```

[House Report 107-740]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-740

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

 
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003

                                _______
                                

October 10, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Walsh, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5605]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent 
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other 
purposes.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs....................     2
                                                                      4
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development......    23
                                                                     23
Title III--Independent Agencies............................    68
                                                                     84
        American Battle Monuments Commission...............    68
                                                                     84
        Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.....    69
                                                                     85
        Community Development Financial Institutions.......    69
                                                                     86
        Consumer Product Safety Commission.................    70
                                                                     86
        Corporation for National and Community Service.....    71
                                                                     87
        U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims..........    72
                                                                     89
        Department of Defense--Civil, Cemeterial Expenses, 
            Army...........................................    72
                                                                     89
        National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences    73
                                                                     90
        Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry...    73
                                                                     91
        Environmental Protection Agency....................    74
                                                                     91
        Office of Science and Technology Policy............    84
                                                                    130
        Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
            Environmental Quality..........................    85
                                                                    130
        Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation..............    85
                                                                    131
        Federal Emergency Management Agency................    86
                                                                    131
        Federal Citizen Information Center.................    92
                                                                    141
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration......    93
                                                                    143
        National Credit Union Administration...............    97
                                                                    153
        National Science Foundation........................    97
                                                                    154
        Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation..............   100
                                                                    163
        Selective Service System...........................   100
                                                                    163
Title IV--General Provisions...............................   101
                                                                    164

                          Summary of the Bill

    The Committee recommends $122,568,881,000 in new budget 
(obligational) authority for the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 20 independent 
agencies and offices.
    The following table summarizes the amounts recommended in 
the bill in comparison with the appropriations for fiscal year 
2002 and budget estimates for fiscal year 2003.

Accrual Funding of Retirement Costs and Post-Retirement Health Benefits

    The President's Budget included a legislative proposal 
under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Government 
Reform to charge to individual agencies, starting in fiscal 
year 2003, the fully accrued costs related to retirement 
benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and 
retiree health benefits for all civilian employees. The Budget 
also requested an additional dollar amount in each affected 
discretionary account to cover these accrued costs.
    Without passing judgment on the merits of this legislative 
proposal, the Committee has reduced the dollar amounts of the 
President's request shown in the ``Comparative Statement of New 
Budget Authority'' and other tables in this report to exclude 
the accrual funding proposal. The disposition by Congress of 
the legislative proposal is unclear at this time. Should the 
proposal be passed by Congress and enacted, the Committee will 
make appropriate adjustments to the President's request to 
include accrual amounts.
    The Committee further notes that administration proposals 
requiring legislative action by the authorizing committees of 
Congress are customarily submitted in the budget as separate 
schedules apart from the regular appropriations requests. 
Should such a proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally 
modifying the President's appropriation request for 
discretionary funding is then transmitted to the Congress.
    The Committee is concerned that this practice, which has 
always worked effectively for both Congress and past 
administrations, was not followed for the accrual funding 
proposal. In this case, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) decided to include accrual amounts in the original 
discretionary appropriations language request. These amounts 
are based on legislation that has yet to be considered and 
approved by the appropriate committees of Congress. This led to 
numerous misunderstandings both inside and outside of Congress 
of what was the ``true'' President's budget request. The 
Committee believes that, in the future, OMB should follow long-
established procedures with respect to discretionary spending 
proposals that require legislative action.

              Operating Plan and Reprogramming Procedures

    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, the basis of this appropriations Act.
    Consequently, the Committee directs the Departments, 
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations and offices funded 
at or in excess of $100,000,000 in this bill, to consult with 
the Committee prior to each change from the approved budget 
levels in excess of $500,000 between programs, activities, 
object classifications or elements unless otherwise provided 
for in the Committee report accompanying this bill. For 
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations and offices funded 
at less than $100,000,000 in this bill, the reprogramming 
threshold shall be $250,000 between programs, activities, 
object classifications or elements unless otherwise provided 
for in the Committee report accompanying this bill. 
Additionally, the Committee expects to be promptly notified of 
all reprogramming actions which involve less than the above-
mentioned amounts. If such actions would have the effect of 
significantly changing an agency's funding requirements in 
future years, or if programs or projects specifically cited in 
the Committee's reports are affected by the reprogramming, the 
reprogramming must be approved by the Committee regardless of 
the amount proposed to be moved. Furthermore, the Committee 
wishes to be consulted regarding reorganizations of offices, 
programs, and activities prior to the planned implementation of 
such reorganizations.
    The Committee also directs that the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, as well as the 
Corporation for National and Community Service, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, and the Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board shall submit operating plans, signed by the 
respective secretary, administrator, or agency head, for the 
Committee's review within 120 days of the bill's enactment.

                    Relationship with Budget Offices

    Through the years, the Committee has channeled most of its 
inquiries and requests for information and assistance through 
the budget offices of the various departments, agencies, and 
commissions. The Committee has often pointed to the natural 
affinity and relationship between these organizations and the 
Committee which makes such a relationship workable. The 
Committee reiterates its longstanding position that while the 
Committee reserves the right to call upon all offices in the 
departments, agencies, and commissions, the primary conjunction 
between the Committee and these entities must normally be 
through the budget offices. The Committee appreciates all the 
assistance received from each of the departments, agencies, and 
commissions during the past year. The workload generated by the 
budget process is large and growing, and therefore, a positive, 
responsive relationship between the Committee and the budget 
offices is absolutely essential to the appropriations process.

                                TITLE I

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................   $58,131,067,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation \1\....................    52,379,398,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    56,938,897,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........    +5,751,669,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......    +1,192,170,000

 \1\ Includes supplemental funding of $1,100,000,000 for Compensation
  and Readjustment benefits and $142,000,000 for Medical Care.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs is the third largest 
Federal agency in terms of employment with an average 
employment of approximately 212,000. It administers benefits 
for more than 25,300,000 veterans, and 41,400,000 family 
members of living veterans and survivors of deceased veterans. 
Thus, close to 66,700,000 people, comprising about 23.3 percent 
of the total population of the United States, are potential 
recipients of veterans benefits provided by the Federal 
Government.
    A total of $58,131,067,000 in new budget authority is 
recommended by the Committee for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs programs in fiscal year 2003. The funds recommended 
provide for compensation payments to 2,746,615 veterans and 
survivors of deceased veterans with service-connected 
disabilities; pension payment for 581,797 non-service-connected 
disabled veterans, widows and children in need of financial 
assistance; education training, tuition assistance, and 
vocational assistance of 632,415 veterans, servicepersons, and 
reservists, and 51,746 eligible dependents of deceased veterans 
or seriously disabled veterans; housing credit assistance in 
the form of 248,000 guaranteed loans provided to veterans and 
servicepersons; administration or supervision of life insurance 
programs with 4,203,880 policies for veterans and active duty 
servicepersons providing coverage of $599,263,090,000; 
inpatient care and treatment of beneficiaries in 172 medical 
centers; 43 domiciliaries, 137 nursing homes and 864 outpatient 
clinics which includes independent, satellite, community-based, 
and rural outreach clinics involving 49,222,000 visits; and the 
administration of the National Cemetery Administration for 
burial of eligible veterans, servicepersons and their 
survivors.

                    Veterans Benefits Administration

                       COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................   $28,949,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation \1\....................    26,044,288,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    28,949,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........    +2,904,712,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

\1\ Includes a supplemental appropriation of $1,100,000,000.

    This appropriation provides funds for service-connected 
compensation payments to an estimated 2,746,615 beneficiaries 
and pension payments to another 581,797 beneficiaries with non-
service-connected disabilities. The average cost per 
compensation case in 2003 is estimated at $9,217, and pension 
payments are projected at a unit cost of $5,980. The estimated 
caseload and cost by program for 2002 and 2003 are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2002                 2003              Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:
    Compensation:
        Veterans................................            2,356,600            2,433,216              +76,616
        Survivors...............................              308,165              312,297               +4,132
        Children................................                1,044                1,102                  +58
        Clothing allowance (non-add)............             (79,618)             (81,104)              (+1,486)
    Pensions:
        Veterans................................              347,178              340,374               -6,804
        Survivors...............................              234,619              221,072              -13,547
        Minimum income for widows (non-add).....                (523)                (488)                 (-35)
        Vocational training (non-add)...........                  (0)                  (0)                   (0)
        Burial allowances and service connected                97,602               97,393                 -209
         deaths.................................
                                                 ===============================================================
Funds:
    Compensation:
        Veterans................................      $18,711,705,000      $21,191,850,000      +$2,480,145,000
        Survivors...............................        3,866,386,000        4,113,572,000         +247,186,000
        Children................................           17,974,000           16,742,000           -1,232,000
        Clothing allowance......................           46,178,000           47,640,000           +1,462,000
        Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508 and             1,286,000              966,000             -320,000
         102-568)...............................
        Medical exams pilot program (Public Law            37,000,000           38,300,000           +1,300,000
         104-275)...............................
    Pensions:
        Veterans................................        2,596,916,000        2,595,459,000             -457,000
        Survivors...............................          733,584,000          761,037,000          +27,453,000
        Minimum income for widows...............            3,444,000            3,292,000             -152,000
        Vocational training.....................                    0                    0                    0
        Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508, 102-           8,564,000            7,000,000           -1,564,000
         568, and 103-446)......................
    Payment to medical care (Public Laws 101-508            8,090,000            8,575,000             +485,000
     and 102-568)...............................
    Payment to medical facilities (non-add).....            (891,000)            (937,000)             (+46,000)
    Burial benefits.............................          141,817,000          159,470,000          +17,653,000
    Other assistance............................            4,887,000            4,935,000              +48,000
    Unobligated balance and transfers...........         -133,543,000             -838,000         +132,705,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation \1\...................       26,044,288,000       28,949,000,000      +2,904,712,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals do not add due to rounding.

    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee is recommending the 
budget estimate of $28,949,000,000 for compensation and 
pensions. The bill also includes requested language not to 
exceed $17,138,000 of reimbursements of which $8,563,000 goes 
to the general operating expenses account and $8,575,000 to the 
medical care account for administrative expenses of 
implementing cost saving provisions required by the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Public Law 101-508, the 
Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992, Public Law 102-568, and the 
Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Public Law 103-
446. These cost savings provisions include verifying pension 
income against Internal Revenue Service and Social Security 
Administration (SSA) data; establishing a match with the SSA to 
obtain verification of Social Security numbers; and the $90 
monthly VA pension cap for Medicaid-eligible single veterans 
and surviving spouses alone in Medicaid-covered nursing homes. 
The bill includes requested language permitting this 
appropriation to reimburse such sums as may be earned to the 
medical facilities revolving fund to help defray the operating 
expenses of individual medical facilities for nursing home care 
provided to pensioners.
    The Administration has proposed to provide a cost-of-living 
adjustment, based on the change in the Consumer Price Index, to 
all compensation beneficiaries, including dependency and 
indemnity compensation (DIC) for spouses and children. It is 
currently estimated at 1.8 percent. This is the same as the 
COLA that will be provided, under current law, to veterans 
pension and Social Security recipients. The increase would be 
effective December 1, 2002, and would cost an estimated 
$278,900,000 during 2003. Funding for this COLA is reflected in 
the Compensation and pensions obligations in the 2003 budget.
    The Administration has proposed language that would provide 
indefinite 2003 supplemental appropriations for compensation 
and pension payments. The Committee believes the current 
funding procedures are adequate and has not included the 
requested language in the bill.

                         READJUSTMENT BENEFITS

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    $2,264,808,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     2,135,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     2,264,808,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........      +129,808,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    This 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. 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 through education assistance to certain 
members of the Selected Reserve and are funded through 
transfers from the Departments of Defense and Transportation. 
In addition, certain disabled veterans are provided with 
vocational rehabilitation, specially adapted housing grants, 
and automobile grants with approved adaptive equipment. This 
account also finances educational assistance allowances for 
eligible dependents of those veterans who died from service-
connected causes or have a total and permanent service-
connected disability as well as dependents of servicepersons 
who were captured or missing-in-action.
    The Committee recommends the budget estimates of 
$2,264,808,000 for readjustment benefits in fiscal year 2003, 
an increase of $129,808,000 over the current year funding 
level.
    The Administration has proposed language that would provide 
indefinite 2003 supplemental appropriations for readjustment 
benefits because of legislative changes or year-end funding 
shortages. The Committee believes the current funding 
procedures are adequate and has not included the requested 
language in the bill.
    The estimated number of trainees and costs by program for 
2002 and 2003 are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2002              2003           Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of trainees:
    Education and training: dependents....................            49,949            51,746            +1,797
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
        Veterans and servicepersons.......................           326,425           325,815              -610
        Reservists........................................            79,000            81,721            +2,721
    Vocational rehabilitation.............................            64,556            64,879              +323
    Tuition assistance....................................           160,000           160,000                 0
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................           679,930           684,161            +4,231
                                                           =====================================================
Licensing and certification tests.........................            25,450            81,150           +55,700
                                                           =====================================================
Funds:
    Education and training: dependents....................      $206,181,000      $217,472,000      +$11,291,000
    All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:
        Veterans and servicepersons.......................     1,460,321,000     1,759,683,000      +299,362,000
        Reservists........................................       135,750,000       142,858,000        +7,108,000
        Vocational rehabilitation.........................       440,896,000       452,029,000       +11,133,000
        Tuition assistance................................        79,040,000        79,040,000                 0
        Licensing and certification tests.................         5,982,000        19,071,000       +13,089,000
        Housing grants....................................        24,960,000        24,960,000                 0
        Automobiles and other conveyances.................         8,750,000         8,995,000          +245,000
        Adaptive equipment................................        27,200,000        27,100,000          -100,000
        Work-study........................................        45,900,000        51,408,000        +5,508,000
        Payment to States.................................        14,000,000        13,000,000        -1,000,000
        Reporting fees....................................         3,500,000         3,500,000                 0
        Unobligated balance and other adjustments \1\.....      -317,480,000      -534,308,000      -216,828,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation.................................     2,135,000,000     2,264,808,000     +129,808,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes offsetting collections.

                   VETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $27,530,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        26,200,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        27,530,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        +1,330,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    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 (NSLI), applicable to certain World War II 
veterans; servicemen's indemnities, applicable to Korean 
conflict veterans; and the veterans mortgage life insurance, 
applicable to individuals who have received a grant for 
specially adapted housing.
    The budget estimate of $27,530,000 for veterans insurance 
and indemnities in fiscal year 2003 is included in the bill, 
and increase of $1,330,000 over the current year funding level. 
The amount provided will enable VA to transfer more than 
$18,920,000 to the service-disabled veterans insurance fund and 
transfer $9,150,000 in payments for the 2,970 policies under 
the veterans mortgage life insurance program. These policies 
are identified under the veterans' insurance and indemnity 
appropriation since they provide insurance to service-disabled 
veterans unable to qualify under basic NSLI.
    The Administration has proposed language that would provide 
indefinite 2003 supplemental appropriations for the insurance 
program. The Committee believes the current funding procedures 
are adequate and has not included the requested language in the 
bill.

         VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Limitation on
                                                                              direct loans for
                                                             Program account      specially      Administrative
                                                                               adapted housing      expenses
                                                                                    loans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation...........................      $437,522,000          $300,000      $168,207,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation............................       203,278,000           300,000       164,497,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request...........................       437,522,000           300,000       168,207,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation............      +234,244,000                 0        +3,710,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request...........                 0                 0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the VA home loan guaranty program is to 
facilitate the extension of mortgage credit on favorable terms 
by private lenders to eligible veterans. This appropriation 
provides for all costs, with the exception of the native 
American veterans housing loan program, of the Department's 
direct and guaranteed loans programs. The Federal Credit Reform 
Act of 1990 requires budgetary resources to be available prior 
to incurring a direct loan obligation or a loan guarantee 
commitment. In addition, the Act requires all administrative 
expenses of a direct or guaranteed loan program to be funded 
through a program account.
    VA loan guaranties are made to servicemembers, veterans, 
reservists and unremarried surviving spouses for the purchase 
of homes, condominiums, manufactured homes and for refinancing 
loans. The Department guarantees part of the total loan, 
permitting the purchaser to obtain a mortgage with a 
competitive interest rate, even without a down payment if the 
lender agrees. The Department requires that a down payment be 
made for a manufactured home. With a Department guaranty, the 
lender is protected against loss up to the amount of the 
guaranty if the borrower fails to repay the loan.
    The Committee recommends such sums as may be necessary 
(estimated to total $437,522,000) for funding subsidy payments, 
$300,000 for the limitation on direct loans for specially 
adapted housing loans, and $168,207,000 for administrative 
expenses which is the budget request. The appropriation for 
administrative expenses may be transferred to and merged with 
the General Operating Expenses account.
    The Committee directs the Secretary to continue the vendee 
program. An independent study estimated a savings of over 
$1,000 per vendee loan property sale, a savings to the 
Department of $15-25 million annually. Until the Administration 
can provide a study to show that the vendee program is not of 
financial benefit to the Department, the Committee directs the 
VA to continue the vendee loan program.
    The Committee directs the Secretary to implement a housing 
counseling requirement for first-time homebuyers. Studies by 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the 
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) demonstrate that 
pre-purchase counseling effectively reduced default rates for 
first-time homebuyers. The Committee suggests that the 
Department consult with NRC on how to implement this 
requirement.
    The Committee encourages the Department to consider the 
usefulness of automated collateral management systems as a 
means to detect predatory loans.

                  EDUCATION LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Limitation on    Administrative
                                                               Program account    direct loans       expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation..............................           $1,000           $3,400          $70,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation...............................            1,000            3,400           64,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request..............................            1,000            3,400           70,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation...............                0                0           +6,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request..............                0                0                0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This appropriation covers the cost of direct loans for 
eligible dependents and, in addition, it includes 
administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct loan 
program. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires 
budgetary resources to be available prior to incurring a direct 
loan obligation. In addition, the Act requires all 
administrative expenses of a direct loan program to be funded 
through a program account.
    The bill includes the budget requests of $1,000 for funding 
subsidy program costs, $3,400 as the limitation on direct 
loans, and $70,000 for administrative expenses. The 
appropriation for administrative expenses may be transferred to 
and merged with the General Operating Expenses account.

            VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Limitation on    Administrative
                                                               Program account    direct loans       expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation..............................          $55,000       $3,626,000         $289,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation...............................           72,000        3,301,000          274,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request..............................           55,000        3,626,000          289,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation...............          -17,000         +325,000          +15,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request..............                0                0                0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This appropriation covers the funding subsidy cost of 
direct loans for vocational rehabilitation of eligible veterans 
and, in addition, it includes administrative expenses necessary 
to carry out the direct loan program. Loans of up to $896 
(based on indexed chapter 31 subsistence allowance rate) are 
available to service-connected disabled veterans enrolled in 
vocational rehabilitation programs when the veterans 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. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 requires 
budgetary resources to be available prior to incurring a direct 
loan obligation. In addition, the Act requires all 
administrative expenses of a direct loan program to be funded 
through a program account.
    The bill includes the budget requests of $55,000 for 
funding subsidy program costs and $289,000 for administrative 
expenses. The administrative expenses may be transferred to and 
merged with the General Operating Expenses account. In 
addition, the bill includes requested language limiting program 
direct loans to $3,626,000. It is estimated that VA will make 
5,300 loans in fiscal year 2003, with an average amount of 
$684.

          NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Administrative expenses:
    Fiscal year 2003 recommendation...................          $558,000
    Fiscal year 2002 appropriation....................           544,000
    Fiscal year 2003 budget request...................           558,000
    Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation....           +14,000
    Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request...                 0

    This program tests the feasibility of authorizing VA to 
make direct home loans to native American veterans who live on 
U.S. trust land. This is a pilot program which began in 1993 
and expires on December 31, 2005. The bill includes the budget 
request of $558,000 for administration expenses, which may be 
transferred to and merged with the General Operating Expenses 
account.
    The Committee directs the Secretary to implement a housing 
counseling requirement for first-time homebuyers. Studies by 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the 
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NRC) demonstrate that 
pre-purchase counseling effectively reduced default rates for 
first-time homebuyers. The Committee suggests that the 
Department consult with NRC on how to implement this 
requirement.

  GUARANTEED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOANS FOR HOMELESS VETERANS PROGRAM 
                                ACCOUNT

    Public Law 105-368, the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act 
of 1998, established this program. All funds authorized for 
this program were appropriated in fiscal year 2000. Therefore, 
no appropriation request has been included for fiscal year 
2003. Bill language is included allowing the use of funds in 
Medical Care and General Operating Expenses to administer this 
program.
    The Committee directs the VA to report on the status of the 
guaranteed transitional housing loans for homeless veterans 
program by March 14, 2003. The report should include the number 
of applicants as of January 1, 2003, the number of qualified 
applicants, the grant selection criteria, and the names of any 
grant recipients as of March 1, 2003.

                     Veterans Health Administration

                              MEDICAL CARE

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................   $23,889,304,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    21,473,164,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    22,743,761,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........    +2,416,140,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......    +1,145,543,000

    The Department of Veterans Affairs operates the largest 
Federal medical care delivery system in the country, with 172 
medical centers, 43 domiciliaries, 137 nursing homes, and 864 
outpatient clinics which includes independent, satellite, 
community-based, and rural outreach clinics.
    This appropriation provides for medical care and treatment 
of eligible beneficiaries in VA medical centers, nursing homes, 
domiciliaries, and outpatient clinic facilities; contract 
hospitals; State domiciliaries, nursing homes and hospitals; 
contract community nursing 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 
Department of Veterans Affairs. Funds are also used to train 
medical residents, interns, and other professional, paramedical 
and administrative personnel in health-science fields to 
support VA's medical programs.
    The bill includes $23,889,304,000 for medical care in 
fiscal year 2003, an increase of $2,416,140,000 above the 
enacted level and $1,145,543,000 over the budget request. In 
addition, the Committee estimates $1,386,000,000 will be 
collected and available from the Medical Care Collections Fund 
(MCCF). The Committee has not included the bill language 
requested in the budget authorizing the VA to implement a $1500 
cost share plan for veterans using the VA medical system and 
has instead provided additional funds to cover the cost.
    The Committee is providing two-year spending authority for 
$900,000,000 of the Medical Care appropriation to provide the 
Department more planning flexibility year to year. The 
Committee emphasizes that the two-year funding provision is not 
meant to create ``emergency funds'' and that all resources 
should be spent in a timely and responsible manner addressing 
veterans health needs.
