the Committee
recommendation includes $25,000,000 for the Historically Black
Colleges and Universities--Undergraduate Program [HBCU-UP], an
increase of $6,150,000 over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level
and $5,030,000 more than the budget request. The Committee also
recommends $35,000,000 for the Louis Stokes Alliance for
Minority Participation program, an increase of $2,270,000 above
the budget request. To the extent possible, funds within these
programs should also address issues contained within S. 196
involving minority serving institutions.
The Committee is recommending an increase above the request
for the HBCU-Research University Science & Technology [THRUST]
initiative within the Centers of Research Excellence in Science
and Technology [CREST] program of $10,000,000. Eligibility for
THRUST should not exclude CREST recipients, but funds provided
in fiscal year 2004 should be used to first fully-fund multi-
year awards to recipients of THRUST awards in the program's
first year. The total level of funding for the CREST program is
expected to be $20,000,000, an increase of $9,120,000 above the
President's request.
The Committee is also providing $17,500,000 for the
Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate [AGEP]
program. This amount is $5,700,000 above both the fiscal year
2003 enacted level and the President's request. The AGEP
program strives to increase the number of doctoral degrees in
STEM related fields for underrepresented minority populations
and encourages students in the program to become professors.
The Committee encourages NSF to work to achieve their
projections that show AGEP activities doubling minority
doctorial degree production within the next 5 years.
The Committee remains supportive of the tribal colleges
program and is especially pleased with the Foundation's
inclusion of Alaskan Native serving institutions and Native
Hawaiian serving institutions as eligible entities to receive
funds from this program. To that end, the Committee supports
the Foundation's continued inclusion of these entities in the
tribal colleges program.
The Committee supports the Foundation's efforts to
strengthen the Nation's security of its information
infrastructure. The Committee is providing $16,180,000 for the
Scholarships for Service program to build a talented pool of
individuals within the Federal sector with the skills to
protect the Nation's information systems.
The Committee also continues its strong support for the
Informal Science Education [ISE] program. The Committee
especially values the ISE program in raising interest among
children and young adults in science and technology and notes
the success of certain settings, such as the Sea Life Center in
Seward, Alaska and the National Aquarium in Baltimore,
Maryland. The Committee is disappointed in NSF's proposed
decrease for fiscal year 2004 and provides an additional
$15,000,000 above the request for ISE. The ISE plays a role in
the development of science teachers, as well as builds
collaborations between informal and formal science
institutions, provides opportunities for underrepresented
groups, includes the involvement of parents, and enhances the
public understanding of mathematics.
The Committee is aware that the Systemic Secondary Schools
Initiative was created in the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368) and directs the
Foundation to provide details of the implementation for this
program when NSF submits its annual operating plan to the
Committee.
The Committee recognizes and is supportive of the request
by the administration for the Foundation's graduate research
education programs. The request will allow the Foundation to
raise the annual stipend amount from its current level of
$27,500 to $30,000 per award. The Committee believes that the
increased stipend will improve the Foundation's ability to
attract the best and brightest students into the science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology fields. It is also
expected that through the additional funds provided to the
Research and Related Activities account, NSF will also be able
to provide the same level of stipends for the existing Graduate
Teaching Fellowships in K-12 Education program, the Graduate
Research Fellowships program, and the Integrative Graduate
Education and Research Traineeship program. The Committee also
urges NSF to work towards increasing the number of women,
minorities, and other underrepresented groups within these
programs to the greatest extent possible.
The Committee is concerned about information regarding some
grantees in the Math and Science Partnership [MSP] program not
being able to provide documentation on how funds through this
program have been spent. The Committee urges NSF to prohibit
grantees that have not been able to provide appropriate
documentation from continuing to receive funding, or to receive
future funding for this program. Nevertheless, the MSP program
is an important asset in providing improved math and science
education by partnering local school districts with faculty of
colleges and universities. The Committee recommends that the
MSP program be funded at $145,000,000, an increase of
$18,330,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $189,115,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 225,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 225,700,000
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 $225,700,000
for salaries and expenses. The Committee directs NSF to fund
travel only from this account and not to use other account
funds for travel purposes.
