- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 708
108th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 108-353
======================================================================
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2005
_______
September 21, 2004.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bond, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2825]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2825)
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, 2005, 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....................$130,038,049,000
Amount of appropriations, 2004.......................... 123,483,681,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2005........................ 127,235,739,000
Above estimates for 2005............................ 2,802,310,000
Above appropriations for 2004....................... 6,554,368,000
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs.......................... 5
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development............ 27
Title III--Independent agencies:
American Battle Monuments Commission......................... 73
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board............... 74
Department of the Treasury: Community development financial
institutions............................................... 74
Consumer Product Safety Commission........................... 75
Corporation for National and Community Service............... 76
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.................... 81
Department of Defense--Civil: Cemeterial expenses, Army...... 82
Department of Health and Human Services:
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences...... 82
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry......... 83
Environmental Protection Agency.............................. 84
Executive Office of the President:
Office of Science and Technology Policy.................. 111
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality.................................. 112
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector
General.................................................... 113
General Services Administration: Federal Citizen Information
Center..................................................... 114
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness..................... 115
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................ 116
National Credit Union Administration......................... 133
National Science Foundation.................................. 134
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................ 143
Selective Service System..................................... 144
Title IV--General provisions..................................... 146
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of
the Sen-
ate............................................................ 147
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 147
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 148
INTRODUCTION
The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2005 provides a total of $130,038,049,000 in budget
authority, including approximately $35,108,084,000 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 $32,951,348,000 in
discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs,
an increase of $2,260,874,000 above the fiscal year 2004
enacted level and $1,295,823,000 above the budget request. The
funds include $1,200,000,000 in emergency funding for medical
services. The Committee has made veterans programs the highest
priority in the bill. Increases in VA programs above the budget
request are recommended for medical services, medical research,
and operating expenses for the Veterans Benefits
Administration.
For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
Committee recommendation totals $36,417,763,000, an increase of
$1,015,504,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and
$698,404,000 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 $8,500,408,000, an increase of
$134,591,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and an
increase of $711,163,000 above the budget request.
The Committee recommendation for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration totals $15,579,200,000, the same as
the fiscal year 2004 level and $664,800,000 below the budget
request.
For the National Science Foundation, the Committee
recommendation totals $5,747,000,000, an increase of $2,310,000
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, 2004.................................... $63,400,186,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 66,763,609,000
Committee recommendation................................ 68,059,432,000
PROGRAM 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 157 hospitals, 879 outpatient clinics,
133 nursing homes, and 42 VA residential rehabilitation
treatment programs (formerly called ``domicilaries'') 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 158
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 $68,059,432,000 for the Department
of Veterans Affairs, including $35,108,084,000 in mandatory
spending and $32,951,348,000 in discretionary spending. The
amount provided for discretionary activities represents an
increase of $2,260,874,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted
level and $1,295,823,000 above the budget request.
The Committee once again has made VA its top priority in
the fiscal year 2005 VA-HUD bill. Specifically, veterans'
medical care funding remains a major priority.
The Committee is primarily interested in ensuring that the
VA's core constituency--veterans with service-connected
disabilities, lower-income veterans, and veterans who require
specialized services--have timely access to quality medical
care services. Accordingly, the Committee remains strongly
committed to funding fully the health care needs of VA's core
constituents.
Addressing the health care needs of VA's core constituents,
unfortunately, remains a major challenge for the Committee due
to the overwhelming demand of new veterans seeking VA services.
Laws enacted by the Congress that expanded eligibility and
benefits to all veterans have primarily caused this
overwhelming demand and driven up the funding needs for the VA
medical care account. In 1996, the Congress enacted the
``Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act.'' This Act
opened up VA health care services to all 26 million veterans--
thus, veterans of any income level and veterans with or without
service-connected disabilities are eligible to enroll. The
primary authors of eligibility reform believed that this Act
would attract relatively few new users and would be budget
neutral. In 1999, the Congress passed the ``Veterans Millennium
Health Care Act'', which expanded long-term care benefits for
veterans.
Further, increased demand was influenced by the opening of
hundreds of new outpatient clinics and by the vastly improved
quality of care through numerous medical technological
innovations.
The combination of these factors has resulted in a 54
percent growth in users in the VA health care system since 1996
with non-core veterans comprising the largest percentage
increase. Further, the number of enrolled veterans has grown
from 4.3 million veterans in fiscal year 1999 to 7.2 million
veterans in fiscal year 2004.
To respond to this exploding growth, the Congress has
increased VA medical care funding by some $11,000,000,000 since
1998. Since 2001, the Congress has increased VA medical care
funding by $7,300,000,000 alone or 34.7 percent. In 1997, the
Congress allowed the VA to use third-party insurance
collections for medical care purposes instead of transferring
these funds to the Treasury Department as previously required.
While the Committee has provided record funding increases
to meet the needs of VA's core constituents and the VA has done
much to improve access to health care, many veterans face long
waiting times to see a doctor and some veterans must travel
long distances to reach a VA facility due to overwhelming
growth in non-core patients. In fact, many core veterans must
wait over 6 months for a primary care or specialty care
appointment and nearly 2 million or more than 25 percent of
enrolled veterans live over 60 minutes driving time from a VA
hospital. At its highest point, over 300,000 veterans were
waiting more than 6 months for a medical care appointment.
The administration has addressed the problems of access and
waiting times for VA's core patients by suspending the
enrollment of certain higher income veterans without service-
connected disabilities (``Priority 8'' veterans) as dictated by
the 1996 Act. The authors of the 1996 Act expected the VA to
suspend enrollment in order to prevent ``diminishing the
quality of care to an unacceptable level or unreasonably
delaying the timeliness of VA's care delivery.'' Further, the
law provided the VA with ``new tools both to limit demand
consistent with available funding and to discourage veterans
from seeking VA care simply to fill an occasional need not met
by a private health plan.''
In addition to suspending enrollment of higher income
veterans, the VA established new rules that require VA medical
facilities to provide priority access for service-connected
veterans rated 50 percent disabled or greater. Further, the VA
recently implemented a pilot program to allow veterans on the
waiting list to fill their privately written prescriptions from
the VA (this program is called the ``Transitional Pharmacy
Benefit'' or TPB program). These actions along with the
additional funds provided by the Congress have almost
eliminated the waiting list in its entirety.
Despite this progress and the expected decline in the
overall veteran population, the VA faces an impending challenge
over the next decade in meeting the medical care needs of its
constituents. VA's recent projections of acute health care
workload indicate a significant surge in demand for acute
health care services over the next 10 years. VA's data also
indicates that specialty outpatient demand is expected almost
to double by fiscal year 2012.
To respond to this expected growth in demand for VA health
care service, the VA recently announced a national plan on May
7, 2004, to improve veterans' access to medical care by
realigning its medical care infrastructure. Under this plan,
called the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services or
CARES initiative, the VA will make better use of its medical
care resources by reducing its excess capacity and increasing
its capacity in areas of higher demand. In effect, CARES will
allow the VA to treat thousands more veterans without
significant increases to medical care funds.
For fiscal year 2005, the Committee has provided
$1,736,546,000 in additional funding above the fiscal year 2004
enacted level for VA medical services. This amount is
$1,200,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee provided
these additional funds over the budget request because the
Committee bill did not include the administration's proposed
new fees on higher-income veterans. The administration proposed
these new fees to raise revenue to pay for care for its core
constituents.
In addition to medical services funding, the Committee has
provided additional funding for medical and prosthetic research
and operating expenses for the Veterans Benefits Administration
[VBA].
The Committee has chosen not to use the administration's
new budget account structure due to the changes already made by
the conferees in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations act. The
Committee applauds the administration's efforts to align better
the costs and funding with each program. However, the Committee
is sensitive to the administrative burden on VA staff in
implementing such major changes and advises the administration
to take this concern into mind when exploring future account
changes.
Veterans Benefits Administration
COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $29,845,127,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 32,607,688,000
Committee recommendation................................ 32,607,688,000
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. The estimated caseload and cost by program for 2004
and 2005 are included in the budget justification materials.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $32,607,688,000 for compensation
and pensions. This is an increase of $2,762,561,000 above the
fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget
request. This amount includes the cost of living adjustment for
fiscal year 2005.
The appropriation includes $20,703,000 in payments to the
``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical services''
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 2005
cost-of-living increase of 1.3 percent for pension recipients.
READJUSTMENT BENEFITS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $2,529,734,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 2,556,232,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,556,232,000
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. The
estimated caseload and cost by program for 2004 and 2005 are
included in the budget justification materials.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the budget estimate of
$2,556,232,000 for readjustment benefits. The amount
recommended is an increase of $26,498,000 above the fiscal year
2004 enacted level.
VETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $29,017,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 44,380,000
Committee recommendation................................ 44,380,000
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 $44,380,000
for veterans insurance and indemnities. This is an increase of
$15,363,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The
Department estimates there will be 7,439,095 policies in force
in fiscal year 2005 with a value of $747,636,000,000.
VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative
Program account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004.................. \1\ $305,834,00 $153,936,385
0
Budget estimate, 2005................. 43,784,000 154,075,000
Committee recommendation.............. 43,784,000 154,075,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects subsidy estimate from last year's report. The new estimate
for 2004 is $278,215,000.
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 $43,784,000, and
$154,075,000 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 $500,000.
EDUCATION LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004.................... $994 $69,587
Budget estimate, 2005................... .............. ..............
Committee recommendation................ .............. ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation covered the cost of direct loans for
eligible dependents and, in addition, it includes
administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct loan
program. This loan fund program was terminated pursuant to
enactment of Public Law 108-183, the Veterans Benefits Act of
2003. Section 306 of this Act repealed all provisions relating
to the obsolete education loan program.
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Administrative
account expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004.................... $51,693 $298,230
Budget estimate, 2005................... 47,000 311,000
Committee recommendation................ 47,000 311,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $910
(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 $47,000 for program
costs and $311,000 for administrative expenses for the
Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program account. The
administrative expenses may be transferred to and merged with
the ``General operating expenses'' account. Bill language is
included limiting program direct loans to $4,108,000. It is
estimated that VA will make 4,524 loans in fiscal year 2005,
with an average amount of $908.
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, 2004.................................... $567,631
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 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 2005. 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, limited to
$600,000 for fiscal year 2005, will be borne by the ``Medical
administration'' and ``General operating expenses''
appropriations.
Veterans Health Administration
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] operates the
largest Federal medical care delivery system in the country,
with 157 hospitals, 42 VA residential rehabilitation treatment
programs (formerly called ``domiciliaries''), 133 nursing
homes, and 879 outpatient clinics which includes independent,
satellite, community-based, and rural outreach clinics.
In 2004, the Congress funded the Veterans Health
Administration [VHA] through a new account structure comprised
of four accounts: medical services, medical administration,
medical facilities, and medical and prosthetic research. This
action was taken to provide better oversight and to receive a
more accurate accounting of funds.
The Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care Collections
Fund [MCCF] was established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997
(Public Law 105-33). In fiscal year 2004, Public Law 108-199
allowed the Department to deposit first-party and pharmacy co-
payments, third-party insurance payments and 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.
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 into the MCCF and would be used for medical services
activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation includes $28,354,192,800 for
the Veterans Health Administration [VHA] for fiscal year 2005,
without collections. This amount is comprised of
$19,498,600,000 for medical services, $4,705,000,000 for
medical administration, $3,745,000,000 for medical facilities,
and $405,592,800 for medical and prosthetic research. With
medical care collections expected to be $2,002,000,000 and
projected carryover to be $800,812,000, VHA will have total
resources of $31,157,004,800 available in fiscal year 2005.
MEDICAL SERVICES
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total medical
Direct Medical care services with
appropriations collections collections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004.......................... $17,762,054,000 $1,554,794,000 $19,316,848,000
Budget estimate, 2005......................... 18,298,600,000 2,002,000,000 20,300,600,000
Committee recommendation...................... 19,498,600,000 2,002,000,000 21,500,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The ``Medical services'' account provides for medical
services of eligible veterans and beneficiaries in VA medical
centers, outpatient clinic facilities, contract hospitals,
State homes, and outpatient programs on a fee basis. Hospital
and outpatient care is also provided by the private sector for
certain dependents and survivors of veterans under the civilian
health and medical programs for the VA.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation includes $19,498,600,000 in
direct appropriations for medical services in fiscal year 2005,
an increase of $1,736,546,000 over the fiscal year 2004 enacted
level and $1,200,000,000 above the budget request. The
Committee has designated $1,200,000,000 as contingent emergency
funds. In addition, VA has authority to retain co-payments and
third-party collections, estimated to total $2,002,000,000 in
fiscal year 2005. Combined with the appropriated funds, medical
services would receive $2,183,752,000 in additional funds above
the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. Therefore, the VA would
receive a total of $21,500,600,000 for medical services in
fiscal year 2005.
The bill includes requested language in the Compensation,
Pension, and Burial Benefits appropriation transferring
$11,203,000 for administrative expenses of implementing cost
saving provisions required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1990, and the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992.
The Committee has included bill language under
administrative provisions to allow the Secretary to transfer
funds between the medical services appropriation, medical
administration appropriation, and medical facilities
appropriation with a limitation on transfers up to 20 percent
as necessary after notifying the Committees on Appropriations.
The Committee has included bill language to make available
through September 30, 2006, up to $1,100,000,000 of the medical
services appropriation. This provides flexibility to the
Department as it continues to implement significant program
changes.
Emergency Funding.--The Committee has provided
$1,200,000,000 in emergency funding for medical services due to
the unanticipated and urgent need of veterans seeking medical
treatment and services. Because of new laws enacted by the
Congress that opened up medical service eligibility to all
veterans and vastly expanded benefits, the VA has seen an
unprecedented and unanticipated growth in workload. This growth
was originally unexpected because the authors of the act
believed that eligibility reform's ``impact would be less far-
reaching in practice than it appears on its face.'' Further,
the authors believed that the ``view of VA being besieged by a
large wave of new enrollees for VA care is unrealistic.'' These
beliefs led to the authors' conclusion that the eligibility
reform would be budget neutral. Nevertheless, since the
enactment of eligibility reform, demand for VA care has risen
by 54 percent with ``non-core'' veterans comprising the largest
percentage increase. Moreover, enrollments have increased by
some 3.1 million since 1999 alone.
Further, the Congress enacted ``The Veterans Programs
Enhancement Act of 1998'', which legally requires VA to provide
2 years of medical care benefits for returning service-members,
including members of the National Guard and Reserve, upon
release or separation from service. This law was originally
passed to meet the medical care needs of those veterans who had
served in the first Persian Gulf War and it applies to those
service-members currently serving in the Iraqi conflict. To
address the medical care and benefit processing needs of some
of the first returning service-members, the Congress provided a
downpayment of $100,000,000 funds in the Emergency Wartime
Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 108-11) in fiscal
year 2003. Since the enactment of Public Law 108-11, the VA has
seen an upsurge in wounded returning service-members from the
Iraqi conflict. As of September 22, 2003, 15,813 service-
members who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom have separated
from military duty. Among these service-members, almost 2,000
or 12.4 percent had sought VA health care during 2003. However,
according to a May 19, 2004, VA analysis, 139,778 service-
members who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom have separated
from military duty. Among these service-members, 21,021 or 15
percent had sought VA health care. Further, 58 percent of these
veterans who received VA health care were members of the
Reserve/National Guard.
In response to the thousands of returning veterans from
Iraq and Afghanistan, the VA has taken a number of steps to
ensure smooth and seamless transition for these veterans from
the Department of Defense to the VA. For example, the
Department has detailed veterans service representatives and
social workers to military treatment facilities, such as Walter
Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center
in Bethesda. The Committee commends the Department for these
efforts, however, the Committee remains concerned that these
efforts are not adequate in meeting the demand of returning
service members. Accordingly, the Committee strongly urges the
Department to allocate the resources and staffing necessary to
improve the transition from DOD to the VA for returning service
members and directs the Department to submit a report to the
Committees on Appropriations on the specific steps, funds, and
staff assigned to this effort. This report should be submitted
by no later than April 12, 2005.
CARES.--The Committee has provided bill language that
allows the Secretary to transfer up to $250,000,000 from
medical services to major construction for purposes of
implementing the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced
Services or ``CARES'' program. This language is included to
provide the Secretary with the flexibility to provide increased
funding to the major construction account in order to
accelerate the implementation of the CARES recommendations
adopted by the Secretary on May 7, 2004. The Committee directs
the Secretary to notify the Committee prior to the transfer of
funds. This notification should include the amount of funds
transferred and the specific projects funded.
Homelessness.--According to the VA, the Department expects
to spend around $1,470,000,000 (an increase of $100,000,000
over fiscal year 2004) in medical care funds to serve homeless
veterans and another $188,000,000 (an increase of $12,300,000
over fiscal year 2004) in specialized homeless programs in
fiscal year 2005. The Committee fully supports these
expenditures and remains strongly committed to ending
homelessness among veterans. The Committee directs the VA to
provide a detailed plan on ending homelessness, including its
efforts in coordinating with other Federal agencies through the
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. This plan should be
submitted to the Committee by no later than April 25, 2005.
The Committee urges the Department to continue its support
for the Brother Francis Shelter, which supports homeless
veterans in Anchorage, Alaska.
DOD-VA Health Care Sharing.--The bill includes requested
language for the DOD-VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund, as
authorized by section 721 of the fiscal year 2003 National
Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 107-314) to transfer a
minimum of $15,000,000, to remain available until expended for
any purpose authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8111. The Department of
Defense and VA are required to establish a joint incentives
program through the creation of a DOD-VA Health Care Sharing
Incentive Fund. The purpose of the program is to identify,
provide incentives to, implement, fund, and evaluate creative
coordination and sharing initiatives at the facility, intra-
regional, and nationwide levels. There is a minimum
contribution of $15,000,000 by each Department each year for 4
years.
VISN Boundaries.--The Committee is concerned about the
jurisdictional boundary lines for VISN 15 due to access and
quality of care concerns for veterans in the Southwest corner
of Missouri. Accordingly, the Committee directs the VA to study
and review the feasibility of redrawing the jurisdictional
boundary lines for VISN 15 to include Southwest Missouri.
Rural Veterans Health Care Initiative.--The Committee
supports continuation at the current level of support of the
Rural Veterans Health Care Initiative at the White River
Junction, VT VAMC.
Joslin Vision Network [JVN].--The Committee is aware of the
JVN's benefits to the VA's diabetic patients, and encourages
the VA to initiate new pilot sites.
Psychology Post-Doctoral Training Program.--The Committee
is interested in the progress of the VA's Psychology Post-
Doctoral Training program and other interdisciplinary training
programs, and directs the VA to provide a report by December 7,
2004 on the number and location of training slots for
psychologists.
Prosthetics and Integrative Health Care Initiative.--The
Committee is deeply committed to the care of our newest
veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The VA has
already treated over 21,000 returning soldiers, and the numbers
will continue to grow. Advances in body armor and improved
combat health care are saving lives on the battlefield. But
many soldiers are returning with lost limbs and other very
severe and lasting injuries. In addition, many returning
soldiers also bear less visible, psychological wounds of war.
The Committee believes that the VA must provide these veterans
with the best of both modern medicine and integrative holistic
therapies for rehabilitation, such as those currently being
employed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including at the
Amputee Center.
Elko, Nevada Veterans.--The Committee is concerned about
the underserved veterans population, now totaling well over
5,000, living in and around Elko, Nevada. Currently, Elko
veterans do not have timely access to a VA doctor or clinic and
must drive hundreds of miles through often hazardous driving
conditions to Salt Lake City or Reno to receive care at a VA
Medical Center. Accordingly, the Committee directs the VA to
submit a report within 60 days of the enactment of this Act on
its plan to serve the rapidly growing Elko veterans population,
including any recommendations to establish a new Community
Based Outpatient Clinic.
To that end, the Committee has included $20,000,000 for a
Prosthetics and Integrative Health Care Initiative. This
initiative will focus on caring for veterans returning from war
with severe, permanent, long-term needs such as loss of limbs
or other very severe and lasting injuries. The initiative will
also ensure continuity of care for our veterans leaving Walter
Reed. The Committee directs VA to report by December 31, 2004,
on the status of this initiative.
Complementary Medicine.--The Committee strongly supports
VA's plans to establish an advisory committee on complementary
medicine, and directs the Department to establish this
committee before the end of 2004. The Committee also directs
the VA to report by December 31, 2004, on the VA's efforts to
implement the recommendations of the White House Commission on
Complementary Medicine.
MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS)
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $4,970,570,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 4,705,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,705,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The ``Medical administration'' account provides funds for
the expenses of management, security, and administration of the
VA health care system. This appropriation provides for costs
associated with operation of VA medical centers, other
facilities, and VHA headquarters (formerly funded under the
Medical Administration and Miscellaneous Operating Expenses
account), plus the costs of VISN offices and facility director
offices, Chief of Staff operations, quality of care oversight,
all information technology hardware and software, legal
services, billing and coding activities, and procurement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the budget request level of
$4,705,000,000 for medical administration in fiscal year 2005.
This amount is $265,500,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted
level.
The Committee has included bill language to allow the
Secretary to transfer funds between the medical services
appropriation, medical administration appropriation, and
medical facilities appropriation with a limitation on transfers
up to 20 percent as necessary after notifying the Committees on
Appropriations.
The Committee has included bill language to make available
through September 30, 2006, up to $250,000,000 of the medical
administration appropriation. This provides flexibility to the
Department as it continues to implement significant program
changes.
MEDICAL FACILITIES
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS)
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $3,976,456,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 3,745,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,745,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The ``Medical facilities'' account provides funds for the
operation, maintenance of the VA health care system's vast
capital infrastructure. This appropriation provides for costs
associated with utilities, engineering, capital planning,
leases, laundry and food services, grounds keeping, garbage,
housekeeping, facility repair, and property disposition and
acquisition.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation provides the budget request
level of $3,745,000,000 for medical facilities in fiscal year
2005. This amount is $231,400,000 below the fiscal year 2004
enacted level.
The Committee is interested in the impact of the CARES
program on medical facilities funding for each VISN and medical
facility. Specifically, the Committee encourages the VA to
collect information, on a per VISN basis, on the amount of
funds spent on underutilized or empty facilities and to develop
a long-range plan to reduce or eliminate medical facilities
expenditures on these facilities.
The Committee has included bill language to allow the
Secretary to transfer funds between the medical services
appropriation, medical administration appropriation, and
medical facilities appropriation with a limitation on transfers
up to 20 percent as necessary after notifying the Committees on
Appropriations.
The Committee has included bill language to make available
through September 30, 2006, up to $250,000,000 of the medical
facilities appropriation. This provides flexibility to the
Department as it continues to implement significant program
changes.
MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $405,592,800
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 384,770,000
Committee recommendation................................ 405,592,800
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 $405,592,800 for medical and
prosthetic research, which is $20,822,800 above the budget
request and equal to the fiscal year 2004 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. Unfortunately,
the Department has not yet taken steps to evaluate human
identical cytochrome research. The Committee strongly urges the
Department to continue evaluating this promising research.
Prosthetics Research.--Again, the Committee stresses the
importance of caring for veterans returning from the
battlefield. Prosthetics research, including the development of
high-tech, ``smart limb'' technology can restore quality of
life and functional independence for veterans who have lost
limbs. But the Committee is deeply concerned that VA has lost
its focus on prosthetics development. The Committee therefore
directs the VA to prioritize prosthetics in its research
agenda, and to report to the Committee by December 31, 2004, on
how VA will make prosthetics research a priority for our
returning soldiers. The Committee also strongly encourages VA
to collaborate with the Department of Defense, which also
conducts a research program into improved prosthetic care, limb
development, and rehabilitation.
Departmental Administration
GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $1,275,700,695
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 1,324,753,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,399,753,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides for the administration of
nonmedical veterans benefits through the Veterans Benefits
Administration [VBA], the executive direction of the
Department, several top level supporting offices, of the Board
of Contract Appeals, and the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,399,753,000 for general
operating expenses, an increase of $75,000,000 above the budget
request and $124,052,305 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted
level. The amount provided includes $1,102,193,000 for the
Veterans Benefits Administration and $297,560,000 for general
administration. In addition to this appropriation, resources
are made available for general operating expenses through
reimbursements totaling $613,050,000 for fiscal year 2005, with
total estimated obligations of approximately $2,012,803,000.
The Committee has provided additional funds to VBA to
prevent any reductions in staffing in processing disability
benefit claims. The additional funds will allow the VA to
continue its progress in bringing the claims backlog under
control and to prevent reductions in the vocational
rehabilitation and employment office. The Department has made
substantial progress in reducing the claims backlog; however,
this progress is threatened by the increased workload in claims
that has jumped by well over 20,000 per month. Some of these
additional claims are due to the increased number of veterans
returning from the Iraqi conflict.
The Committee recommends making available $66,000,000 of
the GOE appropriation for 2 years, and the current level of
$25,000 for official reception and representation expenses.
NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $143,352,202
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 148,925,000
Committee recommendation................................ 148,925,000
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 158 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 $148,925,000 for the National
Cemetery Administration. This is an increase of $5,572,798 over
the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget
request.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $61,634,200
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 64,711,000
Committee recommendation................................ 64,711,000
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 $64,711,000 for the Inspector
General. This is an increase of $3,076,800 above the fiscal
year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget request.
CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $271,578,179
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 458,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 458,800,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The construction, major projects appropriation provides for
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the
facilities (including parking projects) 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 $458,800,000
for construction, major projects, $187,221,821 above the fiscal
year 2004 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 2004 2005 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans Health Administration [VHA]:
Tampa, FL, SCI expansion.............................. ................ 7,100 7,100
Pensacola, FL, Joint VA and Navy OPC.................. ................ 55,500 55,500
Temple, TX, Blind rehabilitation and psychiatric beds. ................ 56,000 56,000
San Juan, PR, Seismic corrections, design............. ................ 15,000 15,000
Syracuse, NY, SCI addition............................ ................ 53,900 53,900
Atlanta, GA, Wards modernization...................... ................ 20,700 20,700
Menlo Park, CA, Seismic corrections................... ................ 33,239 33,239
San Francisco, CA, Seismic corrections................ ................ 41,500 41,500
Los Angeles, CA, Seismic corrections, design.......... ................ 8,000 8,000
Lee County, FL, Outpatient clinic, land purchase...... ................ 6,510 6,510
Des Moines, IA, Extended care building................ ................ 25,000 25,000
San Diego, CA, Seismic corrections.................... ................ 48,260 48,260
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, CARES..................................... ................ 370,709 370,709
=====================================================
Advance planning fund: Various stations............... ................ 14,000 14,000
Asbestos abatement: Various stations.................. ................ 3,000 3,000
Claims Analyses: Various locations.................... ................ 1,000 1,000
Judgment Fund: Various locations...................... ................ 8,091 8,091
Hazardous Waste: Various locations.................... ................ 2,000 2,000
Emergency Response Security Study..................... ................ 2,000 2,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other line-items.......................... ................ 30,091 30,091
=====================================================
Total VHA construction, major projects.............. ................ 400,800 400,800
=====================================================
Veterans Benefits Administration [VBA]
National Cemetery Administration [NCA]: \1\
Sacramento, CA Phase I Development................ ................ 21,600 21,600
Florida Gravesite Expansion and Cemetery ................ 20,000 20,000
Improvements.....................................
Rock Island, IL Gravesite Expansion and Cemetery ................ 10,200 10,200
Improvements.....................................
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction........................ ................ 51,800 51,800
=====================================================
Design Fund: Various locations........................ ................ 3,200 3,200
Advance planning fund: Various locations.............. ................ 1,000 1,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Other line-items.......................... ................ 4,200 4,200
=====================================================
Total NCA construction, major projects.............. ................ 56,000 56,000
=====================================================
Staff Offices: Various locations.......................... ................ 2,000 2,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total construction, major projects.................. ................ 458,800 458,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Cemetery Administration major project requests do not include the purchase of pre-placed crypts,
which are funded by the Compensation and Pensions appropriation.
CARES.--The Committee recommends $370,709,000 for major
construction projects approved through the Capital Asset
Realignment for Enhanced Services [CARES] program. The
Committee's recommendation funds the Secretary's list of
prioritized projects for fiscal year 2005 as identified in the
May 20, 2004 report entitled ``CARES Major Construction
Projects Fiscal Year 2004-2010.'' The Committee also approves
the funding of the fiscal year 2004 major construction projects
approved under CARES, totaling $558,360,000 also listed in the
May 20, 2004 report. The Committee applauds the VA for
completing its national CARES plan as detailed in its CARES
Decision report, which was released on May 7, 2004, and remains
strongly committed to funding the Secretary's May 7, 2004,
recommendations. The Committee believes that CARES is the most
important effort ever undertaken by the VA in improving access
for current and future veterans. With the funding provided in
this bill and the fiscal year 2004 enacted bill, the VA will
have over $1,000,000,000 to begin implementation of the
national CARES plan.
To keep the Committee informed of the VA's progress in
implementing the Secretary's CARES Decision recommendations,
the Committee directs the VA to update its 5-year strategic
plan for capital asset management. This plan should include the
costs associated with its capital investments, including
projects related to major construction, minor construction,
research facilities, and safety and seismic improvements.
Further, the Committee directs the VA to review the financial
status of all existing major construction projects and the
major working reserve account and provide information on any
unobligated and unexpended funds that may be recaptured and
spent on other CARES projects. These reports should be
submitted to the Committee by no later than May 26, 2005.
One of the primary drivers of CARES was the need to ensure
that the decisions and process was as objective as possible.
Now that the Secretary has announced a national plan to
implement CARES, the Committee strongly believes that the
implementation process is objective and not vulnerable to
subjective changes. To ensure that the implementation of the
Secretary's CARES decisions is objective, the Committee
strongly urges the VA to establish an independent body to
advise and monitor progress of CARES. The Committee directs the
VA to submit a plan on the creation of an independent advisory
body by March 10, 2005.