    The bill includes language delaying the availability of 
$250,000,000 of funds requested for the equipment and land and 
structures object classifications until August 1, 2003, 
$250,000,000 less than the budget request. The bill also 
includes requested language in the Compensation and Pensions 
appropriation transferring $8,575,000 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 supports VHA Directive 2002-057, Priority for 
Outpatient Medical Services and Inpatient Hospital Care. The 
Committee directs the VA to create a system ensuring that VA 
medical and support services are readily available to service-
connected and impoverished veterans. The Committee urges the 
Department to be mindful of its core mission to provide first 
for those injured in service to our Nation, the impoverished, 
the homeless, and the mentally ill.
    The Committee believes the VA's response to last year's 
concerns regarding atypical anti-psychotic medications is a 
step forward and continues to encourage the VA to ensure 
uniform information across VA's health system with regard to 
prescribing practices. Providing care for the seriously 
mentally ill is one of VA's top priorities and requires a 
special level of commitment, as this population is especially 
vulnerable and difficult to treat. To this end, the Committee 
encourages the Secretary to remain vigilant in implementing the 
Department's policy that physicians are to use their best 
clinical judgment when choosing atypical anti-psychotic 
medications as referenced in House Report 107-272.
    The Committee directs the VA to ensure that each VISN 
follows through on plans to implement mental health services in 
each community based outpatient clinic (CBOC) and recommends 
that the VA expedite the deployment of adequate mental health 
services to CBOCs. Further, the Committee strongly urges the 
Department to continue increasing the number of Mental Health 
Intensive Case Management teams and fully fund existing teams.
    The Committee is encouraged by the findings of the 
Department's Procurement Reform Task Force and supports 
implementation of the reforms with the intended savings to be 
re-invested in healthcare for veterans. The Committee 
encourages the VA to focus on the prompt implementation of 
prosthetics procurement reforms as a model for further VA 
healthcare contracting operations and a continued emphasis on 
product standardization, quality assurances, servicing and 
outcomes tracking that will maximize veteran care and 
acquisition efficiencies due to improved economies of scale, 
product reliability, repair, maintenance and inventory 
management.
    The Committee reiterates its concern for veterans with 
hepatitis C, and applauds the Department for the progress made 
so far, including establishing screening and testing services 
that have reached an estimated 40% of VA health care users, 
funding a prevalence study to better define risk factors among 
veterans, and creating a National Hepatitis C registry to 
better track and manage patients. The Committee recommends that 
the Department do more to improve screening and testing for 
hepatitis C among all Vietnam veterans; provide tests to other 
veterans in the VA system who have risk factors for hepatitis 
C; and participate in a national outreach effort with the 
American Liver Foundation and veterans service organizations to 
inform all veterans not enrolled in the VA medical system about 
the disease. The Committee is aware of the August 2002 NIH 
Management of Hepatitis C Consensus Conference final statement 
which presents new opportunities for treatment of individuals 
with hepatitis C and complicating co-morbid conditions as well 
as the need for expanded patient education regarding hepatitis 
C.
    The Committee is aware of studies that have found collagen 
based therapies can reduce the need for amputations by 
increasing wound healing rates and recommends that VA consider 
the utilization of such therapies.
    The Committee strongly encourages the continuation of the 
partnership and deployment of the Joslin Vision Network.
    The Committee is aware of several new cutting-edge 
prosthetic and sensory aids devices now available that allow 
disabled veterans more mobility, enhanced employability, and 
full integration into community life. The Committee encourages 
the VA to test these devices with veterans, where and when 
medically appropriate.
    The Committee believes the CARES recommendation for the 
development of a comprehensive resource sharing agreement 
between the North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center 
(NCVAMC) and the Navy Hospital Great Lakes (NHGL) is a perfect 
opportunity to provide quality care to both the naval and 
veterans populations. However, the Committee is becoming 
increasingly frustrated by the unwillingness of VA and Navy 
officials to see beyond their jurisdictional squabbles and move 
forward with the agreed upon recommendations. The Committee 
directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit a report 
that identifies (1) restrictive regulations, policies, and 
regulatory redundancies that specifically inhibit resource 
sharing between the NCVAMC and NHGL, (2) how the NCVAMC and 
NHGL can share mental health, physical therapy and 
rehabilitation services, (3) milestone dates for the VA to 
address each restrictive issue, and (4) directives the 
Secretary issues to VISN 12 leadership regarding network 
support of all CARES recommendations for the joint operations 
of the two facilities. This report should be transmitted to the 
Committee by March 1, 2003. The Committee expects the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs to continue working with the Secretary of 
the Navy to make maximum use of the NCVAMC.
    The Committee recognizes the need for the Department to be 
more responsive to the needs of minority veterans and increase 
minority participation in VA medical professions, 
administration, training and research. The Committee encourages 
the VA to create more affiliations with minority-serving 
universities, such as Barry University, for internship, 
residency and research opportunities.
    The Committee strongly recommends the establishment of 
CBOCs in Hayward, Wisconsin; Storm Lake, Iowa; Athens, 
Tennessee; Lynchburg, Virginia; and Gladstone, Michigan.
    The Committee recognizes the excellent work being done by 
the Department of Veterans Affairs to combat antibiotic 
resistant infections, particularly its outstanding vaccination 
against pneumonia program. The Committee is fully supportive of 
this effort and directs the Secretary to be prepared to testify 
to the Committee during the fiscal year 2004 budget hearings on 
the steps taken by the Department to combat this growing public 
health crisis of antibiotic resistance, focusing on the VA's 
use of its sophisticated computerized patient databases to 
correlate antibiotic usage data with patient outcomes, and with 
antibiotic resistant infections throughout the VA healthcare 
network.

                     MEDICAL CARE COLLECTIONS FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    The Committee expects the Department to collect 
$1,386,000,000 from first and third party payers in fiscal year 
2003. Bill language is included transferring those receipts to 
the Medical Care account to remain available until expended.
    The Department issued a press release in August 2002 
lauding the record levels of collections. While this is a 
welcome improvement, the Committee is aghast at the millions of 
dollars that go uncollected or are lost due to the extreme 
tardiness in submitting correct bills to third-party payers. 
The Committee directs the Department to refrain from approving 
any performance awards for facility directors and billing teams 
that fail to submit bills on average of 30 days after service 
or cut the average billing time in half from the previous year.
    In last year's report to accompany the VA, HUD, Independent 
Agencies Appropriations Act (House Report 107-272), the 
Committee directed the Department to initiate a multi-year 
demonstration at a VISN to enhance the collection efforts for 
``third party/first party'' revenues. Additionally, in a report 
issued last September, the GAO found the Department's efforts 
in this area lacking, substantiating the need for action in the 
enhanced collection area. Subsequently, the conference 
agreement with the Senate on last year's bill ratified the need 
to undertake a demonstration.
    The Department has not yet initiated this demonstration. 
The Committee understands that the Department is continuing to 
work on a comprehensive plan to overcome the deficiency that 
exists in third party collections. The Committee believes both 
these efforts need to be undertaken. The demonstration could 
provide valuable input into the broader, long-term plan.
    Accordingly, the Committee reiterates and redirects the 
Department to undertake the demonstration called for in last 
year's in fiscal year 2003. The Committee again directs that 
not less than $3,000,000 be available to continue the 
demonstration. The Committee believes that there is tremendous 
value in undertaking a small-scale demonstration while the 
planning for a Department-wide solution is ongoing. The lessons 
learned from a successful demonstration would provide 
tremendous input to the overall system design. This 
demonstration should not be viewed as a distraction to any 
overall system-wide collection efforts, but rather supplemental 
to such an effort.
    The collections demonstration must provide the VA with the 
ability to identify and collect third party/first party 
insurance coverage and a National Master Patient File that 
provides access to administrators and clinicians to complete an 
accurate patient information from any location. The Secretary 
shall undertake this effort by obtaining a private sector 
contractor to install and operate this system as a prototype at 
the hospitals and clinics of a single VISN. The demonstration 
shall include the software, hardware, networks, interfaces, and 
other resources to provide all the functionality necessary to 
solve the current deficiencies, including: the capability to 
verify insurance coverage or other responsible payer for 
treatment; the capability to determine what the nature of the 
third party coverage; the capability to accurately accumulate 
all charges for services provided; the capability to insure 
that the treatment provided is properly coded; the capability 
to produce timely and accurate bills; and the capability to 
adequately manage the entire collection processes. The 
Committee recognizes the success of the VistA system from a 
clinical standpoint so the financial system must be compatible 
with the VistA clinical functionality.

                    MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $405,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       371,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       394,373,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +31,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......       +10,627,000

    This account includes medical, rehabilitative and health 
services research. Medical research is an important aspect of 
the Department's programs, providing complete medical and 
hospital services for veterans. The prosthetic research program 
is also essential in the development and testing of prosthetic, 
orthopedic and sensory aids for the purpose of improving the 
care and rehabilitation of eligible disabled veterans, 
including amputees, paraplegics and the blind. The health 
service research program provides unique opportunities to 
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care 
delivery system. In addition, budgetary resources from a number 
of areas including appropriations from the medical care 
account; reimbursements from the Department of Defense; and 
grants from the National Institutes of Health, private 
proprietary sources, and voluntary agencies provide support for 
the Department's researchers.
    The Committee recommends $405,000,000 for medical and 
prosthetic research in fiscal year 2003. This funding level is 
$31,000,000 over the fiscal year 2002 appropriation and 
$10,627,000 over the budget request. The bill includes language 
transferring $5,000,000 to the Medical Care account for 
oversight activities of the research program. The Committee 
directs the Department to include funding for this activity 
under Medical Care in the fiscal year 2004 budget request.
    The Committee is encouraged by the progress made by the VA 
and the National Technology Transfer Center in the past year in 
identifying promising VA technological advances that offer the 
potential for commercial applications. The Committee directs 
$1,000,000 for the continuation of this partnership.
    The VA has made genuine progress in recent years in funding 
for psychiatric research at the VA; however, such research 
remains disproportionate to the utilization of mental illness 
treatment services by veterans. The Committee supports 
increasing the level of research devoted to severe mental 
illness, the co-morbidity of substance abuse and mental 
disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder.

      MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation......................        $74,716,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation.......................         66,731,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request......................         69,716,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation.......         +7,985,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request......         +5,000,000

    This appropriation provides funds for central office 
executive direction (Under Secretary for Health and staff), 
administration and supervision of all Department medical and 
construction programs, including development and implementation 
of policies, plans, and program objectives.
    The bill provides $74,716,000, an increase of $7,985,000 
from the fiscal year 2002 funding level and $5,000,000 over the 
budget request. The Committee has included an additional 
$5,000,000 for the reorganization of the VHA headquarters. The 
Committee is hopeful that the additional staff will bring much 
needed oversight and guidance to the system. Further, the 
Committee is hopeful that the new management of the MCCF office 
will greatly improve collections. The Committee strongly 
encourages the new VHA business office to carefully evaluate 
the contracts and contracting staff employed at the 
headquarters office for their efficacy and necessity.

                      Departmental Administration

                       GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    $1,251,418,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     1,195,728,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,256,418,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +55,690,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......        -5,000,000

    The General Operating Expenses appropriation provides for 
the administration of non-medical veterans benefits through the 
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and top management 
direction and support. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 
changed the accounting of Federal credit programs and required 
that all administrative costs associated with such programs be 
included within the respective credit accounts. Beginning in 
fiscal year 1992, costs incurred by housing, education, and 
vocational rehabilitation programs for administration of these 
credit programs are reimbursed by those accounts. The bill 
includes the budget requests totaling $169,124,000 in other 
accounts for these credit programs. In addition, $8,563,000 is 
transferred from the compensation and pensions account for 
administrative costs of implementing cost saving provisions 
required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992. Section 107 of the 
administrative provisions provides requested language which 
permits excess revenues in three insurance funds to be used for 
administrative expenses. The VA estimates that $38,110,000 will 
be utilized for such purposes in fiscal year 2003. Prior to 
fiscal year 1996, such costs were included in the general 
operating expenses appropriation. Thus, in total, 
$1,679,657,000 is requested in fiscal year 2003 for 
administrative costs of non-medical benefits.
    The Committee recommends $1,251,418,000 for General 
Operating Expenses. This amount represents an increase of 
$55,690,000 above the current level, and a decrease of 
$5,000,000 from the budget request. The bill includes requested 
language allowing $60,000,000 of the funds appropriated to be 
available for obligation for two years, the purchase of two 
motor vehicles for the VBA office in Manila, Philippines, and a 
travel limitation of $17,082,000. The bill also includes 
language directing the VBA to be funded at not less than 
$992,100,000.
    Of the remaining $259,318,000 for general administration, 
the Committee directs the Offices of the Board of Contract 
Appeals, Board of Veterans Appeals, Assistant Secretary for 
Management, Assistant Secretary for Information Technology, 
Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration, 
Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning, Assistant 
Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, and 
Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs 
be funded at not less than the levels specified in the fiscal 
year 2003 budget justification minus the amounts for the 
proposed accrual benefit transfer.
    The Committee has not provided any funds for a new 
Assistant Secretary of Operations, Security and Preparedness 
and does not recommend funding for such office, other than a 
coordinator, at the Department. The Committee is very concerned 
with the Department's ability to simply fulfill the basic 
requirements of providing benefits and medical services in a 
correct and timely manner and feels that the Department should 
concentrate on meeting the basic mission of the VA rather than 
looking to expand its portfolio of responsibilities into the 
homeland security area. The Committee feels confident that 
other agencies and departments specifically responsible for 
homeland security and defense activities are adequately 
managing and funding those initiatives.
    The Committee suggests that GOE general administration 
funds would be better spent to hire more lawyers in the Office 
of General Counsel to assist the Department when negotiating 
enhanced use lease agreements, especially since CARES is 
underway, instead of undertaking a regulation rewrite exercise.
    The Committee concurs with the Department's decision to 
consolidate management of information technology initiatives in 
the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO). The 
Committee directs that all cyber-security and enterprise 
architecture activities be managed by the CIO.
    The Committee is pleased with the Department's progress in 
establishing a comprehensive baseline Enterprise Architecture 
during the past year and supports the Department's initiatives 
to modernize its computing infrastructure against cyber attack 
and provide continuing operations. The Committee directs the VA 
to fund information technology initiatives, including data 
replication technologies, at no less than the levels put forth 
in the fiscal year 2003 budget justification materials for all 
appropriations accounts and report to the Committee on the 
results of these prototype activities and future plans for 
implementation by June 30, 2003.
    The Committee supports the new management structure and 
proposed claims processing system in VBA. However, the 
Committee is concerned that by constantly changing the claims 
processing system over the past 5 years the Department has not 
been able to accurately assess the success of each new 
initiative or employee performance. The Committee strongly 
urges the Department to keep the proposed claims processing 
system in place long enough so that all regional offices can 
implement the system, each regional office can standardize its 
information technology package, and VBA employees can be fully 
trained and fairly evaluated before the Department realigns its 
benefits operations again. The Department should quickly 
establish new employee performance goals and decision targets 
for fair and defendable employee evaluations. Further, the 
Committee has provided $100,000 for the Department to work with 
the Office of Personnel Management to correctly align VBA 
positions with comparable government positions.

                    NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation......................       $133,149,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation.......................        121,169,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request......................        133,149,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation.......        +11,980,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request......                  0

    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 with available grave space the remains of eligible 
deceased servicepersons and discharged veterans, together with 
their spouses and certain dependents, and to permanently 
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. This appropriation 
provides for the operation and maintenance of 154 cemeterial 
installations in 39 States, the District of Columbia, and 
Puerto Rico.
    The Committee recommends $133,149,000 for the National 
Cemetery Administration in fiscal year 2003. This funding level 
is $11,980,000 over the 2002 level and the same as the budget 
request. The Committee is providing funds to meet needs 
associated with new cemeteries and the increased workload 
projected by the Department.
    The Committee appreciates the completion of the national 
cemetery needs and National Shrine study. The Committee directs 
the Department to follow the criteria and findings of those 
studies when planning and budgeting for new and expanded 
cemetery projects.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation......................        $61,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation.......................         52,308,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request......................         55,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation.......         +8,692,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request......         +6,000,000

    The Office of Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for the audit, 
investigation and inspection of all Department of Veterans 
Affairs programs and operations. The overall operational 
objective is to focus available resources on areas which would 
help improve services to veterans and their beneficiaries, 
assist managers of Department programs to operate economically 
in accomplishing program goals, and prevent and deter recurring 
and potential fraud, waste and inefficiencies.
    The Committee has provided $61,000,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General in fiscal year 2003. This amount is an 
increase of $8,692,000 above the current year appropriation and 
$6,000,000 over the budget request. The Committee has provided 
additional funding for the Office of Inspector General to hire 
up to its statutory floor.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $193,740,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       183,180,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       193,740,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +10,560,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    The construction, major projects appropriation provides for 
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the 
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the VA, 
including planning, architectural and engineering services, 
Capital Asset Realignment Enhanced Services (CARES) activities, 
assessments and site acquisition where the estimated cost of a 
project is $4,000,000 or more. Emphasis is placed on correction 
of life/safety code deficiencies in existing Department medical 
facilities.
    The bill provides $193,740,000 for construction, major 
projects, in fiscal year 2003 as requested in the budget 
justification, an increase of $10,560,000 over last year's 
funding level. Also, the bill includes requested language 
providing $5,000,000 for CARES and $10,000,000 for the judgment 
fund.
    The Committee is fully supportive of the CARES initiative 
and applauds the Department for moving forward with the 
implementation of the VISN 12 plan and Phase II of the study. 
The Committee directs VA to keep the Committee apprised of any 
additional needs to ensure that the studies and implementation 
can move along as scheduled.
    The Committee directs the VA to fully fund any CARES 
implementation plans in future budgets and report to the 
Committee the framework for prioritization of the capital 
improvement projects that will be identified as priorities 
resulting from the CARES studies. The Committee further directs 
the VA to only present CARES recommendations for a VISN if 
supporting funds are requested by the Department in budget 
justification materials or budget amendments, or provided in 
advance by the Congress.
    Some VA facilities are consuming tens of millions of 
dollars for non-recurring maintenance and repairs and the 
facilities themselves are a hindrance to providing safe and 
quality medical care. The Committee directs the CARES study to 
examine the possibility where, in some markets, the best 
recommendation, both in terms of economics and service 
delivery, is to build a new facility in full cooperation with 
another entity such as the Department of Defense or the state. 
In these instances, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs must 
actively consult with non-VA public entities to plan for a new, 
jointly held and funded facility.
    The Committee directs that any major construction project 
included in future budget submissions be approved by the CARES 
study and realignment plan or the national cemetery study.
    The Committee's funding recommendation includes $2,000,000 
for security studies. These funds are in addition to the 
$2,000,000 provided under General Operating Expenses in Public 
Law 107-38 and are to be used to evaluate the security and 
safety of VA facilities. VA should emphasize security methods 
which will not increase FTEs and can be utilized by all VA 
facilities. Also, the Committee expects VA to consult with the 
General Services Administration (GSA) to ensure that VA's 
proposals are within the guidelines set by GSA for other 
Federal facilities. These funds are not to be used to evaluate 
expanded homeland security opportunities.
    The specific amounts recommended by the Committee are as 
follows:

                                            DETAIL OF BUDGET REQUEST
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Available                           House
                   Location and description                      through 2002     2003 request    Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Veterans Health Administration (VHA):
    Palo Alto (Palo Alto Division), CA Seismic Corrections,                  0           14,013           14,013
     Building 2..............................................
    Palo Alto (Palo Alto Division), CA Seismic Corrections,                  0           21,750           21,750
     Building 4 (Research)...................................
    San Francisco, CA Seismic Corrections, Building 203......                0           31,000           31,000
    West Los Angeles, CA Seismic Corrections, Building 500...                0           27,200           27,200
      Subtotal, Seismic......................................                0           93,963           93,963
                                                              ==================================================
Advance planning fund: various stations......................                0           17,500           17,500
CARES Fund...................................................                0            5,000            5,000
Asbestos abatement: various stations.........................                0            7,977            7,977
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, VHA..........................................                0          124,440          124,440
                                                              ==================================================
National Cemetery Administration (NCA):
    Pittsburgh, PA National Cemetery, Phase I Development \1\                0           16,400           16,400
    Southern Florida National Cemetery, Phase I Development                  0           23,300           23,300
     \1\.....................................................
    Willamette National Cemetery, Phase I Development \1\....                0            8,400            8,400
    Design Fund: Detroit MI and Sacramento, CA...............                0            3,400            3,400
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, NCA \2\......................................                0           53,300           53,300
                                                              ==================================================
Department Advance Planning..................................                0            2,000            2,000
Claims Analyses: Various locations...........................                0            1,500            1,500
Security Study...............................................                0            2,000            2,000
Judgment Fund: Various locations.............................                0           10,000           10,000
              Hazardous Waste: Various locations                             0              500              500
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other line items.............................                0           16,000           16,000
      Total construction, major projects.....................                0          193,740         193,740
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Land acquisition funds ($15,000,000) in 2001 and design funds ($2,000,000) in 2002 were provided for a new
  cemetery in Southern Florida. Eighteen million dollars was provided in 2002 for land acquisition in
  Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Sacramento areas.
\2\ National Cemetery Administration total estimated costs include the purchase of pre-placed crypts, which are
  funded by the Compensation and Pensions appropriation.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $240,700,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       210,900,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       210,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +29,800,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......       +30,000,000

    The construction, minor projects appropriation provides for 
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the 
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
Department, including planning, CARES activities, assessment of 
needs, architectural and engineering services, and site 
acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is less than 
$4,000,000.
    The Committee recommends $240,700,000 for the construction, 
minor projects appropriation in fiscal year 2003, $30,000,000 
over the budget request and an increase of $29,800,000 over the 
fiscal year 2002 appropriation. The Committee directs that 
$25,000,000 of the funds provided be used specifically to 
address quality and safety issues in VA research facilities.
    The Committee directs that VHA's minor construction 
resources should be utilized in a manner that is consistent 
with current CARES initiatives and the national cemetery study. 
A central office work group consisting of both VHA and other 
Department officials must review all VHA minor construction 
projects. For evaluation purposes, the work group is to utilize 
criteria that are consistent with those developed for CARES. If 
total costs of projects being initiated at any facility is or 
exceeds $4,000,000 (the Capital Investment Board threshold), 
the recommendations of the work group must be approved by the 
Deputy Secretary.