The Committee is concerned that as NSF has grown in terms
of agency funding in recent years, that staffing and structural
needs have not been adequately addressed. The current request
for NSF staff FTEs for fiscal year 2004 is an increase of only
12 above the FTE level 2 years ago. Over the same period of
time, the amount of staff requested under the Intergovernmental
Personnel Act [IPA] has risen by 41 over that same 2-year
period, with the most dramatic increase of 30 additional IPAs
requested for fiscal year 2004. IPAs typically stay at NSF from
1 to 3 years and then move on to other positions outside of
NSF. While there are valid reasons to use these rotator
positions, the Committee is troubled that 59 percent of current
program officers at NSF are temporary in nature. The National
Academy of Public Administration will be completing a study
early in 2004 that will include an evaluation of this situation
and the Committee expects NSF to address any recommendations in
a decisive manner, as well as informing the Committee of any
actions resulting from the study.
The Committee is troubled by the initial findings by the
GAO concerning the contract with Booz-Allen-Hamilton to analyze
and develop a plan for enhancing NSF's mission-critical
business processes, human capital, and information technology.
GAO has found that NSF is already experiencing some delays in
starting and completing some of the initial contract
deliverables. The project plan, which will guide the
contractor's activities over the life of the contract, is
scheduled to be issued 1 year after its originally planned
completion date. In addition, NSF did not estimate, nor is it
tracking, the costs for each of the seven key contract
deliverables, which would be a prudent business management
practice given the overall cost, length, and scope of the
contract. Due to the unusual cost of the Booz-Allen-Hamilton
contract, the Committee directs that no additional funds shall
be expended on this contract until auditable documentation of
how the cost-range of the contract was derived is presented to
the Committee. The Committee also directs NSF to seek the
concurrence of both the National Science Board and the NSF
Inspector General concerning the proposed project plan prior to
continuing the further funding of this contract. The Committee
also expects NSF to notify the Committee of any reprogramming
of funds with regard to this contract, and strongly urges NSF
to be prepared to provide an implementation plan upon
completion of the contract.
The Committee also directs NSF to create a senior level
management position dedicated to assisting minority serving
institutions. It is expected that the person selected for this
position will work to help minority serving institutions
improve the quality of STEM education, and the on campus
incorporation of innovative technologies.
OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $3,477,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 0
Committee recommendation................................ 3,900,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The National Science Board is the governing body of the
National Science Foundation. The Board is composed of 24
members, appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate. The Board is charged with serving as adviser to the
President and Congress on policy matters related to science and
engineering. By law, the Board establishes the policies of the
National Science Foundation, provides oversight of its programs
and activities, and approves of its strategic directions and
budgets. The Board reviews and approves NSF awards at levels
above its delegation of authority to the NSF Director.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,900,000 for
the National Science Board. This amount is $423,000 more than
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
Given the increasing oversight responsibilities of the
Board, driven by the growth of the Foundation, the Committee
wants to ensure the Board continues to carryout effectively its
policy-making and oversight responsibilities. The Committee is
providing funding to support the operations, activities,
expenses, and staffing of the Board. It is the Committee's view
that NSB staffing and management decisions are the
responsibility and prerogative of the Board. It is also
expected that NSF will continue to provide support for the
preparation of Science and Engineering Indicators from funds
provided within the Research and Related Activities account.
NSF is also expected to continue to support all other
activities of the Board as they have done in the past.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $9,190,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 8,770,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000
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 $10,000,000
for the Office of Inspector General. This amount is $810,000
more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $1,230,000
more than the budget request.
The proposed increase would allow the OIG to further expand
its efforts in several priority areas that pose the greatest
risk to the agency: financial management, acquisition,
information technology, human capital, award administration,
awardee financial accountability and compliance, and the
management of agency programs and projects. The Committee is
disappointed with the proposed reduction in funding for the
OIG. Under the requested amount, the OIG will only have the
resources to be able to react to allegations of fraudulent
practices. With the additional funds provided, the OIG will
have the added capability to also provide proactive prevention
and detection efforts to determine if violations identified
during individual investigations are widespread or whether they
undermine the integrity of the data upon which NSF relies.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $104,317,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 115,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 115,000,000
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. These partnership-based organizations are independent,
tax-exempt, nonprofit entities and are often known as
Neighborhood Housing Services [NHS] or mutual housing
associations. Collectively, these organizations are known as
the NeighborWorks network.
Nationally, 226 NeighborWorks organizations serve
over 2,300 urban, suburban and rural communities in 49 States,
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In fiscal year 2002,
the NeighborWorks network assisted nearly 70,000
families to obtain and maintain safe and affordable rental and
homeownership units, where 70 percent of the people served are
in the very low and low-income brackets.