The Committee recognizes that the CARES process will
partially depend on contracting with local providers to deliver
health care services. In announcing its CARES decisions, the VA
did not provide information on the budgetary implications of
its decisions to expand contract care. Accordingly, the
Committee directs the VA to develop a business plan that
details the services to be contracted, the location of these
new services, the amount of resources needed, a timetable on
when the resources will be needed, and the source of funding
these new resources (e.g., new appropriations or reallocation
of existing resources). This plan should be submitted by
February 28, 2005.
Lastly, the Committee urges the VA to develop a plan for
disposing of its vast inventory of vacant and unneeded
infrastructure. VA identified vacant space totaling some 8.5
million square feet, involving hundreds of buildings at more
than 150 health care delivery locations nationwide. The
Committee directs the VA to develop a business plan that
details their disposition strategy and budgetary impacts. This
plan should be submitted by May 20, 2005.
Beckley, WV Nursing Home.--The Committee urges the VA to
include sufficient funding in its fiscal year 2006 budget
request for construction of a 120-bed nursing home care unit at
the Beckley, WV VAMC, as long as it is consistent with the
CARES priority list as described in the VA's May 20, 2004,
CARES Major Construction Projects fiscal year 2004-2010 report.
NCA.--For the National Cemetery Administration's [NCA]
construction program, the Committee recommends the requested
amounts for the development of the Sacramento, California
National Cemetery, and expansion and improvements for Bushnell,
Florida, and Rock Island, Illinois, National Cemeteries. The
Committee also recommends design funding for the Riverside,
California, and San Joaquin Valley, California, National
Cemeteries, and for an annex to Fort Rosecrans, California,
National Cemetery at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station. The
Committee also recommends advance planning funds for the site
selection process for six new national cemeteries in areas
directed by the National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003 (Public
Law 108-109).
CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $250,656,350
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 230,779,000
Committee recommendation................................ 230,779,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The construction, minor projects appropriation provides for
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the
facilities (including parking) 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 $230,779,000 for minor
construction, the same as the budget request and $19,877,350
below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The Committee's
recommendation includes $182,100,000 for VHA; $25,000,000 for
NCA; $19,000,000 for VBA; and $4,700,000 for staff.
GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $101,497,610
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 105,163,000
Committee recommendation................................ 105,163,000
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 $105,163,000 for grants for the
construction of State extended care facilities, equal to the
budget request and $3,665,390 above the fiscal year 2004
enacted level. This program cost-effectively meets long-term
health care needs of veterans.
GRANTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS' CEMETERIES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $31,811,200
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 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 2005,
$188,800 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same
as the budget request.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
The Committee has included 18 administrative provisions
(Sections 101-113, 115, 116, and 118-120) carried in earlier
bills and four 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 $40,215,000 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 2005 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. This provision allows the
Secretary to manage effectively the billing and collection
process to third party insurers by ensuring that the VA
receives timely and accurate identification of private medical
insurance information. Further, the Secretary may recover, in
the same manner as any other debt due the United States, the
reasonable charges for such care or services from any person
who does not make such disclosure as required. Any amounts so
recovered for care or services provided in a prior fiscal year
may be obligated by the Secretary during the fiscal year in
which amounts are received.
The four new administrative provisions are as follows:
Section 114 revises a provision carried in previous bills
to provide the Secretary with permanent authority in depositing
receipts from various funds into the Medical Care Collections
Fund.
Section 117 allows the transfer of funds from ``General
operating expenses'' to the housing program account for
purposes of a national property management contract.
Section 121 provides access to unobligated balances of
funds provided in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
of 1994.
Section 122 makes a technical correction to a provision
from Public Law 108-199.
Section 123 allows veterans in Alaska to obtain medical
care services from Indian Health Services, under certain
conditions.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $35,402,259,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 35,719,359,000
Committee recommendation................................ 36,417,763,000
PROGRAM 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 2005 an
appropriation of $36,927,413,000 for the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. This is $1,015,504,000 above the fiscal
year 2004 enacted level and $698,404,000 above the budget
request.
HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND
(INCLUDING RESCISSION AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $19,257,190,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 18,465,060,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,707,804,000
(None of these totals include rescissions which are part of this account
for each fiscal year. Each include an advance appropriation of some
$4,200,000.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
$20,707,804,000 for fiscal year 2005, including $4,200,000,000
as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1,
2004. In addition, this account includes $2,588,172,000 in
funds that are rescinded from unobligated balances remaining
from funds appropriated for this account in previous fiscal
years.
Of these overall amounts, the Committee has allocated
$19,034,000,000 for the renewal of all expiring section 8
contracts; $100,000,000 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;
$163,000,000 for section 8 preservation contracts; $48,000,000
for family self-sufficiency contracts under section 23 of the
1937 Act; $1,256,000,000 for section 8 administrative costs;
$101,900,000 for section 8 project-based administration costs;
and $4,904,000 for the working capital fund. Finally, the
Committee includes a rescission of $2,588,172,000 from
unobligated funds under the section 8 tenant-based program from
previous fiscal years in support of section 8 needs in fiscal
year 2004.
The Committee is very concerned over HUD's failure to
adequately implement the fiscal year 2004 funding mechanism for
section 8 vouchers. Because both HUD and PHAs waited until more
than 6 months in the fiscal year to address the rent
requirements in the fiscal year 2004 conference report, many
low-income families were put at risk of losing vouchers and
housing through no fault of their own. The Committee expects
HUD to develop timely guidance at the beginning of the fiscal
year.
Similar to last year, 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.
Nevertheless, the Committee is very concerned that the
section 8 program is growing at a cost that is undermining its
financial stability as well as undermining the amount of funds
that are available for other programs within this bill. The
Committee believes that program administration is flawed and
more costly than it should be--in particular, the Committee
directs the Department to review the mechanisms used for
determining section 8 rents and the accountability requirements
that ensure that these rents are reasonable and are no greater
than the cost of comparable, unsubsidized units in the same
market area.
The Committee believes that a budget-based program may be a
viable solution to control costs, although the Committee is
concerned about the ability of the current data collection
system to determine the appropriate level of funding for
individual section 8 programs to meet the housing needs of the
neediest families. In particular, the Committee believes that
the requirement that three-quarters of all vouchers go to
extremely low-income families--those at or below 30 percent of
median income--is a critical requirement that is the foundation
of the bridge that allows households to move from homelessness
to homeownership.
Because of these concerns over the cost of section 8 rents,
the Committee has capped the cost of vouchers for PHAs based on
the cost of vouchers in use as of October 1, 2004 with rent
adjustments based on an annual adjustment factor determined by
HUD which can be appealed by a landlord based on the cost of
comparable, unsubsidized units in the same census tract or a
larger market area if appropriate. All rents would still be
subject to a rent reasonableness test. Finally, PHAs could
still award additional vouchers up to their authorized level,
assuming the overall cost to the PHA does not exceed 102
percent of the cost of vouchers in use as of October 1, 2004,
including any rent adjustments, costs associated with reduced
tenant contributions, and utility payments. The Committee notes
that any recaptures or unobligated funds may be used to augment
any costs associated with this account in fiscal year 2005.
Finally, the Committee does not agree with the
administration's belief that the section 8 program is so flawed
that it cannot be corrected without a conversion of the program
into a block grant to the States or to public housing agencies.
Without a commitment of adequate funding, the block grant
approach will result in a shrinking commitment to housing
resources for those with the greatest needs. In particular, the
administration's budget proposes section 8 funding at some
$790,000,000 less that the fiscal year 2004 level which means,
according to CBO estimates, that the section 8 program would be
funded at some $2,200,000,000 less than needed to maintain the
current level of anticipated service in fiscal year 2005.
The administration's block grant proposal asserts that PHAs
will have the needed flexibility to meet local needs and
conditions and to respond to local rental costs in a more
responsible manner. However, the proposal fails for the
following reasons: (1) the proposed funding is inadequate to
support current section 8 utilization; (2) the proposal would
eliminate the current section 8 requirement that three-quarter
of all vouchers go to extremely low-income families who are
often the elderly and disabled. This could result in these
families and households having to live in substandard housing
at unsustainable rents or else become homeless which would be a
greater burden and cost on the social safety net than the
current use of vouchers; and (3) PHAs would set the maximum
payment standard for subsidies that would likely have to
require higher rent burdens on families or lower rent levels
which could result in a policy of reconcentrating the poorest
families in the poorest and most distressed neighborhoods.
The Committee believes that a section 8 block grant
proposal could work if the program receives adequate funding
and required, as with current policy, PHAs to provide at least
three-quarters of all vouchers to extremely low-income
families. Nevertheless, this is a very controversial housing
policy recommendation that deserves the full attention of the
House and Senate Banking Committees as well as the
Appropriations Committees.
Also, the Committee expects PHAs that have entered into
contracts for units in excess of their authorized contract
level for vouchers to meet their authorized voucher level no
later than 60 days after the start of the fiscal year. A PHA
also is not to 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 Committee understands that project-based Section 8
oversight and management have been contracted outside of the
Department, and that it is not clear that doing so saves money
or improves resident services. The Committee urges the
Department to reconsider the decision to contract out Section 8
contract administration, and to conduct an appropriate benefit-
cost analysis to determine whether the practice should be
continued.
PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $2,696,291,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 2,674,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,700,000,000
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 $2,700,000,000
for the public housing capital fund, which is $25,900,000 above
the budget request and $3,747,000 above the fiscal year 2004
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 develop the
technology skills that are increasingly important in the 21st
century workplace.
The Committee directs HUD to work with the Department of
Commerce's Technology Opportunities Program, the Department of
Education's Community Technology Centers program and other
Federal agencies to compile best practices from community-based
organizations that are working to ensure equitable access to
technology and to disseminate these best practices to other
community-based organizations engaged in, or interested in,
bridging the digital divide.
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 $15,000,000 for troubled PHAs
and for surveys used to calculate local Fair Market Rents and
assess housing conditions with regard to the use of section 8
assistance.
The bill includes up to $30,000,000 for the demolition,
relocation, and site remediation for obsolete and distressed
public housing units.
PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $3,578,810,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 3,573,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,610,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding for the payment of operating
subsidies to some 3,050 public housing authorities (except
Indian housing authorities) with a total of over 1.2 million
units under management in order to augment rent payments by
residents in order to provide sufficient revenues to meet
reasonable operating costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,610,000,000
for the public housing operating fund, which is $968,760,000
below the fiscal year 2004 level and $963,000,000 below the
budget request.
The Committee has included language that requires all
public housing agencies [PHAs] to convert to a calendar year
budget for all costs associated with PHA operating funding.
This transition will result in a savings of $1,000,000,000 for
fiscal year 2005 since PHAs will only receive the funding
necessary to meet the costs of operations through calendar year
2005. This is a 1-year savings for fiscal year 2005 only. This
requirement should ease HUD's management of PHAs and allow
easier tracking of costs. In addition, the Committee has
included $30,000,000 to assist PHAs in making this transition
to calendar year budgeting, including the costs associated with
implementing appropriate information technology systems for
tracking operating costs. The Committee expects the
administration to include in the budget request for fiscal year
2006 the necessary funds for all PHA operating costs, as
required under the performance funding system or any subsequent
funding system which is in place at the time of the budget
submission.
The Committee has included $15,000,000, as recommended by
the administration, for bonuses to PHAs that help move families
away from depending on housing assistance. The Committee
expects the Department to issue regulations that provide clear
criteria for eligibility for these bonuses.
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 2004 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, 2004.................................... $149,117,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 150,000,000
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 $150,000,000
for the ``HOPE VI'' account, $150,000,000 above the budget
request and approximately the same as the fiscal year 2004
level. The Committee urges the Department to reconsider the
elimination of the HOPE VI program, especially since the
program was reauthorized through 2006. This program has
resulted in the funding of innovative projects that work both
as public and mixed-income housing as well as building blocks
for revitalizing neighborhoods.
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, and in light of the recent finding by
the Urban Institute that there are between 46,900 and 81,900
units of severely distressed public housing units still
existing, the Committee is disappointed that the administration
has eliminated HOPE VI without a complete review and without
providing adequate alternative authority and funding to address
the needs of the remaining PHAs with obsolete units and those
with substantial rehabilitation needs.
NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $650,241,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 647,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 650,241,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account funds the native American housing block grants
program, as authorized under title I of the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996
[NAHASDA]. This program provides an allocation of funds on a
formula basis to Indian tribes and their tribally designated
housing entities to help them address the housing needs within
their communities. Under this block grant, Indian tribes will
use performance measures and benchmarks that are consistent
with the national goals of the program, but can base these
measures on the needs and priorities established in their own
Indian housing plan.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $650,241,000 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 $3,241,000 above the
budget request and the same as the fiscal year 2004 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 $4,500,000 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, 2005.
INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $5,269,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This program provides access to private financing for
Indian families, Indian tribes and their tribally designated
housing entities who otherwise could not acquire housing
financing because of the unique status of Indian trust land. As
required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account
includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees
authorized under this program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,000,000 in program subsidies to
support a loan guarantee level of $29,069,767. This is
$4,269,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the
same as the budget request.
NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $1,029,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This program provides access to private financing for
Native Hawaiians who otherwise could not acquire housing
financing because of the unique status of the Hawaiian Home
Lands as trust land. As required by the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990, this account includes the subsidy costs associated
with the loan guarantees authorized under this program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $1,000,000 in program subsidies to
support a loan guarantee level of $37,403,101. This is
$4,269,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the
same as the budget request.
Community Planning and Development
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $294,755,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 294,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 294,800,000
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 $294,800,000
for this program, which is $45,000 above the fiscal year 2004
enacted level and the same as 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 2004 allocations.
These funds will support some 73,700 housing units for
persons with HIV/AIDS and their families.
OFFICE OF RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $24,853,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................................
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 2005 to
support housing and economic development in rural communities
as defined by USDA and HUD. This funding level is $147,000
above the fiscal year 2004 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, 2004.................................... $14,912,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
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, $14,912,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted
level and the same as the budget request. As with the previous
administration. This program was enacted through tax
legislation and designed to be funded as a mandatory program.
The Committee, therefore, urges the tax committees to revisit
the funding needs of this program. Moreover, the Committee
remains concerned over accountability in this program and notes
that the HUD Inspector General has been critical about how
certain communities have implemented this program and used EZ
funds.
The Committee is aware that several noncontiguous census
tracts have been excluded from Renewal Community designation
even in cases where the areas are within feet of the Renewal
Community or are non-residential in nature. The Committee urges
the Department to work with communities to take full advantage
of the benefits of renewal community designation.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $4,920,864,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 4,618,094,000
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 2005. This is
an increase of $331,906,000 above the budget request for fiscal
year 2005 and $29,205,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted
level.
The Committee has included $4,547,700,000 for community
development block grants [CDBG]. Set-asides under this account
include $72,000,000 for native Americans; $3,300,000 for the
Housing Assistance Council; $2,500,000 for the National
American Indian Housing Council; $25,000,000 for the Self Help
Homeownership Opportunity Program; $35,000,000 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 $51,000,000 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 $1,500,000 is for technical assistance,
$7,000,000 for insular areas; $6,000,000 for Community Outreach
Partnerships, and $7,000,000 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. Finally, $500,000 is transferred to the
working capital fund.
The Committee also includes $65,000,000 for the Youthbuild
program of which $7,000,000 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 $126,000,000 and the Neighborhood Initiatives
program at $22,000,000.
The Economic Development Initiatives are as follows:
$1,900,000 for the City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama for the
Urban Renewal Project in Tuscaloosa, Alabama;
$300,000 for the City of Livingston, Alabama for downtown
revitalization in Livingston, Alabama;
$500,000 to the Crenshaw County Economic/Industrial
Development Authority for industrial site preparation in
Crenshaw County, Alabama;
$250,000 to the City of Fairhope, Alabama for development
of the Fairhope Library;
$400,000 to the University of South Alabama for the
Mitchell College of Business Library in Mobile, Alabama;
$500,000 for the Selma YMCA for facilities improvements in
Selma, Alabama;
$450,000 for the Town of Double Springs, Alabama for
community development;
$150,000 for Alaska Botanical Garden in Anchorage for
expansions and renovations;
$150,000 for Friends of Eagle River Nature Center, Inc. in
Eagle River, Alaska for costs associated with the construction
of a community/visitor center;
$500,000 for the Kincaid Park for Training Center,
Anchorage, Alaska for costs associated with construction;
$950,000 for the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska for
costs associated with the construction of a speed skating rink;
$300,000 for the North Star Council on Aging in Fairbanks,
Alaska for costs associated with the construction of the
Fairbanks Senior Center;
$175,000 for Love Social Services in Fairbanks, Alaska for
expansion;
$1,000,000 for the Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska for
housing upgrades,
$900,000 for the City of Ketchikan, Alaska for costs
associated with the construction of the Tongass Coast Aquarium;
$350,000 for Community Association of Hyder, Alaska for
costs associated with the construction of a high speed water
plant;
$300,000 for the Juneau Family Birth Center, Alaska for the
construction of a one-stop family resources center;
$200,000 for the Upper Kuskowim Community Learning Center
in Aniak, Alaska for costs associated with the construction of
a high tech training facility;
$525,000 for the Bering Straits Native Corporation in Nome,
Alaska for Cape Nome Quarry Upgrade;
$500,000 for Shishmaref, Alaska for the construction of
barriers;
$500,000 for the Special Olympics, Anchorage, Alaska for
costs associated with the construction of a training center for
disabled children;
$275,000 for the National History Museum of the Adirondacks
in Tupper Lake, New York for the design and construction of
museum;
$250,000 for the Old Independence Regional Museum in
Batesville, Arkansas for costs associated with expansion;
$250,000 for Mountain Home, Arkansas for the construction
of the Vada Sheid Community Development Center;
$250,000 for the City of Malvern, Arkansas for the
completion of the Ouachita River Millennium Park Pavillion;
$1,000,000 for the City of Inglewood, California for the
construction of a senior center;
$250,000 for the City of Stockton, California for costs
associated with construction of the Eldorado Teen Center;
$250,000 for the City of San Francisco, California for the
Old Mint Redevelopment Project;
$350,000 for the City of Davis, California for the
construction of a senior center;
$450,000 for the Los Angeles Harbor/Watts Economic
Development Corporation, California for the development of a
park and recreation site;
$250,000 for the Denver Art Museum, Center for American
Indian Art, Denver, Colorado for expansion;
$250,000 for the Weld Food Bank in Greeley, Colorado for
expansion and renovation;
$250,000 for the La Gente Youth Sports Recreation Center in
Pueblo, Colorado for the expansion of facilities;
$250,000 for the Town of Mountain Village, Colorado for
construction of the Affordable Housing Initiative;
$250,000 for the Town of Montrose, Colorado for the
Montrose Pavillion/Senior Center renovation;
$215,000 for the Town of Ignacio, Colorado for affordable
housing development;
$250,000 for Foodshare, Inc., in Hartford County,
Connecticut for the construction of a new distribution center;
$250,000 for the Main Street Development Corporation in
Ansonia, Connecticut for the Lower Naugatuck Valley Economic
Development Initiative;
$500,000 for the Mark Twain House and Museum in Hartford,
Connecticut for costs associated with restoration and
development;
$250,000 for the Town of Plainfield, Connecticut for the
InterRoyal Facility Remediation Initiative;
$250,000 for Sacred Heart Village, Inc. in Wilmington,
Delaware for costs associated with renovations;
$250,000 for City of Ocilla, Georgia, for the renovations
of the Old Ocilla School;
$250,000 for Tubman African American Museum, Macon, Georgia
for costs associated with renovations;
$500,000 for the City of Coral Gables, Florida for the
Biltmore Complex Restoration Project;
$250,000 for the Miami Performing Arts Center, Florida for
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Hawaii in Honolulu
for costs associated with construction of the Nanakuli site on
Hawaiian Homelands;
$250,000 for Poamoho Camp Community Association in Wahiawa,
Hawaii for infrastructure improvements;
$350,000 for Binhi At Ani in Wailuku, Hawaii for the
construction of the Maui Filipino Community Center;
$400,000 for Friends of Drug Court in Honolulu, Hawaii for
the acquisition of a building;
$250,000 for Kauai Economic Opportunity, Inc., in Kauai,
Hawaii for improvements and renovations to a homeless shelter;
$250,000 for the Hawaii Island Community Development
Corporation in Hilo for the construction of low-income elderly
housing;
$1,000,000 for the Clearwater Economic Development
Association, Idaho, for implementation of the Lewis and Clark
Bicentennial plan;
$900,000 for Boise State University in Idaho, for planning,
design, and construction for the Center for Environmental
Science and Economic Development;
$900,000 for the University of Idaho, at Moscow, Idaho, for
planning and design for a science and new technologies
laboratory;
$350,000 for the Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois for
improvements;
$150,000 for the Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, Illinois
for the expansion of the School of the Botanic Garden;
$750,000 for the City of Springfield, Illinois for the
design and construction of a community center on the city's
east side;
$250,000 for the Campbell Center for Historic Preservation
in Mount Carroll, Illinois to complete the planning,
feasibility, and design phase of its program expansion and
rehabilitation project;
$200,000 for the Northwest Illinois Chapter of the American
Red Cross in Freeport, Illinois for the acquisition of property
and construction of a new chapter office;
$200,000 for the Chicago Food Depository, Illinois for
capacity expansion and related programs;
$200,000 for the Chicago House and Social Service Agency in
Illinois to develop and construct a social services community
center and programs on the West Side of Chicago, in partnership
with Vital Bridges/Open Hand;
$250,000 for The Community Foundation of Muncie and
Delaware County, Inc., Anderson, Indiana for expansion of its
food bank facilities;
$250,000 for the City of Anderson, Indiana for the
completion of the Anderson Fiber Network;
$250,000 for the City of Indianapolis, Indiana for the
construction of the Holmes Court Housing Development;
$250,000 for the City of Jefferson, Indiana for costs
associated with the redevelopment of Spring Street;
$250,000 for the City of Waterloo, Iowa for the acquisition
of the Cedar Valley TechWorks Facility;
$250,000 for the City of Fort Dodge, Iowa for the Lincoln
Neighborhood Redevelopment Project;
$250,000 for the City of Storm Lake, Iowa for costs
associated with the construction of the Destination Park
Interpretative Center;
$250,000 for the City of Bettendorf, Iowa for the River's
Edge Redevelopment Project;
$200,000 for the Mid America Housing Partnership in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa for the housing trust fund;
$200,000 for the Scott County Housing Council, Davenport,
Iowa for the construction and rehabilitation of housing;
$200,000 for the City of Waterloo, Iowa for the Rath
Housing Initiative;
$200,000 for Homeward Inc., in Iowa for construction of low
income housing;
$250,000 for the Kansas Chapter of National Korean War
Veterans Association, Overland Park, Kansas for the
construction of a Korean War Memorial;
$500,000 for the City Vision Ministry, Kansas City, Kansas
for Rosedale neighborhood affordable housing;
$650,000 for the City of Great Bend, Kansas for
construction of an environmental education center;
$1,225,000 for Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas
for the construction of a science center;
$500,000 for the City of Topeka, Kansas for infrastructure
construction at the Center Point Commerce Park;
$300,000 for the Veterans Memorial Park of Wichita, Kansas
for renovation project;
$200,000 for TLC for Children and Families, Inc. in Olathe,
Kansas for the construction of residential, educational, and
therapy facilities for homeless teens, foster care youth and
parents, and teens in the Juvenile Justice System;
$275,000 for Sedgwick County, Kansas for the construction
of the Oaklawn Community Center;
$1,500,000 for the City of Bowling Green, Kentucky, for
purchasing equipment for the South Central Kentucky Training
and Development Project;
$800,000 for the City of Bowling Green, Kentucky for costs
associated with the development of the Lost River Cave
Improvement Project;
$250,000 for Paducah Area Community Reuse Organization in
Graves County, Kentucky for costs associated with the
construction of the PACRO Industrial Park;
$300,000 for the Owen County Industrial Authority, Kentucky
for the Owen County Gas Line;
$250,000 for the Edmonson County, Kentucky for costs
associated with the construction of the Edmonson Technology and
Economic Development Center;
$500,000 for Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of New
Orleans, Louisiana for costs associated with construction for
the West Bank Senior Services Continuum;
$750,000 for the City of Grand Isle, Louisiana for the
construction of a community center;
$250,000 for the Audubon Nature Institute in New Orleans,
Louisiana for facility improvements;
$300,000 for the City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana Recreation
Commission for downtown recreation development;
$250,000 for the City of Dequincy, Louisiana for downtown
revitalization;
$250,000 for St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana for the
construction of a maritime training center;
$300,000 for the City of Baltimore, Maryland, for costs
associated with the relocation of the Central Garage;
$250,000 for Associated Catholic Charities, Inc., in
Baltimore, Maryland to build a new facility and renovate an
existing facility for Our Daily Bread Employment Center and My
Sister's Place Women's Center;
$300,000 for St. Ambrose Housing, for purchase and
rehabilitation of houses in northeast Baltimore, Maryland;
$400,000 for Baltimore County, Maryland, for the
rehabilitation of the Dundalk Community Center;
$400,000 for Baltimore County, Maryland, for the
Randallstown Community Center;
$250,000 for the Charles County Economic Development
Commission in Maryland for the design of the Energetics
Technology Center;
$200,000 for Montgomery County, Maryland for pedestrian
enhancements and safety improvements in Long Branch;
$200,000 for Montgomery County, Maryland for Fenton Street
Village pedestrian linkages;
$200,000 for Easter Seals, in Silver Spring, Maryland for
the construction of the Easter Seal Inter-Generational Center;
$500,000 for Prince Georges' County, Maryland, for the
renovation of the Employment and Training Center and the
Multicultural Academy;
$500,000 for St. Mary's County, Maryland, for the
acquisition and redevelopment of Lexington Manor;
$1,000,000 for the Mandel Center for Nonprofit
Organizations in Cleveland, Ohio, to capitalize a scholarship
endowment established in memory of Art Naparstek;
$500,000 for the National Council of Negro Women, in
Washington, DC, for the construction and renovation of 633
Pennsylvania Avenue, in Northwest, Washington, DC;
$500,000 for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America to
establish programs for youth living in Public and Indian
housing communities;
$250,000 for the City of Brewer, Maine to acquire and
redevelop eight parcels of land on the Penobscot River;
$250,000 for the City of Caribou, Maine to improve and
repair a gymnasium and related facilities in the Armory
building;
$250,000 for the City of Auburn, Maine to construct the
Great Falls Parking Garage;
$250,000 for the People's Regional Opportunity Program
[PROP] for the construction of affordable housing units and a
neighborhood center in Portland, Maine;
$350,000 for the Attleboro Redevelopment Authority,
Massachusetts for the Attleboro Redevelopment Authority
Manufacturing Site Remediation and Redevelopment;
$350,000 for the Greater Boston Food Bank, Massachusetts
for expansion of its distribution center;
$350,000 for the City of Lawrence, Massachusetts for the
demolition and remediation of the Lawrence In-Town Mall
building;
$200,000 for the City of Northampton, Massachusetts for the
redevelopment of blighted land;
$300,000 for the State of Michigan for costs associated
with the relocation of the A.E. Seaman Mineral Museum;
$300,000 for the Motown Center in Detroit, Michigan for
costs associated with the relocation of the center;
$300,000 for the City of Detroit, Michigan for costs
associated with the restoration of the riverfront;
$350,000 for the State Theatre of Bay City/Bay County,
Michigan for the restoration of the State Theatre;
$350,000 for the City of Port Huron, Michigan for
revitalization;
$250,000 to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for
supportive housing for homelessness in St. Paul, Minnesota;
$250,000 to the City of St. Paul, Minnesota for
rehabilitation needs at the Ames Lake Neighborhood/Phalen Place
Apartments;
$700,000 for Neighborhood House in St. Paul, Minnesota for
construction of the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center for
Community Building;
$250,000 for the Organization of Liberians in Minnesota in
Brooklyn Park for costs associated with the construction of The
Liberian Cultural and Community Center;
$1,000,000 for the Area Development Partnership in
Hattiesburg, Mississippi for costs associated with the
construction of the Hattiesburg Innovation Commercialization
Center;
$1,850,000 to Mississippi State University for renovation
of the Lloyd-Ricks building in Starkville, Mississippi;
$750,000 to Lafayette County for restoration of the
Lafayette County Courthouse in Oxford, Mississippi;
$300,000 to the City of Waynesboro for relocation of the
Police Department in Waynesboro, Mississippi;
$300,000 to the City of Brookhaven for renovation of the
Fire House in Brookhaven, Mississippi;
$300,000 to the City of Holly Springs for the North Memphis
Street Redevelopment project in Holly Springs, Mississippi;
$250,000 to Kemper County for infrastructure improvements
in Kemper County, Mississippi;
$200,000 for the City of Booneville, Mississippi for
community development;
$250,000 to the Martin Luther King Foundation for the
rehabilitation of the community center in Pickens, Mississippi;
$800,000 to the City of Jackson for the remediation and
renovation of historic King Edward Hotel in Jackson,
Mississippi;
$250,000 to the City of Pascagoula for public library
repairs in Pascagoula, Mississippi;
$250,000 to the City of Ellisville for the renovation and
construction of the public library in Ellisville, Mississippi;
$250,000 for St. Patrick Center for the Homeless
Partnership Center in St. Louis, Missouri for construction;
$250,000 for the Green Hills Regional Planning Commission
for construction of renewable energy and rural economic
development projects in Putnam County, Missouri;
$250,000 for Joplin Area Chamber of Commerce Foundation in
Missouri for the Joseph Newman Business and Technology
Innovation Center;
$250,000 for Greene County, Missouri for developing a
natural history museum in Springfield, Missouri;
$1,000,000 to St. Charles County Association for Retarded
Citizens for Family Support Center construction in St. Louis
County, Missouri;
$1,000,000 to the City of St. Joseph, Missouri for
construction associated with the St. Joseph Community
Riverfront Redevelopment Project;
$1,000,000 to the St. Louis Science Center for visitor
center construction in St. Louis, Missouri;
$1,000,000 to the Ozarks Development Corporation to provide
infrastructure improvements to a development park in West
Plains/Pamona, Missouri;
$1,000,000 to the City of St. Joseph, Missouri for
demolition of the Heartland Regional Medical Center;
$1,000,000 to the City of St. Louis, Missouri for
construction of a truck entrance at Broadway and St. Louis
Avenue, utility relocation, rail track relocation and perimeter
fencing;
$500,000 to the Bartley-Decatur Neighborhood Center, Inc.