    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for water utility 
improvements at the Bay Pines National Cemetery and $847,000 
for entrance accessibility improvements at the Syracuse 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

                         PARKING REVOLVING FUND

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................                $0
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................         4,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        -4,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    This appropriation provides funds for the construction, 
alteration, and acquisition (by purchase or lease) of parking 
garages at VA medical facilities. The Secretary is required 
under certain circumstances to establish and collect fees for 
the use of such garages and parking facilities. Receipts from 
the parking fees are to be deposited in the revolving fund and 
can be used to fund future parking garage initiatives.
    No new budget authority is requested for the parking 
revolving fund in fiscal year 2003. Leases will be funded from 
parking fees collected.

       GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $100,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       100,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       100,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    This program provides grants to assist States to construct 
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. A grant may not exceed 65 
percent of the total cost of the project.
    The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for grants for 
construction of State extended care facilities in fiscal year 
2003. This amount is equal to the budget request.
    The Committee encourages the Department to work with the 
State of Louisiana as that state applies for a grant to 
construct a home.

          GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS CEMETERIES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $32,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        25,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        32,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        +7,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    This program provides grants to assist States with the 
establishment, expansion, and improvement of State veterans' 
cemeteries which are operated and permanently maintained by the 
States. Grants under this program fund up to 100 percent of 
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.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of $32,000,000 
for grants for the construction of State veterans cemeteries in 
fiscal year 2003, an increase of $7,000,000 over the current 
year's funding level.
    The Committee encourages the Department to work with the 
States of Louisiana, Texas, and California as those states 
apply for grants to construct cemeteries.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    The bill continues the first ten administrative provisions 
from title I contained in Public Law 107-73, the fiscal year 
2002 appropriations bill, one provision listed in Public Law 
107-73 under title IV, and six new provisions.
    Section 110 allows the Department to use the services of 
the Office of Resolution Management (ORM) and the Office of 
Employment and Discrimination Complaint Adjudication (OEDCA) on 
a reimbursable fee basis with a fund limitation of $29,318,000 
for ORM and $3,010,000 for OEDCA.
    Section 111 requires the Department to notify the Committee 
prior to the VA entering into a new property lease if the rent 
is more than $300,000.
    Section 112 limits funds for medical treatment of non-
service connected veterans to only those who have provided to 
the VA accurate third-party reimbursement information and 
annually provided income information.
    Section 113 delays the implementation of the geographic 
means test for one year. While the Committee agrees that 
thresholds used by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development might be too disparate for use in VHA's system, the 
Committee strongly urges the VA to create an alternate 
geographic means test which addresses the concerns of the 
original legislation and is practical for VHA to implement.
    Section 114 prohibits VBA funds from being used to 
adjudicate claims arising from any new concurrent receipt 
legislation. The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that 
enacting concurrent receipt of compensation benefits and 
military retirement pay would result in estimated mandatory 
costs to VA of approximately $16,000,000,000 over ten years, as 
well as administrative costs of $124,000,000 in the first year 
and $245,000,000 over a five year period. These estimates do 
not include the additional costs to the Department of Defense. 
The Department estimates the concurrent receipt claims workload 
would add more than 800,000 claims over the next three years. 
VA has been working diligently over the years to reduce the 
claims backlog and adjudication time. As of August, VA 
adjudicated almost 730,000 claims in fiscal year 2002 and still 
has a current workload of over 355,000 claims with a lag time 
of 225 days. Regardless of the policy surrounding concurrent 
receipt, the Committee is concerned that the deluge of new 
concurrent receipt claims will paralyze the system and those 
veterans who have been waiting for years to get a determination 
will never see the benefit. The Committee directs the 
Administration to budget appropriate VA funding for both 
mandatory and administrative costs should such new concurrent 
receipt legislation be enacted.
    Section 115 merges the Department of Veterans Affairs 
Health Services Improvement Fund into the Medical Care 
Collections Fund for purposes of simplicity in accounting and 
scorekeeping, and extends the Department's ability to collect 
medical co-payments.
    Section 116 provides that $19,900,000 of the Department's 
total information technology budget shall be used for 
conducting prototypes for VA's corporate and regional computing 
architecture and be managed by the Department's Office of the 
Chief Information Officer.
    Section 117 prohibits funds from being used to implement 
the provisions of H.R. 3253, and section 118 limits the funds 
available in Medical Care and the Medical Care Collections Fund 
for security training and equipment to $110,000,000. The 
Committee feels the VA needs to focus its efforts on providing 
health care and services to veterans, an area clearly needing 
improvement, and provide a safe environment for VA employees 
and beneficiaries. The Committee believes that any efforts 
relating to homeland security and responsiveness is best 
handled by other agencies and departments charged specifically 
with that mission.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation:
    Program Level...................................     $36,090,314,000
    Fee Collections.................................      -3,336,000,000
    Rescissions.....................................      -1,408,000,000
                                                     -------------------
      Net Appropriation.............................  \1\ 31,346,314,000
                                                     ===================
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation:
    Program Level...................................      34,304,395,000
    Fee Collections.................................      -2,930,000,000
    Rescissions.....................................      -1,225,700,000
                                                     -------------------
      Net Appropriation.............................  \2\ 30,148,695,000
                                                     ===================
Fiscal year 2003 budget request:
    Program Level...................................      35,893,091,000
    Fee Collections.................................      -3,336,000,000
    Rescissions.....................................      -1,208,000,000
                                                     -------------------
      Net Appropriation.............................  \1\ 31,349,091,000
                                                     ===================
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation:
    Program Level...................................      +1,785,919,000
    Fee Collections.................................        -588,000,000
    Rescissions.....................................        -182,300,000
                                                     -------------------
      Net Appropriation.............................  \1\ +1,197,619,000
                                                     ===================
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request:
    Program Level...................................        +197,223,000
    Fee Collections.................................                  --
    Rescissions.....................................        -200,000,000
                                                     -------------------
      Net Appropriation.............................      \1\ -2,777,000
                                                     ===================

\1\ The fiscal year 2003 totals do not reflect legislative proposals
  assumed in the budget request regarding accrual funding of retirement
  costs and post-retirement costs, the transfer of the Federal Emergency
  Management Agency's (FEMA) Emergency Food and Shelter Program to the
  Department, and a new Colonias initiative.
\2\ The fiscal year 2002 totals do not include one-time emergency
  funding and rescissions included in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental
  appropriations Acts.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was 
established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-174). HUD is the principal Federal 
agency responsible for administering and regulating programs 
and industries concerned with the Nation's housing needs, 
economic and community development, and fair housing 
opportunities.
    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, rental and homeownership subsidy programs 
for low-income families, neighborhood rehabilitation programs, 
and community development programs.
    The Committee recommends a total program level of 
$36,090,314,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, a $1,785,919,000 increase above the fiscal year 
2002 level, and $197,223,000 above the request. The 
recommendation reflects the Committee desire to invest 
resources in a manner which best ensures that funds provided 
can be used to provide safe, decent and affordable housing and 
to promote economic development in communities across the 
country. Over the last five years, the Committee has struggled 
to balance the need to provide significant increases for the 
Section 8 program while also trying to meet the needs of other 
important housing and community development programs. 
Consequently, the Committee has grown increasingly frustrated 
as the huge amounts of Section 8 funding continue to go unspent 
each year. The Committee believes that funding decisions for 
all programs, including Section 8, must be made based on a 
realistic assessment of both the need for, and the ability of 
the program to use, the resources provided. The recommendations 
made reflects that view.
    The Committee recommends increases above the fiscal year 
2002 enacted level for the following programs:

Section 8...............................................   +$946,012,000
HOME Investment Partnerships............................    +375,000,000
Public Housing Operating Subsidies......................    +105,132,000
Homeless Assistance.....................................    +127,745,000
Section 202/Section 811 Programs........................     +75,849,000
Lead Hazard Reduction Program...........................     +16,242,000
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS.............     +14,568,000

    In addition, the Committee has also restored funding for 
programs proposed for reduction or elimination in the budget 
the following:

Public Housing Capital Fund.............................   +$417,500,000
Community Development Fund..............................    +284,500,000
Rural Housing and Economic Development..................     +25,000,000
Enterprise Zones/Enterprise Communities.................     +30,000,000

                       Public and Indian Housing

                        HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

              (INCLUDING TRANSFER AND RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................   $16,586,987,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    15,640,975,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    17,526,559,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........      +946,012,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......      -939,572,000

    The Housing Certificate Fund (HCF) provides funding for 
costs associated with the Section 8 program. The account 
includes funding for the renewal of expiring Section 8 project-
based contracts, amendments to existing Section 8 project-based 
contracts, renewal of expiring Section 8 vouchers, new tenant 
protection vouchers including enhanced vouchers, new 
incremental Section 8 vouchers, relocation assistance, payment 
of fees to public housing agencies administering Section 8 
voucher programs, and payment of fees to contract 
administrators for project-based Section 8 contracts.
    The Committee recommends a total program level of 
$18,354,987,000 for the HCF in fiscal year 2003. Of this 
amount, $16,586,987,000 is provided as a direct appropriation, 
$938,000,000 is available from unobligated carryover balances 
in program reserve accounts, and $830,000,000 is available from 
unobligated balances in administrative fee reserve accounts. 
The recommendation represents an increase of $946,012,000 above 
the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.
    For the last four years, funding for the Section 8 voucher 
program has consumed an increasing amount of the Committee's 
discretionary resources, driven largely by the rapidly growing 
estimates of renewal costs for Section 8 vouchers. Since fiscal 
year 1999, the Section 8 program has realized a net increase of 
$5,764,433,000, even after accounting for rescissions of 
unspent Section 8 funds included in the bill each year. Despite 
the Committee's growing concern about the inability of some 
public housing agencies (PHAs) to use the funds provided, the 
Committee continued to budget for the Section 8 program 
assuming PHAs would improve their utilization of vouchers so 
that assistance would reach individuals and families as 
intended. Unfortunately, after five years, there has been no 
significant improvement in the use of these funds. In fiscal 
year 1999, 17 percent of the funds appropriated went unspent, 
resulting in only 89 percent of the intended families and 
individuals being served. By fiscal year 2001, 13 percent of 
funds went unspent, resulting in only 84 percent of the 
intended families and individuals being served. Consequently, 
the Department continues to consistently recapture between 
$1,000,000,000 and $1,400,000,000 in unspent Section 8 voucher 
funds each year, representing over 200,000 unused vouchers each 
year.
    The Committee recognizes that under-utilization of Section 
8 voucher funds has been, and continues to be, a chronic 
problem heavily concentrated in a small number of PHAs. In each 
of the last five years, over 50 percent of all recaptures of 
unused funds came from less than 4 percent of the PHAs. Last 
year, the Committee was told by the Department it would 
reallocate unused vouchers to PHAs which have proven to be able 
to use them, beginning in July 2002. Accordingly, the 
Department's fiscal year 2003 budget request assumed 
implementation of this reallocation in its budget estimate for 
fiscal year 2003. However, the Committee has learned that the 
reallocation was not implemented in fiscal 2002. Consequently, 
large numbers of Section 8 vouchers would again go unused in 
fiscal year 2003.
    The Committee appreciates that there is disagreement as to 
the causes of, and appropriate solutions to, under-utilization 
of Section 8 vouchers. However, the Committee can no longer 
continue to provide large budget increases in the Section 8 
voucher program each year when it is clear that huge portions 
of those funds will never actually be spent. The Committee does 
not believe that this represents sound housing policy, nor does 
it represent sound fiscal policy. Therefore, the Committee has 
provided funding for the Section 8 voucher program in fiscal 
year 2003 in a manner which more closely reflects the ability 
of PHAs to fully utilize the funds provided.
    The Committee understands that the Department is currently 
completing an in-depth study which should help identify the 
root causes of the under-utilization problem. The Committee 
believes it is imperative that the Department and the relevant 
congressional Committees focus their efforts on identifying and 
developing effective solutions to those problems, and look 
forward to the results of the Department's study. The 
Department is directed to provide the Committee with a copy of 
this study no later than January 8, 2003.
    The recommendation includes the following:
    --Renewal of expiring Section 8 contracts: $14,614,970,000 
for renewals of project-based Section 8 contracts and Section 8 
vouchers.
    The Committee recommendation provides an appropriation of 
$10,278,000,000 for Section 8 voucher and moderate 
rehabilitation renewals, the total amount necessary to renew 
all housing units currently leased using a Section 8 voucher 
and moderate rehabilitation including Moving-To-Work vouchers, 
as reported by PHAs on their most recent financial statements. 
Language is included in the bill allocating Section 8 voucher 
renewal funds based upon the number of units leased and local 
and regional inflation factors.
    In addition, the Committee has provided additional funding 
in a central reserve fund, as described below, to be allocated 
by the Secretary should a PHA require additional renewal 
funding for leased units not reflected on their financial 
statements. The Committee expects PHAs to utilize their 
available program reserves to the extent possible to cover 
these additional renewal costs prior to requesting additional 
funds from the central reserve fund. While funds made available 
to a PHA for renewal costs, including central reserve funds, 
may be used to enable a PHA to lease up to its fully authorized 
(reserved) level, a PHA may not use such funds to exceed its 
reserved level.
    Pursuant to the budget request, no new funding is provided 
for project-based Section 8 contract amendments for fiscal year 
2003, and instead assumes that amendment requirements will be 
met through recaptures.
    Consistent with the manner in which project-based Section 8 
administrative costs are funded, the Committee has appropriated 
funds for administrative costs and other expenses of the 
Section 8 voucher program separately rather than including this 
amount within the funds provided for voucher renewals.
    --Central Reserve Fund: $280,000,000 for a central reserve 
fund to be allocated by the Secretary to PHAs requiring 
additional renewal funds beyond amounts otherwise available to 
a PHA. The Secretary may also use such amounts as necessary to 
replenish PHA program reserve accounts.
    In addition, the Committee recognizes that some PHAs can 
successfully use additional section 8 vouchers above their 
current authorized level to increase the number of families and 
individuals served by the program. For the last three years, 
the Committee provided additional funding for this purpose as 
incremental voucher funding to be distributed competitively to 
eligible PHAs. However, delays in the award of these vouchers 
each year resulted in the vast majority of these vouchers going 
unused for that year. Therefore, the Committee has instead 
included language to permit the Secretary to use any amounts 
remaining in the central reserve fund which are not otherwise 
needed for renewal costs to provide additional vouchers to 
eligible PHAs. In order to be eligible for additional vouchers, 
a PHA must have a 97 percent lease up rate and be able to 
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such 
additional vouchers will be put under lease within 90 days of 
funds being provided. Should such additional vouchers not be 
put under lease within 180 days, the Secretary shall recapture 
the unused vouchers for reallocation to other eligible PHAs. 
The Committee expects the Secretary to establish such criteria 
as necessary to ensure an equitable distribution of additional 
vouchers among eligible applicants. Language is included 
limiting the amount of additional voucher assistance provided 
to an individual PHA to not more than 10 percent of the total 
funds available.
    Funding included for the central reserve fund is only to be 
for rental subsidy costs and replenishment of program reserves. 
Funding for associated administrative expenses has been 
provided for separately within this account.
    Language is included which sets forth the allowable uses of 
the fund and reporting requirements.
    Language is also included directing the Secretary to 
provide quarterly reports to the Committee on the use of funds 
from the central reserve fund in accordance with the following 
direction: such report shall include, at a minimum, the amount 
of funding distributed for additional renewal costs, delineated 
by PHA; the amount of funding used to replenish program 
reserves, delineated by PHA; the amount of additional voucher 
assistance provided to eligible PHAs, delineated by PHA; the 
amount of any recaptures, delineated by PHA; and the total 
balance remaining in the fund. The Secretary is directed to 
provide the first quarterly report no later than January 31, 
2003.
    --Tenant Protection: $234,017,000 for tenant protection 
activities to replace lost project-based section 8 assistance 
with tenant-based assistance; for conversion of section 202 and 
section 23 projects to section 8 assistance; for the family 
unification program; and for the witness protection program. 
Again this year, funding for new vouchers under the HOPE VI 
program is provided within the Revitalization of Severely 
Distressed Public Housing (HOPE VI) account. Funding included 
for tenant protection is only to be used for rental subsidies. 
Funding for associated administrative expenses is provided 
separately within this account.
    --Incremental Vouchers: $36,000,000 for incremental 
vouchers to be made available to non-elderly, disabled 
residents who are affected by the designation of public and 
assisted housing as ``elderly-only'' developments. The 
recommendation reflects the Committee's belief that Section 8 
voucher assistance is an effective and necessary tool for 
helping people with disabilities live integrated lives in their 
home communities. Many people with disabilities are dependent 
on Supplemental Security Income or have very low paying jobs. 
Absent this rental subsidy, affordable housing for individuals 
with disabilities is extremely difficult to find. Therefore, 
language is included in the bill earmarking these amounts for 
additional vouchers for the Section 8 voucher program for 
people with disabilities.
    Funding included for incremental vouchers is only to be 
used for rental subsidies. Funding for associated 
administrative expenses is provided separately within this 
account.
    --Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinators: $46,000,000 for 
service coordinator staff in each eligible public housing 
agency.
    --Administrative Costs--Section 8 Voucher Program: not to 
exceed $1,177,000,000 for PHA administrative costs and other 
expenses to administer the Section 8 program, of which 
$50,000,000 is for associated administrative expenses related 
to incremental vouchers and new tenant protection vouchers, as 
well as additional administrative costs associated with 
renewals funded from the central reserve fund.
    For the last four years, the Committee has attempted to 
limit the increase in administrative costs and other expenses 
of the section 8 program by including a limitation in the bill. 
However, administrative costs have continued to rise, and now 
account for 10 percent of the total cost of the Section 8 
program. The Committee believes that appropriate funding should 
be made available to ensure that PHAs can effectively run their 
Section 8 voucher programs, including providing assistance to 
hard to house families and individuals. However the Committee 
believes that a 10 percent rate is more than sufficient to 
provide the necessary resources to effectively run a successful 
Section 8 voucher program. In addition, the Committee is 
concerned that HUD currently allows PHAs to deposit any excess 
fees not used to administer the Section 8 program into an 
administrative fee reserve account which can then be used for 
other purposes unrelated to the Section 8 program. This 
practice has resulted in current unspent balances in these 
administrative fee reserve totaling over $830,000,000. Language 
is therefore included in the bill to limit administrative fees 
and other expenses to no more than 10 percent of the rental 
subsidy paid, and to require that administrative fee reserve 
balances be used to support the Section 8 program, particularly 
activities which assist hard to house families and individuals.
    Given the large amount of excess balances, the Committee 
believes that the current fee structure should be re-evaluated 
to assess the actual costs associated with running a successful 
Section 8 voucher program. Language is included in the bill 
requiring the Department to provide a report to the Committee 
no later than March 1, 2003 on the administrative costs and 
other expenses associated with the Section 8 voucher program. 
Such report shall include, but not be limited to, the 
following: the total amount of administrative fees paid 
compared to actual administrative costs in fiscal years 2000, 
2001, and 2002; the total amount of administrative fee reserve 
funds used to support non-Section 8 programs, and the purposes 
for which the funds were used; a comparison of the 
administrative fees structure used for the Section 8 voucher 
program as compared to the current administrative fee structure 
used for the Section 8 project-based program; and 
recommendations for changes to the administrative fee 
structures to better align fees with actual costs.
    --Administrative Costs--Project-Based Section 8 Program: 
$196,000,000 for contractors to administer the project-based 
section 8 program.
    --Working Capital Fund: not less than $3,000,000 for 
transfer to the Working Capital Fund for the development of and 
modifications to information technology systems.
    Consistent with the budget request, the Committee 
recommends $4,200,000,000 in advance appropriations. In 
addition, the Committee recommends a rescission of 
$1,300,000,000 from this account to be derived from the 
recapture of section 8 funds provided in fiscal year 2002 and 
prior years, instead of $1,100,000,000 assumed in the budget 
request.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    $2,843,400,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     2,843,400,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     2,425,900,000
Comparison with Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........  ................
Comparison with Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......      +417,500,000

    The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for public 
housing capital programs, including public housing development, 
modernization, and amendments. Examples of capital 
modernization projects include replacing roofs and windows, 
improving common spaces, upgrading electrical and plumbing 
systems, and renovating the interior of an apartment.
    The Committee recommendation includes $2,843,400,000 for 
this program, an increase of $417,500,000 above the request and 
the same amount provided in fiscal year 2002.
    The Committee appreciates the need to modernize public 
housing and continues to believe that the residents of public 
housing deserve timely facilities improvements. Congressional 
concerns over delays in the expenditure of public housing 
capital funds led to the enactment of several provisions in the 
Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA) of 1998 to 
compel more timely completion of needed repair and 
modernization work to the public housing stock. Section 9(j) of 
QHWRA required PHAs to obligate their funds within 24-months 
and spend such funds within 48 months. Pursuant to the statute, 
a PHA failing to comply with these statutory deadlines would 
have all capital funding withheld and unspent funds would be 
subject to recapture. Under QHWRA, funds withheld and 
recaptured are to be redistributed to PHAs which have proven 
capable of utilizing their funds. The Committee remains 
concerned that four years after enactment of the statute, HUD 
has yet to implement these statutory provisions. Therefore, 
language is included in the bill requiring the Secretary to 
issue final regulations to implement that statute no later than 
May 1, 2003.
    In the interim, the Committee has continued language, 
included in the fiscal year 2002 bill, designating $550,000,000 
to be distributed only to those PHAs which have met the 24-
month and 48-month statutory requirements to obligate and 
expend their funds in accordance with QHWRA. This will ensure 
that those PHAs which have demonstrated an ability to fully 
utilize their funds receive funds in addition to their annual 
accrued maintenance allocation to continue addressing their 
backlog requirements in fiscal year 2003.
    The Committee appreciates the quarterly reports on the 
obligation and expenditure of capital funds which have been 
provided by HUD. The Committee directs HUD to continue to 
provide these quarterly reports to the Committee, with the 
first such report to be provided no later than February 1, 
2003.
    The Committee recommendation does not include funding, or 
the necessary authorization language, for the Public Housing 
Reinvestment Initiative proposed by the Administration. While 
the Committee is interested in exploring additional mechanisms 
to leverage private sector financing for improvements in public 
housing, the Committee believes that such proposals need to be 
more fully examined before significant statutory and funding 
changes are made. The Committee understands that under existing 
statutory authorities, some PHAs have in fact successfully 
pursued private financing. The Committee requests that the 
Department provide a report to the Committee no later than 
March 1, 2003, on those PHAs which have entered into private 
financing partnerships for capital modernization needs, and the 
results of those partnerships.
