Report text available as:

  • 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.