to restore/re-construct home for use as revitalized
neighborhood center in Springfield, Missouri;
$500,000 for the Northern Rockies Center for Senior Health,
Billings, Montana, for construction of a senior citizens
facility;
$700,000 for the Big Sky Economic Development Authority,
Billings, Montana, for economic development outreach;
$300,000 for the Great Falls Development Authority, Great
Falls, Montana, for economic development outreach;
$350,000 for the Chippewa Cree Tribe, Box Elder, Montana,
for a housing construction project;
$300,000 for the Story Mansion, Bozeman, Montana for
historical renovations and improvements;
$300,000 for the Rocky Mountain Development Council/PenKay
Eagle Manor Renovation, Helena, Montana, for renovations and
improvements;
$300,000 for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Missoula,
Montana for construction projects;
$300,000 for the City of Billings, Montana West Side
planning and development project;
$250,000 for the Billings Child and Family Intervention
Center, Billings, Montana for construction projects;
$250,000 for the Montana Technology Enterprise Center in
Missoula, Montana for a revolving loan fund;
$250,000 for the Omaha Performing Arts Society, Nebraska
for construction costs associated with the Omaha Performing
Arts Center;
$250,000 for the Boys and Girls Home of Nebraska, in
Columbus, Nebraska to develop the Columbus Family Resource
Center;
$250,000 for the Davey Area Community Center in Davey,
Nebraska for costs associated with construction;
$500,000 for the Penacook Tannery in Concord, New Hampshire
for restoration;
$500,000 for the Claremont Mill in Claremont, New Hampshire
for redevelopment;
$400,000 for the Tilton Riverfront Park in Tilton, New
Hampshire for development;
$250,000 for the Old New Hampshire State House Planning
Project in Concord, New Hampshire for planning of
reconstruction of the first New Hampshire State House;
$450,000 for the New Hampshire Main Street Center in
Concord, New Hampshire for the development of downtown areas;
$350,000 for the Souhegan Boys and Girls Club in Milford,
New Hampshire for the construction of a new center;
$350,000 for the Manchester Historical Association in
Manchester, New Hampshire for the renovation of the Center for
Preserving Manchester's History;
$250,000 for the Northern Community Investment Corporation,
Colebrook, New Hampshire for rural broadband telecommunications
project;
$250,000 for the Tri-County Community Action Program/City
of Berlin, New Hampshire, for elimination of blighted and
unsafe buildings;
$250,000 for the City of East Orange, New Jersey for
construction of a senior center;
$250,000 for the Town of Hammonton, New Jersey for the
construction of a community center complex;
$250,000 for La Casa de Don Pedro in Newark, New Jersey for
renovations in relation to the Lower Broadway Improvement Zone
project;
$250,000 for the City of Woodbine, New Jersey for
renovations in relation to the Woodbine Community Center
Complex project;
$250,000 for the Borough of Carteret, New Jersey for the
construction of an International Trade and Logistics Center;
$250,000 for the South Jersey Economic Development District
for economic revitalization in Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland,
and Salem counties;
$400,000 for the Office of the New Mexico State Fire
Marshal, Santa Fe, New Mexico, to support improved fire
service, training services, infrastructure, and/or information
systems in the State of New Mexico and at the New Mexico State
Fire Academy in Socorro, New Mexico;
$500,000 for Goodwill Industries of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, for renovation of its headquarters and
client training center;
$275,000 for the Village of Tijeras, New Mexico, for
purchase of a fire pumper truck to serve the community and
Federal installations in the area;
$1,175,000 for Presbyterian Medical Services, Santa Fe, New
Mexico, for the construction of Santa Fe County Head Start and
Early Head Start facilities;
$400,000 for the City of Clovis Fire Department, New
Mexico, for purchase of emergency medical vehicles to serve the
community and Federal installations in the area;
$750,000 for the City of Hobbs, New Mexico, for
infrastructure associated with the development of the Hobbs
Industrial Air Park;
$500,000 for Eastern New Mexico University, Portales, New
Mexico, for purchase of telecommunications equipment for its
communications program and public radio station KENW;
$250,000 for the Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce,
New Mexico for the expansion of the Barelas Job Opportunity
Center;
$250,000 for the Town of North Hempstead, New York for the
New Cassel Revitalization and Redevelopment Project;
$250,000 for the City of Buffalo, New York for the
renovation of a building to create housing for the Buffalo Arts
Homesteading Program;
$250,000 for The Olana Partnership in Hudson, New York for
costs associated with construction;
$250,000 for the City of Poughkeepsie, New York for costs
associated with replacing the roof on the Historic Luckey,
Platt Building;
$500,000 for Pucho's, Inc., in Buffalo, New York for the
construction of a new recreational and educational resource
room;
$500,000 for the United Jewish Organizations of
Williamsburg, Inc. in Brooklyn, New York for the construction
of a new community services building;
$800,000 for the City of Las Vegas, Nevada for improvements
to a historic building;
$250,000 for the City of Reno, Las Vegas for the Reno
Fourth Street Corridor Enhancements which include but are not
limited to streetscape improvements, safety upgrades, and the
installation of lighting;
$250,000 for Nevada Partners, Home of the Culinary Training
Institute in North Las Vegas, Nevada for the expansion of the
Southern Nevada Strategic Vocational Training Center;
$250,000 for the Urban Chamber of Commerce in Las Vegas,
Nevada for costs associates with the construction of a multi-
use and instructional center;
$250,000 for the North Las Vegas Library District, Nevada
for costs associated with the construction of a full service
library;
$250,000 for East Las Vegas Community Development
Corporation, Nevada for equipment;
$200,000 for Ethel-Willia, Incorporated in Nevada for the
Smart Start Child Care Center;
$200,000 for the Town of Pahrump, Nevada for costs
associated with the construction of the Pahrump/Nye County
Fairground;
$500,000 for the City of Reno/Good Shepherd Clothes Closet
Project, Reno, Nevada;
$200,000 for the National Whitewater Center in Charlotte,
North Carolina for costs associated with construction;
$200,000 for the Wake County Library Foundation in Raleigh,
North Carolina for costs associated with construction;
$200,000 for the Blowing Rock Performing Arts in Blowing
Rock, North Carolina for construction;
$250,000 for Ashe County, North Carolina to develop a
Business Incubator in the Family Central Complex;
$250,000 for Our Children's Place in Granville County,
North Carolina to construct a facility;
$350,000 for the Northwest Ventures Communities Inc.,
Minot, North Dakota for the construction of the Northwest
Career and Technology Center;
$350,000 for the Three Affiliated Tribes Tourism
Department, New Town, North Dakota for a cultural interpretive
center;
$300,000 for the United Tribes Technical College in
Bismarck, North Dakota for the construction of family housing;
$300,000 for the NDSU Research and Technology Park Inc., in
Fargo, North Dakota for the Advanced Technology Career Center;
$250,000 for the Minot Area Community Foundation, North
Dakota for the Prairie Community Development Center;
$250,000 for the Franklin County Metro Parks, Franklin
County, Ohio for the purchase of land in the Darby Creek
Watershed;
$250,000 for the Springfield Center City Association,
Springfield, Ohio for the construction of a business incubator;
$250,000 for Improved Solutions for Urban Systems, Inc.,
Dayton, Ohio to create a new model for economic, community and
workforce development;
$250,000 for the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority for the
Northwest Ohio Brownfield Restoration Initiative;
$250,000 for the Youngstown Central Area Community
Improvement Corporation, Youngstown, Ohio for construction of
the Advanced Technology Incubator for Market Ready
Applications;
$250,000 for First Frontier, Inc., Xenia, Ohio for
revitalization of the amphitheatre;
$550,000 for Cleveland Playhouse Square, Cleveland, Ohio
for IDEA Center;
$450,000 for Development Projects, Inc., Dayton, Ohio for
Downtown Dayton Northeast Quadrant;
$300,000 for CAMP, Cleveland, Ohio for Cleveland
Manufacturing Technology Complex;
$500,000 for the Standing Bear Native American Foundation,
Ponca City, Oklahoma for creation of the Standing Bear Museum
and Education Center;
$250,000 to Washington County, Oregon for costs associated
with the construction of a homeless shelter;
$250,000 to the Portland Development Commission, Oregon,
for the North Macadam affordable housing project;
$250,000 to the City of Gresham, Oregon for costs
associated with the construction of a cultural arts center;
$250,000 to the City of Brookings Harbor, Oregon for the
redevelopment of the boardwalk;
$500,000 for the City of Portland, Oregon for development
of the Portland Streetcar;
$200,000 for the Bean Foundation, Inc. in Bend, Oregon for
costs associated with the construction of the Madras Center for
Education and Workforce Training;
$200,000 for Brookings Harbor, Oregon for costs associated
with the construction of the Brookings Harbor Seafood
Processing Plant;
$300,000 for the Urban Redevelopment Authority of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the redevelopment of South Side
Works;
$300,000 for the City of Scranton, Pennsylvania, for the
Cedar Avenue Revitalization;
$300,000 for Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania
for the Lewisburg Downtown Theater rehabilitation;
$250,000 for the Allegheny West Foundation, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for the Budd Plant rehabilitation project;
$250,000 for the Indiana County Development Corporation,
Indiana, Pennsylvania, for the Indiana Springs development
project;
$250,000 for the City of Erie, Pennsylvania, for site
preparation and redevelopment of the vacant and blighted
Koehler Brewery Building;
$250,000 for the City of Greensburg, Pennsylvania, for
construction of a Center for the Arts;
$250,000 for Our City Reading, in Reading, Pennsylvania,
for the rehabilitation of abandoned houses and parks to provide
quality home ownership opportunities to low-income families;
$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;
$250,000 for the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, for the
rehabilitation and renovation of the Lancaster Central Market;
$250,000 for Eagles Mere Village, Inc., in Eagles Mere,
Pennsylvania, for the acquisition and rehabilitation of
downtown buildings;
$250,000 for the Allegheny County Department of Community
and Economic Development, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the
planning, design, and construction of Schenley Plaza;
$250,000 for the Greene County Department of Planning and
Development, in Franklin Township, Pennsylvania, for
construction of a multi-tenant facility at EverGreene
Technology Park;
$200,000 for Universal Community Homes in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for the conversion of land into for-sale units to
low- and moderate-income families;
$200,000 for the Borough of Lewistown, Pennsylvania, for
the rehabilitation and renovation of the Lewistown Municipal
Building;
$200,000 for the Darby Borough Community Development
Corporation, in Darby, Pennsylvania, for a Main Street
revitalization initiative including acquisition, renovation,
and demolition of downtown buildings;
$200,000 for the Chester County Industrial Development
Authority, in East Whiteland and Tredyffrin Townships,
Pennsylvania, for the redevelopment of the Atwater Brownfields
site;
$200,000 for the Inglis Foundation, in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for the planning, design, and construction of
housing for individuals with disabilities;
$250,000 to the Pawtucket Armory Association in Pawtucket,
Rhode Island for renovation of the armory into a performing
arts and arts education center;
$250,000 to Westbay Community Action in Warwick, Rhode
Island for the purchase and renovation of a building for use as
a child care center;
$250,000 to the Providence Neighborhood Investment Program
in Providence, Rhode Island for economic revitalization
projects in distressed communities;
$250,000 for the Meeting Street National Center of
Excellence in Providence, Rhode Island for the construction of
a new facility and recreation space;
$250,000 for Rhode Island College in Providence, Rhode
Island for the renovation of the former State Home and School;
$250,000 to the Old Slater Mill Association in Pawtucket,
Rhode Island for improvements to the exhibitry and the
building;
$500,000 for Meeting Street in Providence, Rhode Island for
a recreational facility;
$250,000 for the West Warwick Senior Center, Inc. in Rhode
Island for the costs associated with construction of affordable
housing and community center;
$250,000 for Travelers Aid of Rhode Island in Providence,
Rhode Island for building renovations;
$250,000 for City of Anderson, South Carolina for costs
associated with the construction of the Murray/Franklin Street
Project;
$250,000 for American College of the Building Arts,
Charleston, South Carolina for training and skills;
$400,000 for EngenuitySC in Columbia, South Carolina for
building renovations and purchasing of technology equipment;
$1,400,000 for the Wakpa Sica Historical Society in Fort
Pierre, South Dakota for the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Center;
$400,000 for the City of Mobridge, South Dakota for the
Missouri River riverfront economic development project;
$250,000 for the Sioux Empire Housing Partnership in Sioux
Falls, South Dakota for development of low income housing;
$250,000 for City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota for a day
care center;
$400,000 for the Sioux Falls Family YMCA, South Dakota for
construction of a facility;
$250,000 for Tea, South Dakota for costs associated with
construction of a city hall;
$250,000 for the Cheyenne River Youth Project, Eagle Butte,
South Dakota for the construction of a teen center;
$400,000 for the Oglala Sioux Tribe in Pine Ridge, South
Dakota for the construction of a veterans center;
$400,000 for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in Eagle Butte,
South Dakota for the construction of a veterans center;
$250,000 for the Central States Fair Inc., in Rapid City,
South Dakota for infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for City of Brookings, South Dakota for Growth
Partnership Research Park;
$250,000 for Rapid City YMCA, South Dakota for the
construction of a teen wellness center;
$500,000 for the City of Sturgis, South Dakota, for the
Sturgis Industrial Park;
$250,000 for the Rapid City Arts Council, Rapid City, South
Dakota, for the Dahl Arts Center;
$500,000 for the City of Huntingdon, Tennessee for land
acquisition;
$500,000 for the Rolling Mill Hill Revitalization Project
in Nashville, Tennessee for the revitalization of distressed
urban areas;
$500,000 for the Big South Fork Visitors Center, Scott
County, Tennessee to develop new visitors facilities;
$250,000 for the Chattanooga Public Housing Authority to
support the Economic Self Sufficiency and 21st Century Work
Skills program in Chattanooga, Tennessee;
$250,000 for the Native American Indian Association of
Tennessee, Nashville, Tennessee for construction of a cultural
center;
$250,000 for the Lauderdale County Industrial Park,
Lauderdale County, Tennessee for industrial site development;
$250,000 for the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum,
Nashville, Tennessee to support community programs;
$250,000 for the Chattanooga African American Chamber of
Commerce, Tennessee to construct the Martin Luther King
Business Solutions Center;
$250,000 for the Appalachian Service Project, Johnson City,
Tennessee to support the Summer Home Repair Program;
$500,000 for Covenant House Texas in Houston to evaluate
the structural and mechanical systems of the current emergency
shelter and upgrade the agency's infrastructure;
$400,000 for the Acres Home Economic Development Initiative
in Houston, Texas to redevelop the Acres home-community;
$250,000 for the World Congress on Information Technology
in Austin, Texas for renovations to the Austin Convention
Center;
$200,000 for the Beaumont Downtown Improvement Program in
Beaumont, Texas for downtown redevelopment;
$200,000 for the Texas Theater Renovations in Dallas, Texas
for renovations to the building;
$250,000 for Caritas of Austin, Texas for the Austin Basic
Needs Collaboration Economic Development Initiative;
$200,000 for the Fort Worth Urban Villages Revitalization
initiative in Fort Worth, Texas for downtown improvements;
$200,000 for the Houston Freedman's Town African American
Archive in Houston, Texas for continued renovations to the
Gregory School;
$200,000 for the San Angelo Home Loan Program in San
Angelo, Texas to continue helping low and moderate income
families with housing needs;
$200,000 for the East Austin Improvements project in
Austin, Texas to provide improvements to the Central East
Austin neighborhood;
$200,000 for the Denton Downtown Redevelopment project in
Denton, Texas for downtown square improvements;
$200,000 for the Plaza Theater Renovations in Laredo, Texas
to renovate the Plaza Theater;
$200,000 for the Corpus Christi Downtown Redevelopment in
Corpus Christi, Texas to provide streetscape improvements;
$100,000 for the St. Phillips Neighborhood Redevelopment
Initiative in Dallas, Texas to provide improvements to the
community;
$200,000 for the Vermont Institute of Natural Science,
Woodstock, Vermont for the construction of a wildlife
rehabilitation facility;
$200,000 for Vermont Housing and Conservation Board for the
development of affordable housing in Rutland, Vermont;
$750,000 for the Vermont Center on Emerging Technologies,
Burlington, Vermont for development of a technology incubator;
$600,000 for the Preservation Trust of Vermont, Burlington,
Vermont for the Village Revitalization Initiative;
$450,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board,
Montpelier, Vermont for development of affordable housing and
downtown revitalization in Burlington, Vermont;
$250,000 for the Art Museum of Western Virginia in Roanoke,
Virginia for planning and construction of a new museum;
$250,000 for the George C Marshall Foundation in Lexington,
Virginia for renovation and repair;
$700,000 for Christopher Newport University Real Estate
Foundation, Newport News, Virginia for the Warwick Boulevard
Commercial Corridor Redevelopment project;
$500,000 for the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library,
Staunton, Virginia for planning, construction, and renovation
of the facility;
$300,000 for Virginia Economic Bridge, Inc., Radford,
Virginia for development and operation of programs to address
employment and economic development in Southwest Virginia;
$650,000 for Wayne County, Utah for the Wayne County
Community Center;
$250,000 for West Jordan, Utah for the West Jordan Pioneer
Hall Renovation;
$900,000 for USF Elizabethan Theater, Cedar City, Utah for
design and construction of an Elizabethan theater;
$1,000,000 for Brigham City, Utah for the Academy Building
Renovation;
$500,000 for Salt Lake City, Utah for renovation of
Historic Pioneer Park;
$250,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of South Puget Sound
in Tacoma, Washington for costs associated with construction of
new community centers;
$250,000 for the SWIFT Cyber Group in Richland, Washington
for the SWIFT Initiative I--Elimination of Broadband Gaps;
$200,000 for the Washington Technology Center in Seattle
for the Washington Nanotechnology Initiative;
$200,000 for the City of Burien, Washington for the
acquisition and redevelopment of the Burien Highline Senior
Center;
$500,000 for the Delridge Development Association in
Seattle, Washington for renovations of the Old Cooper School;
$500,000 for Yakima Valley Farmworkers Clinic in Toppenish,
Washington for costs associated with the construction of
Science and Technology Partnership Center;
$300,000 for the Edmonds Public Facilities District in
Washington for costs associated with the construction of the
Edmonds Center for the Arts;
$300,000 for St. Anne's Children/Family Center in Spokane,
Washington for costs associated with construction;
$250,000 for the Northwest Maritime Center in Port
Townsend, Washington for construction;
$250,000 for the Washington Public Ports Association in
Olympia, Washington for the WPAA Education Foundation;
$1,250,000 for West Virginia University for the development
of a facility to house forensic science research and academic
programs;
$1,250,000 for the McDowell County Commission, West
Virginia for infrastructure and site development at the Indian
Ridge Industrial Park;
$750,000 for the City of Beckley, West Virginia for
downtown revitalization;
$300,000 for the Redevelopment Authority of the City of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the Riverwest Neighborhood Housing
Initiative;
$250,000 for the Redevelopment Authority of the City of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the redevelopment of the Tower
Automotive site;
$300,000 for the City of Madison, Wisconsin for the South
Madison Redevelopment Project;
$300,000 for the Town of Madison, Wisconsin for the
continued work on the Novation Technology Campus;
$300,000 for the City of Kenosha, Wisconsin for the Brass
Redevelopment Project;
$250,000 for the Menomonee Valley Partners of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin for the redevelopment of a former rail yard;
$250,000 for the City of Manitowoc, Wisconsin for economic
development activities;
$300,000 for the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission in Eau Claire for technology start ups and
expansions;
$250,000 for Riverfront Inc., in La Crosse, Wisconsin for
the construction of work centers for the disabled;
$750,000 for the University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming
for the construction of the Wyoming Technology Business Center;
$250,000 for the Cottonwood Park Estates, Gillette, Wyoming
for the removal of asbestos for senior housing construction.
The Neighborhood Initiative grants are as follows:
$500,000 for the City of Conway, Arkansas for downtown
revitalization;
$500,000 for the Sacramento Housing and Development Agency,
California for the construction of new low income housing;
$250,000 for the Riverfront Development Corporation in
Wilmington, Delaware for construction of a pedestrian bridge as
part of the efforts to redevelop the Christina riverfront;
$250,000 for the City of Orlando, Florida for the Parramore
Neighborhood Revitalization Project;
$300,000 for Lokahi Pacific in Wailuku, Hawaii for costs
associated with the construction of the Blue Hawaii Building
Projects and the Wailuku Small Business Center;
$200,000 for the Patriot's Gateway Center in Rockford,
Illinois for continuation of programs and neighborhood
revitalization in Rockford;
$500,000 for the City of Terre Haute, Indiana for the Terre
Haute Business Incubator;
$500,000 for the Iowa Department of Economic Development
for the enhancement of regional economic development
capabilities;
$300,000 for the City of Council Bluffs, Iowa for downtown
revitalization;
$200,000 for the City of Fort Dodge, Iowa for the Lincoln
Neighborhood Initiative;
$500,000 for Catholic Housing of Wyandotte County, Kansas,
Inc. for construction of low-cost housing and economic
development activities as part of the Bethany Redevelopment
Project in Wyandotte County, Kansas;
$1,000,000 for the Casey County Fiscal Court, Kentucky for
the Central Kentucky Agriculture and Exposition Center in Casey
County, Kentucky;
$1,000,000 for East Baltimore Development Inc., in
Baltimore, Maryland for redevelopment activities in East
Baltimore;
$1,300,000 for the Denali Commission for economic
development in remote Native and rural villages in Alaska;
$300,000 for the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority,
Massachusetts for the Kendall Square Renewal Area Project;
$300,000 for the Detroit Riverfront Conservancy, Michigan
for costs associated with the restoration of the riverfront;
$1,000,000 to the B.B. King Museum Foundation for the B.B
King Museum in Indianola, Mississippi;
$300,000 to Mississippi State University for the Capacity
Development Initiative in Starkville, Mississippi;
$250,000 to Jackson State University for the Lynch Street
Development Corridor Redevelopment in Jackson, Mississippi;
$250,000 to the City of Grenada for the Taylor Hall
renovation in Grenada, Mississippi;
$350,000 for the LeFleur Lakes Development Foundation for
an Economic Development Plan in Rankin and Hinds County,
Mississippi;
$350,000 to Lincoln County for the restoration of the Boys
& Girls Club in Lincoln County, Mississippi;
$5,000,000 for the Grace Hill Neighborhood Health Centers,
Inc. shall be spent on primary prevention activities with no
less than $4,000,000 spent on remediation and abatement
activities of housing in St. Louis, Missouri;
$500,000 to the Urban League of Kansas City, Missouri for
programs to support at-risk youth in the urban core of Kansas
City;
$260,000 to the Central Missouri Food Bank in Columbia,
Missouri for capital campaign project;
$90,000 to the Special Learning Center in Jefferson City,
Missouri for staffing, training, equipment, supplies and
renovations;
$50,000 to the Children's Therapy and Early Education
School in Mexico, Missouri for an indoor exercise and gym area
and to provide location for occupational and physical therapy
for children with developmental delays and special needs;
$1,000,000 for the Georgia Museum of Art in Athens, Georgia
for completion of phase II;
$1,000,000 for the Memphis Biotech Foundation in Memphis,
Tennessee for planning, design, construction, and equipment
associated with the Memphis Biotech Foundation;
$250,000 for the City of North Las Vegas, Nevada for a
neighborhood beautification project;
$500,000 for the City of Rugby, North Dakota to continue
work on information technology and energy projects;
$1,400,000 for Charleston Housing Trust Incorporated in
South Carolina for the development of affordable housing;
$300,000 for Mercy Housing, Inc. for improvements to rural
housing in Yakima, Washington; and
$1,250,000 for the Raleigh County Commission, West Virginia
for further development at the Raleigh County Airport
Industrial Park.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
guarantee loans Program costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004.............. $275,000,000 $6,288,000
Budget estimate, 2005............. ................. .................
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 $37,000 above the fiscal year 2004
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, $6,325,000 is for credit subsidy
costs to guarantee $275,000,000 in section 108 loan commitments
in fiscal year 2005, and $1,000,000 is for administrative
expenses to be transferred to the salaries and expenses
account.
BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $24,853,000
Budget estimate, 2005...................................................
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 $147,000 more than the fiscal
year 2004 enacted level and $25,000,000 above the budget
request. The administration requested no funding for this
program. This program has been instrumental in the
redevelopment of many communities and the administration has
not provided an adequate justification for its elimination.
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $2,005,625,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 2,084,200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,050,000,000
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 $2,050,000,000
for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This amount is
$44,375,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and
$34,200,000 less than the budget request.
The Committee includes $18,000,000 for technical
assistance, the same amount as provided in fiscal year 2004. Of
this amount, $7,000,000 is for qualified non-profit
intermediaries to provide technical assistance to Community
Housing and Development Organizations [CHDOs]. The remaining
$11,000,000 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 is
concerned that this program may be helping families with
excessive credit risk and who may not be the best candidates
for homeownership. The Committee requests that HUD report to
the Committees on Appropriations on the rate of default by
those in the program as well as the numbers of participants who
have missed their mortgage payments by 30 days, by 60 days and
by 90 days and/or who have received some form of relief to keep
their mortgages current. This report is due no later than July
31, 2005. 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.
In addition, according to a recent GAO review of the
American Dream Downpayment Fund/Program, HUD is unlikely to be
able to obligate more than $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 in fiscal
year 2005. This is consistent with HUD's own calculations which
are further highlighted by HUD's projection that by the end of
fiscal year 2005 only 16 percent of the obligated funds
appropriated for this program in fiscal years 2003 and 2004
will have been expended. This represents a spend-out rate of
some 10 percent. This means that funding this program at the
full budget request of $200,000,000 will likely result in the
build-up of large unexpended balances which is counter-
productive in a time when the administration and the Congress
are committed to reducing large Federal budget deficits and
where many other programs are facing a very tight budget.
Of the amount provided for the HOME program, $45,000,000 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 continues to urge 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, 2004.................................... $1,259,542,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 1,282,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,260,000,000
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 $1,260,000,000 for homeless
assistance grants. This level is $458,000 above the fiscal year
2004 enacted level and $22,400,000 below the budget request. Of
the amount provided, $186,000,000 is to fund fully Shelter Plus
Care renewals on an annual basis and $11,900,000 is for
technical assistance and management information system.
The Committee remains committed to ending chronic
homelessness over 10 years. To that end, the Committee supports
Federal, State, and local efforts 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 bill language that requires HUD to spend a minimum of
30 percent of the funds appropriated under this account for
permanent housing. The Committee emphasizes that this is the
minimal level of effort expected to be spent on permanent
housing and strongly urges the Department to maximize its
funding on this endeavor.
The Committee applauds the Department's recent efforts in
working to ensure that Shelter Plus Care grants are properly
targeted to providers serving chronically disabled, chronically
homeless people. HUD's sample of 2003 projects indicates that
about 70 percent of participants served by Shelter Plus Care
reported to have a mental illness and a significant percentage
suffered from alcohol or drug abuse.
The Committee remains strongly supportive of the
Department's ongoing efforts on data collection and analysis
within the homeless programs, especially its efforts to collect
a nationally representative sample of homeless data. 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 many people enter
and exit the homeless assistance system. The Committee directs
HUD to continue its role in leading the Federal Government's
efforts on this data collection and analysis activity. The
Committee directs HUD to report on the progress of this data
collection and analysis effort by no later than March 21, 2005.
The Committee continues to support the U.S. Interagency
Council on Homelessness's [ICH] efforts to develop 10-year
plans to end chronic homelessness. The Committee believes that
these performance-based plans will assist local jurisdictions
and States in developing strategies on ending homelessness. The
Committee strongly encourages the Department to assist the ICH
in this effort.
The Committee remains concerned about the high number of
homeless veterans. The Committee understands that the
Department has taken steps to encourage participation of
veterans in the development of continua of care, and encourages
the Department to pursue other means of reaching homeless
veterans including requiring collaboration between continua of
care and Community Homeless Assessment, Local Education, and
Networking Groups at VA medical centers.
Some supportive housing providers have expressed concern
about the cash match required under the supportive housing
program [SHP] because some of their services are provided
directly to the resident instead of funding the provider to
deliver the services. Accordingly, the Committee directs the
Department to provide flexibility in defining what types of
activities qualify in meeting the match requirement under the
SHP program. The Committee believes that the cash value of
services provided to a grantee's resident or client by an
entity other than the grantee may be used as a qualified match
when documented by a Memorandum of Understanding between the
grantee and the other entity. The cost value of these services
should not be included to the extent Federal funds support
these services.
The Committee remains concerned about the potential 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 2006 budget
justifications.
EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM
Appropriations, 2004....................................................
Budget estimate, 2005................................... $153,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
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.
Housing Programs
HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $773,728,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 773,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 773,800,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding for housing for the elderly
under section 202. Under this program, the Department provides
capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition,
rehabilitation, or construction of housing for seniors.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $773,800,000
for the Section 202 program, an increase of $72,000 over the
fiscal year 2004 level and an increase of $500,000 over the
budget request. Of these funds, $53,000,000 is for service
coordinators and for the continuation of existing congregate
service grants; up to $30,000,000 for the conversion of
projects to assisted living housing for substantial
rehabilitation an for emergency capital repairs; $20,000,000
for grants to nonprofits for architectural and engineering
work, site control and planning activities.