Neighborhood Reinvestment also provides 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
that are placed with private sector social investors.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $115,000,000 for the Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation, the same level as the budget request
and $10,683,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
The Committee has included a set-aside of $5,000,000 for
the multifamily rental housing initiative. This program has
been successful in producing mixed-income affordable housing in
communities with affordable housing shortages.
The Committee commends Neighborhood Reinvestment for their
capacity building support of rural organizations. Funding
support for rural NeighborWorks organizations has
increased from nearly $12,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 to an
estimated $18,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. The Committee
strongly urges the Corporation to continue increasing its
support for rural organizations in fiscal year 2004.
The Committee continues to support the work being done by
NeighborWorks members to combat predatory lending
practices. The Committee recognizes the importance that
financial literacy and homeownership counseling have in
preventing people from becoming victims of predatory schemes.
The Committee also recognizes that NeighborWorks
members have successfully counseled 50,000 people who went on
to become homeowners and encourages the Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corporation and its network to expand its
education and counseling programs.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION
The Committee has included an administrative provision to
correct the Corporation's enabling legislation related to
salaries and benefits. This provision was requested by the
administration.
Selective Service System
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2003.................................... $26,308,000
Budget estimate, 2004................................... 28,290,000
Committee recommendation................................ 26,308,000
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 $26,308,000
for the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $1,982,000 below the
budget request. The Committee also prohibits the use of any
funds to support the Corporation for National and Community
Service.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee recommends inclusion of 17 general provisions
previously enacted. 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
Rural housing and economic development: $25,000,000.
Brownfields: $25,000,000.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on September 4,
2003, the Committee ordered reported en bloc: S. 1585, an
original bill making appropriations for the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the judiciary, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004; an
original bill making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation and Treasury, the Executive Office of the
President, and certain independent agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004; and S. 1584, an original bill making
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004; each subject to
amendment and each subject to the budget allocations, by a
recorded vote of 29-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as
follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman 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
Mr. Brownback
Mr. 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
Ms. Landrieu
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.''
With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the
Committee that it is necessary to dispense with these
requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.
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 \1\ bill allocation \1\ bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in the
Budget Resolution for 2004: Subcommittee on Veterans
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies:
Discretionary..................................... 90,034 90,034 95,754 \1\ 95,372
Mandatory......................................... 32,911 32,707 32,685 \1\ 32,093
Projection of outlays associated with the
recommendation:
2004.............................................. .............. ........... .............. \2\ 77,032
2005.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 22,211
2006.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 8,909
2007.............................................. .............. ........... .............. 5,022
2008 and future years............................. .............. ........... .............. 4,721
Financial assistance to State and local governments NA 31,278 NA 6,598
for 2004............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2004
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2003 Budget estimate Committee ---------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2003
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
Compensation and pensions.......................................... 28,949,000 29,845,127 29,845,127 +896,127 ...............
Readjustment benefits.............................................. 2,264,808 2,529,734 2,529,734 +264,926 ...............
Veterans insurance and indemnities................................. 27,530 29,017 29,017 +1,487 ...............
Veterans housing benefit program fund program account (indefinite). 437,522 305,834 305,834 -131,688 ...............
(Limitation on direct loans)................................... (300) (300) (300) ............... ...............
Credit subsidy................................................. -98,000 ............... ............... +98,000 ...............
Administrative expenses........................................ 167,114 154,850 154,850 -12,264 ...............
Education loan fund program account................................ 1 1 1 ............... ...............
(Limitation on direct loans)................................... (3) (3) (3) ............... ...............
Administrative expenses........................................ 70 ............... 70 ............... +70
Vocational rehabilitation loans program account.................... 55 52 52 -3 ...............
(Limitation on direct loans)................................... (3,626) (3,938) (3,938) (+312) ...............
Administrative expenses........................................ 287 300 300 +13 ...............
Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account............... 554 571 571 +17 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Veterans Benefits Administration...................... 31,748,941 32,865,486 32,865,556 +1,116,615 +70
====================================================================================
Veterans Health Administration
Medical care....................................................... 23,889,304 25,218,080 24,388,080 +498,776 -830,000
Delayed obligation............................................. ............... ............... 1,100,000 +1,100,000 +1,100,000
Contingent emergency funding................................... ............... ............... 1,300,000 +1,300,000 +1,300,000
Rescission..................................................... ............... ............... -270,000 -270,000 -270,000
Medical care cost recovery collections:
Offsetting receipts............................................ -1,386,000 -2,141,409 -1,564,000 -178,000 +577,409
Appropriations (indefinite).................................... 1,386,000 2,141,409 1,564,000 +178,000 -577,409
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total available (excludes offsetting receipts)............... 25,275,304 27,359,489 28,082,080 +2,806,776 +722,591
Medical and prosthetic research.................................... 397,400 408,000 413,000 +15,600 +5,000
Medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses........ 74,230 79,146 79,146 +4,916 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Veterans Health Administration........................ 24,360,934 25,705,226 27,010,226 +2,649,292 +1,305,000
====================================================================================
Departmental Administration
General operating expenses......................................... 1,245,849 1,283,272 1,283,272 +37,423 ...............
Supplemental Appropriations (Public Law 108-11)................ 100,000 ............... ............... -100,000 ...............
National Cemetery Administration................................... 132,284 144,203 144,203 +11,919 ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................ 57,623 61,750 62,250 +4,627 +500
Construction, major projects....................................... 99,128 272,690 272,690 +173,562 ...............
Construction, minor projects....................................... 224,531 252,144 252,144 +27,613 ...............
Grants for construction of State extended care facilities.......... 99,350 102,100 102,100 +2,750 ...............
Grants for the construction of State veterans cemeteries........... 31,792 32,000 32,000 +208 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental Administration........................... 1,990,557 2,148,159 2,148,659 +158,102 +500
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS (Mandatory).............................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS (Discretionary).......................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
====================================================================================
Total, title I, Department of Veterans Affairs............... 58,100,432 60,718,871 62,024,441 +3,924,009 +1,305,570
(Limitation on direct loans)............................. (3,929) (4,241) (4,241) (+312) ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consisting of:
Mandatory............................................ (31,580,860) (32,709,712) (32,709,712) (+1,128,852) ...............
Discretionary........................................ (26,519,572) (28,009,159) (29,314,729) (+2,795,157) (+1,305,570)
Medical care collection fund..................... (1,386,000) (2,141,409) (1,564,000) (+178,000) (-577,409)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contingent emergency funding..................... ............... ............... 1,300,000 +1,300,000 +1,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Discretionary (excluding MCCF)........... (25,133,572) (25,867,750) (27,750,729) (+2,617,157) (+1,882,979)
====================================================================================
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Public and Indian Housing
Housing Certificate Fund:
Direct appropriation........................................... 12,938,913 ............... 14,233,606 +1,294,693 +14,233,606
Advance appropriations provided in previous acts............... 4,172,700 ............... ............... -4,172,700 ...............
Advance appropriations provided in fiscal year 2003............ 4,200,000 ............... 4,200,000 ............... +4,200,000
Advance appropriations provided in fiscal year 2004............ ............... ............... 4,200,000 +4,200,000 +4,200,000
Rescission..................................................... ............... ............... -1,372,000 -1,372,000 -1,372,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 21,311,613 ............... 21,261,606 -50,007 +21,261,606
Appropriations, scored against year...................... (17,111,613) ............... (17,061,606) (-50,007) (+17,061,606)
Rescissions.............................................. ............... ............... (-1,372,000) (-1,372,000) (-1,372,000)
Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2003................. (4,200,000) ............... (4,200,000) ............... (+4,200,000)
Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2004 \1\............. ............... ............... (4,200,000) (+4,200,000) (+4,200,000)
Housing assistance for needy families:
Direct appropriation........................................... ............... 8,335,201 ............... ............... -8,335,201
Advance appropriations provided in fiscal year 2003............ ............... 4,200,000 ............... ............... -4,200,000
Advance appropriations provided in fiscal year 2004............ ............... 4,200,000 ............... ............... -4,200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal \1\................................................. ............... 16,735,201 ............... ............... -16,735,201
Appropriations, fiscal year 2004 \1\..................... ............... (12,535,201) ............... ............... (-12,535,201)
Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2004 \1\............. ............... (4,200,000) ............... ............... (-4,200,000)
Project based rental assistance \1\................................ ............... 4,823,405 ............... ............... -4,823,405
Rescission of unobligated balances................................. -1,600,000 -300,000 ............... +1,600,000 +300,000
Public housing capital fund........................................ 2,712,255 2,641,000 2,641,000 -71,255 ...............