    The recommendation also includes funding for the following 
activities, as proposed in the budget: $51,000,000 for 
technical assistance activities; $500,000 for section 23 lease 
adjustments; $55,000,000 for the Resident Opportunity and Self-
Sufficiency program; $15,000,000 for the Neighborhood Networks 
initiative program; up to $75,000,000 for emergency and natural 
disaster needs; and no less than $18,600,000 for transfer to 
the Working Capital Fund to support the development of and 
modifications to information technology systems which support 
Public and Indian Housing activities.

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    $3,600,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     3,494,868,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     3,530,000,000
Comparison with Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........      +105,132,000
Comparison with Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......       +70,000,000

    The Public Housing Operating Fund (PHOF) subsidizes the 
costs associated with operating and maintaining public housing. 
This subsidy supplements funding received by public housing 
authorities (PHA) from tenant rent contributions and other 
income. In accordance with section 9 of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937, as amended, funds are allocated by formula 
to public housing authorities for the following purposes: 
utility costs; anticrime and anti-drug activities, including 
the costs of providing adequate security; routine maintenance 
cost; administrative costs; and general operating expenses.
    The Committee recommends $3,600,000,000 to subsidize PHAs' 
fiscal year 2003 operating costs, an increase of $105,132,000 
above the fiscal year 2002 level, and $70,000,000 above the 
request. Of this amount, $10,000,000 is for transfer to the 
Department of Justice to be allocated by the Attorney General 
through existing programs, such as Weed and Seed, to those 
areas where additional assistance is needed to augment Federal, 
State and local efforts to effectively fight crime and drugs in 
public housing.
    The Committee notes that PHAs are authorized to use their 
operating and capital funds for anti-crime and anti-drug 
activities. All activities previously authorized under the 
public housing drug elimination program (PHDEP) are permissible 
activities under the operating and capital fund accounts. The 
Committee further notes that PHAs currently have unspent PHDEP 
funding which the Committee expects that PHAs continue to use. 
Further, the Committee encourages PHAs to continue to support 
such programs from within their operating and capital funds.
    The recommendation does not include requested language 
earmarking $120,000,000 for the proposed Public Housing 
Reinvestment Intitiative.
    Language is also continued in the bill, carried in prior 
years, which prohibits funds from being used for section 9(k) 
activities. Language is not included making funds available for 
two years.

     REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING (HOPE VI)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $574,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       573,735,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       574,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........          +265,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    The Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing 
program, also known as HOPE VI, provides competitive grants to 
public housing authorities to revitalize entire neighborhoods 
adversely impacted by the presence of badly deteriorated public 
housing projects. In addition to developing and constructing 
new affordable housing, the program provides PHAs with the 
authority to demolish obsolete projects and to provide self-
sufficiency services for families who reside in and around the 
facility.
    The Committee recommends funding HOPE VI at $574,000,000, 
as requested, an increase of $265,000 above the amount provided 
in fiscal year 2002. Of the total amount provided, $6,250,000 
is for technical assistance and $5,000,000 is for the 
Neighborhood Networks program, as requested, and the same 
amounts provided for these activities in fiscal year 2002.
    The recommendation does not include requested language 
earmarking up to $50,000,000 in HOPE VI funds for the proposed 
Public Housing Reinvestment Initiative. Language is included in 
the bill making funds available for two years.
    The Committee is aware of concerns that the HOPE VI Program 
has resulted in the displacement of existing residents of 
public housing. The Committee requests that the U.S. Department 
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) take these concerns into 
account in its selection criteria and report back to the 
Committee on its actions by March 1, 2003.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $649,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       648,570,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       646,594,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........          +430,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......        +2,406,000

    The Native American Housing Block Grants program provides 
funds to Indian tribes and their tribally-designated housing 
entities (TDHEs) to address housing needs within their 
communities. The block grant is designed to fund a TDHE's 
operating requirements and capital needs.
    The Committee recommends $649,000,000 for this account, an 
increase of $2,406,000 above the budget request, and $430,000 
above the fiscal year 2002 level. The recommendation includes 
the following: $2,000,000 for the section 601 Loan Guarantee 
program to guarantee a total loan volume of $16,658,000; 
$3,000,000 for inspections, training, travel costs, and 
technical assistance; $2,200,000 for the National American 
Indian Housing Council to conduct training programs and to 
provide technical assistance; no less than $600,000 for 
transfer to the Working Capital Fund for information technology 
systems development and modifications; and $150,000 for 
transfer to the HUD salaries and expenses account for 
administrative expenses.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account    direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......       $5,300,000     $197,243,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        5,987,000      234,283,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......        5,200,000      197,243,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002               -687,000      -37,040,000
 appropriation........................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003               +100,000                0
 budget request.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1992 establishes a loan guarantee program for Native Americans 
to build or purchase homes on trust land. This program provides 
access to sources of private financing for Indian families and 
Indian housing authorities that otherwise cannot acquire 
financing because of the unique legal status of Indian trust 
land. This financing vehicle enables families to construct new 
homes or to purchase existing properties on reservations.
    The Committee recommends $5,300,000 for the section 184 
Loan Guarantee program to guarantee a total loan volume of 
$197,243,000, an increase of $100,000 above the amount 
requested. Of the amount provided, $5,200,000 is for costs 
associated with guarantees under the section 184 program, and 
$100,000 is for the Indian Land Title Report Commission 
authorized pursuant to Public Law 106-569. Language is included 
transferring $200,000 to the HUD salaries and expenses account 
for administrative expenses. Language is also included 
designating $100,000 for the Commission.

                  NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................              \1\0
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................              \1\0
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        10,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......    \1\-10,000,000

\1\ In fiscal year 2002, funding for this program was provided under the
  Community Development Fund.

    The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 
the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide 
grants to the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 
(DHHL) for housing and housing related assistance to develop, 
maintain and operate affordable housing for eligible low-income 
Native Hawaiian families.
    The Committee does not recommend funding for this program 
as a separate account as proposed in the budget, but instead 
continues funding for this program under the Community 
Development Fund as provided in fiscal year 2002.

      NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program account    direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......       $1,035,000      $39,712,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        1,000,000       40,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......        1,035,000       39,712,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002                +35,000         -312,000
 appropriation........................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003                      0                0
 budget request.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 created 
the Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund program to 
provide loan guarantees for native Hawaiian individuals and 
their families, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the 
Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and private nonprofit organizations 
experienced in the planning and development of affordable 
housing for Native Hawaiians for the purchase, construction, 
and/or rehabilitation of single-family homes on Hawaiian Home 
Lands. This program provides access to private sources of 
financing that would otherwise not be available because of the 
unique legal status of Hawaiian Home Lands.
    The Committee recommends $1,035,000 for this program to 
guarantee a total loan volume of $39,712,000, the full amount 
requested. Language is included transferring $35,000 to the HUD 
salaries and expenses account for administrative expenses.

                   Community Planning and Development

              HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $292,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       277,432,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       292,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +14,568,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 
program is authorized by the Housing Opportunities for Persons 
with AIDS Act. This program provides States and localities with 
resources and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive 
strategies to meet the housing needs of persons with HIV/AIDS 
and their families. Ninety percent of funding is distributed by 
formula to qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the 
basis of the cumulative number and incidences of AIDS reported 
to the Centers for Disease Control. The remaining 10 percent of 
funding is distributed through a national competition. 
Government recipients are required to have a HUD-approved 
Comprehensive Plan/Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy 
(CHAS).
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends 
$292,000,000, an increase of $14,568,000 above the fiscal year 
2002 level, and the full amount requested. The increase will 
allow funding for new jurisdictions expected to become eligible 
for funding in fiscal year 2003, while maintaining funding for 
existing jurisdictions. Within the total amount provided, 
$2,000,000 is for technical assistance, training and oversight 
as requested.
    Language is included making funds available for two years. 
Language is also included, carried in fiscal year 2002, which 
requires the Secretary to renew expiring permanent supportive 
housing contracts previously funded under the national 
competition which meet all program requirements before awarding 
new competitive grants.

                 RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $25,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        25,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......       +25,000,000

    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Rural Housing 
and Economic Development program, the same level provided in 
fiscal year 2002. The fiscal year 2003 budget requested 
elimination of funding for this program. Language is included, 
carried in previous years, requiring the Department to 
competitively award funds for this program no later than June 
30, 2003.

                EMPOWERMENT ZONES/ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $30,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        45,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       -15,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......       +30,000,000

    This account provides discretionary grant funding to 15 
urban Enterprise Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/ECs) 
designated in Round II.
    The statute which created Round II EZ/ECs did not authorize 
discretionary grant funding for these communities, but instead 
authorized tax incentives to stimulate revitalization efforts 
in these communities. However, since fiscal year 1999, 
discretionary grant funds have been provided under this 
account. Therefore, the Committee recommends $30,000,000 in 
continued grant funding for the 15 urban Round II EZ/ECs. 
Language is making these funds available for obligation for 
three years, consistent with the funds availability provided 
for other community development activities funded within the 
Department.

                       COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    $5,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     5,000,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     4,715,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......      +284,500,000

    The Community Development Fund provides funding to State 
and local governments, and to other entities that carry out 
community and economic development activities under various 
programs.
    The Committee recommends a total of $5,000,000,000 for the 
Community Development Fund account, the same level provided in 
fiscal year 2002. Funding under this account is allocated as 
follows:
          --$4,577,000,000 for Community Development Block 
        Grant formula grants;
          --$70,000,000 for Native American Community 
        Development Block Grants;
          --$9,600,000 for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block 
        Grant program;
          --$29,500,000 for the National Community Development 
        Initiative (NCDI), as follows:
                  $4,500,000 for Habitat for Humanity capacity 
                building activities; and
                  $25,000,000 for the Enterprise Foundation and 
                LISC capacity building activities, including 
                $5,000,000 for activities in rural areas;
          --$33,500,000 for section 107 activities, as follows:
                  $7,000,000 for insular areas;
                  $10,500,000 for Historically Black Colleges 
                and Universities;
                  $3,000,000 for Community Development Work 
                Study;
                  $5,500,000 for Hispanic Serving Institutions; 
                and
                  $7,500,000 for Community Outreach 
                Partnerships;
          --$3,300,000 for the Housing Assistance Council;
          --$2,200,000 for the National American Indian Housing 
        Council;
          --$5,000,000 for the National Housing Development 
        Corporation (NHDC), for continuation of its program of 
        acquisition, rehabilitation and preservation of at-risk 
        affordable housing;
          --$5,000,000 for the National Council of La Raza, for 
        its national HOPE Fund to leverage additional 
        investments in affordable housing and community 
        development projects;
          --$28,500,000 for the Self-Help Homeownership 
        Opportunity Program (SHOP);
          --$65,000,000 for Youthbuild, including $2,000,000 
        for capacity building activities;
          --$144,600,000 for economic development initiatives. 
        The Committee notes that numerous programs funded 
        throughout the bill provide assistance to communities 
        in economic development, but recognizes that gaps in 
        financing do exist for community economic development 
        activities. The Committee has therefore provided 
        funding for initial planning activities and for ``brick 
        and mortar'' construction, renovation and 
        rehabilitation activities for economic development 
        projects. The Committee expects that this targeted 
        Federal investment will act as a catalyst to promote 
        additional Federal, State and local investment in these 
        economic development projects. Thus, the Committee has 
        not included funding under this account for water, 
        sewer, and wastewater infrastructure, land acquisition, 
        building demolition or acquisition, road construction, 
        or environmental cleanup activities, as these 
        activities are traditionally funded by other Federal, 
        State and local programs. Consistent with previous 
        appropriations Acts, funds provided for economic 
        development initiatives may not be used for operating 
        expenses of a facility, program or organization, and 
        costs associated with grant and project administration 
        are limited to no more than 20 percent of the total 
        grant award. The Committee notes that projects 
        receiving funding must comply with the environmental 
        review requirements set forth in section 305(c) of the 
        Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Act of 1994 
        (42 U.S.C. 3547); the Committee will not entertain 
        waivers of this requirement. In addition, funds may not 
        be used for reimbursement of expenses incurred prior to 
        the receipt of economic development initiative funding. 
        Targeted grants shall be provided as follows:
          1. $225,000 to continue the rehabilitation of the 
        former Alaska Pulp Company mill site in Sitka, Alaska;
          2. $225,000 to the City of Craig, Alaska for 
        construction of a Marine Industrial Park;
          3. $450,000 to the City of Petersburg, Alaska for 
        construction of an aquatic center;
          4. $25,000 to the Northwest Alabama Children's 
        Advocacy Center in Florence, Alabama for facility 
        renovations;
          5. $50,000 to the City of Athens, Alabama for 
        construction of an Alabama Korean War Veterans 
        Memorial;
          6. $50,000 to the City of Tuscumbia, Alabama for 
        construction of facilities associated with the Helen 
        Keller festival;
          7. $75,000 to the City of Huntsville, Alabama for 
        facilities construction for the Alabama Constitution 
        Village Plaza;
          8. $100,000 for construction of the Northeast Etowah 
        County Community and Senior Center, Alabama;
          9. $100,000 to the Birmingham, Alabama Regional 
        Planning Commission for an economic development 
        planning study;
          10. $100,000 to the City of Decatur, Alabama for 
        planning for a Technical Training Center;
          11. $100,000 to the Historic Huntsville Foundation in 
        Huntsville, Alabama for sidewalks, curbs, street 
        lighting, outdoor furniture and facade improvements in 
        the Mill Village neighborhood;
          12. $100,000 to the Northwest Alabama Mental Health 
        Center for facilities renovation;
          13. $108,000 to the Randolph County Commission for 
        facilities renovation for the restoration of the 
        historic Randolph County Courthouse and Annexes in 
        Wedowee, Alabama;
          14. $135,000 to the Clay County Commission for 
        facilities renovations for the restoration of the 
        historic Clay County Courthouse, Alabama;
          15. $150,000 for Lawson State Community College in 
        Alabama for facilities construction for an information 
        technology training and placement service center;
          16. $150,000 to Collinsville, Alabama for renovation 
        of the Collinsville Public Library;
          17. $150,000 to the Russellville Hispanic Coalition 
        of Alabama for building renovations;
          18. $200,000 to Fayette County, Alabama for 
        construction of the Fayette County Agribusiness 
        Facility;
          19. $225,000 to Huntingdon College in Montgomery, 
        Alabama for repairs and renovations to the Bellingrath 
        Natural Sciences facility;
          20. $225,000 to Jefferson County, Alabama for 
        renovation and expansion of the Leroy Brown Health 
        Education Building;
          21. $225,000 to the National Peanut Festival 
        Fairgrounds for construction of the National Peanut 
        Festival Agriculture Arena in Dothan, Alabama;
          22. $250,000 to the Northwest Alabama Council of 
        Local Governments in Muscle Shoals, Alabama for the 
        construction of a joint economic development facility 
        to be used by the Shoals Economic Development Authority 
        and the Shoals Chamber of Commerce;
          23. $750,000 to the National Children's Advocacy 
        Center in Huntsville, Alabama for construction of a 
        research and training campus;
          24. $1,800,000 to Spring Hill College in Mobile, 
        Alabama for construction of a new library and Regional 
        Resource Learning Center;
          25. $200,000 to the City of Bradley, Arkansas for 
        construction of a community center;
          26. $200,000 to the Dermott City Community Nursing 
        Home in Dermott, Arkansas for facilities construction 
        and buildout;
          27. $225,000 for construction of the North Arkansas 
        College Conference and Workforce Center in Harrison, 
        Arkansas;
          28. $175,000 to the County of Santa Cruz, Arizona for 
        restoration of a historic building;
          29. $200,000 to the Town of Guadalupe, Arizona for 
        renovations to the Mercado shopping center;
          30. $225,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Scottsdale 
        for facility construction in Fountain Hills, Arizona;
          31. $405,000 to the National Law Center for Inter-
        American Free Trade in Tucson, Arizona for facilities 
        construction;
          32. $450,000 to Arizona State University for 
        facilities construction for the Center for Basic 
        Research and Applied Research within the Barry M. 
        Goldwater Center for Science and Engineering;
          33. $50,000 to Southeast-Rio Vista YMCA in Huntington 
        Park, California for renovation of a building;
          34. $75,000 to Culver City, California for facilities 
        restoration of a theatre;
          35. $90,000 to the County of San Bernardino, 
        California for facilities renovation, sidewalk and 
        facade improvements of the Crestline Revitalization/
        Houston Creek project;
          36. $90,000 to the County of San Bernardino, 
        California for facilities expansion for the Big Bear 
        Zoo;
          37. $450,000 to Kelysville Senior Center in Lake 
        County, California for renovations of a facility into a 
        senior center;
          38. $100,000 to Occidental College in Los Angeles, 
        California for continued construction of a science 
        center;
          39. $100,000 to the American Film Institute in Los 
        Angeles, California for renovation of facilities;
          40. $100,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of National 
        City, California for facilities repairs at the Wayne 
        Sevier Memorial Gymnasium;
          41. $100,000 to the City of Carpinteria, California 
        for facilities modernization and renovation of the 
        Carpinteria Veteran's Memorial Building;
          42. $100,000 to the City of El Monte, California for 
        construction of a teen and education center;
          43. $100,000 to the City of Fontana, California for 
        restoration and renovation of recreational facilities;
          44. $100,000 to the City of Fresno, California for 
        facilities construction at the Roeding Business Park;
          45. $100,000 to the City of Garden Grove, California 
        for facilities construction at the West Haven Community 
        Center;
          46. $100,000 to the City of La Puente, California for 
        construction of a youth activity and learning center;
          47. $100,000 to the City of Lawndale, California for 
        construction of a new senior center;
          48. $100,000 to the City of Palo Alto, California for 
        the rehabilitation and expansion of the Childrens' 
        Library;
          49. $100,000 to the City of San Diego, California for 
        construction of the Elm Street residences for 
        transitional housing;
          50. $100,000 to the City of San Fernando, California 
        for a feasibility study of business redevelopment 
        focused on major commercial corridors;
          51. $100,000 to the Contra Costa Community College in 
        California for the Regional Training Institute's 
        facility renovation;
          52. $100,000 to the Intergenerational Daycare Center, 
        Organization for the Needs of the Elderly in Van Nuys, 
        California for facility construction;
          53. $100,000 to the Tech Museum of Innovation in San 
        Jose, California for renovations necessary for theater 
        improvements;
          54. $100,000 to the Watts Theatre and Education 
        Center in Los Angeles, California for renovations to 
        the center;
          55. $100,000 to the YMCA of San Francisco, California 
        for construction of a facility in the Bayview-Hunters 
        Point neighborhood and rehabilitation of the Chinatown 
        facility;
          56. $125,000 for El Rescate in Los Angeles, 
        California for renovation of a facility to house a 
        social service agency;
          57. $125,000 to the SRO Housing Corporation in Los 
        Angeles, California for facilities construction for the 
        James Wood Memorial Community Center;
          58. $135,000 to the City of Lancaster, California for 
        renovation of the Antelope Valley Mental Health 
        Association headquarters building;
          59. $135,000 to the City of Twentynine Palms, 
        California for construction of the Twentynine Palms 
        Visitor Center;
          60. $135,000 to the Hi-Desert Medical Center in 
        Joshua Tree, California for facilities expansion for 
        the Obstetrics Center;
          61. $135,000 to the History Department of the Natural 
        History Museum of Los Angeles County for facility 
        improvements for the William S. Hart Museum in Newhall, 
        California;
          62. $135,000 to the Tri-Counties Easter Seals for 
        construction of a child development center in Ventura 
        County, California;
          63. $150,000 to the City of San Rafael, California 
        for renovation of the Pickleweed Park Community Center;
          64. $150,000 to the City of Santa Monica, California 
        for renovation of a historic structure for use as a 
        visitor center;
          65. $150,000 to the Spanish Speaking Unity Council in 
        Oakland, California for rehabilitation of affordable 
        elderly housing;
          66. $180,000 to the City of Lancaster, California for 
        facilities construction and improvements for the 
        National Soccer Center;
          67. $180,000 to the City of Temecula, California for 
        construction of the Gymnasium-Old Town Temecula;
          68. $180,000 to the Community Action Partnership of 
        Kern, California for construction of a food bank;
          69. $200,000 to the City of Vallejo, California for 
        historic structure renovations at Mare Island;
          70. $200,000 to the Sacramento Housing and 
        Redevelopment Agency in Sacramento, California for 
        construction of a learning center;
          71. $225,000 to the Agua Caliente Cultural Museum in 
        Palm Springs, California for facilities construction;
          72. $225,000 to the City of Diamond Bar, California 
        for construction of a community center;
          73. $225,000 to the City of East Palo Alto, 
        California for facilities construction at the 
        Ravenswood Industrial park;
          74. $225,000 to the City of Ripon, California for 
        construction of a Youth Center Complex;
          75. $225,000 to the City of Riverside, California for 
        facilities construction for the Riverside Regional 
        Technology Transfer Center;
          76. $225,000 to the City of Stockton, California for 
        renovation of the Fox Theatre;
          77. $225,000 to the East County YMCA in La Mesa, 
        California for facilities construction and 
        improvements;
          78. $225,000 to the Sweetwater Authority for 
        recreation facilities construction at Sweetwater and 
        Loveland Reservoirs in San Diego County, California;
          79. $250,000 to the City of Eureka, California for 
        construction of a waterfront facility as part of the 
        downtown revitalization;
          80. $250,000 to the City of Inglewood, California for 
        construction of a senior center;
          81. $270,000 to the Fund for the Preservation of the 
        California State Mining and Mineral Museum for 
        facilities construction in Mariposa, California;
          82. $300,000 to the City of Salinas, California for 
        construction of recreational facilities;
          83. $315,000 to the City of Citrus Heights, 
        California for facilities construction for the Sayonara 
        Neighborhood revitalization project;
          84. $315,000 to the City of Shasta Lake, California 
        for construction of a senior housing complex;
          85. $360,000 to the Kern County Office of Education 
        for facilities construction for the Mobility 
        Opportunities via Education project in Southeast 
        Bakersfield, California;
          86. $360,000 to the West Side Park and Recreation 
        District for renovation of the Taft Community Pool in 
        Taft, California;
          87. $400,000 to the City of San Francisco, California 
        for construction of the Mission Bay Senior Housing 
        Project;
          88. $450,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Las 
        Virgenes, Inc. for facilities construction in the City 
        of Thousand Oaks, California;
          89. $450,000 to the City of La Mesa, California for 
        facilities construction and improvements for the La 
        Mesa PARKS Project;
          90. $100,000 to Children's Hospital, San Diego, 
        California for facilities construction for the 
        Convalescent Hospital;
          91. $450,000 to the City of Westminster, California 
        for construction of a community center;
          92. $450,000 to the Palomar YMCA in Escondido, 
        California for construction of an aquatic center;
          93. $450,000 to the Town of Apple Valley, California 
        for construction of an aquatic center;
          94. $900,000 to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 
        California for construction of a senior center;
          95. $100,000 to Arvada Center for the Arts and 
        Humanities in Arvada, Colorado for facilities 
        expansion;
          96. $100,000 to the City of Aurora, Colorado for 
        planning related to Fitzsimons Commons;
          97. $450,000 to the Harp Foundation for construction 
        of the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk ``Link'' Project of 
        Pueblo, Colorado;
          98. $100,000 for the Hartt School of Performing Arts 
        Education Center in West Hartford, Connecticut for 
        building renovations;
          99. $100,000 to the City of Meriden, Connecticut for 
        a study to determine the feasibility of the 
        construction of a community play house and arts center;
          100. $100,000 to the City of Waterbury, Connecticut 
        for an economic feasibility study focused on 
        construction of a multi-purpose sports facility;
          101. $100,000 to the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art 
        in Hartford, Connecticut for renovation of facilities;
          102. $150,000 to the town of Newtown, Connecticut for 
        future use planning and renovation of the Batshelder 
        property;
          103. $200,000 to Domestic Violence Services of 
        Greater New Haven, Connecticut for renovation and 
        construction of a facility for transitional housing;
          104. $250,000 to Columbus House, Inc. in New Haven, 
        Connecticut for construction of an emergency shelter 
        for homeless adults;
          105. $315,000 to Mystic Seaport for a facilities 
        restoration and conversion project of the American 
        Maritime Education and Research Center in Mystic, 
        Connecticut;
          106. $450,000 to the Environmental Learning Centers 
        of Connecticut for facilities expansion for the Harry 
        C. Barnes Memorial Nature Center in Bristol, 
        Connecticut;
          107. $450,000 to the New Britain Museum of American 
        Art in New Britain, Connecticut for facility 
        construction;
          108. $100,000 to St. Petersburg, Florida for 
        completion of facilities improvements at the Florida 
        Botanical Garden and Folk Cultural Center;
          109. $125,000 to Santa Fe Community College in 
        Gainesville, Florida for construction of a fine arts 
        building;
          110. $125,000 to the City of Gainesville, Florida for 
        sidewalk and curb improvements;
          111. $225,000 to the City of Clearwater, Florida for 
        waterfront facilities construction of the ``Beach by 
        Design Initiative'';
          112. $225,000 to the City of Jacksonville, Florida 
        for facilities construction for the Patriots Village 
        Transitional Housing Community;
          113. $225,000 to the City of Ocoee, Florida for 
        construction of a senior citizens/veterans services 
        center;
          114. $225,000 to the City of Riviera Beach, Florida 
        for construction and renovation of facilities as part 
        of the Urban Commercial Retail Development Project;
          115. $225,000 to the City of Sanford, Florida for 
        construction of a parking facility at the Hotel 
        Conference Center;
          116. $225,000 to the MainStreet Deland Association, 
        Inc. for restoration of the Athens Theatre in Deland, 
        Florida;
          117. $225,000 to the Tampa, Florida Port Authority 
        for facilities construction and renovation of a 
        terminal;
          118. $250,000 for Family Resources of St. Petersburg, 
        Florida for construction of a crisis shelter and family 
        counseling center;
          119. $250,000 to Bethune Cookman College in Daytona 
        Beach, Florida for construction of a community services 
        center and student union;
          120. $250,000 to the Community Aging and Retirement 
        Services (CARES) of Pasco County, Florida for 
        renovation and build out of the Crescent Enrichment 
        Center & Theater in Dale City, Florida;
          121. $360,000 to the Wolfsonian-Florida International 
        University of Miami Beach, Florida for facilities 
        expansion and improvements;
          122. $375,000 to the City of Plantation, Florida for 
        construction of an amphitheater;
          123. $400,000 for the City of Largo, Florida for 
        construction of a new downtown Largo library;
          124. $400,000 to Refuge House in Tallahassee, Florida 
        for construction of a battered women's shelter;
          125. $450,000 to the Central Florida Community 
        College in Marion County, Florida for facilities 
        construction for an information technology center;
          126. $450,000 to the Florida International University 
        College of Law in Miami, Florida for construction of 
        facilities for a student legal clinic;
          127. $500,000 for facilities construction for the 
        Stetson University College of Law Tampa, Florida 
        campus;
          128. $750,000 for facilities construction for Tampa 
        Bay Watch in Florida;
          129. $750,000 to the Christopher Newport University 
        Foundation of Newport News, Virginia for facilities 
        construction and renovation;
          130. $1,000,000 for construction of the Eckerd 
        College Youth Opportunity and Development Center in St. 