According to a 2003 GAO report, section 202 has reached
only 8 percent of very low income elderly households. The
Committee believes that greater resources should be devoted to
the section 202 program and encourages the Department to make
this program more of a priority, including better targeting to
extremely low-income elderly households. Further, many of the
existing 202 units have serious repair needs that are not being
adequately addressed by the Department. Bill language is
included to allow limited funds to be used for capital repairs.
The Committee looks forward to receiving the comprehensive
capital assessment of section 202 and 236 assisted housing and
alternatives to address those needs as required in the fiscal
year 2004 Act.
The Department currently is not engaged in any activities
to help those people aging in place remain comfortably in their
homes and communities. The Committee directs that the
Department work with the Department of Health and Human
Services' Office of Aging to coordinate expertise and resources
to strengthen naturally occurring retirement communities, known
as ``NORCs''.
HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $249,092,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 248,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 250,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding for housing for the persons
with disabilities under section 811. Under this program, the
Department provides capital grants to eligible entities for the
acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of housing for
persons with disabilities. Up to 25 percent of the funding may
be made available for tenant-based assistance under section 8.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $250,000,000
for the Section 811 program, an increase of $908,000 over the
fiscal year 2004 level and $1,300,000 over the budget request.
HUD is directed to ensure that all tenant-based assistance made
available under this account shall remain available for persons
with disabilities upon turnover.
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.
OTHER ASSISTED HOUSING PROGRAMS
RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE
(RESCISSION)
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account includes the rent supplement program, the
section 235 program, the section 236 program and IRP
rehabilitation grants, all of which provide either grants to
tenants or subsidies to owners of low-income housing as a
method of maintaining housing for low-income use.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the cancellation of $675,000,000
in unused and available contract authority.
MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $12,923,000
Budget request, 2004.................................... 13,000,000
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 the same as the budget
request and $77,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted
level.
The Committee thanks the Department for submitting line-
item expenses for the manufactured housing program in its
proposed fiscal year 2005 budget request, and encourages the
HUD to continue doing so in its future budgets. In addition,
the Committee encourages HUD to continue to prioritize its
expenditures for this program in accordance with the
appropriate sections of the Manufactured Housing Improvement
Act of 2000.
FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION
MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004................................ $50,000,000 $185,000,000,000 $356,882,000
Budget estimate, 2005............................... 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 366,000,000
Committee recommendation............................ 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 366,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on Limitation on Administrative
direct loans guaranteed loans expenses Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004................... $50,000,000 $25,000,000,000 $227,649,000 $14,912,000
Budget estimate, 2005.................. 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 234,000,000 10,000,000
Committee recommendation............... 50,000,000 35,000,000,000 234,000,000 10,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $366,000,000 for
administrative expenses. For the GI/SRI account, the Committee
recommends $35,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans,
a limitation on direct loans of $50,000,000, and $234,000,000
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 continues to fail
to calculate adequately the amount of credit subsidy necessary
to support its multifamily mortgage insurance programs.
In addition, the Committee is very concerned about the
March 2004 GAO report, ``HUD Single-Family and Multifamily
Property Programs'', which classified $16,500,000 of payments
made to single family property disposition contractors in 2002
and 2003 as questionable, and potentially fraudulent. In some
cases lack of oversight resulted in the Department paying
contractors for work that was not completed, and in
deteriorating property conditions. These deficiencies are not
only wasteful, but they contribute to the decline of already
unstable neighborhoods. The Committee directs the Department to
submit a report by March 1, 2005, that details steps the FHA
has taken to respond to the findings by the GAO, as well as
steps taken to implement the recommendations of the GAO,
including: requiring HUD to monitor contractors' work at
prescribed time intervals; establishing new policies for
payments to contractors requiring proper documentation of the
cost of goods and competitive bids before the work is
performed; and pursuing recovery of amounts overpaid. Because
the Department currently contracts out the marketing and
managing of foreclosed properties to private contractors, the
report should also include an evaluation of the pros and cons
of moving disposition of single family properties back in
house. The report should evaluate the costs and quality of
services that could be provided by HUD employees versus
contractors.
The Committee also remains concerned over the FHA
foreclosure rate, which, according to the most recent KMPG
audit, increased by 31 percent last year. The Committee does
not believe that HUD is taking all necessary steps to help new
homeowners maintain homeownership. The Committee urges the
Department to make home inspections mandatory for all FHA-
insured properties in revitalization areas, and to mandate
homeownership counseling for homebuyers in revitalization
areas.
In addition, the Committee has not included the
administration proposed FHA Zero Downpayment program where all
fees and costs would be rolled into the mortgage as opposed to
the current requirement that a homebuyer provide a downpayment
equal to 3 percent of the mortgage principal. The Committee
believes that this proposal poses substantial financial risks
to the FHA Single Family Mortgage Insurance program by
assisting high-risk families in purchasing homes where the new
homeowners have no stake in these houses and obviously have no
financial cushion to pay for any big ticket costs such as a
failed furnace or leaky roof. From a historical perspective,
FHA was almost bankrupt in the late 1980s due to defaults from
housing families with high-loan-to-value-ratios. Not only did
this practice hurt the credit worthiness of these families but,
equally troubling, the large number of defaults helped to tip
marginal neighborhoods into becoming distressed areas where the
FHA foreclosures helped to drive down the value of other
housing in these neighborhoods.
More recently, The Fannie Mae Foundation issued a research
report, ``A Tale of Two Cities: Growing Affordability Problems
Amidst Rising Homeownership for Urban Minorities'' (June 23,
2004), that uses census data to examine homeownership and
affordability trends between 1990 and 2000 for urban
minorities. Among a number of findings, the number of African-
American homeowners rose by 16 percent between 1990 and 2000
while, at the same time, the number of African-American
homeowners who were paying more than half their income for
homeownership costs grew by 39 percent. Similarly,
homeownership by Latino families grew by 54 percent while there
was a 98 percent jump in the number of Latino homeowners with
affordability problems.
In addition, there should be concerns about the future
actuarial soundness of the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund
[MMIF]. While the MMIF currently is very well capitalized, an
IG audit of the FHA financial statements, dated November 25,
2003, states, in relevant part, that FHA defaults rose from
2.76 percent in fiscal year 1999 to 4.25 percent in fiscal year
2002. More importantly, loans made in 1999 through 2001
contributed to over 50 percent of the total defaults in fiscal
year 2002. In addition, claims rose 31 percent in fiscal year
2003 to over 85,000 claims, and FHA paid claims of
$5,500,000,000 in 2002 which rose to $7,800,000,000 in fiscal
year 2003.
Finally, FHA's share of the home purchase loan market fell
by 16.5 percent in 2003 after falling by 1.4 percent in 2002
and 1 percent in 2001. In contrast, overall purchase loan
originations by loan number went up in each of these years with
2003 being a record year for home sales. This and other data
suggest that there is growing deterioration in the credit-
quality of the FHA book of business; that FHA is essentially
pricing itself into underwriting the highest risk mortgages
while the more credit-worthy homebuyers are seeking their
financing elsewhere.
Government National Mortgage Association
GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2004:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
$200,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
10,695,000
Budget estimate, 2005:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
200,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
10,986,000
Committee recommendation:
Limitation on guaranteed loans
200,000,000,000
Administrative expenses
10,986,000
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 Rural Housing Service, 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 $10,986,000 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 $10,986,000 for administrative expenses, the
same as the budget request and an increase of $291,000 above
the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
Policy Development and Research
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $46,723,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 46,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 46,700,000
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 $46,700,000 for research and
technology activities in fiscal year 2004. This amount is
$23,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the
same as the budget request. Of this funding, $7,500,000 is for
the Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing [PATH]
program. Language is included to ensure the funding of existing
cooperative agreements in both fiscal years 2004 and 2005. 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, 2004.................................... $47,717,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 47,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 47,700,000
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 $47,700,000, of which
$27,000,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP]
and no more than $20,700,000 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.
The Committee understands that the Department includes as a
performance goal adding two new fair housing organizations per
year as FHIP grantees, despite a request for level funding of
the FHIP program. The Committee is concerned that this approach
could lead to a diversion of resources away from experienced
practitioners and existing services, and urges the Department
to make FHIP awards in a way that maximizes the quality and
quantity of fair housing services.
Office of Lead Hazard Control
LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $173,968,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 139,000,000
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 434,000
children have elevated blood levels, down from 1.7 million in
the late 1980's. Despite this improvement, lead poisoning
remains a serious childhood environmental condition, with some
2.2 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 2005.
This amount is $36,000,000 more than the budget request and
$1,032,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. Of
this amount, HUD may use up to $9,500,000 for the Healthy Homes
Initiative under which HUD conducts a number of activities
designed to identify and address housing-related illnesses.
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 identified by the Secretary
as having the highest number of pre-1940 units of rental
housing and a disproportionately high number of documented
cases of lead-poisoned children. At least 90 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. As a condition of assistance,
each applicant 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 fully
expects that this program will be administered in a manner
consistent with the guidelines and criteria used in the fiscal
year 2003 and 2004 funding cycles.
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 continue 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 concerned over health risks posed by
household mold, and encourages the Department to continue
initiatives within the Healthy Homes program for testing and
evaluating a range of strategies for preventing and controlling
moisture, mold and other housing related health hazards. The
Committee directs HUD to report to Congress by March 1, 2005
detailing lessons learned and the Department's strategy for
disseminating best practices using existing trades and delivery
systems to the maximum extent practical. The Committee further
directs HUD to take all necessary steps to ensure that moisture
problems are prevented in federally-assisted housing.
HUD's recent report, ``Mold and Moisture Problems in Native
American Housing on Tribal Lands: A Report to Congress'' found
that black mold can be found in nearly 15 percent of tribal
homes, and, as such, the report should include a discussion of
the unique needs of Native American housing, including
recommendations for legislation to assist tribes and tribally
designated housing entities in developing the capacity to
address mold problems, while partnering with Federal, State,
and local agencies and organizations. HUD is encouraged to
coordinate with the Department of Health and Human Services the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the
Interior, the Department of Homeland Security, the National
American Indian Housing Council, the United National Indian
Housing Association, and the National Congress of American
Indians on these recommendations.
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, 2004.............................................. 543,780 564,000 10,695 1,000 250 150 35 1,119,910
Budget estimate, 2005............................................. 591,579 576,000 10,986 ........ 250 150 35 1,179,000
Committee recommendation.......................................... 591,579 576,000 10,986 ........ 250 150 35 1,179,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $1,179,000,000
for salaries and expenses. This amount is $59,097,000 more than
the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the same as the budget
request. The appropriation includes the requested amount of
$576,000,000 transferred from various funds from the Federal
Housing Administration, $10,986,000 transferred from the
Government National Mortgage Association, $250,000 from the
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program, $150,000 from the
Native American Housing Block Grant, and $35,000 from the
Native Hawaiian Housing Program as well as $1,000,000 from the
Community Development Loan Guarantee program, which the
administration sought to eliminate.
The Committee remains very concerned over HUD's inability
to administer adequately many of its programs, despite
significant hiring in the past. This concern is especially
evident in the Office of Public and Indian Housing where that
office has been unable to review and respond to significant
issues regarding the correct payment standard in the Section 8
program for many areas of the Nation. This is creating a crisis
of confidence by the public in HUD's ability to administer its
very important programs that are often the foundation for the
decisionmaking of many communities as to housing and economic
redevelopment issues. 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.
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.
The Committee directs the Department to issue quarterly
reports on HUD travel to the Senate Committee on
Appropriations. These reports shall include a list of all HUD-
related trips, the names of all staff on each trip, and all
costs, including the individual costs of lodging, food,
transportation and any other costs.
Office of Inspector General
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug
FHA funds by elimination
Appropriation transfer grants Total
transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004............................ $76,547,000 $24,000,000 .............. $100,547,000
Budget estimate, 2005........................... 77,000,000 24,000,000 .............. 101,000,000
Committee recommendation........................ 83,500,000 24,000,000 .............. 107,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
$107,500,000 for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This
amount is $6,954,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level
and $6,500,000 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, 2004.................................... $233,617,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 234,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 234,000,000
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 $234,000,000 for the working
capital fund for fiscal year 2005. These funds are the same as
the budget request and $383,000 above the fiscal year 2004
level.
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $39,680,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 59,208,753
Committee recommendation................................ 59,208,753
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 $59,208,753 for the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is the same as the
budget request and $19,528,753 more than the fiscal year 2004
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. While the Committee
believes a new regulatory entity will be more effective than
OFHEO in providing financial oversight of these government-
sponsored entities [GSEs], the Committee is more concerned that
a lack of leadership and qualified staffing is at the heart of
OFHEO's inability to be an effective regulator. Since
responsibility must begin with leadership, the Committee is
holding back $10,000,000 until a new director is nominated and
confirmed.
Administrative Provisions
The Committee recommends 29 administrative provisions. A
brief description follows.
Sec. 201. Promotes the refinancing of certain housing
bonds.
Sec. 202. Clarifies a limitation on use of funds under the
Fair Housing Act.
Sec. 203. Clarifies the allocation of HOPWA funding for
fiscal year 2005.
Sec. 204. Clarifies housing issue in Michigan.
Sec. 205. Requires HUD to award funds on a competitive
basis unless otherwise provided.
Sec. 206. Allows funds to be used to reimburse GSEs and
other Federal entities for various administrative expenses.
Sec. 207. Limits HUD spending to amounts set out in the
budget justification.
Sec. 208. Clarifies expenditure authority for entities
subject to the Government Corporation Control Act.
Sec. 209. Requires HUD to submit certain additional
information as part of its annual budget justifications.
Sec. 210. Exempts Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi from the
requirement of having a PHA resident on the board of directors
for fiscal year 2005. 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. Requires quarterly reports on all uncommitted,
unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD programs.
Sec. 212. Requires HUD to maintain section 8 assistance on
HUD-held or owned multifamily housing.
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 certain
States.
Sec. 215. Clarifies insurance requirements for existing
health care facilities.
Sec. 216. Makes technical correction to the 1992 Housing
Act.
Sec. 217. Clarifies HUD's multifamily housing enforcement
authority.
Sec. 218. Clarifies HUD enforcement authority.
Sec. 219. Provides flexibility for ACA agreements.
Sec. 220. Technical correction for HUD mortgage insurance
authority.
Sec. 221. Limits FHA payment of refunds.
Sec. 222. Corrects funding problem for PATH initiative.
Sec. 223. Technical fix for Section 202 and Section 811
housing.
Sec. 224. Prohibition on using Federal housing funds for
political purposes.
Sec. 225. Reforms certain section 8 rent calculations.
Sec. 226. Provides allocation requirements for Native
Alaskans under the Native American Indian Housing Block Grant
program.
Sec. 227. Allows HUD to pay for the costs of HUD-owned and
HUD-held Section 202 and Section 811 housing.
Sec. 228. Allows public housing agencies in tight rental
markets to use up to 50 percent of their section 8 assistance
for project-based assistance.
TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $41,056,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 41,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 46,100,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The American Battle Monuments Commission [ABMC] is
responsible for the maintenance and construction of U.S.
monuments and memorials commemorating our Armed Forces where
they have served since April 1917 (the date of U.S. entry into
World War I); 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 25
monuments, memorials, and markers, in 15 countries around the
world, including three memorials on U.S. soil. It is presently
charged with erecting an Interpretive Center at the Normandy
American Cemetery, Normandy, France.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $46,100,000 for the American
Battle Monuments Commission. This amount is $5,000,000 above
the budget request and $5,044,000 above the fiscal year 2004
enacted level. Within this amount, the Committee has provided
the budget request of $9,100,000 to complete the Normandy
Interpretive Center.
The Committee has provided additional funds due to
unanticipated currency fluctuation between the U.S. dollar and
the euro. Due to a weakening U.S. dollar, the ABMC is
projecting a significant shortfall in funding to meet the
operating needs of its sites in Europe. The Committee is
troubled that the Administration has yet to submit a budget
amendment to address this deficiency. Further, the Committee
understands that the funding deficiency may be even higher
depending on the markets. Accordingly, the Committee directs
the Commission to improve its monitoring of its foreign
currency fluctuation account and include in its fiscal year
2006 budget justifications a complete analysis of the account
and its needs.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $8,648,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 9,016,000
Committee recommendation................................ 9,000,000
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 $9,000,000 for the Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board (Board) which is $352,000 more
than the fiscal year 2004 funding level and $16,000 less than
the fiscal year 2005 budget request. The Board's made an
independent budget request for fiscal year 2005 of $9,451,000
with an additional $400,000 for its Emergency Fund. Instead of
maintaining a separate Emergency Fund, $400,000 of the
$9,000,000 is reserved as an emergency fund for accident
investigations that have not been planned for by the Board in
its fiscal year 2995 budget plan.
The Committee directs the Board to submit a report to the
Committee by April 20, 2005 that identifies its working
relationship and responsibilities with regard to other Federal
agencies that have a responsibility to protect public health
and safety, including the Department of Homeland Security, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Transportation
Safety Board and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.
The Committee has again included bill language limiting the
number of career senior executive service positions to three
and bill language identifying the EPA Inspector General as the
Inspector General for the Board.
Department of the Treasury
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $60,640,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 48,403,000
Committee recommendation................................ 55,000,000
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 $55,000,000 for the CDFI Fund,
which is $5,640,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level
and $6,597,000 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 expects the BEA program to be funded at the fiscal
year 2004 level.
The Committee also recommends a set-aside of $4,000,000 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 2004 enacted level.
Consumer Product Safety Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $59,647,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 62,650,000
Committee recommendation................................ 62,650,000
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 $62,650,000 for the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, equal to the budget request and an
increase of $3,004,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted
level.
Corporation for National and Community Service
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $581,035,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 642,232,000
Committee recommendation................................ 590,061,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Corporation for National and Community Service, a
Corporation owned by the Federal Government, was established by
the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 (Public
Law 103-82) to enhance opportunities for national and community
service and provide national service 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 $590,061,000 for the Corporation
for National and Community Service, an increase of $9,034,000
over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and $52,171,000 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, 2004.................................... $549,969,000
Budget estimate, 2005 \1\............................... 636,232,000
Committee recommendation................................ 558,311,000
\1\ Includes $28,894,000 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 member living
allowances 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 $558,311,000 for the Corporation's
programs operating expenses. This appropriation provides
$291,933,000 for AmeriCorps State and National operating grants
(not including NCCC); $150,500,000 for the National Service
Trust; $43,000,000 for Learn and Serve; $26,000,000 for
AmeriCorps NCCC; $16,328,000 for subtitle H fund activities;
$12,000,000 for State administrative expenses; $3,550,000 for
audits and evaluations; $10,000,000 for the Points of Light
Foundation; and $5,000,000 for America's Promise.
AmeriCorps.--The Committee recommends $291,933,000 for
AmeriCorps grants, National Direct and State funds. This amount
is equal to the budget request and $20,214,000 below the fiscal
year 2004 enacted level. The Committee's recommended funding
level will support up to 75,000 new full-time equivalent
volunteers for the AmeriCorps program. Within the amount
provided for AmeriCorps grants, the Committee is providing
$55,000,000 for national direct grantees.
The Committee directs the Corporation to continue providing
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.
The Committee appreciates the Corporation's recent efforts
through rulemaking to address grantee reliance on Federal
funding and to develop a definition of sustainability. Reducing
grantee reliance on Federal funding or sustainability has been
a long-standing concern of the Committee and believes that a
sensible, flexible approach is needed. Specifically, the
Committee rejects a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach and believes
that in addressing this issue, the Corporation should use a
performance-based method so that well-performing organizations
are not unduly punished. Moreover, the Corporation should not
continue to reward poor performing grantees. Further, the
Committee is aware that some AmeriCorps grantees receive
substantial funding from multiple Federal sources. For example,
some grantees receive substantial funding from both the
Corporation and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The Corporation should be mindful of this fact
when addressing sustainability to ensure that there is a level
playing field of competition for worthy and new developing
organizations, such as those currently funded under the
Corporation's Next Generation program.
Given the fact that there are clearly not enough funds to
meet the current and future demands of the AmeriCorps program,
the Corporation must develop a fair and rationale set of rules
so that new organizations are allowed to compete and receive
funding. The Corporation should asses the possibility of having
certain programs ``graduate'' after a number of years. To keep
the Committee better informed of the recipients receiving
AmeriCorps funding, 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 from the
Corporation, delineated by program, and the amount and source
of both other Federal and non-Federal funds that received by
each recipient.
The Committee strongly 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. The Corporation should
consider this issue in considering grant applications.
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.
Under current law, an individual can serve as an AmeriCorps
volunteer in an approved national service program, earning
education awards and stipends, for a maximum of two terms of
service. A term of service may be full-time (1,700 hours over a
9-12 month period), part-time (900 hours over a period of up to
2 years), reduced half-time (675 hours of service), quarter-
time (450 hours of service), or minimum-time (350 hours of
service). The two term limitation applies whether a volunteer's
terms of service are full-time, part-time, or less than part-
time.
The Committee is aware of and sympathetic to concerns that
the two term of service limit prevents older American
volunteers from continuing to serve their communities for
longer than two terms, and reduces the availability of
volunteers for important community programs. The Committee,
therefore, directs the Corporation to report by December 31,
2004, on the impacts of this policy on volunteer programs for
older Americans. The Corporation should seek input from
organizations and communities that utilize older American
volunteers, such as Experience Corps. The Corporation's report
should include findings on how the two term of service limit
affects both older American volunteers and the communities in
which they serve. The report should also include
recommendations for any legislative changes that might be
warranted to ensure that communities can continue to harvest,
to the maximum extent possible, the skills and talents of older
Americans who want to volunteer.
National Service Trust.--The Committee recommends
$150,500,000 for the National Service Trust, of which
$4,000,000 is to support national service scholarships
(``President's Freedom Scholarships'') for high school students
and of which $13,315,000 is for the Trust's reserve fund, as
established under the Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act of
2003. This level is $9,800,000 below the budget request because
the Committee did not agree to fund the proposed new Silver
Scholarships program. This program is duplicative of the
Corporation's Senior Corps activities funded under the Labor-
HHS appropriations bill and in an era of budget constraints,
the Committee does not feel that this new program is warranted.
Subtitle H.--The Committee recommends $16,328,000 for
innovation, demonstration, and assistance activities funded
under subtitle H of the National and Community Service Act.
Within this amount, the Committee recommends $6,000,000 for
challenge grants; $2,000,000 for next generation grants;
$600,000 for Martin Luther King Jr. Day grants; $725,000 for
Service Learning Clearinghouse and Exchange; $120,000 for
unified State plans; $2,000,000 for training and technical
assistance; and $4,883,000 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 remains strongly committed to the challenge
grants program due to its success in leveraging private
matching funds. In fiscal year 2003, the Corporation received
52 applicants requesting $31,000,000 out of an available pool
of $6,000,000. Thirty-one of the applicants were new to the
Corporation. The Committee directs the Corporation to comply
with the challenge grant funding requirements established under
the conference report accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution, 2003.
AmeriCorps NCCC.--The Committee recommends $26,000,000 for
the AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps [NCCC]. This
amount is $1,147,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level
and $1,027,000 below the budget request. Due to budget
constraints, the Committee was unable to fund fully the
Administration's full budget request for NCCC's capital
improvements. However, the additional funds provided by the
Committee should be used as a downpayment that will allow the
Corporation to begin addressing its NCCC capital needs in
fiscal year 2005. The Committee is also concerned about the
current geographic distribution of its existing campuses due to
the lack of a NCCC presence in the Midwest part of the country.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Corporation to re-
examine the location of its current campuses and develop a plan
that would improve the NCCC's ability to meet the Nation's
disaster and public safety needs. This report should be
submitted to the Committee by no later than March 1, 2005.
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 2004.
State Administration.--The Committee recommends $12,000,000
for State commission administrative expenses. This is the same
funding level as provided in fiscal year 2004. 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
$3,550,000 for audits and evaluations. Of the funds provided
for audits and evaluations, the Committee has provided the
budget requested amounts of $1,200,000 for national performance
measures; $1,000,000 for a longitudinal study of AmeriCorps
volunteers; $100,000 for the Corporation's national partners;
$150,000 for data archives; $150,000 for indicator archives;
and $450,000 for a capacity study. In addition, the Committee
has allocated an additional $500,000 for a contract initiated
in fiscal year 2004 with the National Academy of Public
Administration [NAPA] to conduct a comprehensive review of the
leadership, operations and management of the Corporation.
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, 2004.................................... $24,853,000
Budget estimate, 2005 \1\...............................................
Committee recommendation................................ 25,500,000
\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 $25,500,000
for the Corporation's 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. Under this account, the Committee has
provided $18,350,000 for salaries and benefits, $650,000 for
travel, $2,700,000 for technology, $2,000,000 for other
administrative expenses (rent, supplies, equipment, etc.), and
$1,800,000 for the Office of Chief Financial Officer for
purposes of addressing the Corporation's management problems,
especially grantee management and monitoring. The Committee has
provided additional funds for salaries and benefits to fund
expected pay parity requirements. The Committee's
recommendation does not include the additional $2,247,000
requested for various public affairs activities.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $6,213,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,250,000
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 $6,250,000 for
the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This amount is $250,000
above the budget request and $37,000 above the fiscal year 2004
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, given the substantial
growth in AmeriCorps program funding.
The Committee directs the OIG to continue reviewing the
Corporation's management of the National Service Trust fund.
The Committee directs the OIG to review the monthly Trust
reports and to notify the Committees on Appropriations on the
accuracy of the reports.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
The Committee has included four administrative provisions
carried in prior year appropriations acts.
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $15,844,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 17,623,000
Committee recommendation................................ 17,623,000
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 $17,623,000
for the Court of Appeals for Veterans claims, an increase of
$1,779,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $28,829,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 29,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 29,600,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Secretary of the Army is responsible for the
administration, operation and maintenance of Arlington National
Cemetery and the Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery.
At the close of fiscal year 2003, the remains of 302,054
persons were interred/inurned in these cemeteries. There were
3,903 interments and 2,342 inurnments in fiscal year 2003. It
is projected that there will be 3,925 interments and 2,775
inurnments in fiscal year 2004. In addition to its principal
function as a national cemetery, Arlington is the site of
approximately 3,100 nonfuneral ceremonies each year and has
approximately 4 million visitors annually.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $29,600,000 for the Army's
cemeterial expenses. This amount is equal to the budget request
and $771,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The
Committee has provided these 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, 2004.................................... $78,310,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 80,486,000
Committee recommendation................................ 80,486,000
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 $80,486,000 for the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, [NIEHS] which is
the same as the budget request and $2,176,000 above the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level.
The Committee directs the NIEHS to submit a report to the
Committee by April 20, 2005 that identifies its working
relationship and responsibilities with regard to other Federal
agencies that have a responsibility to protect public health
and safety, including the Department of Homeland Security, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Transportation
Safety Board, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $73,034,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 76,654,000
Committee recommendation................................ 76,654,000
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 $76,654,000 for the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR], which is the
same as the budget request and $3,620,000 above the fiscal year
2004 enacted level. The ATSDR is directed to continue to assess
the level of lead poisoning of families, especially children,
at the Tar Creek Superfund site in Oklahoma and at Herculaneum,
Missouri.
Environmental Protection Agency
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $8,365,420,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 7,759,244,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,500,408,000
PROGRAM 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
and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 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.
Brownfields.--The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended by the Small
Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of
2002 establishes a national program to assess, cleanup, and
provide support to States, Tribes, local communities and other
stakeholders to work together to reuse Brownfields.
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 $8,500,408,000 for EPA.
This is an increase of $711,163,000 above the budget request
and an increase of $134,591,000 above the fiscal year 2004
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; (2) for the ``State and Tribal
Assistance Grants'' account, reprogramming of performance
partnership grant funds is exempt from this limitation; and (3)
for the ``State and Tribal Assistance Grants'' account,
movement between wastewater and drinking water objectives for
the STAG special project funds is exempt from the reprogramming
limitation.
Each year approximately one-half of the EPA annual budget
is distributed in grants and cooperative agreements to
recipients to implement the program office's objectives. The
Committee is aware of EPA's steps to institute a policy to
mandate formal competition and policy to require measurable
environmental outcomes from those grants along with increased
personnel and recipient oversight. The Committee recommends
consistent reporting on the progress of those reforms to both
the authorizing and appropriations committees, requiring all
grants recipients to articulate environmental outcomes from
projects before receiving grant funding, and increased
attention by the highest levels of administration within EPA
and its program offices to establish a consistent and
transparent system of awarding and monitoring grants.
The Committee directs EPA to round all programs to the
nearest thousand dollar and requests that the budget submission
for fiscal year 2006 propose funding at no less than the
nearest thousand dollar.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $781,684,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 689,185,000
Committee recommendation................................ 758,179,000
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 $758,179,000 for science and
technology, $68,994,000 above the budget request and
$23,505,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. In
addition, the Committee recommends the transfer of $36,097,000
from the Superfund account, for a total of $794,276,000 for
science and technology.
The Committee recommends the transfer of $36,097,000 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:
$9,000,000 for the Clean Air Allowance Trading program,
which is $4,367,000 above the 2004 level;
$63,000,000 for Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and
Certification, which is $5,125,000 above the 2004
level;
$2,265,000 for the Registration of New Pesticides, which
is equal to the 2004 level;
$2,370,000 for the Review and Re-registration of Existing
Pesticides, which is equal to the 2004 level;
$17,000,000 for Air Toxics, which is $148,000 above the
2004 level;
$10,000,000 for Endocrine Disruptor, which is $1,956,000
above the budget request;
$170,000,000 for Human Health and Ecosystems, which is
$7,408,000 below the budget request;
$9,000,000 for Land Protection and Restoration, which is
$158,000 above the budget request;
$62,000,000 for Particulate Matter, which is $3,356,000
above the 2004 level;
$4,000,000 for Troposphere Ozone, which is $901,000 below
the budget request;
$11,805,000 for Computational Toxicology, which is equal
to the 2004 level;
$8,000,000 for Fellowships, which is $1,599,000 above the
2004 level;
$20,000,000 for Global Change, which is $690,000 below
the budget request;
$10,000,000 for innovative approaches to the removal/
reduction of arsenic in water systems.