Public housing operating fund...................................... 3,576,600 3,574,000 3,576,600 ............... +2,600
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing............... 570,269 ............... 195,115 -375,154 +195,115
Native American housing block grants............................... 644,782 646,600 646,600 +1,818 ...............
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account................. 5,266 1,000 5,300 +34 +4,300
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............................... (197,243) (27,473) (197,243) ............... (+169,770)
Native Hawaiian housing block grant................................ ............... 10,000 ............... ............... -10,000
Native Hawaiian housing loan guarantee fund........................ 1,028 1,000 1,035 +7 +35
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............................... (39,712) (35,348) (39,712) ............... (+4,364)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public and Indian Housing............................. 27,221,813 28,132,206 28,327,256 +1,105,443 +195,050
====================================================================================
Appropriations........................................... (24,621,813) (20,032,206) (21,299,256) (-3,322,557) (+1,267,050)
Rescissions.............................................. (-1,600,000) (-300,000) (-1,372,000) (+228,000) (-1,072,000)
Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2003................. (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) ............... ...............
Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2004................. ............... (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (+4,200,000) ...............
Community Planning and Development
Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS........................ 290,102 297,000 291,000 +898 -6,000
Rural housing and economic development............................. 24,837 ............... 25,000 +163 +25,000
Empowerment zones/enterprise communities........................... 29,805 ............... ............... -29,805 ...............
Community development fund......................................... 4,904,909 4,716,000 4,950,000 +45,091 +234,000
Colonias initiative (legislative proposal)......................... ............... 16,000 ............... ............... -16,000
Urban development action grant (rescission)........................ ............... -30,000 -30,000 -30,000 ...............
Section 108 loan guarantees:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............................... (275,000) ............... (275,000) ............... (+275,000)
Credit subsidy................................................. 6,284 ............... 6,325 +41 +6,325
Administrative expenses........................................ 993 ............... 1,000 +7 +1,000
Brownfields redevelopment.......................................... 24,837 ............... 25,000 +163 +25,000
HOME investment partnerships program............................... 1,987,000 2,197,000 1,975,000 -12,000 -222,000
Homeless assistance grants......................................... 1,217,037 1,325,000 1,325,000 +107,963 ...............
Samaritan housing initiative (legislative proposal)................ ............... 50,000 ............... ............... -50,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Community planning and development.................... 8,485,804 8,571,000 8,568,325 +82,521 -2,675
====================================================================================
Housing Programs
Housing for special populations.................................... 1,027,081 ............... 1,033,801 +6,720 +1,033,801
Housing for the elderly \2\........................................ ............... 773,636 ............... ............... -773,636
Housing for persons with disabilities \2\.......................... ............... 250,515 ............... ............... -250,515
Housing counseling assistance...................................... ............... 45,000 ............... ............... -45,000
Rental housing assistance (rescission)............................. -100,000 -303,000 -303,000 -203,000 ...............
Manufactured housing fees trust fund............................... 12,915 17,000 13,000 +85 -4,000
Offsetting collections......................................... -13,000 -17,000 -13,000 ............... +4,000
Federal Housing Administration
FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............................... (165,000,000) (185,000,000) (185,000,000) (+20,000,000) ...............
(Limitation on direct loans)................................... (100,000) (50,000) (50,000) (-50,000) ...............
Administrative expenses........................................ 345,568 359,000 359,000 +13,432 ...............
Negative subsidy............................................... -2,753,000 -2,921,000 -2,921,000 -168,000 ...............
Administrative contract expenses............................... 85,163 85,000 85,000 -163 ...............
Additional contract expenses................................... 993 1,000 1,000 +7 ...............
FHA--General and special risk program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............................... (23,000,000) (25,000,000) (25,000,000) (+2,000,000) ...............
(Limitation on direct loans)................................... (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) ............... ...............
Administrative expenses........................................ 222,262 229,000 229,000 +6,738 ...............
Negative subsidy............................................... -225,000 -225,000 -225,000 ............... ...............
Subsidy........................................................ 14,902 15,000 15,000 +98 ...............
Non-overhead administrative expenses........................... 93,170 93,700 93,700 +530 ...............