        Petersburg, Florida;
          131. $1,000,000 for the City of St. Petersburg, 
        Florida Manhattan redevelopment project for facilities 
        renovation and improvements for a business development 
        center;
          132. $1,000,000 for the historic restoration and 
        renovation of the Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables, 
        Florida;
          133. $200,000 to Morehouse College in Atlanta, 
        Georgia for construction of a performing arts center;
          134. $225,000 for facilities construction for the 
        Dual Rail Industrial Park in Dooly County, Georgia;
          135. $225,000 for the Tommy Nobis Center in Marietta, 
        Georgia for facilities renovations and improvements;
          136. $225,000 for the Warner Robins Museum of 
        Aviation in Houston County, Georgia for expansion of 
        facilities for the Century of Flight exhibit;
          137. $225,000 to Mercer University of Macon, Georgia 
        for facilities construction for the Critical Personnel 
        Development Program;
          138. $225,000 to Rockdale County, Georgia for 
        facilities construction for the Georgia Veterans Park;
          139. $225,000 to Wesleyan College of Macon, Georgia 
        for the restoration and renovation of historic 
        buildings;
          140. $315,000 for the preservation of historic 
        buildings at Georgia College and State University, a 
        Historically Women's Public College and University;
          141. $450,000 to the Liberty County, Georgia 
        Development Authority for facilities construction at 
        the Coastal MegaPark;
          142. $150,000 to the YMCA of Honolulu, Hawaii for 
        construction of a multi-purpose community and 
        recreation center;
          143. $100,000 to the Mahaska County Crisis 
        Intervention Services Domestic Shelter in Oskaloosa, 
        Iowa for facilities renovation of the domestic shelter;
          144. $450,000 to Systems Unlimited, Inc. in the Iowa 
        City/Cedar Rapids community, Iowa for facilities 
        expansion;
          145. $450,000 to the City of Des Moines, Iowa for 
        facilities construction for the Des Moines Agrimergent 
        Technology Park;
          146. $450,000 to the City of Fort Dodge, Iowa for 
        facility renovations for the Senior Citizens Campus 
        project;
          147. $360,000 to Idaho State University for 
        construction of the L.E. and Thelma E. Stephens 
        Performing Arts Center;
          148. $90,000 to Family House in Peoria, Illinois for 
        facilities construction;
          149. $90,000 to the City of Normal, Illinois for 
        facilities construction according to the downtown 
        redevelopment plan;
          150. $100,000 to Family Focus in Evanston, Illinois 
        for facilities improvements;
          151. $100,000 to Haymarket Center in Chicago, 
        Illinois for renovations to a facility to serve as drug 
        intervention center;
          152. $100,000 to Oak Lawn Children's Museum in Oak 
        Lawn, Illinois for facilities renovations;
          153. $100,000 to the Brookfield Zoo in Brookfield, 
        Illinois for construction of a learning center;
          154. $100,000 to the Village of Hampton, Illinois for 
        construction of the Hampton Heritage Center;
          155. $100,000 to the Village of Riverside, Illinois 
        for restoration of a historic structure;
          156. $100,000 to the Village of South Holland, 
        Illinois for facilities improvements for its community 
        center;
          157. $150,000 to Lewis and Clark Community College in 
        Godfrey, Illinois for construction of the Great Rivers 
        Research and Education Center;
          158. $75,000 to Ridgeway Senior Center in Gallatin 
        County, Illinois for renovation of the senior center;
          159. $150,000 to the Village of Olympia Fields, 
        Illinois for construction of a hall, public library and 
        upgraded commuter station;
          160. $180,000 to Eureka College, Illinois for 
        continued construction of the Science and Technology 
        Center;
          161. $180,000 to Joliet Junior College in Joliet, 
        Illinois for construction of a multipurpose 
        agricultural education and event center;
          162. $180,000 to the Centers for the Prevention of 
        Abuse for facilities construction in Peoria, Illinois;
          163. $200,000 to the Safer Foundation in Chicago, 
        Illinois for renovation of a building into transitional 
        housing;
          164. $225,000 to DuPage County, Illinois for 
        facilities renovations for the Convalescent Center 
        Rehabilitation Project;
          165. $225,000 to Roosevelt University of Chicago, 
        Illinois for renovations to the auditorium building;
          166. $225,000 to the American Red Cross of Greater 
        Chicago, Illinois for facilities construction;
          167. $225,000 to the City of DeKalb, Illinois for 
        rehabilitation of facilities for the Downtown Community 
        Center;
          168. $225,000 to the Northfield Park District in 
        Northfield, Illinois for facilities construction;
          169. $270,000 for facilities renovation for Teen 
        Challenge in Decatur, Illinois;
          170. $450,000 to the City of Elgin, Illinois for 
        construction of pedestrian improvements;
          171. $675,000 to the Village of Addison, Illinois for 
        facilities construction for the Addison Neighborhood 
        Resource Center and Park;
          172. $1,400,000 to Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's 
        Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois for renovations to 
        the life safety and infant security facilities;
          173. $150,000 to the City of Indianapolis, Indiana 
        for construction at the Life Sciences Research Park;
          174. $315,000 to Tri-State University for facilities 
        construction for the Center for Technology and On-Line 
        Resources in Angola, Indiana;
          175. $450,000 to Madison Township, Indiana for 
        construction of a construction of a community center;
          176. $450,000 to the James Whitcomb Riley Hospital 
        for Children in Indianapolis, Indiana for improving 
        inpatient facilities for the Chistian Sarkine Autism 
        Center;
          177. $1,000,000 to Purdue University in West 
        Lafayette, Indiana for facilities construction for the 
        Northwest Indiana Purdue Technology Center;
          178. $150,000 to the Unified Government of Wyandotte 
        County and Kansas City, Kansas for sidewalk and curb 
        improvements;
          179. $180,000 for facilities renovation and expansion 
        of the Oaklawn Community Resource Center in Sedgwick 
        County, Kansas;
          180. $180,000 for facilities renovations and 
        improvements for the Evergreen Public Library in 
        Wichita, Kansas;
          181. $315,000 to the City of Atchison, Kansas for 
        construction of a riverfront plaza;
          182. $315,000 to the Reno County Historical Society 
        for the Kansas Underground Salt Museum in Hutchinson, 
        Kansas for facilities construction and improvements;
          183. $73,500 to Kentucky Refugee Ministries in 
        Louisville, Kentucky for renovation of facilities;
          184. $75,000 to the Salvation Army/Boys and Girls 
        Club--Northfolk, in Louisville, Kentucky for the 
        renovation of the Northfolk community center;
          185. $100,000 to the Greater Community Council in 
        Louisville, Kentucky for construction of a facility for 
        low-income, disabled persons;
          186. $150,000 to Owen County, Kentucky for facilities 
        construction;
          187. $225,000 to Interlink Counseling in Louisville, 
        Kentucky for facilities construction;
          188. $225,000 to the City of Lebanon, Kentucky for 
        facilities construction for the Center Square project;
          189. $250,000 for the Trinity Family Life Center in 
        Louisville, Kentucky for facilities construction for 
        afterschool programs;
          190. $250,000 to the Community Economic Empowerment 
        Corporation of Louisville, Kentucky for construction of 
        a community and family recreation center;
          191. $250,000 to the First Gethsemane Center in 
        Louisville, Kentucky for renovation of facilities;
          192. $250,000 to the Shiloh Community Renewal Center 
        in Louisville, Kentucky for facilities reconstruction 
        and rehabilitation;
          193. $300,000 for the renovation of the Americana 
        Community Center in Louisville, Kentucky;
          194. $315,000 to the Montgomery County Fiscal Court 
        of Kentucky for continued construction of a community 
        center;
          195. $315,000 to the the Monroe County Wellness 
        Center, Inc. of Monroe County, Kentucky for facilities 
        construction;
          196. $450,000 to Pine Mountain Settlement School of 
        Harlan County, Kentucky for facilities expansion and 
        renovation;
          197. $450,000 to the London-Laurel County Tourist 
        Commission, Kentucky for facilities construction for 
        the Blue-Gray Civil War Theme Park;
          198. $50,000 to the Town of Clinton, Louisiana for 
        facilities construction and improvements;
          199. $75,000 to Iberia Parish, Louisiana for 
        construction of the New Iberia conference center;
          200. $75,000 to Plan Baton Rouge, Louisiana for 
        building renovations;
          201. $75,000 to St. Mary Parish, Louisiana for 
        construction of a wildlife refuge interpretive center;
          202. $75,000 to the City of Donaldsonville, Louisiana 
        for construction of riverfront recreational facilities;
          203. $75,000 to the City of Gonzales, Louisiana for 
        building and facade renovations and improvements in the 
        downtown historic district;
          204. $75,000 to the City of Plaquemine, Louisiana for 
        construction of facilities including a farmers market;
          205. $75,000 to the City of Port Allen, Louisiana for 
        economic development planning and facilities 
        construction;
          206. $75,000 to the Town of Golden Meadow, Louisiana 
        for construction and renovation of recreation 
        facilities;
          207. $75,000 to the Village of Cankton, Louisiana for 
        facilities renovations for a community center;
          208. $90,000 to the City of New Iberia, Louisiana for 
        facilities construction as described in the master 
        plan;
          209. $90,000 to the New Orleans Regional Planning 
        Commission, Louisiana for recreational facilities 
        improvements and buildout for St. Bernard, St. Charles 
        and Plaquemines;
          210. $90,000 to the Town of Grand Isle, Louisiana for 
        construction and buildout of the Isle Multi-Use 
        Facility;
          211. $100,000 to the Amistad Research Center in New 
        Orleans, Louisiana for facilities construction;
          212. $100,000 to the Mirabeau Family Learning Center, 
        Inc. in New Orleans, Louisiana for facilities 
        construction;
          213. $125,000 to the Acadia Economic Development 
        Corporation in Crowley, Louisiana for facilities 
        construction for a business incubator;
          214. $180,000 to Nichols State University in 
        Thibodaux, Louisiana for facilities construction for 
        the Advanced Technology Center;
          215. $180,000 to the Port of South Louisiana for 
        facilities construction for the Globalplex Intermodal 
        Terminal;
          216. $180,000 to the Tangipahoa Parish School System 
        in Loranger, Louisiana for renovation and restoration 
        of the Loranger High School building;
          217. $202,500 to the City of Mandeville, Louisiana 
        for the construction of an interpretive center as part 
        of the Mandeville Trailhead project;
          218. $225,000 for the National Federation of the 
        Blind, Center for the Blind in Louisiana for facilities 
        construction for the National Research and Training 
        Institute for the Blind;
          219. $675,000 the Biomedical Research Foundation of 
        Northwest Louisiana for construction of the InterTech 
        science park;
          220. $100,000 to Goodwill Industries of Springfield, 
        Massachusetts for facilities renovations;
          221. $125,000 to the Veterans Benefit Clearinghouse 
        in Roxbury, Massachusetts for facilities renovation and 
        modernization;
          222. $150,000 to Salem State College in Massachusetts 
        for construction of an arts center/theater;
          223. $150,000 to the Main South Community Development 
        Corporation in Worcester, Massachusetts for blight 
        removal and construction related to the Gardner-Kilby-
        Hammond Street Neighborhood Revitalization project;
          224. $175,000 to the City of Lowell, Massachusetts 
        for construction of the Jackson/Appleton/Middlesex Area 
        garage;
          225. $200,000 to the Berkshire Museum in Pittsfield, 
        Massachusetts for facilities renovation;
          226. $325,000 to Girls Incorporated in Pittsfield, 
        Massachusetts for facilities renovation;
          227. $300,000 to the City of Springfield, 
        Massachusetts for renovations of a facility to house a 
        public market;
          228. $450,000 to the Massachusetts College of 
        Pharmacy and Health Sciences for construction of a new 
        multi-use educational facilities;
          229. $75,000 for Arena Stage for facilities 
        construction in the District of Columbia;
          230. $75,000 to the Montgomery Housing Partnership in 
        Maryland for renovation of the Blair Park apartments;
          231. $90,000 to Montgomery County, Maryland for 
        facilities construction for the Silver Spring 
        Innovation Center;
          232. $90,000 to the Maryland Soccer Foundation, Inc. 
        for facilities construction for the SoccerPlex in South 
        Germantown, Maryland;
          233. $90,000 to the Montgomery County Department of 
        Housing and Community Affairs, Maryland for building 
        renovations, facade improvements, and sidewalk and 
        beautification improvements in Wheaton;
          234. $90,000 to the Montgomery County Government of 
        Maryland for building renovations, facade improvements, 
        and sidewalk and beautification improvements for the 
        Fenton Street Village section of Silver Spring;
          235. $100,000 to the City of District Heights, 
        Maryland for facilities construction in its commercial 
        area;
          236. $100,000 to the City of La Plata, Maryland for 
        planning of a parking facility;
          237. $100,000 to the Melwood Horticultural Center in 
        Upper Marlboro, Maryland for planning necessary to 
        construct a multi-purpose job training and employment 
        facility;
          238. $100,000 to the Olney Theatre Center for the 
        Arts in Olney, Maryland for the construction of a 
        theater;
          239. $100,000 to the West Arlington Improvement 
        Association in Baltimore, Maryland for construction of 
        youth multi-purpose center;
          240. $112,500 to the Rotary--PAL Building Corporation 
        of Frederick County, Maryland for facilities expansion 
        for the Sagner Community Center;
          241. $150,000 to Prince Georges County, Maryland for 
        renovation of a visitor center to accommodate a Space 
        and Flight Center;
          242. $180,000 to the City of Rockville, Maryland for 
        sidewalk, pedestrian amenities, lighting, and 
        beautification improvements for the Rockville Town 
        Center Redevelopment Project;
          243. $200,000 to St. Mary's College in Maryland for 
        waterfront facilities construction;
          244. $315,000 to Baltimore Medical System of 
        Baltimore, Maryland for construction of a new community 
        health center;
          245. $100,000 for L/A Arts in Lewiston, Maine for the 
        renovation and construction of the ArtsPlace program 
        building;
          246. $125,000 to the Franco-American Heritage Center 
        at St. Mary's in Lewiston, Maine for renovate 
        facilities into a performance hall and museum;
          247. $125,000 to the University of Maine for 
        reconstruction of the Jonesboro Blueberry Research 
        Station;
          248. $180,000 to the City of Biddeford, Maine for 
        restoration of the City Theater;
          249. $90,000 to Cleary College in Howell, Michigan 
        for construction of the Center for Business and 
        Community Excellence;
          250. $225,000 for the National Cherry Festival of 
        Michigan for the renovation of facilities;
          251. $225,000 to the Michigan State Trust for Railway 
        Preservation, Inc. for construction of facilities for 
        the Steam Railroading Institute's ``linear museum 
        concept'' in Shiawasse County, Michigan;
          252. $250,000 for the FOCUS: HOPE Institute in 
        Detroit, Michigan for renovation of a job-training 
        facility;
          253. $250,000 for the Structural Research and 
        Development Center at Lawrence Tech. University in 
        Southfield, Michigan for facilities construction and 
        renovations;
          254. $250,000 to Lighthouse of Oakland County, Inc. 