The Committee has not provided funding for the following
programs in this account: Radon/Indoor Air program; the Schools
and Workplace/Indoor Air program; and, the TRI/Right to Know
program.
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;
$500,000 for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology
Research;
$500,000 for the New England Green Chemistry Consortium;
$500,000 for Utah State University to continue monitoring
and assessment activities related to freshwater
ecosystems;
$2,100,000 for the Mine Waste Technology program at the
National Environmental Waste Technology, Testing, and
Evaluation Center;
$400,000 to enhance and improve EPA's Tribal Portal
program, and to implement this program on a nationwide
basis;
$750,000 for the Environmental Lung Disease Center at the
National Jewish Medical Center;
$500,000 for the University of Maine-Orono to develop
Source Water Warning and Analysis Technology;
$1,500,000 for Boise State University to continue
research on multi-purpose sensors to detect and analyze
contaminants and time-lapse imaging of shallow
subsurface fluid flow;
$500,000 for the North Carolina State University
Turfgrass Research Center;
$2,000,000 for the National Environmental Respiratory
Center at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute
in New Mexico;
$1,000,000 for the Desert Research Institute for western
Nevada regionally-based clean water activities;
$1,000,000 for the University of Tennessee at Knoxville
Natural Resources Policy Center;
$1,000,000 for the University of Louisville/Illinois
Waste Management and Research Center;
$750,000 for the Integrated Petroleum Environmental
Consortium [IPEC];
$1,000,000 for the water and wastewater training program
at the Alabama Department of Environmental Management;
$1,000,000 for the Center for Estuarine Research at the
University of South Alabama;
$425,000 for the Connecticut River Airshed-Watershed
Consortium;
$425,000 for the Center for the Study of Metals in the
Environment;
$900,000 for the Center for Air Toxic Metals at the
Energy and Environmental Research Center;
$700,000 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;
$200,000 for acid rain research at the University of
Vermont;
$200,000 for the University of Vermont's Proctor Maple
Research Center to continue mercury deposition
monitoring effects;
$500,000 for the University of Vermont's Aiken Center
Greening Initiative;
$700,000 for Families in Search of the Truth to
investigate the incidence of cancer in Fallon, Nevada;
$700,000 for the demonstration of an integrated approach
to perchlorate remediation and treatment in the City of
Rialto, California;
$700,000 for Southeastern Louisiana University for the
Turtle Cove research station;
$200,000 for the State of New Jersey's Smart Growth
Initiative;
$200,000 for ecology research at Fordham University;
$200,000 for expansion of the Roots and Shoots program
headquartered at Western Connecticut State University;
$200,000 for water resource modeling at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln;
$1,500,000 for the Healy Zero Air Emission Tecnology;
$1,000,000 the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in
St. Louis, Missouri for a Parasitic Nematodes Controls
research project designed to reduce pesticide use; and
$1,000,000 to the Missouri Pork Producers Federation for
development of technology and creation of Innoventor
process to decrease environmental impacts of animal
waste by conversion into energy sources.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $2,280,046,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 2,316,958,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,310,263,000
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 $2,310,263,000 for environmental
programs and management, $6,695,000 below the budget request
and $30,217,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
The Committee supports the EPA Brownfields program at
approximately the fiscal year 2004 enacted level of $25,000,000
within this account. The Committee notes that the inclusion of
these funds in conjunction with funding of $140,000,000 in the
State and Tribal Assistance Grants account for Brownfields
activities results in a total of $165,000,000 being available
in fiscal year 2005.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request:
$937,000 for Alternative Dispute Resolution, which is
equal to the 2004 level;
$90,849,000 for the Climate Protection program, which is
equal to the 2004 level; and includes $50,300,000 for
the Energy Star program;
$3,881,000 for the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation, which is equal to the 2004 level;
$37,000,000 for Compliance Assistance and Centers, which
is $9,241,000 above the budget request;
$9,035,000 for Compliance Incentives, which is equal to
the 2004 level;
$46,415,000 for Congressional, Intergovernmental, and
External Relations, which is equal to the 2004 level;
$54,450,000 for Criminal Enforcement, which is
$23,080,000 above the budget request;
$5,000,000 for Enforcement Targeting;
$95,000,000 for Drinking Water programs, which is
$1,814,000 above the 2004 level;
$6,000,000 for Enforcement Training, which is $2,698,000
above the budget request;
$1,616,000 for Environment and Trade, which is equal to
the 2004 level;
$5,000,000 for Environmental Education, which is
$5,000,000 above the budget request;
$23,000,000 for the Exchange Network, which is $1,199,000
above the 2004 level;
$309,000,000 for Facilities Infrastructure and
Operations, which is $1,965,000 above the 2004 level;
$21,994,000 for Federal Stationary Source Regulations,
which is equal to the 2004 level;
$90,000,000 for Federal Support for Air Quality
Management, which is $3,369,000 above the 2004 level;
$19,500,000 for the Great Lakes program, which is
$663,000 above the 2004 level;
$6,069,000 for other Geographic programs, which is equal
to the 2004 level;
$25,000,000 for the Great Lakes Legacy Act, which is
$15,059,000 above the 2004 level;
$39,109,000 for Human Resources Management, which is
equal to the 2004 level;
$9,999,000 for Asthma program, which is equal to the 2004
level;
$3,030,000 for Environment Tobacco Smoke program, which
is equal to the 2004 level;
$5,073,000 for the Radon program, which is equal to the
2004 level;
$9,425,000 for the Schools and Workplace program, which
is equal to the 2004 level;
$5,500,000 for International Capacity Building, which is
$804,000 below the 2004 level;
$105,000,000 for IT/Data Management, which is $1,923,000
above the 2004 level;
$34,404,000 for the Legal Advice Environmental program,
which is equal to the 2004 level;
$12,370,000 for the Legal Advice Support program, which
is equal to the 2004 level;
$11,779,000 for Marine Pollution, which is equal to the
2004 level;
$20,000,000 for the National Estuary program, which is
$771,000 above the budget request;
$12,136,000 for NEPA Implementation, which is equal to
the 2004 level;
$25,217,000 for Pesticides Field programs, which is equal
to the 2004 level;
$40,773,000 for Registration of New Pesticides, which is
equal to the 2004 level;
$51,714,000 for the Review and Re-registration of
Existing Pesticides, which is equal to the 2004 level;
$16,822,000 for Pollution Prevention, which is equal to
the 2004 level;
$2,147,000 for POPs Implementation, which is equal to the
2004 level;
$11,285,000 for Radiation/Protection, which is equal to
the 2004 level;
$2,188,000 for Radiation/Response Preparedness, which is
equal to the 2004 level;
$40,000,000 for RCRA/Corrective Action, which is $929,000
above the 2004 level;
$67,000,000 for RCRA/Waste Management, which is $103,000
above the 2004 level;
$12,000,000 for RCRA/Waste Minimization and Recycling,
which is $1,172,000 above the 2004 level;
$7,500,000 for Regional Geographic Initiatives, which is
$1,287,000 below the 2004 level;
$3,368,000 for Regional Science and Technology, which is
equal to the 2004 level;
$17,338,000 for Regulatory Innovation, which is equal to
the 2004 level;
$17,934,000 for Regulatory/Economic Management and
Analysis, which is equal to the 2004 level;
$4,396,000 for the Science Advisory Board, which is equal
to the 2004 level;
$1,651,000 for Science Policy and Biotechnology, which is
equal to the 2004 level;
$3,742,000 for the Small Business Ombudsman, which is
equal to the 2004 level;
$5,000,000 for Stratospheric Ozone/Domestic programs,
which is $748,000 below the 2004 level;
$10,000,000 for the Stratospheric Ozone/Multilateral
Fund, which is $935,000 below the 2004 level;
$185,000,000 for Surface Water Protection, which is
$778,000 above the 2004 level;
$9,252,000 for Chemical Risk Management, which is equal
to the 2004 level;
$44,454,000 for Chemical Risk Review and Reduction, which
is equal to the 2004 level; and
$14,670,000 for the TRI/Right to Know program, which is
equal to the 2004 level.
In addition, the Committee recommends the following
increases to the budget request:
$9,000,000 for the National Rural Water Association;
$3,500,000 for the Rural Community Assistance program;
$650,000 for the Ground Water Protection Council;
$750,000 for the Water Systems Council;
$2,000,000 for the Source Water Protection program;
$5,000,000 for America's Clean Water Foundation;
$200,000 for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management [NESCAUM];
$200,000 for the Northeast Waste Management Officials
Association [NEWMOA];
$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 City of Boulder's Sustainability Center;
$300,000 for the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas
Environmental Regulations [STRONGER] program;
$200,000 for the Utah Watershed Coordinator's Council;
$250,000 for an air monitoring project undertaken by the
Louisville/Jefferson County Metro government;
$600,000 for the University of Southern Mississippi's
Gulf of Mexico program to evaluate bacterial source
tracking in three Gulf Coast watersheds;
$350,000 for the Greater Houston Partnership/Houston
Advanced Research Center for an air quality study;
$400,000 to the Baylor University for a Lake Whitney
comprehensive assessment;
$1,500,000 for the Rathdrum Prairie/Spokane Valley
Aquifer study with matching funds to be provided by the
State of Idaho and Washington;
$300,000 for the Selenium Information System project at
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory;
$2,500,000 for the Southwest Center for Environmental
Research and Policy;
$500,000 for the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement
program;
$1,000,000 for the City of Maryville, Tennessee to
implement an environmental protection and education
project;
$250,000 for the Center for Environmental Citizenship at
Luther College in Decorah, Iowa;
$250,000 for a comprehensive storm and irrigation-water
management initiative for Orem, Utah;
$5,000,000 for the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality for ongoing surface water treatment and general
environmental remediation in collaboration with other
involved state and Federal entities of the effects of
mine-waste tailings in the Tar Creek and Spring Creek
watersheds and area in Ottawa County, Oklahoma;
$500,000 for the U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental
Protection program at the University of Arizona;
$600,000 for the Western Kentucky University Center for
Wastewater Research;
$400,000 for the Green River Biological Diversity
Monitoring project at Western Kentucky University;
$300,000 for Auburn University to develop a Mobile Delta
Initiative;
$750,000 for the City of Wilsonville, Oregon to develop
an innovative rainwater management system;
$500,000 for the Ozarks Environmental and Water Resources
Institute at Southwest Missouri State University;
$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 will result in a total of
$22,817,000 available in fiscal year 2005 for the
Chesapeake Bay program, which is $82,000 above the
fiscal year 2004 level;
$2,500,000 for the Lake Champlain Basin program, which is
an increase of $1,540,000 above the budget request and
$60,000 above the 2004 level;
$2,300,000 for the Long Island Sound program, which is an
increase of $1,823,000 above the budget request and
$56,000 above the 2004 level;
$750,000 for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation for
Lake Pontchartrain water quality improvement;
$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;
$750,000 for the City of Waukesha, Wisconsin, for a
radium removal research and study project;
$250,000 for the Northwest Straits Commission for
Washington State University's beach watchers program;
$500,000 for the Columbia Basin Groundwater Management
Area;
$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;
$250,000 for the Friends of Old Maui School and Community
Work Day in Hawaii for environmental assessments;
$350,000 for the County of Hawaii for the Honomolino
Irrigation Cooperative surface and ground water
project;
$250,000 for the Hawaii Nature Center East Kauai
watershed improvement initiative;
$500,000 for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California for a study of the effectiveness of
biological treatment for the removal of perchlorate
from groundwater;
$250,000 for the Fresno County Council of Governments in
California for a non-point source water quality
management program;
$500,000 for the Storm Lake, Iowa, water quality project;
$250,000 for the Iowa Stormwater Runoff Council for the
development and implementation of improved urban
stormwater control practices;
$300,000 for the Vermont Department of Agriculture
Steven's Brook watershed project;
$250,000 for the City of Warwick, Rhode Island, for
design and engineering of the Potowomut wastewater
collection system;
$400,000 for the City of Las Vegas, New Mexico, for a
mechanical biological treatment initiative;
$750,000 for the University of West Florida's PERCH
program;
$400,000 for the County of Ventura, California, Calleguas
Creek Watershed Management Plan;
$400,000 for a storm water research initiative at the
University of Vermont;
$700,000 for Plimoth Plantation in Plymouth,
Massachusetts, for environmental education initiatives;
$400,000 for the City of Norwalk, Connecticut, for the
FILTER project to prevent runoff into the Long Island
Sound;
$500,000 for the State of Nevada to replace or retrofit
school buses to lower emissions;
$250,000 for Chautauqua County, New York, for a sewerage
mapping project;
$400,000 for the Right Place in Grand Rapids, Michigan,
for the West Michigan Regional Sustainable
Manufacturing Initiative;
$400,000 for Deschutes County, Oregon, for the Upper
Deschutes River water quality and monitoring program;
$200,000 for pollution prevention of Wreck Pond and
nearby beaches in Spring Lake, New Jersey;
$200,000 for the City of Vineland, New Jersey, for the
demonstration of an environmentally sound disabled
vehicle removal pilot project;
$400,000 for the King County, Washington, molten fuel
cell demonstration project;
$200,000 for the North Carolina Rural Economic
Development Center for a statewide water and wastewater
assessment;
$750,000 for continued research and watershed activities
at the Kenai River Center in Kenai, Alaska;
$375,000 for regional haze monitoring in the State of
Alaska;
$2,000,000 for an air quality initiative in Fairbanks,
Alaska;
$1,500,000 to the Environmental Resources Coalition for
the Southwest Missouri Water Resources Assessment
Project; and
$1,000,000 for the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources for the Low Sulfur Coal Emissions Reduction
Pilot Project.
The Committee directs the agency to provide the full budget
request within available funds for the High Production Volume
Chemical Challenge program, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening
program, and the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation
program.
The Committee also directed EPA in fiscal year 2004 to
provide equal access to the benefits of the Energy Star Labeled
Homes program to all sectors of the affordable housing
industry, and to especially work with the manufactured housing
industry on ways for manufactured housing to avail itself of
the Energy Star Labeled Homes program. The Committee directs
EPA to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on these effects by January 31, 2005.
Unclear regulations, conflicting court decisions and
inadequate scientific information are creating confusion over
whether reporting requirements in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act cover air
emissions, including ammonia, from poultry, dairy or livestock
operations. Producers want to meet their environmental
obligations and protect air quality but need clear guidance to
do so. This spring, several Members of Congress wrote to EPA
requesting EPA produce straightforward, clear and enforceable
standards in this area. Specific questions for resolution
included: what is a facility? when has a reportable quantity
been released? is poultry production or other livestock or
dairy operation a routine agricultural operation? To date, EPA
has not responded substantively to this request. The Committee
directs EPA to resolve this issue promptly.
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 March 15, 2005, with
a plan to reduce case backlogs and ensure adequate resource and
staffing levels.
In addition, a recent report by the EPA IG as well as an
internal EPA Enforcement Management Review and numerous press
accounts document the dual challenges faced by the Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance program to perform its traditional
mission of criminal enforcement of environmental violations and
new post-9/11 homeland security duties. Criminal violations of
environmental statutes and regulations represent the most
egregious offenses against the environment and human health.
Similarly, defense of the homeland is the Nation's highest
priority.
To that end, the Committee has included $54,450,000 in
funds for Criminal Enforcement and directs EPA to increase and
maintain the number of special agents assigned to the Criminal
Enforcement program as necessary to ensure that the total
number of special agents assigned to the program is at least
330 by September 30, 2005. The Committee expects that at least
80 special agents are assigned to homeland security and
protective service duties with the appropriate level of support
staff. In achieving the increased staffing levels for the
Criminal Enforcement program and to assure quality and cost-
effectiveness of hires, EPA is encouraged to utilize the
programs, policies, and procedures adopted by the OECA Human
Resources Council, including the use of student trainee
programs.
The Committee directs EPA to participate fully in joint
homeland security efforts with DHS, DOJ and the FBI, with DHS
as lead agency. While investigation of environmental crimes
remains the EPA's core criminal enforcement mission and the
Committee has provided additional special agents for those
environmental functions, homeland security needs should receive
no less attention from EPA. EPA is directed to give deference
to requests for EPA personnel by justice and security related
agencies for homeland security activities. EPA is directed to
notify the Committee upon a finding that the 80 EPA special
agents dedicated to homeland security are insufficient to meet
the Nation's needs or where the EPA is considering reducing
these security personnel.
The Committee also has included $6,000,000 under
Enforcement Training to increase training for Federal, State
and local lawyers, inspectors, civil and criminal investigators
and technical experts in the enforcement of environmental laws.
The Committee has included $37,000,000 for the Compliance
Assistance and Centers to provide information and technical
assistance to help individuals and entities know and understand
their environmental obligations. The sheer volume and
complexity of environmental regulations and requirements
continues to overwhelm the regulated community, especially new,
unsophisticated or small businesses. Finally, the Committee has
included $5,000,000 for Enforcement Targeting for EPA to expand
its ability to track and analyze environmental violations and
respond by strategically targeting enforcement and compliance
assurance resources to address problems of particular risk to
human health or threats to sensitive geographic areas. Since
enforcement remains a high priority, EPA should not pay for
these activities from other programs within the Enforcement
Program area.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $37,336,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 37,997,000
Committee recommendation................................ 38,000,000
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. The IG also holds the position of Inspector General
for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
Trust fund resources are transferred to this account
directly from the Hazardous Substance Superfund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $38,000,000 for the Office of
Inspector General, which is $3,000 above the budget request and
$664,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level. In addition,
$13,139,000 will be available by transfer from the Superfund
account, for a total of $51,139,000. The trust fund resources
will be transferred to the inspector general ``General fund''
account with an expenditure transfer.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $39,764,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 42,918,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,000,000
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 $40,000,000 for buildings and
facilities, $236,000 above the fiscal year 2004 level and
$2,918,000 below the budget request.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $1,257,537,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 1,381,416,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,381,416,000
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 $1,381,416,000 for Superfund,
$123,879,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level and the
same as the budget request. Of these funds, $998,931,000 is for
Superfund response and cleanup activities; $146,526,000 is for
enforcement activities; $148,850,000 for management and
support; $13,139,000 for transfer to the Office of the
Inspector General; $36,097,000 for transfer to the Science and
Technology account for research and development activities; and
up to $36,490,742 for reimbursable interagency activities.
Changes to these funding levels shall be made pursuant to
normal reprogramming requirements.
The Committee remains concerns that the EPA has not done
enough to ensure that funds are used efficiently with regard to
its Superfund response and clean-up activities. These
activities remain a priority and the Committee urges EPA to
implement consistent standards and requirements at all
superfund sites.
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $75,551,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 72,545,000
Committee recommendation................................ 70,000,000
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 $70,000,000
for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, a
reduction of $5,551,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted
level and $2,545,000 below the budget request. The Committee
directs that not less than 85 percent of these funds be
provided to the States and tribal governments.
OIL SPILL RESPONSE
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $16,113,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 16,425,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,000,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1987 and amended by the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, provides funds 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 Oil Spill
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 $16,000,000 for the oil spill
response trust fund, $425,000 below the budget request and
$113,000 below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $3,877,387,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 3,231,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,886,550,000
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; Alaska Aboveground Storage Tanks; and
Brownfield State and Tribal Response program grants authorized
by CERCLA section 128(a).
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)
wastewater operator training grants; (10) public water system
supervision; (11) underground injection control; (12) drinking
water program State homeland security coordination grants; (13)
hazardous waste financial assistance; (14) Brownfields
activities authorized by CERCLA section 104(k); (15)
underground storage tanks; (16) pesticides program
implementation; (17) lead grants; (18) toxic substances
compliance; (19) pesticides enforcement; (20) the Environmental
Information Exchange Network; (21) pollution prevention; (22)
sector program; and (23) 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 $3,886,550,000
for State and Tribal Assistance Grants, an increase of
$654,750,000 above the budget request and $8,765,000 above the
fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
Bill language specifically provides funding levels for the
following programs in this account:
$1,350,000,000 for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan
Fund, which is the same as the 2004 level and an
increase of $500,000,000 above the budget request;
$850,000,000 for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan
Fund, which is equal to the 2004 level and the budget
request;
$50,000,000 for the United States-Mexico Border program,
which is equal to the budget request, and includes
$7,000,000 for the El Paso Public Utilities Board and
$2,000,000 for the City of Brownsville water supply
project;
$50,000,000 for grants to address drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure needs in rural and native
Alaskan communities;
$30,000,000 for competitive grants for planning, design,
engineering, and infrastructure improvements or
construction in order for drinking water facilities in
rural areas to meet the new EPA arsenic requirements;
$4,000,000 for remediation of above ground leaking fuel
tanks in Alaska as authorized by Public Law 106-554;
and
$90,000,000 for Brownfields infrastructure projects.
Within the State and Tribal Categorical Grant program, the
Committee recommends the following changes to the budget
request:
(1) $50,000,000 for Brownfields grants;
(2) $20,000,000 for Environmental Information;
(3) $215,000,000 for Non-point Source (Sec. 319) grants;
(4) $210,000,000 for Pollution Control (Sec. 106) grants;
(5) $5,000,000 for Pollution Prevention;
(6) $102,500,000 for Public Water System Supervision
grants;
(7) $7,000,000 for Radon grants;
(8) $20,000,000 for making competitive Targeted
Watersheds grants. Within these funds, $10,000,000 is
for a regional pilot program for the Chesapeake Bay
that shall demonstrate effective non-point source
nutrient reduction approaches that target small
watersheds and accelerate nutrient reduction in
innovative, sustainable, and cost-effective ways.
Partners in the effort to protect the Bay include
Maryland; Pennsylvania; Virginia; the District of
Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state
legislative body; EPA, which represents the Federal
Government; and, participating citizen advisory groups;
(9) $9,000,000 for Underground Injection Control grants;
(10) $13,000,000 for Underground Storage Tanks;
(11) $17,000,000 for Water Quality Cooperative
Agreements;
(12) $15,000,000 for Wetlands Program Development; and
(13) $11,000,000 for Tribal Air Quality Management.
The Committee has not included funding for the following
administration requests in this account: a special grant for
drinking water improvements in Puerto Rico; the Clean School
Bus Initiative; and, the State and Tribal Performance Fund.