Additional contract expenses................................... 3,974 4,000 4,000 +26 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Housing Administration........................ -2,211,968 -2,359,300 -2,359,300 -147,332 ...............
====================================================================================
Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)
Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program
account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............................... (200,000,000) (200,000,000) (200,000,000) ............... ...............
Administrative expenses........................................ 10,276 10,695 10,695 +419 ...............
Offsetting receipts............................................ -358,000 -318,000 -318,000 +40,000 ...............
Policy Development and Research
Research and technology............................................ 46,695 51,000 47,000 +305 -4,000
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Fair housing activities............................................ 45,601 50,000 50,000 +4,399 ...............
Office of Lead Hazard Control
Lead hazard reduction.............................................. 174,856 136,000 175,000 +144 +39,000
Management and Administration
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 526,852 536,000 536,000 +9,148 ...............
Transfer from:
Limitation on FHA corporate funds.......................... (544,639) (564,000) (564,000) (+19,361) ...............
GNMA....................................................... (10,276) (10,695) (10,695) (+419) ...............
Community Development Loan Guarantees Program.............. (993) (1,000) (1,000) (+7) ...............
Native American Housing Block Grants....................... (149) (150) (150) (+1) ...............
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program................. (199) (250) (250) (+51) ...............
Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantees.................... (35) (35) (35) ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses............................. (1,083,143) (1,112,130) (1,112,130) (+28,987) ...............
Working capital fund............................................... 274,504 276,300 240,000 -34,504 -36,300
Office of Inspector General........................................ 73,674 76,080 78,000 +4,326 +1,920
(By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds)............... (23,343) (24,000) (24,000) (+657) ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of Inspector General........................... (97,017) (100,080) (102,000) (+4,983) (+1,920)
Consolidated fee fund (rescission)................................. -8,000 ............... ............... +8,000 ...............
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight..................... 29,805 32,415 32,415 +2,610 ...............
Offsetting receipts............................................ -30,000 -32,415 -32,415 -2,415 ...............
====================================================================================
Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Development. 35,208,908 35,928,132 36,085,777 +876,869 +157,645
Appropriations....................................... (32,716,908) (28,161,132) (29,390,777) (-3,326,131) (+1,229,645)
Rescissions.......................................... (-1,708,000) (-633,000) (-1,705,000) (+3,000) (-1,072,000)
Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2003............. (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) ............... ...............
Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2004............. ............... 4,200,000 4,200,000 +4,200,000 ...............
(Limitation on direct loans)............................. (150,000) (100,000) (100,000) (-50,000) ...............
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)......................... (388,511,955) (410,062,821) (410,511,955) (+22,000,000) (+449,134)
(Limitation on corporate funds).......................... (579,634) (600,130) (600,130) (+20,496) ...............
TITLE III
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 35,017 32,400 35,000 -17 +2,600
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 6,408 8,000 8,000 +1,592 ...............
Department of the Treasury
Community Development Financial Institutions
Community development financial institutions fund program account.. 74,512 51,000 70,000 -4,512 +19,000
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 56,629 60,000 60,000 +3,371 ...............
Corporation for National and Community Service
National and community service programs operating expenses......... 426,211 592,742 452,575 +26,364 -140,167
Salaries and expenses.............................................. ............... ............... 25,000 +25,000 +25,000
Rescission..................................................... -48,000 ............... ............... +48,000 ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................ 5,961 5,108 6,500 +539 +1,392
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 384,172 597,850 484,075 +99,903 -113,775
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 14,233 16,220 16,220 +1,987 ...............
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 32,234 25,961 32,000 -234 +6,039
Department of Health and Human Services
National Institute of Health
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences................ 83,528 78,774 78,774 -4,754 ...............
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Toxic substances and environmental public health................... 82,262 73,467 73,467 -8,795 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of Health and Human Services............... 165,790 152,241 152,241 -13,549 ...............
====================================================================================
Environmental Protection Agency
Science and Technology............................................. 715,579 731,483 715,579 ............... -15,904
Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund.................... 85,608 44,697 45,000 -40,608 +303
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science and Technology............................. 801,187 776,180 760,579 -40,608 -15,601
Environmental Programs and Management.............................. 2,097,879 2,219,659 2,219,659 +121,780 ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................ 35,766 36,808 36,808 +1,042 ...............
Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund.................... 12,659 13,214 13,214 +555 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, OIG................................................ 48,425 50,022 50,022 +1,597 ...............