        for facilities construction in Oakland County, 
        Michigan;
          255. $250,000 to the City of St. Ignace, Michigan for 
        the construction of a public library;
          256. $250,000 to the Michigan Jewish Institute 
        Academic Activities facility for construction and 
        renovation;
          257. $250,000 to the National Center for 
        Manufacturing Sciences in Ann Arbor, Michigan for 
        facilities construction;
          258. $300,000 to the Virginia Park Community 
        Investment, Inc. in Detroit, Michigan for renovations 
        of the Virginia Park Shopping Center;
          259. $450,000 to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of 
        Michigan for construction of facilities for the Victims 
        of Crime Program;
          260. $75,000 to the YWCA of St. Paul, Minnesota for 
        facilities renovations associated with expansion;
          261. $150,000 to Southside Family Nurturing Center in 
        Minneapolis, Minnesota for facility rehabilitation;
          262. $200,000 to Detroit Lakes, Minnesota for 
        construction of a community center;
          263. $200,000 to Leech Lake Tribal College in Cass 
        Lake, Minnesota for facilities expansion;
          264. $200,000 to the Audubon Center of the North 
        Woods in Minnesota for capital construction costs and 
        improvements;
          265. $200,000 to the Vinland Center in Minnesota for 
        facilities improvements for the rehabilitation center;
          266. $360,000 to the Cornerstone Advocacy Service, 
        Inc. in Bloomington, Minnesota for construction of a 
        multi-purpose Emergency Shelter and Family Services 
        Center;
          267. $600,000 to Reuben Lindh Family Services in 
        Minneapolis, Minnesota for facility rehabilitation;
          268. $50,000 to the City of Arnold, Missouri for 
        recreation facility improvements;
          269. $50,000 to the City of Maplewood, Missouri for 
        recreation facility improvements;
          270. $50,000 to the Town of Herculaneum, Missouri for 
        an economic development and land use plan;
          271. $90,000 to the City of Stanberry, Missouri for 
        revitalization of the city's bandstand;
          272. $100,000 to the East-West Gateway Coordinating 
        Council in St. Louis, Missouri for a feasibility study 
        in cooperation with the University City Trolley 
        Corporation;
          273. $100,000 to the St. Louis, Missouri Parks 
        Department for recreation facility improvements;
          274. $100,000 to United Inner Services, Inc. in 
        Kansas City, Missouri for construction of a community 
        center;
          275. $360,000 to the University of Missouri-Columbia 
        for facilities construction for the Life Sciences 
        Technology Incubator;
          276. $900,000 to the City of Springfield, Missouri 
        for construction of a community multipurpose facility;
          277. $900,000 to the City of St. Louis, Missouri for 
        lighting, sidewalks, curbs, and street furniture along 
        Kings Highway Boulevard and Chippewa Street;
          278. $100,000 to the City of Natchez, Mississippi for 
        a feasibility study to develop a slack water port;
          279. $100,000 to the town of Wesson, Mississippi for 
        the restoration of the Wesson School building;
          280. $270,000 to The Mississippi Economic Growth 
        Alliance and Point of Presence (MEGAPOP) for facilities 
        construction;
          281. $315,000 to the Oktibbeha County Economic 
        Development Authority in Starkville, Mississippi for 
        facilities construction for its E-Commerce Park;
          282. $315,000 to the Missoula Food Bank, Montana for 
        facilities expansion and renovation;
          283. $90,000 to the North Carolina Advanced Energy 
        Corporation in Raleigh, North Carolina for a 
        feasibility study of expanded application of the 
        ``System Vision'' model of housing construction;
          284. $100,000 to OPC Mental Health in Carrboro, North 
        Carolina for construction, renovation and build out of 
        Club Insight;
          285. $100,000 to Orange County, North Carolina for 
        construction and build out of a farmer's market 
        facility;
          286. $150,000 to Durham County, North Carolina for 
        construction and build out of a senior center, and 
        construction, renovation and build out of a homeless 
        shelter;
          287. $160,000 to the North Carolina Community 
        Development Initiative for renovation and build out of 
        a vocational training facility in Durham County, North 
        Carolina and a transitional housing facility in Durham, 
        North Carolina;
          288. $180,000 to the Catawba County, North Carolina 
        Historical Association for restoration of facilities 
        for the Harper House--Hickory History Center;
          289. $200,000 to the Town of Mooresville, North 
        Carolina for facilities expansion of the town's 
        historic library;
          290. $225,000 for construction of the National 
        Academy of Forensics and Computer Investigations at 
        Central Piedmont Community College in Charlotte, North 
        Carolina;
          291. $225,000 to the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum 
        in Dare County, North Carolina for continued facilities 
        construction;
          292. $270,000 to the Haywood County Agriculture and 
        Activities Center Association for construction of a 
        multi-purpose arena in Waynesville, North Carolina;
          293. $400,000 to Faquay-Varina, North Carolina for 
        downtown revitalization consisting of sidewalks, 
        islands, and a central plaza;
          294. $400,000 to UDI Community Development 
        Corporation in Durham, North Carolina for construction, 
        renovation and build out for a business incubator 
        facility;
          295. $450,000 for Wake Forest University and Winston-
        Salem State University in North Carolina for 
        construction of a facility for the Idealliance program;
          296. $350,000 to Scotland County, North Carolina for 
        construction and renovation of a community center;
          297. $450,000 to the University of North Carolina at 
        Greensboro, a Historically Women's College and 
        University, for restoration of historic buildings;
          298. $100,000 to Fort Totten, North Dakota for 
        facilities construction;
          299. $100,000 to Fort Yates Hospital, in Fort Yates, 
        North Dakota for facilities renovations and 
        construction;
          300. $315,000 to Father Flanagan's Girls and Boys 
        Town of Boys Town, Nebraska for the national priority 
        projects of Girls and Boys Town USA;
          301. $585,000 to the City of Falls City, Nebraska for 
        renovating and retrofitting a business industry 
        incubator building;
          302. $100,000 to Monmouth University in New Jersey 
        for library facilities renovations;
          303. $300,000 to the Greater Wakefield Resource 
        Center in Wakefield, New Hampshire for renovation of 
        facilities;
          304. $450,000 to the City of Concord, New Hampshire 
        for facilities construction of the Sears Block 
        Redevelopment project;
          305. $700,000 to the New Hampshire Community 
        Technical College for renovation and facilities 
        expansion for the Emerging Technology Center at Pease 
        International Tradeport;
          306. $100,000 to the Bergen County, New Jersey 
        Community Action Program for homeless shelter expansion 
        needs;
          307. $100,000 to the Borough of Fair Haven, New 
        Jersey for restoration of the historic Fisk Chapel;
          308. $100,000 to the Hackensack University Medical 
        Center in Hackensack, New Jersey for facilities 
        expansion of the Woman's and Children's Pavilion;
          309. $100,000 to the University of Medicine and 
        Dentistry of New Jersey in New Brunswick, New Jersey 
        for construction of the Child Health Institute;
          310. $125,000 to Babyland Family Services in Newark, 
        New Jersey for facilities improvements;
          311. $125,000 to Englewood Hospital and Medical 
        Center in New Jersey for modernization and expansion of 
        the Emergency and Outpatient Clinic;
          312. $125,000 to Holy Name Hospital in Teaneck, New 
        Jersey for facilities expansion of the regional 
        dialysis center;
          313. $125,000 to the YMCA of Eastern Union County, 
        New Jersey for a building renovations at the Elizabeth, 
        New Jersey Branch;
          314. $150,000 to the New Jersey Community Development 
        Corporation for facilities construction related to the 
        Transportation Opportunity Center;
          315. $180,000 to Atlantic City, New Jersey for 
        renovation of the All Wars Memorial Building;
          316. $180,000 to AtlantiCare Behavioral Health of 
        Atlantic City, New Jersey for construction of a 
        community mental health center;
          317. $200,000 to New Jersey City University for 
        renovation of the science hall;
          318. $225,000 to the YMCA of Eastern Union County for 
        expansion of child care facilities in Union, New 
        Jersey;
          319. $270,000 to Florence Township, New Jersey for 
        construction of a senior citizens center;
          320. $450,000 to Burlington County, New Jersey for 
        economic development planning for the revitalization of 
        the Mount Holly Community ($100,000) and facilities 
        construction ($400,000);
          321. $500,000 to Daytop in Morris County, New Jersey 
        for facilities construction and renovation;
          322. $500,000 to Gilda's Club of Northern, New Jersey 
        for construction and renovation of a facility in the 
        greater Morris/Essex County area;
          323. $100,000 to the City of Aztec, New Mexico for 
        facility and sidewalk improvements;
          324. $225,000 for the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico 
        Aviation Department for facilities expansion and 
        renovation for the Double Eagle II Airport;
          325. $450,000 to the City of Roswell, New Mexico for 
        renovation and structural upgrades of an aircraft 
        hanger;
          326. $200,000 to the City of Las Vegas, Nevada for 
        facilities construction for a small business incubator;
          327. $150,000 to the Culinary and Hospitality Academy 
        Center of Las Vegas, Nevada for construction related to 
        expansion of an education training center;
          328. $270,000 to the City of Sparks, Nevada for 
        renovation of facilities for the Regional Science and 
        Cultural Center;
          329. $75,000 to Babylon, New York for building 
        renovations at Oak Beach;
          330. $75,000 to the City of New Rochelle, New York 
        for sidewalk and curb improvements;
          331. $75,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for 
        renovations of the Syracuse Open House;
          332. $75,000 to the Hebrew Academy for Special 
        Children in Brooklyn, New York for construction 
        renovation of a facility;
          333. $75,000 to the Town of Mamaroneck, New York for 
        facilities renovation and improvements for the Hommocks 
        Conservation Area;
          334. $90,000 to the Town of Amherst, New York for the 
        repair of historic streetscape furniture;
          335. $100,000 to New York University Medical Center 
        for renovations to the Rusk Institute of 
        Rehabilitation;
          336. $100,000 to Onondaga County, New York for 
        construction of the Borodino Community Center;
          337. $100,000 to Phipps House in New York, New York 
        for facilities renovation and construction in LaPuerta 
        in the South Bronx to house an educational child care 
        center;
          338. $100,000 to the Alliance for Community Services 
        for a study of economic development needs of newly 
        identified immigrant communities in the Bronx, New 
        York;
          339. $100,000 to the Citizens Advice Bureau for 
        renovations to the Girls' Club Community Center in the 
        Bronx, New York;
          340. $100,000 to the City of Mount Vernon, New York 
        for building renovations to create a recreational and 
        job training facility;
          341. $100,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for 
        planning related to the Hancock International Airport;
          342. $100,000 to the City of White Plains, New York 
        for an economic development study for the 
        revitalization of Westchester;
          343. $100,000 to the Flushing, Queens, New York 
        branch of the YMCA for facilities renovation and 
        expansion;
          344. $100,000 to the Long Island Housing Partnership, 
        Inc. in New York for a study to identify and plan 
        revitalization efforts in distressed communities;
          345. $100,000 to the McBurney YMCA in New York, New 
        York for facility construction;
          346. $100,000 to the Metropolitan Development 
        Association in Syracuse, New York to update the VISION 
        2010 Strategic Economic Development Plan;
          347. $100,000 to the State University of New York, 
        College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry for 
        planning activities for the Quality Communities 
        Initiative;
          348. $100,000 to the Town of Eastchester, New York 
        for facilities renovation for the Eastchester Child 
        Development Center;
          349. $125,000 to the City of Yonkers, New York for 
        facilities construction for the Empowerment Zone 
        Assistance Center;
          350. $200,000 to the Bethel Performing Arts Center in 
        Bethel, New York for construction of a performing arts 
        facility;
          351. $150,000 to the Harlem YMCA in New York, New 
        York for renovation of transitional housing;
          352. $150,000 to the Jewish Children's Museum in 
        Brooklyn, New York for facilities construction;
          353. $180,000 for facilities renovations and 
        improvements for the Woolworth Theatre Project in Glens 
        Falls, New York;
          354. $180,000 to the Catskill Mountain Foundation in 
        Hunter, New York for reconstruction of the Tannersville 
        Theatre for use as a multifunctional facility;
          355. $180,000 to the Village of Valatie, New York for 
        the renovation of the Valatie Theatre;
          356. $150,000 to Boys and Girls Club of Saugerties, 
        New York for renovation of a multi-purpose facility to 
        house the club;
          357. $200,000 to Elmcor Youth and Adult Activities, 
        Inc. for construction of an economic development center 
        serving the needs of Northwestern Queens, New York;
          358. $200,000 to HOGAR, Inc. in the Bronx, New York 
        for planning activities for housing needs ($100,000) 
        and planning activities for provision of rehabilitative 
        services to special needs populations ($100,000);
          359. $200,000 to the Sunset Park Business Improvement 
        District in Brooklyn, New York for facade renovations, 
        sidewalk, curb and street furniture improvements;
          360. $225,000 for construction of the Players Theater 
        Performing Arts Center in Utica, New York;
          361. $225,000 to Catholic Health Systems for 
        construction activities of the Our Lady of Victory 
        Neighborhood for Seniors Project in Lackawanna, New 
        York;
          362. $225,000 to Elmira College in Elmira, New York 
        for renovation of Cowles Hall;
          363. $225,000 to the Burchfield--Penney Art Center in 
        Buffalo, New York for construction of a new museum;
          364. $225,000 to the Suffolk Sports Hall of Fame, 
        Sports Research Center in Patchogue, New York for 
        facilities renovations;
          365. $225,000 to the Town of Brookhaven, New York for 
        facility improvements to the Mastic Town Pool;
          366. $225,000 to the Village of Highland Falls, New 
        York for main street revitalization;
          367. $250,000 to Carnegie Hall in New York to 
        complete construction of Carnegie Hall's Third Stage 
        Project;
          368. $250,000 to Covenant House New York in New York, 
        New York for shelter renovations;
          369. $250,000 to Onondaga County, New York for 
        facilities construction of the Solvay Library 
        Centennial Building;
          370. $250,000 to the City of Albany, New York for 
        renovation of the Palace Theater;
          371. $250,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for 
        facilities expansion for the Northeast Community 
        Center;
          372. $250,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for 
        historic renovations of the Matilda Joslyn Gage House;
          373. $250,000 to the Dance Theater of Harlem in New 
        York, New York for restoration of buildings to support 
        the Academy Charter School;
          374. $250,000 to the Museum of Modern Art in New York 
        for expansion and renovations to their Education and 
        Research Center;
          375. $250,000 to the Village of East Syracuse, New 
        York for renovation of the Hanlon Pool;
          376. $250,000 to the Village of Manlius, New York for 
        rehabilitation of the Manlius Recreation Center;
          377. $250,000 to VIP Community Services in the Bronx, 
        New York for construction of homeless transitional 
        housing;
          378. $300,000 to Garth Fagan Dance Studio in 
        Rochester, New York for construction of a new theater;
          379. $300,000 to the Armory Foundation in New York, 
        New York for conversion of the Washington Heights 
        Armory into a community center;
          380. $300,000 to the City of Buffalo, New York for 
        facility renovations at Canisius High School in 
        Buffalo, New York;
          381. $400,000 to Cayuga County, New York for 
        waterfront facilities construction;
          382. $450,000 for construction of the Orpheus 
        Performing Arts and Conference Center in Oneonta, New 
        York;
          383. $125,000 for facilities construction for the 
        Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks in Tupper 
        Lake, New York;
          384. $450,000 to Christa House of West Babylon, New 
        York for facilities renovations and repairs;
          385. $450,000 to Orange County Community College in 
        Middletown, New York for facilities construction and 
        buildout for the establishment of the Benjamin A. 
        Gilman Institute for Political and International 
        Studies;
          386. $450,000 to St. Bonaventure University in St. 
        Bonaventure, New York for facilities upgrades for De la 
        Roche Hall;
          387. $450,000 to the New York State Office of Parks, 
        Recreation and Historic Preservation for construction 
        of the Purple Heart Hall of Honor in the Town of New 
        Windsor, New York;
          388. $450,000 to the Staten Island Soccer League of 
        New York for facilities construction;
          389. $500,000 to Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York 
        City for facility construction;
          390. $450,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for 
        sidewalks, street lighting and furniture improvements 
        and building renovations for the North Salina Street 
        Corridor;
          391. $450,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for 
        construction of an International Tourism Center at the 
        Carousel Center;
          392. $500,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for 
        expansion and renovation of Enable facilities;
          393. $500,000 to the Rivers and Estuaries Center on 
        the Hudson in New York for facilities construction;
          394. $550,000 to Queens Borough Public Library in 
        Queens, New York for facilities rehabilitation and 
        expansion of the Parsons Boulevard complex;
          395. $1,000,000 for facilities expansion for the 
        Everson Museum of Art in Syracuse, New York;
          396. $1,000,000 to LeMoyne College in Syracuse, New 
        York for the construction of a Science Education and 
        Teaching/Learning Center;
          397. $1,000,000 to the New York Olympic Regional 
        Development Authority for facilities construction for 
        the Mount VanHoevenberg Olympic Sports Complex;
          398. $90,000 to the Rabbit Run Community Arts 
        Association for renovation of the Rabbit Run Theater 
        located in Madison, Ohio;
          399. $100,000 for facilities renovations and 
        improvements for the West After School Center in 
        Lancaster, Ohio;
          400. $100,000 to the City of Cleveland, Ohio for 
        economic development planning for the LTV Steel 
        Economic Development Initiative;
          401. $135,000 to GMN Tri County for construction of a 
        community center in Guernsey County, Ohio;
          402. $135,000 to the Village of Fairport Harbor, Ohio 
        for renovation of facilities for the Lighthouse 
        Community Arts Association's Fairport Harbor 
        Rennaissance Village;
          403. $200,000 for Catholic Social Services in 
        Springfield, Ohio for renovation of a facility to house 
        the Second Harvest Foodbank;
          404. $200,000 for Ross County, Ohio for facilities 
        renovations and improvements for the Blue Star Mothers 
        Memorial Stadium in Chillicothe, Ohio;
          405. $225,000 for the Community Action Organization 
        of Scioto County, Ohio for renovation of a facility for 
        the Head Start program in Portsmouth, Ohio;
          406. $225,000 to the City of Clairsville, Ohio for 
        renovation and restoration of the Clarendon Hotel 
        building;
          407. $225,000 to the City of Marion, Ohio for 
        construction of an urban plaza;
          408. $250,000 to the Columbiana County Port Authority 
        in Wellsville, Ohio for construction of a cargo 
        handling system;
          409. $270,000 to the National First Ladies Library 
        Non-Profit Group for facilities construction for the 
        Women's History Museum in Canton, Ohio;
          410. $300,000 to Where Toledo Grows/Greenhouse Row in 
        Toledo, Ohio for construction of a welcome center;
          411. $450,000 to the Johnny Appleseed Heritage 
        Center, Inc. in Ashland County, Ohio for construction 
        of facilities;
          412. $450,000 to the University of Cincinnati for 
        renovation of the Medical Sciences Building in 
        Cincinnati, Ohio;
          413. $500,000 for Fayette County Community Action 
        Council, in Fayette County, Ohio to construct a new 
        community center and Head Start facility;
          414. $630,000 for facilities construction for an 
        agro-security research center at the Ohio Agricultural 
        Research and Development Center in Wooster, Ohio;
          415. $1,000,000 to the Toledo-Lucas County Port 
        Authority in Toledo, Ohio for facilities construction 
        and renovation at the Toledo Shipyard;
          416. $270,000 for the Lawton, Oklahoma Public Schools 
        for the restoration of the historic Lawton High School;
          417. $270,000 to the New Cordell Utility Authority of 
        New Cordell, Oklahoma for renovation of commercial 
        buildings;
          418. $315,000 to Rural Enterprises, Inc. in Durant, 
        Oklahoma for facilities renovation;
          419. $810,000 to the Oklahoma City Maintenance Repair 
        and Overhaul Technology Center for facilities 
        construction;
          420. $75,000 to the Oregon Food Bank in Portland, 
        Oregon for facilities expansion;
          421. $100,000 to the City of Portland, Oregon for 
        planning activities for the Central City Streetcar 
        Extension to the North Macadam District;
          422. $180,000 for the renovation of the Tower Theatre 
        in Bend, Oregon;
          423. $200,000 to the Douglas County, Oregon for 
        construction of a community recreation pavilion at the 
        Marina RV Resort;
          424. $50,000 to the Claysburg Area Community Park for 
        construction and buildout of an amphitheater in 
        Claysburg, Pennsylvania;
          425. $50,000 to the Susquehanna Neighborhood Advisory 
        Council in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for a feasibility 
        study focused on Susquehanna Avenue development;
          426. $75,000 to the LaRosa Boys & Girls Club of 
        McKeesport, Pennsylvania for recreation facility 
        construction;
          427. $75,000 to the Phoenix Project in Philadelphia, 
        Pennsylvania for facility renovations;
          428. $75,000 to the Sarah Jackson Black Community 
        Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for facilities 
        renovations;
          429. $75,000 to the Soldiers' & Sailors' Memorial 
        Hall and Museum Trust in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for 
        facilities renovations and improvements;
          430. $75,000 to the Swissvale Borough Code 
        Enforcement Project in Pennsylvania for facility 
        renovations and upgrades;
          431. $75,000 to the Vine Memorial and Community 
        Development Corporation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
        for construction of a community development center;
          432. $75,000 to the YMCA of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 
        for facilities renovation at the East Community Branch;
          433. $90,000 for the Planning Commission for Bucks 
        County, Pennsylvania for the Penndel Economic 
        Revitalization study;
          434. $90,000 to Milford Township, Pennsylvania for 
        development of a managed growth plan;
          435. $90,000 to the Bucks County Planning Commission 
        for economic development planning for the Lower Bucks 
        Riverfront Corridor Initiative in Bucks County, 
        Pennsylvania;
          436. $90,000 to the Lawrence County Farm Show, Inc. 