The Committee includes $117,000,000 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. The targeted project
grants are as follows:
$800,000 to the Coosa Valley Water Supply District for
development of a surface water supply in St. Clair County,
Alabama;
$750,000 to the Utilities Board of the City of Helena for
water and sewer upgrades and construction in Helena, Alabama;
$600,000 to the Cleburne County Commission in Heflin,
Alabama for county water expansion in Cleburne, County,
Alabama;
$600,000 to the Randolph County Commission in Wedowee,
Alabama for county water expansion in Randolph County, Alabama;
$450,000 to the Blount County Water Authority in Oneonta,
Alabama for development of a county water supply line;
$750,000 to the City of Fort Payne for water and sewer
improvements in Fort Payne, Alabama;
$250,000 to the West Morgan/East Lawrence Water and Sewer
Authority in Decatur, Alabama for water and sewer improvements;
$300,000 to the Lamar County Commission in Vernon, Alabama
for the Lamar County Water Supply Project;
$1,000,000 to Girdwood, Inc. for water and sewer expansion
in Girdwood, Alaska;
$1,300,000 to the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska for
Sand Lake Water Extension;
$300,000 for Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska for water
wells for Gorsuch Lake;
$1,100,000 for the City of Wasilla, Alaska for sewer
expansion;
$750,000 for the City of Valdez, Alaska to replace septic
systems with sewers and wells with city water;
$400,000 for the City of Ketchikan, Alaska for Mountain
Point Sewer System;
$250,000 for the City of Skagway, Alaska for water system
upgrades;
$425,000 for the City of Wrangell, Alaska for water and
sewer upgrades;
$800,000 for the City of Nome, Alaska for water and sewer
upgrades for Old Federal Building;
$600,000 for the City of Seldovia, Alaska for water and
sewer upgrades;
$600,000 for the Fort Chafee Redevelopment Authority in
Barling/Fort Smith, Arkansas for water infrastructure
improvements;
$250,000 for City of Fayetteville, Arkansas for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$300,000 for the Santa Clara Valley Water District,
California for perchlorate groundwater clean-up;
$300,000 for the Inland Empire Perchlorate Task Force in
California for the Wellhead Treatment of Perchlorate
Contaminated Wells;
$400,000 for the City Santa Ana, California for East and
West Reservoir Upgrades;
$500,000 for the City of San Jose, California for North San
Pedro water and sewer infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for the City of Eureka, California for the Martin
Slough Interceptor Project;
$200,000 for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California for the City of Ontario Final Design for Wellhead
Treatment for Perchlorate and Nitrate;
$400,000 for the City of Laguna Beach for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$700,000 for the City of Ouray, Colorado for water
infrastructure improvement;
$300,000 for the City of Trinidad, Colorado for the
Trinidad Wastewater Improvement Project;
$250,000 for the Town of Bayfield, Colorado for the
construction of a water storage tank;
$250,000 for the Mancos Water Conservancy District, Mancos,
Colorado for water supply facility renovation;
$250,000 for the Town of Idaho Springs, Colorado for water
distribution facility renovation;
$250,000 for the Town of Eldorado Springs, Colorado for
improving wastewater treatment;
$250,000 for the Town of Ouray, Colorado for water
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for Jefferson County, Colorado for stormwater
collection system improvements;
$300,000 for the City of Bristol, Connecticut for water
infrastructure improvements;
$300,000 for the Town of East Hampton, Connecticut for
drinking water infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for Stamford, Connecticut for a waste-to-energy
project;
$250,000 for the City of Wilmington, Delaware for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for the Town of Ocean View, Delaware for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
$300,000 for Key West, Florida for stormwater
infrastructure improvements;
$300,000 for South Florida Management District for water
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for the Southwest Florida Water Management
District in Tampa, Florida for the Tampa Bay Regional Reclaimed
Water project;
$250,000 to City of Atlanta, Georgia for the west area
combined sewer project;
$250,000 to City of Eatonton, Georgia for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 to City of Forsyth, Georgia for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for the State of Hawaii for upgrade and expansion
of the Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant;
$1,000,000 for the County of Maui, Hawaii for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$2,000,000 for the City of Burley, Idaho, to continue work
on a Wastewater Treatment System Project;
$1,000,000 for the City of Pocatello, Idaho, for Day Street
Division Water System Improvements;
$500,000 for the City of Effingham, Illinois for drinking
water infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for the City of Monmouth, Illinois for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for the Village of Olympia Fields, Illinois for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for the Village of Franklin Park, Illinois for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
$600,000 for the City of Marion, Indiana for the Marion
Water Loop and Deer Creek Project;
$400,000 for the City of Marion, Indiana, for the Marion
Water Loop and Deer Creek Storm Water Project;
$100,000 for the City of Southport, Southport/Marion
County, Indiana for downtown infrastructure and drainage
improvements;
$500,000 for the City of Fort Madison, Iowa for the Water
Treatment Plant Improvements;
$500,000 for the City of West Burlington for the Iowa Army
Ammunition Plant Improvements;
$1,500,000 for the City of Ottumwa, Iowa for the separation
of combined sewers;
$500,000 for the City of Davenport, Iowa for water
infrastructure improvements;
$1,000,000 for the City of Abilene, Kansas for construction
of a wastewater treatment plant;
$1,500,000 for the City of Hutchinson, Kansas for
groundwater remediation and treatment projects;
$1,750,000 for the City of Bowling Green, Kentucky, for the
South Central Kentucky Water Infrastructure Project;
$750,000 for the Hardin County Water District No. 2 in
Hardin County, Kentucky for a Water Quality Assurance Plan and
System Improvements Projects;
$500,000 for the City of Elkton, Kentucky, for the City of
Elkton Sewer Plant Expansion and Sewer Line Extension Project;
$250,000 for Breckinridge County, Kentucky for water
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for Bullitt County, Kentucky for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for Calloway County, Kentucky for the City of
Hazel Wastewater System;
$250,000 for Cadiz-Trigg County, Kentucky for water
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for Marshall County, Kentucky for drinking water
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for the City of Nicholasville, Kentucky for the
Bluegrass Water Consortium Drinking Water Project;
$600,000 for Rapides Parish, Louisiana for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$400,000 for St. Charles Parish, Louisiana for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$400,000 for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana for water and
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
$400,000 for the City of Bastrop, Louisiana for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$400,000 for the City of Hammond, Louisiana for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$400,000 for the City of Grand Isle, Louisiana for drinking
water infrastructure improvements;
$450,000 for the Greater Limestone Wastewater Treatment
Facilities in Maine to consolidate and replace antiquated
wastewater collection and treatment facilities at the Loring
Development Authority [LDA] and Caribou Utilities District
[CUD];
$250,000 for the Indian Township Tribal Government in Maine
for the first phase for expansion of current lagoon system to
provide adequate capacity;
$300,000 for the Town of Machias, Maine for replacement of
sewers and completion of deficiencies at existing aging
wastewater treatment plant;
$250,000 for Chesapeake Beach, Maryland, for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for Indian Head, Maryland, for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for Elkton, Maryland, for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for Hurlock, Maryland, for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$750,000 for Kent Island, Maryland, for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for Easton, Maryland, for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$750,000 for Cumberland, Maryland, for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for Frostburg, Maryland, for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for Brunswick, Maryland, for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for the Bristol County, Massachusetts for the
Bristol County Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Project;
$250,000 for the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission in
Massachusetts for combined sewer overflow abatement in the
Connecticut River;
$1,000,000 for the City of Benton Harbor, Michigan for
water infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for Seney Township, Michigan for sewer
infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for the City of Saginaw, Michigan for sewer
infrastructure improvements;
$1,000,000 for the Macomb County Department of Public
Works, Michigan for sewer infrastructure improvements;
$150,000 to Minnesota State University in Moorhead for
water infrastructure improvements;
$300,000 to the City of Duluth, Minnesota for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$300,000 to the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota for combined
sewer overflow improvements;
$250,000 for the City of Duluth and Western Lake Superior
Sanitary District in Duluth, Minnesota for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for Tchula, Mississippi for water and sewer
infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for the City of Brookhaven, Mississippi for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 to the City of Sherman, Mississippi for water and
sewer infrastructure improvements;
$1,300,000 to the City of Oxford, Mississippi for water and
sewer infrastructure improvements;
$750,000 to Forrest County, Mississippi for water and sewer
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 to the Town of French Camp, Mississippi for water
and sewer infrastructure improvements;
$1,500,000 to Swope Community Builders in Kansas City,
Missouri for the Brush Creek Neighborhood Strategy Area
Redevelopment Initiative in Missouri;
$687,500 to the City of Joplin, Missouri for the final
phase of the Crossroads Parallel Sewer project;
$1,312,500 to the City of Milan, Missouri for the Milan
Water Quality Treatment Project;
$1,000,000 to the Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water
Commission to expand the existing water treatment capacity from
5 million gallons to 7.5 million gallons per day and to include
connecting the Macon County PWSD #1 and the City of Wellsville,
Missouri to the CCWWC transmission system;
$1,000,000 to the Environmental Resources Coalition in
Missouri to mitigate point source pollution issues in
distressed communities that border Table Rock Lake;
$1,000,000 to the City of Springfield, Missouri for
wastewater treatment plant improvements including the design
and construction of infrastructure for removal of nitrogen from
the treated wastewater effluent and improved anaerobic digester
facilities that treat solids from the wastewater;
$1,000,000 for the City of Bozeman, Montana, for water
infrastructure improvements;
$1,000,000 for the Missouri River Water Project, Helena,
Montana for a water treatment project;
$500,000 for the City of Glasgow, Montana for water
infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for the Town of Seeley Lake, Montana for
wastewater system improvements;
$250,000 for Seely Lake, Montana for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$650,000 for the City of Omaha, Nebraska for the
construction of combined sewer separation systems;
$350,000 for the City of Lincoln, Nebraska to upgrade the
Theresa Street and Northeast Wastewater Treatment plants;
$250,000 for the City of Omaha, Nebraska for combined sewer
separation;
$400,000 for Las Vegas Valley Water District/Searchlight,
Nevada for water infrastructure improvements;
$400,000 for Clark County Reclamation District/Searchlight,
Nevada for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for the City of Reno, Nevada for sewer
infrastructure improvements;
$300,000 for the Spanish Springs Nitrate Removal Project in
Nevada;
$200,000 for the North Valley Lemmon Artificial Recharge
Project in North Lemmon Valley, Nevada for water infrastructure
improvements;
$250,000 for the Virgin Valley Water District, Nevada for
water infrastructure improvements;
$200,000 for Carson City, Nevada for reservoir lining;
$400,000 for the Berlin Waterworks in Berlin, New Hampshire
for drinking water distribution system improvements;
$400,000 for the Nashua Combined Sewer Overflow project in
Nashua, New Hampshire for CSO treatment and abatement;
$400,000 for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services to develop a septage treatment facility based at the
wastewater treatment facility in Franklin, New Hampshire;
$200,000 for Troy, New Hampshire for a wastewater and water
improvement program;
$400,000 for the Manchester Combined Sewer Overflow project
in Manchester, New Hampshire;
$200,000 for the Rochester, New Hampshire Route 108 sewer
line extension;
$150,000 for Somersworth, New Hampshire for the sewerage
improvement program to provide upgrades to the wastewater
treatment plant;
$200,000 for Bristol, New Hampshire for wastewater system
improvements;
$150,000 for Milton, New Hampshire for a water storage tank
replacement project;
$600,000 for Town of Exeter, New Hampshire for water
treatment plant replacement;
$200,000 for City of Berlin, New Hampshire for water system
distribution improvements;
$500,000 for the Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills in New
Jersey for water infrastructure improvements;
$1,250,000 for the City of Bayonne, New Jersey for water
and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
$1,600,000 for the City of Albuquerque and County of
Bernalillo, New Mexico, for the Valley Utilities Project;
$1,000,000 for the City of Espanola, New Mexico, for water
and wastewater treatment infrastructure;
$900,000 for the City of Kirtland, New Mexico, for Phase 1
of a sewer system project;
$500,000 for the Village of Los Lunas, New Mexico, for the
interceptor sewer line project;
$250,000 for the City of Clovis, New Mexico for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$400,000 for the Town of Babylon, New York for the Oak
Beach Park Stormwater Management Project;
$300,000 for Orange County Water Authority, Goshen, New
York for wastewater infrastructure improvements;
$300,000 for the Town of Plattsburg, New York for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for Washington County North Carolina Sewer
Improvements;
$600,000 for the City of Mooresville, North Carolina for
water infrastructure improvements;
$1,000,000 for the City of Grafton, North Dakota for the
Grafton Water Treatment Plant;
$500,000 for the City of Devils Lake, North Dakota for
water infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for the City of Riverdale, North Dakota for the
Riverdale Regional Water Treatment Facility;
$250,000 for Dickey Rural Water Users Association in
Southeast, North Dakota for the Southeast Regional Expansion
Project;
$250,000 for the City of Mandan, North Dakota for drinking
water infrastructure improvements;
$300,000 for the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District,
Carroll County, Ohio for the Atwood Conference Center Water
Treatment Plant Improvements;
$500,000 for the Village of Racine, Meigs County, Ohio for
water treatment plant improvements;
$750,000 for the City of Celina, Ohio for the Water
Treatment Plant Project;
$400,000 for City of Akron, Ohio for Combined Sewer
Overflow Improvements Project;
$300,000 for City of Parma, Ohio for City Sewer Replacement
Project;
$200,000 for Defiance County Commissioners, Defiance and
Paulding Counties, Ohio for Auglaize River Sewer Project;
$175,000 for Jefferson County Water and Sewer District,
Jefferson County, Ohio for Crestview/Belvedere Sewer Project;
$175,000 for Tri-County Rural Water and Sewer District,
Washington, Morgan and Noble Counties, Ohio for Tri-County/
Noble County Water Interconnect Project;
$100,000 for City of Delphos, Allen, Putnam and Van Wert
Counties, Ohio for Tri-County Regional Water System Project;
$100,000 for Village of Corning, Ohio for Wastewater System
Improvements Project;
$250,000 for City of Warrenton, Oregon for continued work
on the municipal water outfall;
$250,000 for City of Rainier, Oregon for a wastewater
treatment plant;
$250,000 for City of Coquille, Oregon for a wastewater
treatment plant;
$250,000 for Klamath Falls, Oregon for preliminary work on
wastewater treatment improvements;
$300,000 for the City of Coburg, Oregon for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$300,000 for the City of Rainier, Oregon for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$200,000 for the Municipality of Penn Hills, Pennsylvania,
for the Madison Avenue Storm Sewer Project;
$200,000 for the Nesquehoning Borough Authority, Carbon
County, Pennsylvania, for a water main replacement;
$200,000 for the Mercer County Regional Council of
Governments, Pennsylvania, for the Shenango Valley Sewer/Water
Improvement Project;
$200,000 for the Berwick Industrial Development
Association, Berwick, Pennsylvania, for the sanitary storm
water system;
$200,000 for the City of Johnstown, Pennsylvania for water
and sewer improvements at the Point Stadium multi-use facility;
$1,500,000 for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration
program in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania to develop
innovative, cost-effective solutions to assist municipalities
to eliminate sewer overflows;
$250,000 for the Derry Township Municipal Authority in
Hershey, Pennsylvania for wastewater treatment plant upgrades;
$250,000 for the Mercer County Sanitary Sewer and Water
Treatment project in the City of Hermitage, City of Sharon, and
Borough of Sharpsville, Pennsylvania;
$250,000 for the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania for water
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for the Newport Borough Sewer Authority in
Newport, Pennsylvania for storm and sewer water separation;
$250,000 for the York City Sewer Authority in York,
Pennsylvania for wastewater collection system improvements;
$250,000 for Pocono Township in Tannersville, Pennsylvania
for the Route 611 Corridor sewer line construction;
$250,000 to the Shannock Water District, Rhode Island for
water infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 to the Lincoln Water Commission, Rhode Island for
water infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 to the Pawtucket Water Supply Board, Rhode Island
for water infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 to the Town of North Kingstown, Rhode Island for
water infrastructure improvements;
$1,000,000 for the Narragansett Bay Commission, Rhode
Island for combined sewer overflow infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for the City of Newport, Rhode Island for water
infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for the Town of Warren, Rhode Island for sewer
infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for Charleston CPW, Charleston, South Carolina for
a Wastewater Tunnel Replacement Project;
$250,000 for Kershaw County, Kershaw, South Carolina for
the I-20 Corridor Infrastructure Project-Waste Water Treatment
Plant Expansion;
$800,000 for the Chester Sewer District, South Carolina for
water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
$1,000,000 for Kershaw County, South Carolina for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
$1,500,000 for the City of Huron, South Dakota for water
infrastructure improvements;
$600,000 for the Green Valley Sanitary District, South
Dakota for water infrastructure improvements;
$400,000 for the City of Tyndal, South Dakota for water
infrastructure improvements;
$300,000 for Milbank, South Dakota, for wastewater
infrastructure improvements;
$300,000 for Sisseton, South Dakota, for stormwater
improvements;
$750,000 for the City of Pikeville and Bledsoe County,
Pikeville, Tennessee for water infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for the Watauga River Regional Water Authority,
Carter County, Tennessee for planning and construction of
regional water infrastructure facilities;
$750,000 for the Walden's Ridge Water System, Hamilton
County, Tennessee for water infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for the San Antonio Water System, Texas for water
infrastructure improvements at KellyUSA;
$650,000 for the Lower Rio Grande Morillo Drain
Rehabilitation project in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas;
$800,000 for the Canyon Lakes Water Reuse Project in
Lubbock, Texas for construction related costs to with the water
system infrastructure;
$350,000 for the Abilene Brekenridge Reservoir project in
Abilene, Texas for drinking water infrastructure;
$400,000 for the Pharr Wastewater Collection System in
Pharr, Texas to update the wastewater system infrastructure;
$300,000 for the City of Brekenridge, Texas wastewater and
sewer infrastructure project;
$500,000 for the City of Hillsboro, Texas wastewater and
sewer infrastructure project;
$1,250,000 for the Town of Colchester, Vermont for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
$1,000,000 for the Town of Waitsfield, Vermont for
wastewater infrastructure improvements;
$400,000 for the Fairfax County Water Authority, Virginia
for the drinking water infrastructure improvements associated
with the Electric Reliability project;
$300,000 for Caroline County, Virginia for the Dawn
Wastewater Treatment project;
$400,000 for the City of Norfolk, Virginia for the Norfolk
Sewer and Water Infrastructure Replacement;
$300,000 for the City of Holladay, Utah, for water
infrastructure improvements associated with the Wayman Storm
Drain Project;
$500,000 for the Magna Water Company an Improvement
District, Magna, Utah, for water infrastructure improvements
associated with the perchlorate & arsenic treatment plant;
$400,000 for the City of Logan, Utah for water
infrastructure improvements;
$400,000 for Park City, Utah for water infrastructure
improvements associated with the Judge and Spiro Tunnel
treatment plant;
$400,000 for the City of Riverton, Utah for water
infrastructure improvements;
$400,000 for the City of Orem, Utah for water
infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for Sandy City, Utah for water infrastructure
improvements;
$100,000 for the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District,
Utah for the Groundwater Extraction and Treatment Remedial
Project;
$500,000 for Sandy City, Utah for drinking water and storm
water infrastructure improvements;
$400,000 for the City of Battle Ground, Washington for
sewer infrastructure improvements;
$750,000 for the Port of Walla Walla, Washington for the
Burbank Water System improvements;
$500,000 for the City of Kennewick, Washington for drinking
water infrastructure improvements;
$500,000 for Skamania County Public Utilities District in
Carson, Washington for water infrastructure improvements;
$250,000 for Squaxin Island Tribe in Shelton, Washington
for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
$1,000,000 for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
in Wisconsin for sewer infrastructure improvements;
$1,000,000 for the City of Racine, Wisconsin for water
infrastructure improvements; and
$600,000 for the City of Sun Prairie, Wisconsin for water
and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
The Committee includes a total of $140,000,000 for
Brownfields activities within this account. These funds augment
funding of $25,000,000 included in the Environmental Programs
and Management account for fiscal year 2005, a total of
$165,000,000 for EPA Brownfields program.
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) permanently extend 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; (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; and (5) change the limitation on the amounts of
the SRF a state can use for administration.
The Committee believes that public health officials,
mosquito control districts, irrigation districts, farmers,
ranchers, and foresters who lawfully apply herbicides,
pesticides, insecticides, and fire retardants--to safeguard
production of food and fiber, protect life, property and
habitat, limit the spread of West Nile virus, and combat
invasive weeds--should not be limited from conducting these
essential activities by uncertain Federal regulation. The
Committee urges EPA to finalize existing EPA guidance of July
11 and September 3, 2003 on pesticide and fire retardant use,
and further to maintain and clarify the long standing
distinction between the many agriculture and silviculture
activities that do or do not require permits. The Committee
expects EPA to complete these actions by December 2004.
In addition, the Committee directs the EPA not to use any
of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this
Act to make a direct assistance grant to a national association
or group of associations whose membership includes State
program administrators without such association or group of
associations first obtaining written approval from each member
State. If one or more member States do not give their advance
approval, EPA may make the direct assistance grants to the
association with an amount deducted from the total available
direct assistance grant amount based on the States' population
as a percentage of the total membership's population times the
available amount and direct those deducted funds to the
individual States.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
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.
The bill includes a provision to extend eligibility to
Brownfields sites that were purchased prior to the enactment of
the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfield
Revitalization Act of 2001.
The bill also includes a provision that allows EPA to
permit the use of funds for reasonable administrative costs.
The Committee has included bill language allowing personnel
authority for the Office of Research and Development.
The bill includes a provision instructing the EPA to submit
clearer budget justifications.
The Committee includes language authorizing the EPA to
collect and obligate pesticide registration service fees in
accordance with section 33 of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended.
The bill includes a provision that makes several technical
corrections to a provision in the fiscal year 2004 bill
regarding regulation of small engines under the Clean Air Act.
Executive Office of the President
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $6,986,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 7,081,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,081,000
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 $7,081,000 for
the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This amount is the
same as the budget request and $95,000 above the fiscal year
2004 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 directs OSTP to contract with the National
Academy of Science to assess the cost and manner in which all
Federally funded agencies and entities award and pay science
grants and stipends. OSTP and the Academy are directed to
consult with the Committee on this assessment.
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $3,219,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 3,284,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,284,000
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 $3,284,000 for the Council on
Environmental Quality, an increase of $65,000 above the fiscal
year 2004 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, 2004.................................... $30,125,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 30,125,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,625,000
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 $30,625,000 for the FDIC inspector
general, an increase of $500,000 over the budget request and
the fiscal year 2004 level. Funds are to be derived by transfer
from the bank insurance fund, the savings association insurance
fund, and the FSLIC resolution fund.
The Committee is concerned that the administration has not
provided the necessary financial support that is needed to
ensure that the FDIC IG can continue to meet the high standards
that it has demonstrated in the past with regard to audits,
investigations and oversight. These are valuable contributions
that emphasize the integrity of the FDIC's efforts in
maintaining stability and public confidence in the Nation's
banking system. Without additional funds as provided by the
Committee, this will be the ninth consecutive year that the
FDIC IG budgets have decreased after adjusting for inflation.
This means that the FDIC IG will be forced to downsize its
staffing and lose valuable and needed expertise.
General Services Administration
FEDERAL CITIZEN INFORMATION CENTER FUND
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $13,918,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 14,907,000
Committee recommendation................................ 14,907,000
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. This
information is made available on the web, via e-mail, in print,
or over the telephone.
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. 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 and contact center services, 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 $14,907,000 for the Federal
Citizen Information Center, an increase of $990,000 above the
fiscal year 2004 enacted level and equal to the budget request.
The appropriation will be augmented by a projected $706,000
reimbursements from Federal agencies for distribution of
consumer publications, user fees from the public, and other
income. FCIC's anticipated resources for fiscal year 2005 will
total approximately $15,613,000.
As FCIC responsibilities continue to expand to serve better
the public within this recently established GSA organization,
the Committee emphasizes that the funds appropriated from this
account are solely available 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, 2004.................................... $1,491,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 1,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,500,000
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 $9,000 more than the fiscal year 2004
enacted level. These funds are for carrying out the functions
authorized under section 203 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. In
developing the 10-year plans, the Committee strongly urges the
ICH to assist the local and State governments in developing
clear and detailed business plans that outline the sources of
public and non-public sources to achieve the goal of ending
chronic homelessness in 10 years.
Further, while the administration has taken some positive
steps towards ending chronic homelessness such as proposing a
new Samaritan Initiative, the Committee needs a clear sense of
how the administration intends to achieve its goal of ending
chronic homelessness. Accordingly, the Committee directs the
ICH to submit a plan on how the Federal Government will achieve
the goal of ending chronic homelessness in 10 years. This plan
should include details on the specific funding commitments,
roles and responsibilities of all of the member agencies of the
Council, and the incentives, requirements and resources needed
to achieve its goal.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $15,378,248,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 16,244,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,579,500,000
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 $15,579,500,000 for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2005, an
increase of $201,252,000 above fiscal year 2004, and a decrease
of $664,500,000 below the President's request.
Early this year the President announced a vision to return
man to the Moon and eventually to Mars. This vision has
provided an overall direction for NASA. Such a Presidential
vision has been missing from NASA for many years. While many
programs at NASA have been working, in some cases
exceptionally, a comprehensive initiative to orient the mission
of NASA has been lacking. The Committee is supportive of the
vision, but has reservations about the low level of details
provided in the fiscal year 2005 budget request on how this
vision will be accomplished.
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 Exploration, Science and Aeronautics, and
Exploration Capabilities. Exploration, Science and Aeronautics
will contain the enterprises of Space Science, Earth Science,
Biological and Physical Research, Aeronautics, and Education.
The Exploration Capabilities account will contain the funding
for the International Space Station [ISS], Space Shuttle, Human
and Robotic Technology, Transportation Systems, and Space
Flight Support. The account of the Office of the Inspector
General will remain unchanged. These account revisions are
being made to accommodate NASA's new vision.
By providing a vision, the President has prompted a
discussion about what NASA could do, or should be doing. The
budget NASA has presented to the Committee outlines the plan
for implementing the vision, yet does not provide sufficient
details for the technical and scientific goals to be reached by
embracing the vision. The Committee understands that as any
plan moves forward, particularly in an area of high risk such
as space, that adjustments in time and budget will be
necessary. However, a sufficient framework must be established
prior to embarking on a path that may ultimately cost hundreds
of billions of dollars.
NASA's new vision 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. In addition, the Committee
believes that there must be a commitment to those activities at
NASA that are already underway. The Shuttle program and the
construction of the ISS continue to be the primary focus of the
Nation's manned space flight activities. Nevertheless, the
Committee believes that a replacement for the Space Shuttle's
manned and heavy lift capabilities must be considered as part
of any plan for continued human access to space.
The Committee is concerned that the current implementation
plans for the new vision do not properly address the
requirements and development for the heavy lift capability that
may be necessary to carry out the proposed vision. A complete
review of such plans must be conducted prior to embarking fully
upon the implementation of the proposed vision. In order to
assess heavy lift capability needs, NASA shall report to the
Committee, no later than 6 months from the enactment of the
appropriations act which accompanies this report, regarding
NASA's heavy lift capability needs and long-term plans. NASA is
encouraged to look at concepts currently being developed in the
Falcon program with DARPA that could have an impact on future
heavy lift program development.
NASA has the opportunity to lay the groundwork for a
successful implementation of the proposed vision. The current
budget justification does not provide the details the Committee
expects to see for such a dramatic undertaking. The Committee
expects NASA to take initial steps for implementing the vision
in fiscal year 2005, and to provide year-by-year budgetary and
developmental goals related to the vision for the next 5 years,
along with 10-year summary budget totals, in the fiscal year
2006 request.
NASA has presented a timeframe for the retirement of the
Shuttle program which assumes an end in the program around
2010. This timeframe is essential if resources are to be
available for the Crew Exploration Vehicle [CEV] in order to
meet a potential Moon mission between 2015 and 2020. If there
are delays in the Shuttle program that push retirement beyond
2010, then funds for CEV development will also be delayed. At a
time when the Shuttle fleet continues to be grounded, the
Committee feels that the schedule NASA has presented is overly
ambitious and optimistic.
As part of the proposed exploration vision, NASA will begin
to phase-out existing programs in order to accommodate the
vision. These plans must be clearly identified in order for
NASA to smoothly transition older programs to make way for
missions associated with the vision. As part of this process,
the Committee directs NASA to include in all future budget
justifications the phase-out schedules and any out-year
termination dates of its programs.
The current Federal fiscal environment is not favorable to
supporting completely the budget NASA has presented for fiscal
year 2005. The out-year costs also seem overly optomistic at
time when both the administration and Congress are committed to
reducing the Federal budget deficit. However, steps toward
laying the foundation of future NASA initiatives must be taken
in order for there to be a future for many NASA activities once
the Shuttle program is retired and the International Space
Station is completed.
The Committee is also concerned that NASA will neglect
areas that will only tangentially benefit from, or that do not
fit within, the proposed vision. Within the fiscal year 2005
budget request, programs and infrastructure are proposed to be
deferred, or cancelled, in such areas. These programs appear to
be the sacrifices for the near-term budgetary resources needed
to facilitate the implementation of the new Moon/Mars vision.
The new national space policy to proceed with human and
robotic exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond has profound
implications for all of the science conducted by NASA. While
the Committee applauds those goals, it is concerned that the
strong, balanced science program that has served the Nation so
successfully for many years should be nurtured and sustained as
the new policy is implemented. That science program has been
based on a set of carefully crafted scientific strategies that
are founded on scientific and technical merit, relevance to
overall national needs, and broad consultation with the
scientific community via the National Academy of Sciences.
Consequently, the Committee directs the National Academies'
Space Studies Board to conduct a thorough review of the science
that NASA is proposing to undertake under the new policy and to
develop a strategy by which all of NASA's science disciplines,
including Earth science, space science, and life and
microgravity science, can make adequate progress towards their
established goals, as well as providing scientific research in
support of the new policy. Further, the Committee is troubled
by the abrupt and seemingly unilateral decision to alter the
science conducted aboard the ISS to focus solely on biological
and physiological research without any consultation with or
authorization by Congress. As part of the scientific review,
the National Academy of Sciences shall also consider the new
direction of research proposed by NASA on the ISS and whether
it is compatible with the overall national research needs
identified in past Academy reports. In addition, the Committee
directs NASA to report to the Committee on Appropriations on
whether this change in focus should require a change in the
overall requirements for the completion of the ISS. An amount
of $250,000 is appropriated for this purpose. The Space Studies
Board report should be available in time for Congressional
consideration of the fiscal year 2006 Appropriation for NASA.
Prior to receipt and consideration of the report, NASA is
directed to maintain a balanced science program that follows
priorities that have been recommended by the National Academy
of Sciences and agreed to by Congress.
It has been over 1 year since the Columbia tragedy, which
has led to adjustments to both the shuttle program and the
International Space Station [ISS]. The current plan assumes
that the shuttle program will resume flight operations in March
2005 if all things go according to schedule. The Committee
understands that these programs, as well as many others, pose
very difficult and technological challenges for NASA and can
become subject to delay. Nevertheless, where there are delays
in programs and activities, NASA often ends up paying
additional costs to maintain the skilled workforce to protect
the institutional memory of the delayed program or activity,
regardless of the reason for the delay. These costs associated
with maintaining the workforce will continue to cut into the
resources available for other programs at NASA and into program
reserves. NASA should review these effects and determine if
there is a more effective method for dealing with such
circumstances in the future.
Finally, for fiscal year 2005 and each year thereafter, the
Committee directs NASA to include the out-year budget impacts
on all reprogramming requests. The operating plan and all
resubmissions also shall include a separate accounting of all
program/mission reserves.
The Committee remains concerned that NASA needs to reform
its contracting process to ensure timely delivery of both
services and hardware. The Committee directs the NASA Inspector
General to issue a list of contracting ``trouble'' areas with
recommendations to address these areas. The Committee
understands that this is no easy project, but expects NASA and
the NASA IG to respond to these concerns with a package of
proposed contracting reforms that can begin to be implemented
in fiscal year 2005. The Committee also is concerned that NASA
does too much sole source contracting and that sole source
contracting can stifle competition and discourage new
investment in space-related activities. The Committee directs
NASA to submit to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations each intention by NASA to enter into a sole
source contract no later than 10 days before a contract is let;
this requirement shall apply to all contract modifications of
more than $500,000 where a new contractor is involved or a new
activity is added to an existing contract.
EXPLORATION CAPABILITIES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $7,467,884,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 8,526,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,811,100,000
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
NASA's ``Exploration Capabilities'' [EC] account provides
for the full costs associated with the capabilities that
support Agency research, which consist of the Exploration
Systems and Space Flight Enterprises. The full costs include
both the direct and the indirect costs supporting these
programs, and provide 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 existing
facilities; and other general and administrative activities
supporting Exploration Capabilities programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has provided $7,811,100,000 for the Space
Flight Capabilities account. This amount is $715,300,000 below
the President's request for these activities in fiscal year
2005 and $343,216,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
The Committee has included an additional $500,000,000 in
emergency funding for the Space Shuttle to implement the
recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board
and other costs associated with return to flight activities.
Space Shuttle.--The Committee continues to believe that
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 safe and reliable throughout the remaining years of the
shuttle program. The Committee is concerned that as the Shuttle
and the Shuttle infrastructure continue to age, further
challenges in operating the fleet may arise.
The Committee remains committed to the continued safety of
the Shuttle program as its highest priority. 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, and future,
safety efforts.
The Committee recommends that funding for the Shuttle be
$4,319,200,000, 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 that are provided
within this account are dedicated solely to shuttle funding
needs. If necessary, NASA may only seek additional funds by
transfer from other activities within the Exploration
Capabilities account.
The Committee also directs NASA to keep the Committee
informed, in writing, of any reprogramming of funds related to
the shuttle program, as well as including the out-year impacts
on all activities involved in the reprogramming.
Finally, the Committee 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 Committee notes that the International
Space Station [ISS] continues to operate at a reduced level
with future construction not expected to begin until 2005. The
current crew of two cannot fully utilize the capabilities of
the ISS for the research it was intended to facilitate, and the
caretaker role of the astronauts does not currently justify the
funds requested for operations of the ISS. Despite the ability
of the international partners to fill the gap created by the
grounding of the shuttle fleet, the capabilities of the ISS
have been dramatically diminished. Accordingly, the Committee
has reduced funding for the ISS by $120,000,000.
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 complete
construction of the ISS. This plan may include completion of
the ISS by only using the shuttle, or a combination of shuttle
and unmanned flights for delivering components to the ISS. The
cost implications associated with the revised schedule must be
included in the plan that is submitted to the Committee no less
than 30 days after the successful return-to-flight of the
shuttle program. The report should also contain a timeline, in
conjunction with the construction timetable for the ISS, for
the eventual transition to a new manned launch vehicle.
As construction of the ISS resumes, revised plans for the
future of the ISS must also be set. If there is to be a
redirection of the research to be conducted onboard the ISS,
any revision shall be done in consultation with the ISS
partners. These partners will be affected by such actions, and
their participation to this point has been both crucial and
beneficial. If NASA intends to have international partners for
future space exploration, then NASA should be sure not to
exclude its current partners in making decisions involving the
research direction and construction schedule of the ISS.
Finally, the Committee has chosen not to fund the proposed
new project for ISS crew and cargo services. The current plan
anticipates the need for such services from the time after the
Shuttle fleet is retired until future capability to reach the
ISS is available around 2014. The current ISS construction plan
is contingent upon an aggressive launch schedule that has yet
to begin. It is unclear what the requirements are for these
services, that such a schedule can be achieved, that the
potential gap in service to the ISS will even occur, or that
the gap could be longer than anticipated. Until there is
further clarity regarding when and to the extent such services
will necessary, the Committee is not inclined to provide
resources for such an effort.
Crew Exploration Vehicle.--The Committee is prepared to
commit funds to the Crew Exploration Vehicle [CEV], but is
concerned that there has not been enough initial planning to
determine what specific capabilities the CEV should have. The
determination of the right capabilities should naturally come
from a carefully thought-out plan and goals, which have yet to
emerge from the implementation of the Moon/Mars vision. The
current vehicle offered by NASA resembles a work-in-progress,
rather than a firm definition of what is necessary to
accomplish missions to the ISS, as well as future manned
missions.
While the Committee feels that a plan with sufficient
details on cost and accountability for any subsequent budget
overruns will eventually emerge, the time to lay the proper
groundwork for such an ambitions vision is prior to heading
down the path, not on the way.
During the time that the Shuttle program has been working
to complete the ISS, NASA has endeavored to develop a separate
manned vehicle many times. NASA has invested hundreds of
millions into these programs, yet there has been little
progress toward having the manned vehicle that these programs
have promised. While incremental advances in technology have
been gained, a comparable amount of return for the funds
invested has not been realized.
In order to ensure that such a fate does not befall the
CEV, the Committee expects NASA to provide a report to the
Committee that details the criteria and developmental goals the
CEV must meet to accomplish the missions envisioned by NASA
within 60 days of enactment of this bill. The report shall also
include the internal and independent procedures that will be in
place to ensure that the CEV will stay within its budget
throughout its development.