Buildings and facilities........................................... 42,639 42,918 42,918 +279 ...............
Hazardous Substance Superfund...................................... 1,264,614 1,389,716 1,165,000 -99,614 -224,716
Delayed obligation............................................. ............... ............... 100,000 +100,000 +100,000
Transfer to Office of Inspector General........................ -12,742 -13,214 -13,214 -472 ...............
Transfer to Science and Technology............................. -86,168 -44,697 -45,000 +41,168 -303
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Hazardous Substance Superfund...................... 1,165,704 1,331,805 1,206,786 +41,082 -125,019
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program........................... 71,843 72,545 72,545 +702 ...............
Oil spill response................................................. 15,480 16,209 16,209 +729 ...............
State and Tribal Assistance Grants................................. 2,692,000 1,918,500 2,684,000 -8,000 +765,500
Categorical grants............................................. 1,142,905 1,202,700 1,130,000 -12,905 -72,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, STAG............................................... 3,834,905 3,121,200 3,814,000 -20,905 +692,800
====================================================================================
Total, EPA................................................... 8,078,062 7,630,538 8,182,718 +104,656 +552,180
====================================================================================
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy............................ 5,333 7,027 7,027 +1,694 ...............
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental 3,011 3,238 3,238 +227 ...............
Quality...........................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 8,344 10,265 10,265 +1,921 ...............
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Office of Inspector General (transfer)............................. (30,848) (30,125) (30,848) ............... (+723)
General Services Administration
Federal Citizen Information Center Fund............................ 11,466 17,643 14,000 +2,534 -3,643
Interagency Council on the Homeless
Operating expenses................................................. 1,490 ............... 1,500 +10 +1,500
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Human space flight................................................. 6,165,658 ............... ............... -6,165,658 ...............
Space flight capabilities.......................................... ............... 7,782,100 7,582,100 +7,582,100 -200,000
Science, aeronautics and technology................................ 9,147,815 ............... ............... -9,147,815 ...............
Science, aeronautics and exploration............................... ............... 7,660,900 7,730,507 +7,730,507 +69,607
Office of Inspector General........................................ 25,434 26,300 26,300 +866 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NASA.................................................. 15,338,907 15,469,300 15,338,907 ............... -130,393
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)....... (309) (310) (310) (+1) ...............
Community Development Revolving Loan Fund.......................... 993 1,000 1,500 +507 +500
National Science Foundation
Research and related activities.................................... 3,988,902 4,038,360 4,152,540 +163,638 +114,180
Defense function............................................... 67,558 68,000 68,070 +512 +70
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 4,056,460 4,106,360 4,220,610 +164,150 +114,250
Major research equipment and facilities construction............... 148,538 202,330 149,680 +1,142 -52,650
Education and human resources...................................... 903,171 938,040 975,870 +72,699 +37,830
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 189,115 225,700 225,700 +36,585 ...............
National Science Board............................................. 3,477 ............... 3,900 +423 +3,900
Office of Inspector General........................................ 9,190 8,770 10,000 +810 +1,230
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NSF................................................... 5,309,951 5,481,200 5,585,760 +275,809 +104,560
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation............... 104,317 115,000 115,000 +10,683 ...............
Selective Service System
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 26,308 28,290 26,308 ............... -1,982
====================================================================================
Total, title III, Independent agencies....................... 29,648,833 29,696,908 30,133,494 +484,661 +436,586
Appropriations....................................... (29,696,833) (29,696,908) (30,133,494) (+436,661) (+436,586)
Rescissions.......................................... (-48,000) ............... ............... (+48,000) ...............
(By transfer)............................................ (30,848) (30,125) (30,848) ............... (+723)
(Limitation on direct loans)............................. (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) ............... ...............
(Limitation on corporate funds).......................... (309) (310) (310) (+1) ...............
====================================================================================
Grand total (net)............................................ 122,958,173 126,343,911 128,243,712 +5,285,539 +1,899,801
Appropriations....................................... (120,514,173) (118,576,911) (119,418,712) (-1,095,461) (+841,801)
Rescissions.......................................... (-1,756,000) (-633,000) (-1,975,000) (-219,000) (-1,342,000)
Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2003............. (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) ............... ...............
Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2004............. ............... (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (+4,200,000) ...............