        for facilities construction in Lawrence County, 
        Pennsylvania;
          437. $100,000 to Connection Training Services of 
        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for renovation and 
        construction of their workforce training center;
          438. $100,000 to the Renaissance Community 
        Development Corporation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
        for construction of a shopping center in an underserved 
        community;
          439. $100,000 to the Youth Leadership Foundation of 
        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for a facilities needs 
        study;
          440. $100,000 to Universal Companies in Philadelphia, 
        Pennsylvania for facility renovations in support of 
        Royal Theater Redevelopment;
          441. $115,000 for facilities construction and 
        expansion of the Johnsonburg Senior Center of 
        Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania;
          442. $135,000 for facilities reconstruction and 
        renovation of the Strand Theatre in Zelienople, 
        Pennsylvania to serve as a Performing Arts, Education 
        and Community Outreach Center;
          443. $135,000 to the Bedford County Agricultural 
        Society in Pennsylvania for facilities improvements at 
        the Bedford County Fairground;
          444. $150,000 to CitiVest in Wilkes-Barre, 
        Pennsylvania for facilities construction for commercial 
        development;
          445. $150,000 to Montgomery County, Pennsylvania for 
        construction of a visitors center;
          446. $100,000 for the Titusville Redevelopment 
        Authority of Titusville, Pennsylvania for facility 
        improvements;
          447. $180,000 to the Volunteers of America of 
        Pennsylvania, Inc. for facilities renovation in 
        Harrisburg, Pennsylvania;
          448. $200,000 to the Urban Education Development 
        Research and Retreat Center in Philadelphia, 
        Pennsylvania for renovations at the 4601 Market Street 
        facility;
          449. $225,000 to the City of Lebanon, Pennsylvania 
        for building renovations as part of ``Operation Fight 
        Blight'';
          450. $225,000 to the Historic Preservation Trust of 
        Lancaster County, Pennsylvania for rehabilitation of 
        facilities at the Thaddeus Stevens and Lydia Hamilton 
        Smith historic site;
          451. $225,000 to the Windber Research Institute in 
        Johnstown, Pennsylvania for facilities expansion;
          452. $225,000 to the York Agricultural Society for 
        facilities improvements to the York Expo Center Arena/
        Livestock Exhibition Hall;
          453. $250,000 to Fort Ligonier in Westmoreland 
        County, Pennsylvania for facilities renovation;
          454. $250,000 to the Freedom Theater in Philadelphia, 
        Pennsylvania for theater renovation;
          455. $250,000 to the Kiski Valley YMCA in 
        Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania for facilities 
        expansion;
          456. $250,000 to the Uptown Entertainment and 
        Development Corporation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
        for renovation of an education technology center;
          457. $250,000 to the Vandergrift Borough Council in 
        Pennsylvania for recreation facilities upgrades and 
        repairs;
          458. $270,000 to the Community Action Agency of 
        Delaware County, Inc. in Pennsylvania for renovation of 
        emergency shelter facilities and for construction of 
        transitional housing;
          459. $270,000 to University Technology Park in 
        Chester, Pennsylvania for facilities construction;
          460. $300,000 for the Please Touch Museum in 
        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for facilities construction;
          461. $315,000 to Pike County, Pennsylvania for 
        construction of a performing arts center;
          462. $300,000 to the City of Arnold, Pennsylvania for 
        building renovation and rehabilitation in the downtown 
        business district;
          463. $450,000 to the City of Erie, Pennsylvania for 
        facilities construction for the Erie Technology 
        Incubator project;
          464. $500,000 to the Winnie Palmer Nature Reserve in 
        Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania for facilities 
        construction;
          465. $1,000,000 to the County of Cambria, 
        Pennsylvania for continued construction of the Northern 
        Cambria Recreation Facility in the Township of Cambria;
          466. $1,300,000 to the American Cities Foundation in 
        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for construction of the Home 
        Ownership Institute/Community Leadership Center;
          467. $100,000 to Providence Children's Museum, Rhode 
        Island for facilities construction;
          468. $100,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Warwick, 
        Rhode Island for construction and renovations of the 
        Norwood and Oakland Beach Clubhouses;
          469. $125,000 to the YMCA of Central Falls, Rhode 
        Island for modernization and upgrade of a facility;
          470. $150,000 to Goodwill Industries of Rhode Island 
        for construction of a central facility located in 
        Providence, Rhode Island;
          471. $100,000 to the City of Columbia, South Carolina 
        for facilities renovation at Drew Park;
          472. $200,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of 
        Williamsburg County, South Carolina for construction 
        related to facilities expansion;
          473. $225,000 to the Housing Foundation, Inc. of 
        Charleston County, South Carolina for construction of 
        the Lincolnville Community Center;
          474. $300,000 to the City of Rock Hill, South 
        Carolina for a feasibility study ($100,000) and 
        facilities renovations ($200,000) for the redevelopment 
        of the Bleachery textile mill;
          475. $315,000 to the South Carolina School for the 
        Deaf and Blind in Spartanburg, South Carolina for 
        facilities construction;
          476. $75,000 to the City of Etowah, Tennessee/ 
        Friends of the Old Scout Lodge for facilities 
        rehabilitation of a historic structure;
          477. $90,000 for the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee 
        for economic development planning;
          478. $90,000 for the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee for 
        economic development planning;
          479. $90,000 to Pickett County, Tennessee for 
        construction of a public library;
          480. $90,000 to White County, Tennessee for 
        construction of a new public library;
          481. $100,000 to Dyersburg Army Air Base Memorial 
        Association in Halls, Tennessee for facilities 
        expansion of the association's veterans museum;
          482. $135,000 to the National Medal of Honor Museum 
        of Military History Foundation, Inc. for facilities 
        renovation and construction in Chattanooga, Tennessee;
          483. $200,000 to Fisk University in Nashville, 
        Tennessee for facilities construction;
          484. $200,000 to the Second Harvest Food Bank in 
        Middle Tennessee for facilities construction;
          485. $225,000 to the Town of Spring City, Tennessee 
        for construction of a multi-purpose business and 
        community center;
          486. $283,500 to Knox County, Tennessee for 
        renovations and construction of parking facilities;
          487. $450,000 to the Historical Tennessee Theatre 
        Foundation, Inc. for continued renovations of the 
        Tennessee Theatre in Knoxville, Tennessee;
          488. $100,000 to Community Family Centers in Houston, 
        Texas for construction of an early childhood 
        development center;
          489. $100,000 to the City of San Angelo Development 
        Corporation in Texas for planning for a regional 
        industrial park;
          490. $150,000 to the Abilene Preservation League in 
        Abilene, Texas for the restoration of historic Swenson 
        House;
          491. $150,000 to the City of Abilene, Texas for 
        renovation of the Matera Paper Building;
          492. $150,000 to the Sulpher Springs Regional 
        Development Association in Hopkins County, Texas for 
        construction of a regional education and cultural 
        center;
          493. $225,000 for Texas A&M International University 
        in Laredo, Texas for construction of outreach centers 
        in the El Azteca neighborhood and the colonias of El 
        Cenzio and Rio Bravo;
          494. $225,000 to Community Health Development, Inc. 
        of Uvalde, Texas for facilities expansion and 
        construction for a dental services and wellness center;
          495. $225,000 to the Battleship Texas Foundation for 
        construction of an interpretive center;
          496. $250,000 to Cameron County, Texas for 
        construction of a Boys and Girls Club facility in Santa 
        Rosa;
          497. $250,000 to the City of Fort Worth, Texas for 
        building restoration in the city center;
          498. $400,000 to the City of Waco, Texas for 
        construction of a community center;
          499. $450,000 to the Family Practice Residency of the 
        Brazos Valley in Bryan, Texas for construction of a new 
        center of excellence;
          500. $450,000 to the Mercy Health System for 
        facilities renovations and improvements at Mercy 
        Hospital in Laredo, Texas;
          501. $450,000 to the University of Texas at Arlington 
        for the continued facilities construction and buildout 
        for the Nano-Tech Research Institute;
          502. $675,000 to the Old Red Courthouse Museum in 
        Dallas, Texas for the restoration of facilities for the 
        Museum of Dallas History;
          503. $900,000 to the City of Fort Worth, Texas for 
        waterfront facilities construction for the Trinity 
        River Visions project;
          504. $900,000 to the Globe of the Great Southwest in 
        Odessa, Texas for facilities expansion and 
        improvements;
          505. $200,000 to the Community Legal Center in Salt 
        Lake City, Utah for facility renovation;
          506. $225,000 to West Valley City, Utah for 
        construction of a City's Multi-Ethnic Community Center;
          507. $25,000 to the Langhorne House in Danville, 
        Virginia for facilities renovations;
          508. $25,000 to the Prestwould House near 
        Clarksville, Virginia to assist with renovations to the 
        historic site;
          509. $50,000 for the Town of Boydton, Virginia for 
        facilities improvements in connection with the downtown 
        revitalization project;
          510. $100,000 for Henry County, Virginia for facility 
        renovations at the Henry County technology campus;
          511. $100,000 for the City of Martinsville, Virginia 
        for the planning for the utilization of an industrial 
        site;
          512. $100,000 for the Town of Altavista, Virginia to 
        assist with renovations of the shell building 
        industrial site;
          513. $100,000 for the Town of Clarksville, Virginia 
        to assist with the study on the development of the 
        downtown area;
          514. $100,000 to Arlington County, Virginia for 
        renovation and buildout for the Bonder and Amanda 
        Johnson Community Development Corporation facility;
          515. $100,000 to the Martinsville-Henry County 
        Historical Society in Virginia for improvements to the 
        Old Henry County Court House and Museum;
          516. $175,000 to the Arlington Partnership for 
        Affordable Housing (APAH) in Arlington, Virginia for 
        facilities construction for a computer technology 
        information center;
          517. $180,000 to Eastern Shore Community College for 
        construction of the Eastern Shore Workforce Training 
        and Business Development Center in Melfa, Virginia;
          518. $200,000 for the Town of South Hill, Virginia 
        for the restoration of the Colonial Theatre;
          519. $200,000 to the Arlington Housing Corporation in 
        Arlington, Virginia for construction of a community 
        center in the Woodbury Park development;
          520. $200,000 to the Institute of Advanced Learning 
        and Research (IALR) in Danville, Virginia for 
        installation and improvements to high technology 
        systems;
          521. $200,000 to the Rich Valley Fair Association in 
        Virginia for construction of a new facility to jointly 
        serve as a community center and indoor space for the 
        community fair;
          522. $225,000 to Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, 
        Virginia for ongoing construction of the Program for 
        the Exceptionally Gifted Center;
          523. $100,000 to the City of Manassas, Virginia for 
        restoration of the Liberia House;
          524. $225,000 to the City of Suffolk, Virginia for 
        the renovation and restoration of the old Suffolk High 
        School for use as a cultural center;
          525. $225,000 to the Lynchburg Academy of Music in 
        Lynchburg, Virginia for facilities construction and 
        renovation;
          526. $200,000 to the Shenandoah Valley Discovery 
        Museum, Inc. for facilities expansion and buildout;
          527. $200,000 to the Town of Edinburg, Virginia for 
        the renovation and adaptive reuse of the Historic 
        Edinburg Mill;
          528. $225,000 to the Tredegar National Civil War 
        Center Foundation of Richmond, Virginia for facilities 
        construction;
          529. $240,000 to the Virginia Living Museum in 
        Newport News, Virginia for construction and renovaiton 
        of facilities;
          530. $250,000 to Edgehill Recovery Retreat Center in 
        Winchester, Virginia for facilities construction;
          531. $450,000 to the Virginia Science Center for 
        construction of the Belmont Bay Science Center in 
        Prince William County, Virginia;
          532. $500,000 to the St. Coletta School in 
        Alexandria, Virginia for facilities construction;
          533. $100,000 to the Department of Vermont, Veterans 
        of Foreign Wars for the construction of the Green Block 
        Veterans Memorial in Brandon, Vermont and the Windsor, 
        Vermont War Memorial;
          534. $75,000 to the Aberdeen Museum of History in 
        Aberdeen, Washington for facility renovations;
          535. $75,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of the 
        Olympic Peninsula for restoration of their Mt. Angeles, 
        Washington facility;
          536. $75,000 to the Jefferson County Historical 
        Society in Jefferson County, Washington for building 
        restoration;
          537. $75,000 to the Kitsap County Historical Society 
        in Kitsap County, Washington for facility renovations;
          538. $100,000 to Friends of Youth Griffin Home in 
        Renton, Washington for renovation of the Matsen House 
        as a home for abused children;
          539. $100,000 to the City of Mount Vernon, Washington 
        for renovations to the historic Lincoln Theater;
          540. $100,000 to the Lummi Indian Nation in Watcom 
        County, Washington for the construction of a memorial 
        commemorating Semiahmah and Coastal Salish heritage;
          541. $225,000 to the City of Buckley, Washington for 
        construction of the Buckley Youth Center;
          542. $250,000 to the Port of Bremerton, Washington 
        for facilities construction related to expansion of a 
        marina;
          543. $250,000 to the Port of Grays Harbor, Washington 
        for facilities construction and buildout for a boat 
        yard;
          544. $450,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of Spokane 
        County, Washington for renovation of facilities;
          545. $550,000 to Kent Youth and Family Services of 
        Kent, Washington for construction of the Building 
        Better Futures Family Center;
          546. $100,000 to the City of Stoughton, Wisconsin for 
        sidewalk, street lighting and furniture, and building 
        renovations;
          547. $150,000 to the City of Columbus, Wisconsin for 
        sidewalk, street lighting and furniture, and building 
        renovations;
          548. $150,000 to the Milwaukee Center for 
        Independence in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for construction 
        of a Children's Diagnostic Center;
          549. $225,000 to St. Norbert College of DePere, 
        Wisconsin for construction of a library learning 
        center;
          550. $250,000 to the Metcalfe Park Residents 
        Association in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for sidewalk, 
        street lighting and furniture, and building 
        renovations;
          551. $700,000 to the Wisconsin Indianhead Technical 
        College in Rice Lake, Wisconsin for construction and 
        expansion of facilities at its new technology center;
          552. $100,000 to Marshall University's Appalachian 
        Transportation Institute for a study of economic 
        development opportunities in southern West Virginia to 
        support the Southern Highlands Initiative;
          553. $100,000 to Marshall University's Appalachian 
        Transportation Institute for economic development 
        planning related to recent flooding;
          554. $135,000 for the Kanawha Institute for Social 
        Research and Action for facilities renovation for a 
        business incubator and community center in Kanawha 
        County, West Virginia;
          555. $180,000 to the Upper Kanawha Valley Enterprise 
        Community for facilities renovation for a business and 
        community center;
          556. $500,000 to the Greenbrier Valley Economic 
        Development Authority for facilities construction in 
        cooperation with the 4-County Economic Development 
        Authority located in Oak Hill, West Virginia focused on 
        development along the Interstate 64 corridor;
          557. $500,000 to West Liberty State College in West 
        Liberty, West Virginia for facility renovation;
          558. $800,000 to the Grant County Commission in West 
        Virginia for construction of a community center;
          559. $1,000,000 to Glenville State College in 
        Glenville, West Virginia for construction of a campus 
        community center;
          560. $1,170,000 to the Mid-Atlantic Aerospace 
        Complex, Inc. in Bridgeport, West Virginia for 
        facilities construction;
          561. $1,250,000 to Concord College in Athens, West 
        Virginia for facilities construction for an information 
        technology training center;
          562. $1,300,000 to the West Virginia High Technology 
        Consortium Foundation, Inc. in Marion County, West 
        Virginia for facilities construction for a high-tech 
        park;
          563. $1,750,000 to the Monongalia County Schools 
        Foundation, Inc. in West Virginia for construction of 
        recreational facilities;
          564. $100,000 to Arkansas State University-Mountain 
        Home for the construction of the Vada Sheid Community 
        Center;
          565. $100,000 to Sacred Heart University in 
        Fairfield, Connecticut for library facilities 
        renovations;
          566. $100,000 to the Chicago, Illinois Parks District 
        for construction of a fieldhouse located at 39th and 
        Cottage Grove;
          567. $175,000 to the City of Laurel, Maryland for 
        facilities renovations for the Laurel Community Center;
          568. $100,000 to the Sonny Montgomery Leadership 
        Institute of Meridian, Mississippi for an economic 
        development planning study;
          569. $75,000 to Merwin Rural Services Institute for 
        an initial planning study in northern New York;
          570. $100,000 to the Village of Carthage, New York 
        for facilities construction and building renovations;
          571. $75,000 to the City of Ogdensburg, New York for 
        facilities construction for the continued development 
        of the Fort La Presentation project;
          572. $75,000 to the Village of Clayton, New York for 
        waterfront facilities renovations along the St. 
        Lawrence River;
          573. $200,000 to the Mary Mitchell Family and Youth 
        Center in the South Bronx, New York for facilities 
        planning ($100,000) and renovations ($100,000);
          574. $50,000 to the Institute for the Puerto Rican/
        Hispanic Elderly in New York for facilities 
        renovations;
          575. $100,000 to the Jane Stevens Foundation Center 
        in Sanford, North Carolina for facility renovations;
          576. $100,000 to the City of Whiteville, North 
        Carolina for the restoration of the Whiteville Train 
        Depot;
          577. $100,000 to the City of Toledo, Ohio for site 
        re-use planning at the former Doehler Jarvis 
        manufacturing facility and the site of the former 
        Toledo Federal Building;
          578. $150,000 to the Borough of Orwigsburg, 
        Pennsylvania for sidewalks curbs and street lighting;
          579. $150,000 to the City of Pottsville, Pennsylvania 
        for sidewalks, curbs and street lighting;
          580. $100,000 to the Oil Creek Railway Historical 
        Society, Inc. of Pennsylvania for facilities 
        renovations;
          581. $300,000 to the City of New Kensington, 
        Pennsylvania for building renovation and rehabilitation 
        in the downtown business district;
          582. $100,000 to the City of Austin, Texas 
        Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Office 
        for sidewalks, curbs, street lighting and facade 
        renovations;
          583. $150,000 to Texas A&M University Center for 
        Housing and Urban Development for construction of a 
        community center serving colonias;
          584. $175,000 to New Hope Housing in Alexandria, 
        Virginia for renovation of the Mondloch House and 
        construction at the Kennedy Shelter;
          585. $100,000 to the Northeastern Vermont Development 
        Corporation for construction of a community center in 
        Orleans County;
          586. $75,000 for Loudon Interfaith Relief, Inc. of 
        Virginia for planning activities for development of a 
        community kitchen;
          587. $200,000 to Vanguard Services Unlimited of 
        Arlington, Virginia for renovation and improvement of 
        facilities;
          588. $100,000 to Bread and Rose in Olympia, 
        Washington for renovations to a homeless shelter;
          589. $75,000 to Norris City Senior Center in White 
        County, Illinois for renovation of the senior center;
          590. $100,000 to the Vienna Little League in Vienna, 
        Virginia for facilities construction;
          591. $150,000 to the Lorton Arts Foundation in 
        Lorton, Virginia for the renovation of buildings for a 
        creative arts center.
          --$23,400,000 for the Neighborhood Initiatives 
        program. Targeted grants shall be provided as follows:
          1. $1,400,000 to the Model City Community 
        Revitalization District Trust in Miami, Florida for the 
        Model City Homeownership project;
          2. $250,000 to the New Zion Community Foundation 
        Development for continued renovations and improvements 
        for a community resource center in Louisville, 
        Kentucky;
          3. $100,000 for The Neighborhood House in Louisville, 
        Kentucky to furnish the community center;
          4. $150,000 for the Portland Avenue Community Trust 
        in Louisville, Kentucky for a multi-purpose facility;
          5. $250,000 to the St. Stephen Family Life Center of 
        Louisville, Kentucky for renovation of a facility for 
        drug abuse counseling and transitional housing;
          6. $150,000 to the New Directions Housing Corporation 
        in Louisville, Kentucky for renovation of the historic 
        Reeser Court Apartments;
          7. $150,000 to the Shawnee Gardens Development 
        Corporation of Louisville, Kentucky for the conversion 
        of a building to serve as an independent living senior 
        housing facility;
          8. $120,000 to the West Broadway Community 
        Development Corporation in Louisville, Kentucky for 
        development of a multi-purpose facility;
          9. $30,000 to the Coalition for the Homeless of 
        Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky for a planning 
        grant;
          10. $5,000,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for 
        the Neighborhood Initiative Program;
          11. $500,000 to The Ohio State University for its 
        Neighborhoods Revitalization Initiative;
          12. $8,000,000 for the State of South Dakota to 
        maintain the physical integrity of the Homestake Mine 
        in preparation for the potential development of a major 
        research facility on that site;
          13. $1,100,000 to the Northwest Regional Planning 
        Commission in Spooner, Wisconsin for a revolving loan 
        fund to assist tornado-damaged areas in northwestern 
        Wisconsin;
          14. $3,000,000 for the Institute for Scientific 
        Research for construction related to a high-technology 
        diversification initiative;
          15. $3,000,000 for the Vandalia Heritage Foundation, 
        Inc. for community and neighborhood revitalization and 
        economic diversification initiatives;
          16. $200,000 to Langlade County, Wisconsin for the 
        restoration of a historic building.
    Additionally, not less than $3,400,000 is provided to be 
transferred to the Working Capital Fund to support the 
development of and modifications to information technology 
systems which serve programs or activities under Community 
Planning and Development.
    The recommendation does not include $16,000,000 for the 
Administration's proposed Colonias Gateway Initiative as this 
initiative is not currently authorized and the Department has 
not yet transmitted its proposal to the Congress for 
consideration.
    Requested language is not included to change the current 
statutory formula for CDBG formula grants for certain 
communities.
    The Committee directs HUD to provide assistance to State 
and local jurisdictions on how to reach out to people with 
disabilities and their advocates when developing their 
consolidated plans. The Committee again directs HUD to evaluate 
consolidated plan submissions for the inclusion of the housing 
needs of people with disabilities and the community's efforts 
to remove impediments to fair housing for individuals with 
disabilities. HUD is directed to provide a report to the 
Committee on the results of this evaluation no later than 30 
days after completion of its review of these submissions.
    Language is included in the bill, similar to language 
carried in prior Acts, which: (1) designates amounts available 
for the various programs and activities funded under this 
account; (2) limits administrative expenses to no more than 20 
percent of any grant with certain exceptions; and (3) provides 
three-year availability for obligation of funds provided under 
this heading.
    Language is also included which makes technical changes to 
the recipients of grants provided in Public Laws 106-377 and 
107-73.

         COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Limitation on
                                        Program costs   guaranteed loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.....        $7,325,000      $275,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation......        15,000,000       608,696,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.....         7,325,000       275,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002            -7,675,000      -333,696,000
 appropriation......................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003                     0                 0
 budget request.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Section 108 Loan Guarantees program underwrites private 
market loans to assist local communities in the financing of 
the acquisition and rehabilitation of publicly-owned real 
property, rehabilitation of housing, and certain economic 
development projects.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,325,000 for 
the section 108 loan program, as requested, a decrease of 
$7,675,000 from the fiscal year 2002 level. Of this amount, 
$6,325,000 is provided for the costs to guarantee $275,000,000 
in section 108 loan commitments in fiscal year 2003, and 
$1,000,000 is provided for administrative expenses to be 
transferred to the Salaries and Expenses account. While the 
recommendation represents a reduction from the current year 
appropriation, the Committee notes that this program continues 
to be significantly underutilized. The recommendation reflects 
a realistic estimate of anticipated program demand in fiscal 
year 2003.
    Language is included in the bill to provide two-year 
availability for obligation of funds provided under this 
account.

                       BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $25,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        25,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        25,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    The Brownfields Redevelopment program provides competitive 
economic development grants in conjunction with section 108 
loan guarantees for qualified brownfield projects. Grants are 
made in accordance with section 108(q) selection criteria. The 
goal of the program is to return contaminated sites to 
productive and employment-generating uses with an emphasis on 
creating substantial numbers of jobs for lower-income people in 
physically and economically distressed neighborhoods.
    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for this program as 
requested, the same amount provided in fiscal year 2002. The 
recommendation retains language, proposed for deletion, to 
continue funding the program under current statutory 
authorities.
    Language is included in the bill to provide two-year 
availability for funds provided under this account.

                  HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    $2,221,040,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     1,846,040,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     2,084,100,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........      +375,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......      +136,940,000

    The HOME investment partnerships program provides grants to 
States, units of local government, Indian tribes and insular 
areas, through formula allocation, for the purpose of expanding 
the supply of affordable housing in the jurisdiction. Upon 
receipt, State and local governments develop a comprehensive 
housing affordability strategy that enables them to acquire, 
rehabilitate, or construct new affordable housing, or to 
provide rental assistance to eligible families.
    The Committee recommends $2,221,040,000 for activities 
funded under this account, an increase of $375,000,000 above 
the fiscal year 2002 level and $136,940,000 above the request. 