As NASA begins to consider another manned vehicle program,
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
CEV. At this early stage in the development of the CEV, it is
essential that these mistakes not happen again. Therefore, the
Committee directs the Administrator to identify an independent
oversight committee to examine the design, technology readiness
and cost estimates for the CEV. The Administrator shall use
available funds within the Exploration Capabilities account to
provide sufficient resources for this Committee. The chosen
oversight committee shall report to the Administrator and the
Committees on Appropriations annually on their findings and
recommendations.
In order to allow for the initiation of the CEV, the
Committee recommends a funding level of $268,000,000. This will
allow for a modest start for this ambitious program, and still
allow NASA the time needed to refine its plans for the vehicle
in time for a full start in the fiscal year 2006 budget
request.
It is not clear to the Committee that NASA has given
appropriate consideration to the propulsion requirements of the
President's space exploration initiative. Therefore, the
Committee directs NASA to report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, within 180 days of enactment of
the Act accompanying this report, on the propulsion systems
that will be required to implement Project Constellation. This
report should include, but not be limited to, all elements of
the Earth-to-Orbit propulsion systems, in-space propulsion
systems and propulsion systems for landing/ascent craft.
The Committee acknowledges the desire of NASA to attempt to
replicate the efforts of the X-Prize in the proposed Centennial
Challenges program. The Committee allocates $10,000,000 for the
Centennial challenges in order for NASA to initiate what may be
a useful tool for NASA. The Committee will not entertain
further requests for funds to this program until a through
review of program, and the results of any proposed
competitions, is conducted on the effectiveness of the
Centennial Challenges program.
The Committee does not include the funding requested for
the technology maturation program.
Finally, the Committee funds the entire Prometheus program
at $430,000,000. Although portions of Prometheus are found
within other accounts at NASA, the Committee has chosen to
reflect a total funding level for this program. Within the
funds provided, the Committee provides $10,000,000 for nuclear
thermal propulsion at the Marshall Space Flight Center. The
Committee encourages NASA to do a study on the feasibility of
non-nuclear energy and power in regards to the Prometheus
program.
The Committee recognizes that modeling and simulation will
have an important role in assessing the overall system
development and performance in the President's vision for space
exploration. The Committee continues to believe that simulated
integrated systems, including testing and evaluation, will
substantially reduce the system's complexity as well as the
total development costs of future space transportation systems
by formulating and validating program requirements and by
identifying and mitigating program risks as early as possible
in the development process. The Committee has included
$3,000,000 for NASA's Office of Exploration Systems to develop
and implement an integrated system simulation strategy to take
full advantage of modeling and simulation and evaluation tools.
EXPLORATION, SCIENCE AND AERONAUTICS
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $7,883,225,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 7,760,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,736,500,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
NASA's `Exploration, Science and Aeronautics' [ESA] account
provides for the full costs associated with the Exploration,
Science and Aeronautics [ESA] activities of the Agency, which
consist of the Space Science, Earth Science, Biological and
Physical Research, Aeronautics, and Education Programs. The
full costs include both the direct and the indirect costs
supporting these programs, and provide 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
existing facilities; and other general and administrative
activities supporting Exploration, Science and Aeronautics
programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $7,736,500,000 for the Science,
Aeronautics and Exploration account, a decrease of $23,500,000
below the President's request and $146,725,000 below the fiscal
year 2004 enacted level. Within this account, the Committee
directs NASA not to charge any administrative expenses to
congressionally directed spending on specific projects. These
costs should be absorbed within the funding provided in this
account.
The Committee has included an additional $300,000,000 in
emergency funding for a servicing mission to the Hubble Space
Telescope.
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 perplexed human beings, such as how the universe
began and evolved and whether there is other intelligent life
in 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 Committee anticipates that there will be a Hubble
servicing mission which, at this time, is not a part of the
fiscal year 2005 budget submission. Once the study being
conducted by the National Academy of Sciences is completed, the
Committee will consider any appropriate funding options
presented by NASA. NASA should consider a servicing mission a
priority.
The Committee funds the Mars Programs and Architecture at
$75,600,000, an increase of $8,900,000 over the fiscal year
2004 enacted level.
The Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter [LRO], a reduction of $50,000,000 from
the budget request reflecting the difficult spending allocation
within which the subcommittee has been forced to operate. NASA
should continue with its announcement of opportunity for
scientific instruments with these funds. However, in
establishing the criteria for instrument selection, not less
than 25 percent of the LRO's scientific instrumentation funding
should be explicitly dedicated to building instruments focused
solely on answering basic science questions. The Committee is
concerned that the lunar measurement investigations to be
carried out by the LRO mission, intended to characterize future
robotic and human lunar landing sites, will forgo the
opportunity for research and focus only on applied engineering
assessments. The current proposed AO focuses solely on the
human exploration objectives of the potential mission. Since
the LRO is allocated against NASA's space science budget, the
Committee believes that fundamental lunar science questions
should be addressed in a significant fashion through
instruments on this spacecraft. The Committee encourages NASA,
as part of the LRO development, to consider the research
instrumentation opportunities as well as technology
qualification, navigation and communications capabilities, and
resource identification technologies to maximize the
opportunities of this first lunar mission.
The Committee is troubled by the proposed reductions to the
Living With a Star [LWS] program. The Committee is also
concerned about the growth of the Solar Dynamics Observatory
[SDO] particularly under full cost accounting guidelines and is
capping the mission at $646,100,000, included in the budget
request. To meet the original goals of the LWS program, which
this Committee has endorsed, the Committee is providing an
additional $25,000,000 for the LWS theme in 2005 to be
allocated as follows: $5,000,000 for the solar probe mission;
$15,000,000 to begin implementation of Geospace and $5,000,000
for preliminary studies of solar sentinels. Furthermore, the
Committee directs NASA to develop a plan to guarantee launch of
Geospace and SDO within 1 year of each other with solar
sentinels to follow in a reasonable time thereafter.
The Committee also provides $3,000,000 and up to eight
FTE's to establish a NASA program office at the Applied Physics
Laboratory [APL] for the purpose of administering all existing
contracts between NASA and APL, including those under the LWS
Program. The APL program office will report directly to the
Associate Administrator for Science.
The Committee expects NASA to provide the necessary funding
for the Pluto-Kuiper Belt mission in 2005 to ensure the mission
is launched on schedule. The Committee expects NASA to submit
any request for additional funds through the operating plan.
The Committee notes the progress made to successfully
launch the New Horizons mission in 2006 and expects NASA to
aggressively work to meet that schedule. The Committee is aware
that recent problems with the Department of Energy's plutonium
production will likely leave New Horizons with insufficient
fuel to make its scheduled Kuiper Belt orbit after its Pluto
mission. For this reason, the Committee has also allocated an
additional $4,000,000 from the New Frontiers line to undertake
a detailed study of the feasibility for a New Horizons II
mission, to be launched within the near-term, if the study
results can justify the scientific return for such a follow-on
mission, at a price considerably less than the original New
Horizons mission. Such a study should have its results
submitted to the Committee on Appropriations by April 15, 2005.
NASA is directed to consult with the Committee on program
management for the Discovery and New Frontiers programs. The
Committee notes that NASA has transferred management of the
Discovery and New Frontiers programs out of headquarters.
Therefore, the Committee directs that the Office of the
Associate Administrator for Science shall be reduced by 10
FTE's and transferred to the appropriate NASA Centers.
Furthermore, the Committee prohibits the transfer of any FTE's
or other personnel into the Office of the Associate
Administrator for Science without the approval of the
Committees on Appropriations.
The Committee directs NASA to select competitively some of
the scientific instruments for the Terrestrial Planet Finder
mission. The Committee allocates $15,000,000 of the $52,900,000
contained in the budget request to establish a competitive
advanced technology development program among universities and
non-profit organizations with experience in relevant fields to
provide scientific instruments for the TPF mission. The TPF
budget profile beyond 2005 should articulate a critical path-
with requisite financial resources-to down select from these
teams, as well as any currently existing intramural teams, for
flight instruments.
The Committee has made the following adjustments to the
budget request:
An increase of $1,000,000 for University of Idaho for RTULP
Electronics for Space Applications.
An increase of $1,000,000 for Utah State University in
Logan, Utah for the Calibration Center.
An increase of $300,000 to the University of Missouri at
Rolla for the Advanced Millimeter Wave Inspection System
program.
An increase of $3,000,000 to New Mexico State University
for the ultra-long balloon program to augment planned flights
and technology development.
An increase of $4,000,000 for the Stennis Space Center for
the commercial technology program.
An increase of $4,000,000 for the Marshall Space Flight
Center for the commercial technology program.
An increase of $1,500,000 to Montana State University to
purchase clean room systems and basic process equipment related
to the microdevice fabrication facility.
An increase of $1,000,000 for Texas Tech University
Experimental Sciences Initiative, Lubbock, Texas to promote
advanced and interdisciplinary research.
An increase of $1,000,000 to the Southern Methodist
University Multifab Facility in Dallas, Texas to develop
multifabrication manufacturing technology.
An increase of $2,000,000 to the University of North Dakota
in Grand Forks for the Northern Great Plains Space Sciences and
Technology Center.
An increase of $4,000,000 to the University of Hawaii, Hilo
for the Mauna Kea Astronomy Education Center.
An increase of $1,000,000 to the University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville, Arkansas for the Arkansas-Oklahoma Center for
Space and Planetary Sciences.
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 believes that Earth science has been a
critical part of a balanced space program long advocated by
this Committee. The Committee remains fully committed to a
robust Earth science program at NASA notwithstanding the recent
headquarters reorganization plan. The Committee expects NASA to
remain fully committed to Earth science, with future missions
identified with 5 year funding profiles that reflect a serious
commitment to Earth science as a vital part of the Nation's
space program.
An increase of $15,000,000 above the President's request
for fiscal year 2005 for the NASA Earth Science Applications
Program. This funding increase will be used to support
competitively-selected applications projects. These projects
will integrate the results of NASA's earth observing systems
and earth system models (using observations and predictions)
into decision support tools to serve applications of national
priority including, but not limited to, Homeland Security,
Coastal Management, Agriculture Efficiency, Water Management
and Disaster Management.
The Committee is highly supportive of continuation of the
ECS/EMD Synergy Program, reflecting the success of NASA's EOS
Data Information System [EOSDIS] and its core system [ECS]. The
Committee is providing $15,000,000 for Synergy in 2005 with
$1,500,000 for the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory's
Infomart; not more than $1,500,000 to support the transition of
Synergy Infomart activities to the ESE Application Division to
be administered through a Cooperative Agreement [CAN] that will
focus these funds toward meeting the needs of State, local and
tribal governments and $12,000,000 through the EOSDIS
Maintenance and Development Contract to support an extension of
the Synergy Data Pools to improve data distribution to climate
change models, expansion of data distribution to the user
community and development of a pilot project using grid
computing technology.
The Committee remains supportive of NASA's Columbia Project
to upgrade its supercomputing capacity, but insists that NASA's
total supercomputing capability should not reside at one
location in order that the Agency avoids a potential single
point of failure for mission critical and safety of flight
analyses. Therefore, the Committee has provided $5,000,000 from
within funds projected for the Columbia project to upgrade the
Goddard Space Flight Center's Center for Computational Science
[NCCS] to guarantee that it serves as NASA's backup
supercomputing center with tier 1 system backup and disaster
recovery functions, including full transfer capability in the
event of a failure of the principal supercomputer facility.
Finally, the Committee supports the full budget request for
the GLORY Global Climate Change research program mission
including the Aerosol Polarimeter Sensor.
The Committee has made the following adjustments to the
budget request:
An increase of $390,000 for Pearl River Community College
in Mississippi for remote sensing, geographic information
system and GPS training.
An increase of $1,000,000 for Idaho State University for
the Temporal Landscape Change Research program.
An increase of $3,000,000 for the University of Alaska for
weather and ocean research.
An increase of $1,000,000 to Utah State University in
Logan, Utah for the Intermountain region Digital Image Archive
and Processing Center.
An increase of $750,000 for the University of Northern Iowa
for the GeoTREE project.
An increase of $1,500,000 to Montana State University-
Bozeman for the Center for Studying Life in Extreme
Environments.
An increase of $1,000,000 for the University of Texas Mid-
American Geospatial Information Center at the UT Center for
Space Research in Austin, Texas to continue information
collection through satellite imaging.
An increase of $500,000 to the Liberty Science Center,
Jersey City, New Jersey for the Hudson Harbor and Estuary
Ecological Learning Center.
An increase of $750,000 to the University of Connecticut
for the Center for Land Use and Education Research.
An increase of $750,000 to the University of Vermont,
Burlington for the Center for Advanced Computing.
An increase of $5,400,000 for the Wallops Island Flight
Facility to be used for developing a standard small launch
vehicle, universal FTS, doppler radar and launch modeling
laboratory.
Biological and Physical Research.--NASA's Biological and
Physical Research [BPR] Enterprise recognizes the essential
role biology will play in the 21st century and pursues the core
of biological and physical sciences research needed to support
NASA's strategic objectives. BPR fosters and enhances rigorous
interdisciplinary research, closely linking fundamental
biological and physical sciences in order to develop leading-
edge, world-class research programs. BPR uses the unique
characteristics of the space environment to understand
biological, physical, and chemical processes, conducting
science and technology research required to enable humans to
safely and effectively live and work in space, and transferring
knowledge and technologies for Earth benefits. BPR also fosters
commercial space research by the private sector toward new or
improved products and/or services on Earth, in support of the
commercial use of space.
The Committee has 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. In order to maximize what research can still be done on
the ISS, the Committee funds Biological Sciences Research
within Earth science at $368,000,000, the same as the funding
level for fiscal year 2004.
The Committee has made the following adjustments to the
budget request:
An increase of $1,500,000 to the University of Missouri at
Columbia for the National Center for Gender Physiology studies
on basic biomedical knowledge for the improvement of life on
earth and solution of problems in human space flight.
An increase of $5,000,000 to the Marshall Space Flight
Center for propulsion materials microgravity research [OBPR].
An increase of $2,000,000 for the Alliance for Nanohealth,
Houston, Texas to purchase equipment and conduct research on
Nanotechnology and medicine.
An increase of $2,000,000 for the University of Louisville
Space Flight Exploration: The Impact on Perception, Cognition,
Sleep and Brain Physiology Project at the University of
Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky.
An increase of $1,000,000 to the National Technology
Transfer Center at Wheeling Jesuit University to transfer and
adapt the Walter Reed Army Medical Center's HealthForces
program, into medically underserved rural areas.
An increase of $1,000,000 to the State University of
Buffalo Center for Bioinformatics, Erie, New York.
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 in the
aeronautics research and technology request. The current
request in Aeronautics is a cut of $115,000,000. Even more
alarming, NASA's budget projections indicate that this trend
will continue. 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 terms of safety and
economics, that will be made available to the public through
NASA led research.
Based on the success of the X-43 program, the Committee is
providing $25,000,000 to continue the research being conducted
on hypersonic engine technologies. The Committee also continues
to encourage joint NASA and Air Force cooperation and
collaboration in advancement of aeronautics technologies in the
National interest.
The Committee also includes an increase of $4,000,000 for
NASA Glenn Research Center for Intelligent Propulsion Systems
(propulsion 21).
The Committee has made the following adjustments to the
budget request:
An increase of $2,300,000 to the University of Missouri at
Rolla for Aerospace Propulsion Particulate Emissions Reduction
Program.
An increase of $1,000,000 for the National Institute of
Aviation Research in Kansas for icing research.
An increase of $2,000,000 to Wichita State University in
Wichita, Kansas for the National Center for Advanced Materials
Performance for composite materials research.
An increase of $1,000,000 for the Glenn Research Center for
the National Center for Communications, Navigation and
Surveillance.
An increase of $4,000,000 for the Glenn Research Center for
the commercial technology program.
An increase of $3,000,000 to the Inland Northwest Space
Alliance in Montana for the FreeFlyer program.
An increase of $750,000 to the University of Montana in
Missoula, Montana for the National Space Privatization Program.
An increase of $750,000 to Purdue University in West
Lafayette, Indiana for the Advanced Manufacturing Institute.
An increase of $2,000,000 to Wheeling Jesuit University,
West Virginia for continued operation of the National
Technology Transfer Center.
An increase of $2,500,000 to Marshall University in
Bridgeport, West Virginia for the continuation of NASA related
composites workforce development training at the Composites
Technology Institute.
An increase of $1,000,000 to Iowa State University for the
Center for Nondestructive Evaluation.
An increase of $1,000,000 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 $1,750,000 to the University of Maryland,
College Park for the nanotechnology institute.
An increase of $1,750,000 to the University of Maryland,
Baltimore County for photonics research.
An increase of $3,000,000 to Chesapeake Information Based
Aeronautics Consortium.
An increase of $2,000,000 to upgrade the High End
Production Capability at the Goddard Space Flight Center to
improve climate and weather research capabilities.
Academic Programs.--The objective of NASA's academic
programs is to promote excellence in America's education system
through enhancing and expanding scientific and technological
competence. Activities conducted within academic programs
capture the interest of students in science and technology,
develop talented students at the undergraduate and graduate
levels, provide research opportunities for students and faculty
members at NASA centers, and strengthen and enhance the
research capabilities of the Nation's colleges and
universities. NASA's education programs span from the
elementary through graduate levels, and are directed at
students and faculty. Academic programs include the Minority
University Research Program, which expands opportunities for
talented students from underrepresented groups who are pursuing
degrees in science and engineering, and to strengthen the
research capabilities of minority universities and colleges.
The Committee has made the following adjustments to the
budget request:
An increase of $1,000,000 for National Center for Air and
Space Law at the University of Mississippi.
An increase of $1,000,000 for Tennessee Technological
Institute for the development of a Challenger Learning Center.
An increase of $500,000 for the Christa McAuliffe
Planetarium in New Hampshire for the construction of the Alan
Shepard Discovery Center.
An increase of $500,000 to Southeast Missouri State
University for the NASA-ERC Initiative.
An increase of $1,000,000 to the Texas A&M; Space
Engineering Institute in College Station, Texas to continue
minority engineering outreach in conjunction with NASA.
An increase of $1,000,000 to Northern Kentucky University/
University of Louisville for the Taking Astronomy to the
Schools Project at Northern Kentucky University in Campbell
County, Kentucky.
An increase of $1,000,000 for the US Space and Rocket
Center in Huntsville, Alabama for education training equipment
and the museum exhibit improvement program.
An increase of $2,000,000 to the SSME program office at
Marshall for development of a knowledge management integrated
data environment.
An increase of $750,000 to the Delaware Aerospace Education
Foundation in Kent County, Delaware.
An increase of $750,000 to the Chabot Space and Science
Center in Oakland, California for The Future for Humans in
Space Education Program.
An increase of $250,000 to Rowan University, Pomona, New
Jersey for the Engineering and Technology Satellite Campus.
An increase of $250,000 to the Museum of Science and
Industry in Chicago, Illinois for the Henry Crown Space Center.
An increase of $250,000 to Glendale Community College,
California for the Cimmarusti Science Center's Teacher Training
and Science Education Outreach Program.
An increase of $500,000 to the Science Center of Iowa in
Des Moines, Iowa.
An increase of $2,000,000 for improvements to the Cooper
Library at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, South
Carolina.
An increase of $1,000,000 to the College of Charleston,
South Carolina for the School of Science and Mathematics.
An increase of $1,000,000 to the Boston Museum of Science,
Massachusetts for the National Center for Technology Literacy.
An increase of $750,000 to Space Education Initiative,
Wisconsin for the Wisconsin Aerospace Education Initiative.
An increase of $1,750,000 to the Mitchell Institute,
Portland, Maine for science and engineering education.
An increase of $1,000,000 to the Virginia Air and Space
Museum, Norfolk, Virginia.
An increase of $750,000 for the Griffith Observatory, Los
Angeles, California.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $27,139,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 27,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 31,600,000
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 $31,600,000 for fiscal year 2005,
the same as the budget request and $4,461,000 above the fiscal
year 2004 enacted level. The Committee commends the NASA IG's
diligence in addressing issues of fraud and abuse.
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 appear 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 any overall restructuring at NASA.
Within the amount provided to the Office of the Inspector
General, $3,847,000 is provided to conduct the annual audit of
NASA's financial statements. This will consolidate
responsibility for technical oversight and fiscal management of
the contract into a single office.
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.
The Committee is concerned that NASA has not utilized
independent cost verification early in the process of
estimating costs for its programs and missions. By not using
this tool, NASA cannot be certain that potential contract costs
are accurately represented. In order to allocate resources for
current and future needs, effective cost estimation is crucial.
NASA is directed to incorporate independent cost verification
as part of the process by which contracts are selected, to use
them as a guide for assessing when costs have exceeded
expectations, and to help identify projects for termination.
The Committee notes the current difficulties that NASA is
facing with is annual financial statement. The independent
auditor involved with the annual audit included a disclaimer
that NASA did not provide sufficient materials to support the
financial statements in order to complete the audit within the
guidelines provided by OMB. Further, four material weaknesses
were identified. These weaknesses included NASA's the inability
to provide an audit trail to support NASA's financial
statements and the lack of controls over property and
equipment. These weaknesses created a lack of documentation to
support $565,000,000,000 in adjustments to NASA's financial
statement accounts. As NASA prepares to embark on a significant
mission of exploration, NASA must correct these issues
immediately before entertaining significant movement on such
major undertakings. A clean financial bill of health at NASA
will bring clarity to NASA's internal accounting structure and
confidence that funds are being used appropriately throughout
the agency.
The Committee is concerned about the cost and
organizational implications of the recently announced
transformation of NASA, and other recommendations proposed in
the Aldridge report. Last year the Committee directed the
National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] to conduct a
complete review of NASA's organizational, programmatic, and
personnel structures. As part of this review, the Committee
asks NAPA to include a complete review of the new
transformation proposal, as well as a thorough review of the
proposal to convert NASA centers into Federally Funded Research
and Development Centers. NASA shall provide appropriate funds
for the completion of the current NAPA review, including funds
to review the announced NASA organization transformation and
the FFRDC recommendation proposed in the Aldridge report.
National Credit Union Administration
CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FACILITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct loan Administrative
limitation expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2004.............. $1,500,000,000 $310,000
Budget estimate, 2005............. 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 CLF 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 CLF 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 2005. 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 the same as the fiscal year 2004 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 2005.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $1,193,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,000,000
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 [TAGs] are also available to low-income
credit unions. Until fiscal year 2001, only earnings generated
from the CDRLF were available to fund TAGs. Grants are
available for improving operations as well as addressing safety
and soundness issues. In fiscal year 2004, NCUA designated
funds for specific programs, including taxpayer assistance,
financial education, home ownership initiatives, remittance
services, individual development accounts [IDAs], and training
assistance.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee provides $1,000,000 for loans and technical
assistance to community development credit unions. This funding
level is equal to the budget request and $193,000 below the
fiscal year 2004 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 $200,000 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, 2004.................................... $5,578,323,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 5,744,690,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,744,690,000
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 unique, large-scale
research facilities and international facilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $5,744,690,000 for the National
Science Foundation for fiscal year 2005. This amount is
$167,170,000 more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
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. NSF is at the leading edge of the
research and discoveries that will create the jobs and
technologies of the future.
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, 2004.................................... $4,251,360,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 4,452,310,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,402,320,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Research and Related Activities appropriation addresses
the Foundation's three strategic goals: 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 science and engineering facilities and shared research and
education tools. Research activities will contribute to the
achieving of these outcomes through expansion of the knowledge
base; integration of research and education; stimulation of
knowledge transfer among academia and 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 and Related Activities Account include: Biological
Sciences; Computer and Information Science and Engineering;
Engineering; Geosciences; Mathematical and Physical Sciences;
Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences; U.S. Polar Research
Programs; U.S. Antarctica Logistical Support Activities; and
Integrative Activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,402,320,000
for research and related activities. This amount is $49,990,000
above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
Within the amount for research and related activities, the
following specific funding levels for each of NSF's research
activities are as follows: $605,460,000 for Biological
Sciences, $629,940,000 for Computer and Information Science,
$575,900,000 for Engineering, $728,500,000 for Geosciences,
$1,123,090,000 for Mathematical and Physical Sciences,
$224,710,000 for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences,
$281,660,000 for Polar Research Programs, $68,070,000 for
Antarctic Logistical Support, and $164,990,000 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 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 needs, the Committee directs NSF to continue to
provide multi-year budgets for all of its multi-disciplinary
activities. The Committee is concerned that NSF has taken on
more significant initiatives that often require multi-year
funding to meet its research goals. NSF shall continue to
provide the Committee with documentation that identifies these
types of initiatives and their long-range budget implications.
Accordingly, the Committee directs NSF to continue to include
the funding requirements of all major multi-disciplinary and
mid-level activities, in future budget requests.
The Committee recommends $95,000,000 for the Plant Genome
Research Program. This amount is $5,530,000 above the budget
request and the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The Committee
remains a strong supporter of this important program due to its
potential impact on improving economically significant crops.
The Committee also recognizes its vast potential in combating
hunger in poorer countries and improving the environment
throughout the world. Accordingly, the Committee directs the
NSF to accelerate funding for this program as authorized under
Section 8(3)(c) of the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368).
NSF has completed the planned 5-year priority for
Information Technology Research [ITR] within Computer and
Information Science and Engineering [CISE], yet the ITR program
has also increased our understanding of computing,
communications, and information systems as well as the areas of
large-scale networking, new high-end architectures, high-data-
volume instruments, and information management. To continue
this fundamental research, the Committee has provided
$190,000,000 to ITR within CISE.
NSF has been the lead agency for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, and will continue to provide
critical and fundamental understanding to this emerging
technology. The Committee fully supports the funding level
requested for nanotechnology within the fiscal year 2005 budget
request. The Committee believes that the recommended level of
funding will allow the Foundation to continue to be the leader
for this initiative in a field that is still in its beginning
stages. In the past, novel technologies have suffered because
of misconceptions of the public. This has led to mistrust and
confusion over the benefits that such research can provide. NSF
is encouraged to make sure such difficulties are minimized so
that this technology can continue to provide the potential
breakthroughs needed by materials research and health
researchers.
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 the Foundation's Major
Research Instrumentation [MRI] account address the
infrastructure needs of these research institutions. NSF is
encouraged to continue to target funds to assist minority
serving institutions, which tend to be underrepresented.
The Partnerships for Innovation [PFI] program is 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.
This is to be done through the transformation of knowledge
created by these institutions into innovations that will build
strong local, regional, and national economies. The Committee
recommends $15,000,000 for the PFI program.
The Committee is concerned that NSF continues to underfund
the operations for radio astronomy. The operations,
maintenance, and development of new instrumentation at the Very
Large Array, the Very Long Baseline Array, and the Green Bank
Telescope, allows these world-class facilities to provide
valuable research into the origins of the universe. The
Committee provides the National Radio Astronomy Observatories
$55,000,000 for annual operations.
Since 2001, when the National Science Board recommended
that NSF take an international leadership role, the Office of
International Science and Engineering [OISE] has worked to
ensure that U.S. researchers are involved with leading research
across the globe. As research becomes more collaborative with
partnerships reaching across nations, this office will grow in
importance for identifying research opportunities from around
the globe. The Committee supports the fiscal year 2005 funding
request for OISE in order to keep U.S. research at the
forefront of global science.
The Committee fully supports the Foundation's fiscal year
2005 request for the U.S. Arctic Research Program within its
Polar Programs activities. The Committee especially appreciates
the Foundation's priority for funding Arctic research under its
Study of Environmental Arctic Change [SEARCH] program.
Nevertheless, the Committee remains concerned about the
disparity in funding between the Foundation's Antarctica and
Arctic programs and believe that the Foundation must invest
more heavily in the U.S. Arctic Research Program. For example,
the Committee believes that more investment should be made to
address infrastructure needs under the SEARCH program,
including support for research in the Barrow Arctic area. The
Committee strongly urges the Foundation to address the Barrow
infrastructure needs as identified in its July 15, 2002, report
to the Committee.
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 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. The Committee is also
interested in SBE activities intended to raise the awareness of
science in the public. As technology continues to permeate the
workplace, the economic health and competitiveness of the
Nation will rest upon having a scientifically literate society.
The Committee supports the Foundation's request to boost
spending for developing new science and technology [S&T;]
centers in fiscal year 2005. The Committee encourages the
Foundation to fund new S&T; centers at institutions that assist
minorities, especially those serving Native Hawaiians and
Alaskan Natives.
MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $154,982,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 213,270,000
Committee recommendation................................ 130,420,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The major research equipment and facilities construction
appropriation supports the acquisition, procurement,
construction, and commissioning of unique national research
platforms and facilities as well as major research equipment.
Projects supported by this appropriation will push the
boundaries of technology and offer significant expansion of
opportunities, often in new directions, for the science and
engineering community. Preliminary design and development
activities, 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 $130,420,000
for major research equipment and facilities construction. This
amount is $24,550,000 less than the fiscal year 2004 enacted
level and $82,850,000 below the budget request.
The Committee has provided $49,670,000 for the Atacama
Large Millimeter Array [ALMA], $47,350,000 for EarthScope, and
$33,400,000 for the IceCube Neutrino Observatory. Due to
budgetary constraints, no funding is provided for new starts
within this account for fiscal year 2005.
The Committee has received 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 commends the Academy for its
work and expects this report will lead to a priority-setting
process that is transparent, fair, and rational. The Committee
expects NSF, the National Science Board and the Academy to work
together to ensure that the recommendations of the Academy are
fully implemented for the fiscal year 2006 budget submission.
Consistent with the implementation of the recommendations
from the National Research Council's January 14, 2004 report on
Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects
Supported by the National Science Foundation, the Committee
urges NSF to consider the inclusion of funding in its fiscal
year 2006 budget request to begin construction of a new
research vessel to replace the R/V Alpha Helix.
EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $938,990,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 771,360,000
Committee recommendation................................ 929,150,000
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 the 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 instructional workforce
improvement by linking precollege systems with higher
education. 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 $929,150,000
for education and human resources [EHR]. This amount is
$157,790,000 more than the budget request.
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
$95,000,000 to EPSCoR, an increase of $11,000,000 over the
budget request.
The undergraduate ``tech talent'' expansion program is
increased by $11,120,000 above the request of the
administration for a total funding level of $26,120,000. 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 continues to decline, it is important that
NSF use its position to support students working towards
degrees in these areas.
The Committee is also providing an additional $7,840,000
above the budget request to the Advanced Technological
Education program. This program supports undergraduate science
education activities at the Nation's community colleges by
providing faculty and student development, education materials
and laboratories at community and 2-year colleges.
To address the importance of broadening science and
technology participation to minorities, the Committee
recommendation includes an additional $7,000,000 above the
budget request for the Historically Black Colleges and
Universities--Undergraduate Program [HBCU-UP]. The Committee
also recommends $36,300,000 for the Louis Stokes Alliance for
Minority Participation program.
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 2005 should be used first to fund fully 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 remains supportive of the tribal colleges
program and is pleased with the Foundation's inclusion of
Alaskan Native serving institutions and Native Hawaiian serving
institutions as eligible entities under this program. To that
end, the Committee supports the Foundation's continued support
of these institutions in the tribal colleges program.
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. The
Committee is disappointed in NSF's proposed funding decrease
for fiscal year 2005 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 recognizes and is supportive of the request
by the administration for an additional 500 fellowships within
the Foundation's graduate research education programs. The
request will allow for 5,550 fellowships to be funded at
$30,000 per award. The Committee believes that this funding
will allow NSF to attract more of the best and brightest
students into the science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology fields. 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.
Without prejudice, and reflecting the difficult funding
constraints within which the Committee has been given to
operate, the Committee has chosen to provide no funding for the
new Workforce for the 21st Century program at NSF.
Finally, the Committee rejects the administration's request
to transfer the Math and Science Partnership [MSP] program to
the Department of Education. Current activities initiated by
MSP are only beginning to provide measurable results and have
yet to be ready for implementation on a nationwide basis. 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 $110,000,000, an increase of
$30,000,000 above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $218,705,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 294,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 269,000,000
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 $269,000,000
for salaries and expenses. This amount is $50,300,000 more than
the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
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 additional NSF FTEs for fiscal year 2005 is 25 FTEs, for a
total level of 1,225. The Committee is supportive of this
request. As the workload at NSF has increased over time, the
agency has struggled to keep up with the demands. Additionally,
the increased demands have taken a toll on the infrastructure
at NSF. The Committee has included additional funds in order to
make improvements to its computer systems, particularly to
FastLane.
The Committee notes that NSF has created a senior level
management position dedicated to assisting minority-serving
institutions. It is expected that NSF will support this
position in order to help minority-serving institutions improve
the quality of STEM education, and the on campus incorporation
of innovative technologies, as well as to increase
participation in NSF activities by members of these
institutions.
The Committee remains concerned about the Foundation's
management and oversight of its large research facilities. The
Committee is especially troubled by the lack of staffing
resources provided to the new Deputy Director of Large Facility
Projects and accordingly, the Committee directs the Foundation
to provide the staffing support necessary for the Deputy
Director to perform his job effectively. The Committee directs
the Foundation to detail in its fiscal year 2006 operating plan
the steps taken to provide additional staffing resources.
OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $3,877,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 3,950,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,000,000
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 also charged with serving as an
independent adviser to the President and Congress on policy
matters related to science and engineering research and
education. 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 $4,000,000 for
the National Science Board. This amount is $120,000 more than
the fiscal year 2004 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,
training, expenses, and staffing of the Board.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $9,941,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 10,110,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,110,000
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Inspector General appropriation provides
audit and investigation functions to identify and correct
deficiencies that could create potential instances of fraud,
waste, or mismanagement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,110,000
for the Office of Inspector General. This amount is the same as
the fiscal year 2005 budget request.
The funds provided will allow the OIG to further 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. With the funds provided, the OIG
will have the capability to 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, 2004.................................... $114,323,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 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, 228 NeighborWorks organizations serve over
2,500 urban, suburban and rural communities in 49 States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In fiscal year 2003, the
NeighborWorks network assisted nearly 84,000 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 $677,000 above the fiscal year 2004 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
significantly over the past several years and for fiscal year
2005, NRC expect direct investments by NeighborWorks
organizations serving rural communities across the Nation to
reach $500,000,000. The Committee strongly supports these
investments and urges the Corporation to develop a long-range
plan in addressing the needs of rural communities.
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 tens of thousands of people who went on to become
homeowners and encourages the Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation and its network to expand its education and
counseling programs.
Selective Service System
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriations, 2004.................................... $26,308,000
Budget estimate, 2005................................... 26,300,000
Committee recommendation................................ 26,300,000
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 personnel 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 $26,300,000
for the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as
the budget request and $147,000 below the fiscal year 2004
enacted level. 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 26 general
provisions. They are largely standard provisions which have
been carried in the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
appropriations bill in the past or technical corrections.
In addition, the Committee has concerns regarding the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Administrative Law Judge's
decision in Docket Nos. OR89-2-017; Docket No. OR96-14-006;
Docket No. OR98-24-002; Docket No. IS03-137-001; Docket No.
IS03-141-001; Docket No. IS03-142-001; Docket No. IS03-143-001;
Docket No. IS03-144-001. Given the importance of continued
domestic refinery activity in order to protect national fuel
supplies, the Committee expects FERC to evaluate carefully the
disputed Resid valuation and retroactive refund matter
affecting the TAPS Quality Bank Adjustments. The Committee is
particularly concerned about the equity of assigning
retroactive refunds beyond a term of 15 months. The Committee
may address this issue in more detail at conference.
For purposes of this section, the term ``TAPS Quality Bank
Adjustments'' means monetary adjustments paid by or to shippers
of oil on the Trans Alaska Pipeline System through the
operation of a quality bank to compensate for the value of the
shippers' oil commingled in the pipeline.
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 21,
2004, the Committee ordered reported S. 2825, an original bill
making appropriations 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, 2005, subject to amendment
and 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 bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution
for 2005: Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and
Urban Development, and Independent Agencies:
Discretionary........................................... 92,930 92,930 101,732 \1\ 101,100
Mandatory............................................... 38,912 35,107 38,535 \1\ 34,688
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2005.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 87,773
2006.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 24,596
2007.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 8,994
2008.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 4,293
2009 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,687
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 31,046 NA 11,075
2005.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 2004 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2005
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2004 Budget estimate Committee ---------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2004
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
Compensation and pensions.......................................... 29,845,127 32,607,688 32,607,688 +2,762,561 ...............
Readjustment benefits.............................................. 2,529,734 2,556,232 2,556,232 +26,498 ...............
Veterans insurance and indemnities................................. 29,017 44,380 44,380 +15,363 ...............
Veterans housing benefit program fund program account (indefinite). 305,834 43,784 43,784 -262,050 ...............
(Limitation on direct loans)................................... (300) ............... (500) (+200) (+500)
Credit subsidy................................................. ............... -144,000 -144,000 -144,000 ...............
Administrative expenses........................................ 153,936 154,075 154,075 +139 ...............
Education loan fund program account................................ 1 ............... ............... -1 ...............
(Limitation on direct loans)................................... (3) ............... ............... (-3) ...............
Administrative expenses........................................ 70 ............... ............... -70 ...............
Vocational rehabilitation loans program account.................... 52 47 47 -5 ...............
(Limitation on direct loans)................................... (3,938) (4,108) (4,108) (+170) ...............
Administrative expenses........................................ 298 311 311 +13 ...............
Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account............... 568 571 571 +3 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Veterans Benefits Administration...................... 32,864,637 35,263,088 35,263,088 +2,398,451 ...............
====================================================================================
Veterans Health Administration
Medical services................................................... 16,662,054 ............... 17,198,600 +536,546 +17,198,600
Two year funding............................................... 1,100,000 ............... 1,100,000 ............... +1,100,000
(Emergency appropriations)..................................... ............... ............... 1,200,000 +1,200,000 +1,200,000
Medical administration............................................. 4,970,500 ............... 4,705,000 -265,500 +4,705,000
Medical facilities................................................. 3,976,400 ............... 3,745,000 -231,400 +3,745,000
Medical and prosthetic research.................................... 405,593 384,770 405,593 ............... +20,823
Medical care....................................................... ............... 25,352,600 ............... ............... -25,352,600
Two-year funding............................................... ............... 1,396,000 ............... ............... -1,396,000
Rescission..................................................... -270,000 ............... ............... +270,000 ...............
Medical care cost recovery collections:
Offsetting collections......................................... -1,554,772 -2,002,000 -2,002,000 -447,228 ...............
Appropriations (indefinite).................................... 1,554,772 2,002,000 2,002,000 +447,228 ...............
Accelerated spending of balances (Sec. 114b)....................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Veterans Health Administration........................ 26,844,547 27,133,370 28,354,193 +1,509,646 +1,220,823
Offsetting collections................................... (-1,554,772) (-2,002,000) (-2,002,000) (-447,228) ...............
Total available to VHA................................... (28,399,319) (29,135,370) (30,356,193) (+1,956,874) (+1,220,823)
====================================================================================
Departmental Administration
General operating expenses......................................... 1,275,701 1,324,753 1,399,753 +124,052 +75,000
National Cemetery Administration................................... 143,352 148,925 148,925 +5,573 ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................ 61,634 64,711 64,711 +3,077 ...............
Construction, major projects....................................... 271,081 458,800 458,800 +187,719 ...............
Omnibus Appropriations (Public Law 108-199) Sec. 167........... 497 ............... ............... -497 ...............
Construction, minor projects....................................... 250,656 230,799 230,799 -19,857 ...............
Grants for construction of State extended care facilities.......... 101,498 105,163 105,163 +3,665 ...............
Grants for the construction of State veterans cemeteries........... 31,811 32,000 32,000 +189 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Departmental Administration........................... 2,136,230 2,365,151 2,440,151 +303,921 +75,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, title I, Department of Veterans Affairs............... 61,845,414 64,761,609 66,057,432 +4,212,018 +1,295,823
====================================================================================
Appropriations........................................... (63,670,186) (65,367,609) (66,859,432) (+3,189,246) (+1,491,823)
Rescissions.............................................. (-270,000) ............... ............... (+270,000) ...............
(Emergency appropriations)............................... ............... ............... 1,200,000 +1,200,000 +1,200,000
Offsetting collections................................... (-1,554,772) (-2,002,000) (-2,002,000) (-447,228) ...............
(Limitation on direct loans)................................. (4,241) (4,108) (4,608) (+367) (+500)
====================================================================================
Mandatory................................................ (32,709,712) (35,108,084) (35,108,084) (+2,398,372) ...............
Net discretionary........................................ (29,135,702) (29,653,525) (30,949,348) (+1,813,646) (+1,295,823)
Medical care collection fund......................... (1,554,772) (2,002,000) (2,002,000) (+447,228) ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total discretionary available...................... (30,690,474) (31,655,525) (32,951,348) (+2,260,874) (+1,295,823)
====================================================================================
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Public and Indian Housing
Housing Certificate Fund:
Direct appropriation........................................... 15,081,970 14,265,800 16,507,804 +1,425,834 +2,242,004
Advance appropriations provided in previous acts............... 4,175,220 4,200,000 4,200,000 +24,780 ...............
Rescission..................................................... -2,844,000 -1,557,000 -2,588,172 +255,828 -1,031,172
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Housing certificate fund........................... 16,413,190 16,908,800 18,119,632 +1,706,442 +1,210,832
Advance appropriations provided in current year................ 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 ............... ...............
====================================================================================
Total, Housing certificate fund.............................. 20,613,190 21,108,800 22,319,632 +1,706,442 +1,210,832
Public housing capital fund........................................ 2,696,253 2,674,100 2,700,000 +3,747 +25,900
Public housing operating fund...................................... 3,578,760 3,573,000 2,610,000 -968,760 -963,000
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing............... 149,115 ............... 150,000 +885 +150,000
Public housing elimination grants (rescission)..................... ............... -5,000 -5,000 -5,000 ...............
Native American housing block grants............................... 650,241 647,000 650,241 ............... +3,241
Title VI credit subsidy (rescission)............................... ............... -21,000 -21,000 -21,000 ...............
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account................. 5,269 1,000 1,000 -4,269 ...............
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............................... (197,243) (29,070) (29,070) (-168,173) ...............
Indian housing credit subsidy (rescission)......................... ............... -33,000 -33,000 -33,000 ...............
Native Hawaiian housing block grant................................ ............... 9,500 ............... ............... -9,500
Native Hawaiian housing loan guarantee fund........................ 1,029 1,000 1,000 -29 ...............
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............................... (39,712) (37,403) (37,403) (-2,309) ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public and Indian Housing............................. 27,693,857 27,955,400 28,372,873 +679,016 +417,473
Current year advance appropriations...................... 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 ............... ...............
====================================================================================
Net total (excluding current year advances).................. 23,493,857 23,755,400 24,172,873 +679,016 +417,473
Appropriations........................................... (26,337,857) (25,371,400) (26,820,045) (+482,188) (+1,448,645)
Rescissions.............................................. (-2,844,000) (-1,616,000) (-2,647,172) (+196,828) (-1,031,172)
====================================================================================
Community Planning and Development
Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS........................ 294,751 294,800 294,800 +49 ...............
Rural housing and economic development............................. 24,853 ............... 25,000 +147 +25,000
Empowerment zones/enterprise communities........................... 14,912 ............... ............... -14,912 ...............
Community development fund......................................... 4,920,795 4,618,094 4,950,000 +29,205 +331,906
Omnibus Appropriations (Public Law 108-199) Sec. 165........... 9,941 ............... ............... -9,941 ...............
Omnibus Appropriations (Public Law 108-199) Sec. 167........... 2,992 ............... ............... -2,992 ...............
Urban development action grant (rescission)........................ -30,000 ............... ............... +30,000 ...............
Section 108 loan guarantees:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............................... (275,000) ............... (275,000) ............... (+275,000)
Credit subsidy................................................. 6,288 ............... 6,325 +37 +6,325
Administrative expenses........................................ 994 ............... 1,000 +6 +1,000
Brownfields redevelopment.......................................... 24,853 ............... 25,000 +147 +25,000
HOME investment partnerships program............................... 2,005,597 2,084,200 2,050,000 +44,403 -34,200
Homeless assistance grants......................................... 1,259,525 1,282,400 1,260,000 +475 -22,400
Samaritan housing initiative (legislative proposal)................ ............... 50,000 ............... ............... -50,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Community planning and development.................... 8,535,501 8,329,494 8,612,125 +76,624 +282,631
====================================================================================
Housing Programs
Housing for the elderly............................................ 773,728 773,300 773,800 +72 +500
Housing for persons with disabilities.............................. 249,092 248,700 250,000 +908 +1,300
Housing counseling assistance...................................... ............... 45,000 ............... ............... -45,000
Rental housing assistance (rescission)............................. -303,000 -675,000 -675,000 -372,000 ...............
Manufactured housing fees trust fund............................... 12,923 13,000 13,000 +77 ...............
Offsetting collections......................................... -12,923 -13,000 -13,000 -77 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, housing programs...................................... 719,820 392,000 348,800 -371,020 -43,200
====================================================================================
Federal Housing Administration
FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............................... (185,000,000) (185,000,000) (185,000,000) ............... ...............
(Limitation on direct loans)................................... (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) ............... ...............
Administrative expenses........................................ 356,882 366,000 366,000 +9,118 ...............
Offsetting receipts............................................ -2,921,000 -2,206,000 -2,206,000 +715,000 ...............
Offsetting receipts (legislative proposal)..................... ............... -28,000 -28,000 -28,000 ...............
Administrative contract expenses............................... 84,499 70,900 70,900 -13,599 ...............
Additional contract expenses................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 ............... ...............
FHA--General and special risk program account:
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............................... (25,000,000) (35,000,000) (35,000,000) (+10,000,000) ...............
(Limitation on direct loans)................................... (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) ............... ...............
Administrative expenses........................................ 227,649 234,000 234,000 +6,351 ...............
Offsetting receipts............................................ -225,000 -240,000 -240,000 -15,000 ...............
Credit subsidy................................................. 14,912 10,000 10,000 -4,912 ...............
GI/SRI credit subsidy (rescission)............................. ............... -30,000 -30,000 -30,000 ...............
Non-overhead administrative expenses........................... 93,227 81,600 81,600 -11,627 ...............
Additional contract expenses................................... 4,000 4,000 4,000 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Housing Administration........................ -2,363,831 -1,736,500 -1,736,500 +627,331 ...............
====================================================================================
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........................................ 10,695 10,986 10,986 +291 ...............
Offsetting receipts............................................ -316,124 -368,000 -368,000 -51,876 ...............
Policy Development and Research
Research and technology............................................ 46,723 46,700 46,700 -23 ...............
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Fair housing activities............................................ 47,717 47,700 47,700 -17 ...............
Office of Lead Hazard Control
Lead hazard reduction.............................................. 173,968 139,000 175,000 +1,032 +36,000
Management and Administration
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 543,773 591,579 590,579 +46,806 -1,000
Transfer from:
Limitation on FHA corporate funds.......................... (564,000) (576,000) (576,000) (+12,000) ...............
GNMA....................................................... (10,695) (10,986) (10,986) (+291) ...............
Community Development Loan Guarantees Program.............. (1,000) ............... (1,000) ............... (+1,000)
Native American Housing Block Grants....................... (150) (150) (150) ............... ...............
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program................. (250) (250) (250) ............... ...............
Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantees.................... (35) (35) (35) ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Salaries and expenses............................. (1,119,903) (1,179,000) (1,179,000) (+59,097) ...............
Working capital fund............................................... 233,614 234,000 234,000 +386 ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................ 76,546 77,000 83,500 +6,954 +6,500
(By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds)............... (24,000) (24,000) (24,000) ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of Inspector General........................... (100,546) (101,000) (107,500) (+6,954) (+6,500)
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight..................... 39,680 44,259 59,209 +19,529 +14,950
Offsetting receipts............................................ -39,680 -44,259 -59,209 -19,529 -14,950
====================================================================================
Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Development. 35,402,259 35,719,359 36,417,763 +1,015,504 +698,404
Current year advance appropriations...................... 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 ............... ...............
====================================================================================
Net total (excluding current year advances).................. 31,202,259 31,519,359 32,217,763 +1,015,504 +698,404
Appropriations........................................... (37,893,986) (36,739,618) (38,484,144) (+590,158) (+1,744,526)
Rescissions.............................................. (-3,177,000) (-2,321,000) (-3,352,172) (-175,172) (-1,031,172)
Offsetting receipts...................................... (-3,462,124) (-2,842,000) (-2,842,000) (+620,124) ...............
Offsetting collections................................... (-52,603) (-57,259) (-72,209) (-19,606) (-14,950)
(Limitation on direct loans)................................. (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) ............... ...............
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............................. (410,511,955) (420,066,473) (420,341,473) (+9,829,518) (+275,000)
(Limitation on corporate funds).............................. (600,130) (611,421) (612,421) (+12,291) (+1,000)
====================================================================================
TITLE III
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 41,056 41,100 46,100 +5,044 +5,000
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 8,201 8,566 9,000 +799 +434
Emergency fund..................................................... 447 450 ............... -447 -450
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 8,648 9,016 9,000 +352 -16
Department of the Treasury
Community Development Financial Institutions
Community development financial institutions fund program account.. 60,640 48,403 55,000 -5,640 +6,597
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 59,646 62,650 62,650 +3,004 ...............
Corporation for National and Community Service
National and community service programs operating expenses......... 549,961 636,232 558,311 +8,350 -77,921
National Service Trust............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 24,853 ............... 25,500 +647 +25,500
Office of Inspector General........................................ 6,213 6,000 6,250 +37 +250
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 581,027 642,232 590,061 +9,034 -52,171
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 15,844 17,623 17,623 +1,779 ...............
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 28,829 29,600 29,600 +771 ...............
Department of Health and Human Services
National Institute of Health
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences................ 78,309 80,486 80,486 +2,177 ...............
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Toxic substances and environmental public health................... 73,034 76,654 76,654 +3,620 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of Health and Human Services............... 151,343 157,140 157,140 +5,797 ...............
Environmental Protection Agency
Science and Technology............................................. 781,685 689,185 758,179 -23,506 +68,994
Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund.................... 44,433 36,097 36,097 -8,336 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Science and Technology............................. 826,118 725,282 794,276 -31,842 +68,994
Environmental Programs and Management.............................. 2,280,046 2,316,959 2,310,263 +30,217 -6,696
Office of Inspector General........................................ 37,336 37,997 38,000 +664 +3
Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund.................... 13,136 13,214 13,214 +78 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, OIG................................................ 50,472 51,211 51,214 +742 +3
Buildings and facilities........................................... 39,764 42,918 40,000 +236 -2,918
Hazardous Substance Superfund...................................... 1,257,537 1,381,416 1,381,416 +123,879 ...............
Transfer to Office of Inspector General........................ -13,136 -13,214 -13,214 -78 ...............
Transfer to Science and Technology............................. -44,434 -36,097 -36,097 +8,337 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Hazardous Substance Superfund...................... 1,199,967 1,332,105 1,332,105 +132,138 ...............
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program........................... 75,552 72,545 70,000 -5,552 -2,545
Oil spill response................................................. 16,113 16,425 16,000 -113 -425
Pesticide registration fund........................................ ............... 19,400 19,400 +19,400 ...............
Pesticide registration fees........................................ ............... -19,400 -19,400 -19,400 ...............
State and Tribal Assistance Grants................................. 2,705,543 1,979,500 2,724,000 +18,457 +744,500
Omnibus Appropriations (Public Law 108-199) Sec. 167........... 3,976 ............... ............... -3,976 ...............
Categorical grants............................................. 1,168,266 1,252,300 1,162,550 -5,716 -89,750
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, STAG............................................... 3,877,785 3,231,800 3,886,550 +8,765 +654,750
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, EPA................................................... 8,365,817 7,789,245 8,500,408 +134,591 +711,163
====================================================================================
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy............................ 6,986 7,081 7,081 +95 ...............
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental 3,219 3,284 3,284 +65 ...............
Quality...........................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................ 10,205 10,365 10,365 +160 ...............
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Office of Inspector General (transfer)............................. (30,125) (30,125) (30,625) (+500) (+500)
General Services Administration
Federal Citizen Information Center Fund............................ 13,917 14,907 14,907 +990 ...............
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
Operating expenses................................................. 1,491 1,500 1,500 +9 ...............
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Space flight capabilities.......................................... 7,467,779 8,456,400 7,811,100 +343,321 -645,300
(Emergency appropriations)..................................... ............... ............... 600,000 +600,000 +600,000
Science, aeronautics and exploration............................... 7,883,114 7,760,000 7,736,500 -146,614 -23,500
(Emergency appropriations)..................................... ............... ............... 200,000 +200,000 +200,000
Office of Inspector General........................................ 27,139 27,600 31,600 +4,461 +4,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NASA.................................................. 15,378,032 16,244,000 16,379,200 +1,001,168 +135,200
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)....... (310) (310) (310) ............... ...............
Community Development Revolving Loan Fund.......................... 1,193 1,000 1,000 -193 ...............
National Science Foundation
Research and related activities.................................... 4,183,769 4,384,000 4,336,320 +152,551 -47,680
Defense function............................................... 67,599 68,000 68,000 +401 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 4,251,368 4,452,000 4,404,320 +152,952 -47,680
Major research equipment and facilities construction............... 154,980 213,270 130,420 -24,560 -82,850
Education and human resources...................................... 938,977 771,360 929,150 -9,827 +157,790
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 218,702 294,000 269,000 +50,298 -25,000
National Science Board............................................. 3,877 3,950 4,000 +123 +50
Office of Inspector General........................................ 9,941 10,110 10,110 +169 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, NSF................................................... 5,577,845 5,744,690 5,747,000 +169,155 +2,310
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation............... 114,322 115,000 115,000 +678 ...............
Selective Service System
Salaries and expenses.............................................. 26,153 26,300 26,300 +147 ...............
====================================================================================
Total, title III, Independent agencies....................... 30,436,008 30,954,771 31,762,854 +1,326,846 +808,083
Appropriations........................................... (30,436,008) (30,954,771) (30,962,854) (+526,846) (+8,083)
(Emergency appropriations)............................... ............... ............... (800,000) (+800,000) (+800,000)
(By transfer)................................................ (30,125) (30,125) (30,625) (+500) (+500)
(Limitation on direct loans)................................. (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) ............... ...............
(Limitation on corporate funds).............................. (310) (310) (310) ............... ...............
====================================================================================
Grand total.................................................. 127,683,681 131,435,739 134,238,049 +6,554,368 +2,802,310
Current year advances (housing cert. fund)............... 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 ............... ...............
====================================================================================
Net grand total.............................................. 123,483,681 127,235,739 130,038,049 +6,554,368 +2,802,310
Appropriations........................................... (132,000,180) (133,061,998) (136,306,430) (+4,306,250) (+3,244,432)
Rescissions.............................................. (-3,447,000) (-2,321,000) (-3,352,172) (+94,828) (-1,031,172)
(Emergency appropriations)............................... ............... ............... (2,000,000) (+2,000,000) (+2,000,000)
Offsetting receipts...................................... (-3,462,124) (-2,842,000) (-2,842,000) (+620,124) ...............
Offsetting collections................................... (-1,607,375) (-2,059,259) (-2,074,209) (-466,834) (-14,950)
(By transfer).................................................. (30,125) (30,125) (30,625) (+500) (+500)
(Limitation on direct loans)................................... (1,604,241) (1,604,108) (1,604,608) (+367) (+500)
(Limitation on guaranteed loans)............................... (410,511,955) (420,066,473) (420,341,473) (+9,829,518) (+275,000)
(Limitation on corporate funds)................................ (600,440) (611,731) (612,731) (+12,291) (+1,000)
====================================================================================
TITLE I--Department of Veterans Affairs
Veterans Benefits Administration................................... 32,864,637 35,263,088 35,263,088 +2,398,451 ...............
Veterans Health Administration..................................... 26,844,547 27,133,370 28,354,193 +1,509,646 +1,220,823
Departmental administration........................................ 2,136,230 2,365,151 2,440,151 +303,921 +75,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs............... 61,845,414 64,761,609 66,057,432 +4,212,018 +1,295,823
====================================================================================
TITLE II--Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev
Public and Indian housing (excluding CY advances).................. 23,493,857 23,755,400 24,172,873 +679,016 +417,473
Community and planning development................................. 8,535,501 8,329,494 8,612,125 +76,624 +282,631
Housing programs................................................... 719,820 392,000 348,800 -371,020 -43,200
Federal Housing Administration..................................... -2,363,831 -1,736,500 -1,736,500 +627,331 ...............
Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA).................... -305,429 -357,014 -357,014 -51,585 ...............
Policy development and research.................................... 46,723 46,700 46,700 -23 ...............
Fair housing and equal opportunity activities...................... 47,717 47,700 47,700 -17 ...............
Office of Lead Hazard Control...................................... 173,968 139,000 175,000 +1,032 +36,000
Management and administration...................................... 1,119,903 1,179,000 1,179,000 +59,097 ...............
Working capital fund............................................... 233,614 234,000 234,000 +386 ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................ 100,546 101,000 107,500 +6,954 +6,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Title II--Dept. of Housing and Urban Development 31,202,259 31,519,359 32,217,763 +1,015,504 +698,404
(excluding CY advances).....................................
====================================================================================
TITLE III--Independent Agencies
American Battle Monuments Commission............................... 41,056 41,100 46,100 +5,044 +5,000
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board..................... 8,201 8,566 9,000 +799 +434
Community development financial institutions fund (Department of 60,640 48,403 55,000 -5,640 +6,597
Treasury).........................................................
Interagency Council on the Homeless................................ 1,491 1,500 1,500 +9 ...............
Consumer Product Safety Commission................................. 59,646 62,650 62,650 +3,004 ...............
Corporation for National and Community Service..................... 581,027 642,232 590,061 +9,034 -52,171
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.......................... 15,844 17,623 17,623 +1,779 ...............
Cemeterial expenses, Army.......................................... 28,829 29,600 29,600 +771 ...............
HHS/(NIH-Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) and (CDC-Toxic 151,343 157,140 157,140 +5,797 ...............
Substances and Disease Registry)..................................
Environmental Protection Agency.................................... 8,365,817 7,789,245 8,500,408 +134,591 +711,163
EOP/Office of Science and Technology Policy, Council Environmental 10,205 10,365 10,365 +160 ...............
Qual, and Office of Environmental Qual............................
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp..................................... 30,125 30,125 30,625 +500 +500
GSA/Federal Consumer Information Center............................ 13,917 14,907 14,907 +990 ...............
National Aeronautics and Space Administration...................... 15,378,032 16,244,000 16,379,200 +1,001,168 +135,200
National Credit Union Administration............................... 1,193 1,000 1,000 -193 ...............
National Science Foundation........................................ 5,577,845 5,744,690 5,747,000 +169,155 +2,310
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.............................. 114,322 115,000 115,000 +678 ...............
Selective Service System........................................... 26,153 26,300 26,300 +147 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Title III--Independent Agencies........................ 30,436,008 30,954,771 31,762,854 +1,326,846 +808,083
====================================================================================
Net grand total.............................................. 123,483,681 127,235,739 130,038,049 +6,554,368 +2,802,310
Mandatory................................................ (32,709,712) (35,108,084) (35,108,084) (+2,398,372) ...............
Discretionary............................................ (90,773,969) (92,127,655) (94,929,965) (+4,155,996) (+2,802,310)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