Contingent emergency funding......................... ............... ............... 1,300,000 +1,300,000 +1,300,000
(By transfer)............................................ (30,848) (30,125) (30,848) ............... (+723)
(Limitation on direct loans)............................. (1,653,929) (1,604,241) (1,604,241) (-49,688) ...............
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)......................... (388,511,955) (410,062,821) (410,511,955) (+22,000,000) (+449,134)
(Limitation on corporate funds).......................... (579,943) (600,440) (600,440) (+20,497) ...............
====================================================================================
TITLE I--Department of Veterans Affairs
Veterans Benefits Administration................................... 31,748,941 32,865,486 32,865,556 +1,116,615 +70
Veterans Health Administration..................................... 24,360,934 25,705,226 27,010,226 +2,649,292 +1,305,000
Departmental administration........................................ 1,990,557 2,148,159 2,148,659 +158,102 +500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs............... 58,100,432 60,718,871 62,024,441 +3,924,009 +1,305,570
====================================================================================
TITLE II--Department of Housing and Urban Development
Public and Indian housing.......................................... 27,221,813 28,132,206 28,327,256 +1,105,443 +195,050
Community and planning development................................. 8,485,804 8,571,000 8,568,325 +82,521 -2,675
Housing programs................................................... 926,996 766,151 730,801 -196,195 -35,350
Federal Housing Administration..................................... -2,211,968 -2,359,300 -2,359,300 -147,332 ...............
Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA).................... -347,724 -307,305 -307,305 +40,419 ...............
Policy development and research.................................... 46,695 51,000 47,000 +305 -4,000
Fair housing and equal opportunity activities...................... 45,601 50,000 50,000 +4,399 ...............
Office of lead hazard control...................................... 174,856 136,000 175,000 +144 +39,000
Management and administration...................................... 1,083,143 1,112,130 1,112,130 +28,987 ...............
Working capital fund............................................... 274,504 276,300 240,000 -34,504 -36,300
Office of Inspector General........................................ 97,017 100,080 102,000 +4,983 +1,920
Consolidated fee fund (rescission)................................. -8,000 ............... ............... +8,000 ...............
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight..................... -195 ............... ............... +195 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development. 35,208,908 35,928,132 36,085,777 +876,869 +157,645
====================================================================================
TITLE III--Independent Agencies
American Battle Monuments Commission............................... 35,017 32,400 35,000 -17 +2,600
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board..................... 6,408 8,000 8,000 +1,592 ...............
Community development financial institutions fund (Department of 74,512 51,000 70,000 -4,512 +19,000
Treasury).........................................................
Interagency Council on the Homeless................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Consumer Product Safety Commission................................. 56,629 60,000 60,000 +3,371 ...............
Corporation for National and Community Service..................... 384,172 597,850 484,075 +99,903 -113,775
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.......................... 14,233 16,220 16,220 +1,987 ...............
Cemeterial expenses, Army.......................................... 32,234 25,961 32,000 -234 +6,039
HHS/(NIH-Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) and (CDC-Toxic 165,790 152,241 152,241 -13,549 ...............
Substances and Disease Registry)..................................
Environmental Protection Agency.................................... 8,078,062 7,630,538 8,182,718 +104,656 +552,180
EOP/Office of Science and Technology Policy, Council Environmental 8,344 10,265 10,265 +1,921 ...............
Qual, and Office of Environmental Qual............................
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp..................................... 30,848 30,125 30,848 ............... +723
GSA/Federal Consumer Information Center............................ 11,466 17,643 14,000 +2,534 -3,643
National Aeronautics and Space Administration...................... 15,338,907 15,469,300 15,338,907 ............... -130,393
National Credit Union Administration............................... 993 1,000 1,500 +507 +500
National Science Foundation........................................ 4,056,460 4,106,360 4,220,610 +164,150 +114,250
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.............................. 104,317 115,000 115,000 +10,683 ...............
Selective Service System........................................... 26,308 28,290 26,308 ............... -1,982
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Title III--Independent Agencies........................ 29,648,833 29,696,908 30,133,494 +484,661 +436,586
====================================================================================
Grand Total.................................................. 122,958,173 126,343,911 128,243,712 +5,285,539 +1,899,801
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fiscal year 2003 Act provided funds for these purposes under the Housing Certificate Fund account.
\2\ The fiscal year 2003 Act provided funds for these activities in the Housing for special populations account.