Funds are provided as follows:
          --Formula Grants: $1,975,940,000 for formula grants 
        for participating jurisdictions (States, units of local 
        government and consortia of units local government) and 
        insular areas, a $227,152,000 increase--13 percent--
        above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and 
        $104,668,000 above the request. Based on historical 
        usage, the Committee estimates that 36 percent of funds 
        will be used for new construction, 47 percent for 
        rehabilitation, 14 percent for acquisition, and 3 
        percent for tenant-based rental assistance. Of the 
        amount provided, pursuant to the statute, at least 15 
        percent of each participating jurisdiction's allocation 
        is reserved for housing which is developed, sponsored, 
        or owned by Community Housing Development Organizations 
        (CHDOs) The Committee believes that technical 
        assistance is an important tool for helping local CHDOs 
        respond to local affordable housing needs. While the 
        HOME statute authorizes technical assistance to be 
        provided through contracts with eligible non-profit 
        intermediaries as well as with other organizations 
        recommended by participating jurisdictions, the 
        Committee is concerned that HUD did not utilize non-
        profit intermediaries in fiscal year 2002. Therefore, 
        the Committee has provided an additional $8,000,000 
        above the budget request and directs the Secretary to 
        use these additional funds to contract with qualified 
        non-profit intermediaries to provide CHDO technical 
        assistance in fisacl year 2003;
          --Downpayment Assistance Initiative: $200,000,000 for 
        the Downpayment Assistance Initiative to be allocated 
        by the Secretary to participating jurisdictions to 
        provide downpayment assistance to low-income families 
        to help them achieve homeownership;
          --Housing Counseling: $25,000,000 for housing 
        counseling programs, an increase of $5,000,000 above 
        the fiscal year 2002 level. The Committee has continued 
        funding for this activity within this account, instead 
        of creating a separate account as proposed in the 
        budget request;
          --HOME/CHDO Technical Assistance: $20,000,000 for 
        technical assistance activities for State and local 
        participating jurisdictions and non-profit CHDOs, an 
        increase of $8,000,000 above the amount provided in 
        fiscal year 2002;
          --Working Capital Fund: no less than $1,100,000 for 
        transfer to the Working Capital Fund to support the 
        development of, and modifications to, information 
        technology systems which serve programs and activities 
        under Community Planning and Development.
    The Committee understands that a recent survey conducted by 
the Manufactured Housing Institute found that many 
participating jurisdictions were not aware of the fact that 
manufactured housing is an eligible activity under the HOME 
statute. The Committee is aware that HUD's guidance to field 
offices regarding the eligibility of manufactured housing under 
the HOME statute expired in 1995. The Committee directs HUD to 
update and re-issue its guidance and notify participating 
jurisdictions of this guidance in order to remove any ambiguity 
or confusion regarding manufactured housing's eligibility under 
the HOME statute. The Committee expects that such guidance will 
include any downpayment assistance activities funded under this 
account.
    Language is included in the bill to provide two-year 
availability for funds provided under this account.

                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................     $1,250,00,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     1,122,525,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,129,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........      +127,475,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    The homeless assistance grants account provides funding for 
the following homeless programs under title IV of the McKinney 
Act: (1) the emergency shelter grants program; (2) the 
supportive housing program; (3) the section 8 moderate 
rehabilitation (single room occupancy) program; and (4) the 
shelter plus care program. This account also supports 
activities eligible under the innovative homeless initiatives 
demonstration program.
    The Committee recommends funding homeless programs at 
$1,250,000,000, as requested, an increase of $127,475,000 above 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2002. The increase above the 
request includes full funding for the costs associated with the 
renewal of all expiring Shelter Plus Care contracts. Language 
is included in the bill requiring funds to be made available 
for this purpose.
    The recommendation also includes $11,000,000 for the 
national homeless data analysis project, $6,600,000 for 
technical assistance, and $1,500,000 for the Interagency 
Council on the Homeless for administrative costs, and no less 
than $1,500,000 is for transfer to the Working Capital Fund for 
development of and modifications to information technology 
systems which serve activities under Community Planning and 
Development.
    In addition, the recommendation includes $10,000,000 to be 
used for a two-year demonstration program to test innovate 
approaches and document best practices to address the needs of 
the homeless, with particular emphasis on programs which 
address the housing needs of individuals suffering from the co-
morbidity of mental disorders and substance addiction. The 
Committee intends that funds provided in this account would be 
used to fund the housing component of a comprehensive approach 
to addressing the needs to this population, with funding for 
the necessary social services and treatment components to be 
derived from other Federal departments and programs. Language 
is included requiring this demonstration to be conducted in 
consultation with, and full involvement of, the Interagency 
Council on the Homeless. The Committee commends the Interagency 
Council for its commitment to improving the coordination and 
delivery of assistance to individual and families suffering 
from homelessness and looks forward to working with the Council 
on homeless issues. The Department is directed to provide 
quarterly reports to the Committee on the progress of the 
programs funded. In addition, at the conclusion of the 
demonstration, the Department is to provide a final report to 
the Committee summarizing the best practices learned from the 
various approaches used by programs funded through the 
demonstration, and recommendations for integrating these best 
practices within the existing homeless delivery system.
    Language is included in the bill which: (1) requires not 
less than 30 percent of the funds appropriated, excluding 
amounts made available for renewals under the shelter plus care 
program, be used for permanent housing; (2) requires the 
renewal of all expiring shelter plus care contracts; (3) 
requires funding recipients to provide a 25 percent match for 
social services activities; (4) requires all homeless programs 
to coordinate their programs with mainstream health, social 
services and employment programs; and (5) provides two-year 
availability for obligation of funds provided under this 
account.

                            Housing Programs

                    HOUSING FOR SPECIAL POPULATIONS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    $1,100,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     1,024,151,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,024,151,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +75,849,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......       +75,849,000

    The Housing for Special Populations program provides 
eligible private, non-profit organizations with capital grants 
to finance the acquisition, rehabilitation or construction of 
housing intended for elderly people or people with 
disabilities. To increase flexibility, twenty-five percent of 
the funding for supportive housing for the disabled is 
available for tenant-based assistance.
    The Committee recommends $1,100,000,000 for the Housing for 
special populations program account, an increase of $75,849,000 
above the request and above the level provided in fiscal year 
2002. The Committee recommendation also assumes $9,650,000 in 
recaptures and cancellations will be available to support a 
total program level of $1,109,650,000 in fiscal year 2003, an 
increase of $85,449,000 above the fiscal year 2002 level.
    The Committee recommendation includes $850,553,000 for 
section 202 housing, of which $840,903,000 is provided as a 
direct appropriation and $9,650,000 is derived from recaptures. 
This represents an increase of $67,267,000 above the request 
and above fiscal year 2002 level. Of the total amount provided 
for section 202, $704,656,000 is for capital grants and project 
rental assistance contracts (PRAC), $50,000,000 is for service 
coordinators and the continuation of congregate services 
grants, $30,000,000 is for the section 202 conversion grants, 
$50,000,000 is for a planning grant program, $15,647,000 is for 
the renewal of expiring project rental assistance contracts for 
up to a one-year term, and no less than $250,000 is for 
transfer to the Working Capital Fund to support the development 
of and modifications to information technology systems which 
support Housing for Special Populations activities.
    The Committee recommendation does not include new language, 
requested in the budget, allowing funds provided in this 
account to remain available for expenditure for 12 years. While 
the Committee is aware that grants awarded under the section 
202 program include 5 years of years of operating expenses, the 
Committee believes that 7 years to complete construction is 
unduly long. As a result of this delay, $1,800,000,000 in 
construction funds provided prior to fiscal year 2002 remains 
unexpended, including $364,000,000 appropriated prior to fiscal 
year 1999. At the same time, the demand for units built under 
the program continues to rise. While the Committee appreciates 
the complexities involved in building housing, the Committee 
believes the current structure of the program should be re-
evaluated to ensure that those projects funded under this 
account are brought on line in a more expeditious fashion. The 
Committee believes that restructuring the program in a fashion 
similar to other Federally-funded construction programs whereby 
grants for planning and design, construction, and operations 
are provided for separately, based upon the readiness of the 
project, would result in improvements to the program.
    The Committee believes that a transition to this type of 
structure must be explored. Therefore, the Committee has 
included $50,000,000 to be competitively awarded for grants to 
non-profit organizations only to be used to cover the costs of 
architectural engineering work, site control, and other 
planning activities related to the development of supportive 
housing for the elderly under the Section 202 program. It is 
the Committee's intention that projects which successfully 
complete the necessary planning and development activities and 
achieved site control receive priority consideration under 
future capital grant awards.
    Language is also included in the bill directing the 
Secretary to provide a report to the Committee no later than 
March 1, 2003 which includes actions taken, or planned to be 
taken, by the Department to accelerate the completion of 
projects under this program, and an implementation plan to 
restructure the program in a fashion which more closely 
resembles other Federally-funded construction programs.
    For the section 811 disabled housing program, the Committee 
recommends $259,097,000, an increase of $18,232,000 above the 
fiscal year 2002 level and $8,232,000 above the request. The 
recommendation includes the following: $220,694,000 for capital 
grants, PRAC, and voucher activities, $32,157,000 for renewal 
costs of section 811 tenant-based rental assistance, $5,996,000 
for expiring PRAC contracts for up to a one-year term, and no 
less than $250,000 for transfer to the Working Capital Fund for 
the development and maintenance of information technology 
systems.
    The Committee continues to support the role of tenant-based 
rental assistance but recognizes that it is not the only 
component of an effective, broad-based housing policy for 
people with disabilities. Construction of new housing units is 
necessary to ensure safe, accessible, affordable housing for 
persons with disabilities. Therefore, language is included in 
the bill providing that no more than 25 percent of the funds 
provided under this program be used for tenant-based rental 
assistance, thereby allowing 75 percent of the funds to be 
dedicated to the construction and maintenance of new housing 
units. In addition, the section 811 supportive housing program 
plays an important role in increasing the housing options for 
people with disabilities. However, the Committee is concerned 
that the application and review process for this program has 
become increasingly burdensome to the non-profit organizations 
providing these important services. Therefore, HUD is directed 
to review the section 811 handbook and modify the program 
procedures to simplify the application and review process.
    Language is not included in the bill to authorize the 
Secretary to waive any statutory or regulatory requirements 
related to the section 202 and section 811 programs. While the 
Committee has carried this waiver in the past, the Committee 
believes that any statutory or regulatory problems associated 
with these programs should be addressed through the appropriate 
legislative or regulatory processes.

                           HOUSING COUNSELING

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................             \1\ 0
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................             \1\ 0
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       $35,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........             \1\ 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......             \1\ 0

\1\ In fiscal year 2002, $20,000,000 was appropriated for housing
  counseling as a set-aside under the HOME Investments Partnership
  Program account.

    Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 
1968 authorized HUD to provide housing counseling services to 
homebuyers, homeowners, low and moderate income renters, and 
the homeless.
    The Committee does not recommend the creation of a separate 
account for housing counseling activities, but instead has 
provided $25,000,000 for this activity as a set-aside within 
the HOME Investments Partnership Program account, an increase 
of $5,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2002.

                       RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

                              (RESCISSION)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation......................      -$100,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation.......................                  0
Fiscal year 2003 budget request......................       -100,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation.......                  0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request......                  0

    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized 
the section 236 Rental Housing Assistance Program to subsidize 
the monthly mortgage payment of an owner of a rental or 
cooperative project in order to reduce the rents for lower 
income tenants.
    The Committee recommends a rescission of $100,000,000 from 
amounts appropriated in prior years which are in excess of 
amounts required to subsidize mortgages under section 236, as 
requested.

                         FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    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.
    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 
to support affordable housing projects.
    The recommendation includes language, modified from the 
request, to allow surplus funds derived from rental collections 
which were in excess of allowable rents levels to be returned 
to project owners only for the purposes of rehabilitating and 
renovating those properties.

                  MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $13,000,000
Offsetting collections................................       -13,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        13,566,000
Offsetting collections................................       -13,566,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        13,000,000
Offsetting collections................................       -13,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........          -566,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 
Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 
Improvement Act of 2000, authorized 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.
    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 established pursuant to the Manufactured Housing 
Improvement Act of 2000. The amount recommended is a decrease 
of $566,000 below the fiscal year 2002 level.

                     FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

               MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation of       Limitation of      Administrative
                                                         direct loans      guaranteed loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.....................         $50,000,000    $165,000,000,000        $347,829,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation......................         250,000,000     165,000,000,000         336,700,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.....................          50,000,000     160,000,000,000         347,829,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation......        -200,000,000                   0         +11,129,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.....                   0      +5,000,000,000                   0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHA mutual mortgage insurance program account includes 
the mutual mortgage insurance (MMI) and cooperative management 
housing insurance (CMHI) funds. This program account covers 
unsubsidized programs, primarily the single-family home 
mortgage program, the largest of all the FHA programs. The 
cooperative housing insurance program provides mortgages for 
cooperative housing projects of more than five units that are 
occupied by members of a cooperative housing corporation.
    The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 
commitments in the MMI program account as follows: 
$165,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and $50,000,000 for direct 
loans. The recommendation also includes $347,829,000 for 
administrative expenses, of which $343,807,000 is transferred 
to the Salaries and expenses account, and $4,022,000 is 
transferred to the Office of Inspector General. In addition, 
$85,720,000 is provided for administrative contract expenses, 
of which no less than $21,360,000 is transferred to the Working 
Capital Fund for development of and modifications to 
information technology systems which serve programs or 
activities under Housing Program or the Federal Housing 
Administration.
    Language is continued, carried in previous years, 
appropriating additional administrative expenses in certain 
circumstances.
    The Committee encourages the Department to consider the 
usefulness of automated collateral management systems as a 
means to detect predatory loans.

                GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Limitation of       Limitation of      Administrative
                                     direct loans      guaranteed loans        expenses          Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.         $50,000,000     $23,000,000,000        $223,716,400         $15,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation..          50,000,000      23,000,000,000         216,100,000          15,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.          50,000,000      21,000,000,000         223,716,400          15,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002                   0                   0              +7,616                   0
 appropriation..................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003                   0      +2,000,000,000                   0                   0
 budget request.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FHA general and special risk insurance (GI and SRI) 
program account includes 17 different programs administered by 
the FHA. The GI fund includes a wide variety insurance programs 
for special purpose single and multi-family loans, including 
loans for property improvements, manufactured housing, multi-
family rental housing, condominiums, housing for the elderly, 
hospitals, group practice facilities and nursing homes. The SRI 
fund includes insurance programs for mortgages in older, 
declining urban areas which would not be otherwise eligible for 
insurance, mortgages with interest reduction payments, 
mortgages for experimental housing and for high-risk mortgagors 
who would not normally be eligible for mortgage insurance 
without housing counseling.
    The Committee recommends the following limitations on loan 
commitments for the general and special risk insurance program 
account as requested: $23,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and 
$50,000,000 for direct loans, the same levels provided in 
fiscal year 2002.
    As requested, the recommendation includes a $15,000,000 
direct appropriation for credit subsidy. The Committee also 
expects that improved FHA management and oversight will enable 
all programs to operate in a financially sound manner.
    The recommendation also includes $223,716,400 for 
administrative expenses, of which $204,395,400 is transferred 
to the Salaries and Expenses account and $19,321,000 is 
transferred to the Office of Inspector General. An additional 
$93,780,000 is provided for non-overhead administrative 
expenses, of which no less than $14,240,000 is transferred to 
the Working Capital Fund for development of and modifications 
to information technology systems which serve activities under 
Housing Programs or Federal Housing Administration.
    Language is continued, carried in previous years, 
appropriating additional administrative expenses in certain 
circumstances.

                GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Limitation of      Administrative
                                   guaranteed loans        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.    $200,000,000,000         $10,343,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation..     200,000,000,000           9,383,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.     200,000,000,000          10,343,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002                   0                +960
 appropriation..................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003                   0                   0
 budget request.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The guarantee of mortgage-backed securities program 
facilitates the financing of residential mortgage loans insured 
or guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Rural Housing 
Services program. The Government National Mortgage Association 
(GNMA) guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest 
on securities issued by private service institutions such as 
mortgage companies, commercial banks, savings banks, and 
savings and loan associations which assemble pools of 
mortgages, and issues securities backed by the pools. In turn, 
investment proceeds are used to finance additional mortgage 
loans. Investors include non-traditional sources of credit in 
the housing market such as pension and retirement funds, life 
insurance companies and individuals.
    The recommendation includes a $200,000,000,000 limitation 
on loan commitments for mortgage-backed securities as 
requested, the same level provided in fiscal year 2002. The 
Committee also recommends $10,343,000 for administrative 
expenses to be transferred to the Salaries and Expenses 
account, as requested, $960,000 above the amount provided in 
fiscal year 2002.

                    Policy Development and Research

                        RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $47,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        50,250,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        47,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        -3,250,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 directs the 
Secretary to undertake programs of research, studies, testing, 
and demonstrations related to the HUD mission. These functions 
are carried out internally through contracts with industry, 
non-profit research organizations, and educational institutions 
and through agreements with state and local governments and 
other federal agencies.
    The bill includes $47,000,000 for research and technology, 
as requested. Of this amount, $7,000,000 is provided for the 
Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) 
Initiative.
    Language is included making funds available for obligation 
for two years.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

                        FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $45,899,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        45,899,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        45,899,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    The Fair Housing Act, title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 
prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of 
housing and authorizes assistance to State and local agencies 
in administering the provision of fair housing statutes. The 
Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) assists State and local 
fair housing enforcement agencies that are certified by HUD as 
``substantially equivalent'' to HUD with respect to enforcement 
policies and procedures. The FHAP assures prompt and effective 
processing of complaints filed under title VIII that are within 
the jurisdiction of State and local fair housing agencies. The 
Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) alleviates housing 
discrimination by providing support to private nonprofit 
organizations, State and local government agencies and other 
nonfederal entities for the purpose of eliminating or 
preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair 
housing opportunities.
    The Committee recommends a total of $45,899,000 for this 
account, as requested. Of this amount, $25,649,000 is for FHAP 
and $20,250,000 is for FHIP, the same amounts provided in 
fiscal year 2002.
    The Committee expects HUD to continue to provide quarterly 
reports on obligation and expenditure of these funds, 
delineated by each program and activity, with the first such 
report due no later than February 15, 2003.

                     Office of Lead Hazard Control

                         LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $126,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       109,758,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       126,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +16,242,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    The Lead Hazard Reduction Program, authorized under the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550), 
provides grants to State and local governments to perform lead 
hazard reduction activities in housing occupied by low-income 
families. The program also provides technical assistance, 
undertakes research and evaluations of testing and cleanup 
methodologies, and develops technical guidance and regulations 
in cooperation with EPA.
    The Committee recommends $126,000,000 for this account as 
requested, an increase of $16,242,000 above the fiscal year 
2002 level, as follows:
    --$96,000,000 is for grants to State and local governments, 
and Native American tribes, for lead-based paint abatement 
activities in private low-income housing. This represents a 
$16,000,000 increase above the fiscal year 2002 level for these 
activities as requested.
    --$10,000,000 is for Operation LEAP (Lead Elimination 
Action Program), a new initiative requested in the budget to 
leverage private-sector resources to eliminate lead-based paint 
hazards in low-income housing. Operation LEAP funds will be 
allocated competitively to non-profit organizations and the 
private sector for activities which leverage additional funds 
for local lead hazard control programs.
    --$10,000,000 is for technical assistance and support to 
State and local agencies and private property owners, a 
$242,000 increase over fiscal year 2002 as requested.
    --$10,000,000 is for the Healthy Homes Initiative as 
requested. Healthy Homes funds are competitively awarded to 
State, local or county agencies, non-profit and community-based 
organizations, landlord organizations, parents' organizations, 
and environmental contractors, for research, standards 
development, and education and outreach activities related to 
housing-related environmental childhood diseases.
    The recommendation does not include a separate set-aside 
for CLEAR Corps. The Committee notes that as part of the 
Consolidated Planning process, State and local governments are 
expected to partner with non-profit organizations to develop 
and implement their lead-based paint abatement plans. The 
Committee encourages local CLEAR Corps programs to partner with 
local governments to receive funding support as part of the 
locality's Consolidated Plan.
    The Committee is aware of a proposal put forth by the 
Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning to create a Community 
Environmental Health Resource Center (CEHRC) to provide 
technical support, training, and education and outreach to 
community-based organizations to evaluate and control housing-
related and community-wide health hazards. While the Committee 
has not included an earmark for this new organization, the 
Committee encourages HUD to evaluate a proposal from the 
Alliance and provide a grant if warranted.

                                                                                  Management and Administration
                                                                                      salaries and expenses
                                                                                  (including transfer of funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           By transfer
                                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                  Indian     Native Hawaiian
                                                                  Appropriation      FHA funds        GNMA funds         CPD        Title VI     housing         housing             Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2003 recommendation.........................................     $530,299,000     $548,202,000      $10,343,000    $1,000,000     $150,000     $200,000            $35,000     $1,090,229,000
FY 2002 appropriation..........................................      556,067,000      530,457,000        9,383,000     1,000,000      150,000      200,000             35,000      1,097,292,000
FY 2003 budget request.........................................      510,299,000      548,202,000       10,343,000     1,000,000      150,000      200,000             35,000      1,070,229,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation.................      -25,768,000      +17,745,000         +960,000             0            0            0                  0         -7,063,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request................      +20,000,000                0                0             0            0            0                  0                  0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A single appropriation has been provided to finance all 
salaries and related costs associated with administering the 
programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
except the Office of Inspector General and the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. These activities include 
housing, mortgage credit and secondary market programs 
community planning and development programs, departmental 
management, legal services, and field direction and 
administration.
    The Committee recommends total funding of $1,090,229,000 
for the salaries and expenses of the Department, a net decrease 
of $7,063,000 below the fiscal year 2002 appropriation. The 
recommendation reflects an $85,000,000 reduction due to the 
transfer of information technology funding previously provided 
for in this account to a new Working Capital Fund account in 
fiscal year 2003 as requested in the budget submission. 
Therefore, the recommendation represents a net increase of 
$77,937,000 above the comparable fiscal year 2002 level, of 
which $57,937,000 is for inflationary increases necessary to 
support 9,100 full-time equivalents, as requested, and 
$20,000,000 is available to the Chief Financial Officer only 
for activities to improve financial management and funds 
control in the Department.
    Language is included in the bill setting forth the amounts 
provided for the various offices funded under this heading as 
follows:

Office of Housing.......................................    $294,154,000
Office of Public and Indian Housing.....................     153,971,000
Office of Community Planning and Development............      76,164,000
Office of Policy Development and Research...............      19,147,000
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity............      59,973,000
Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control.........       2,634,000
Government National Mortgage Association................       7,233,000
Departmental Management.................................      22,344,000
Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives........       2,606,000
Office of the Chief Financial Officer...................      53,986,000
Office of the General Counsel...........................      64,486,000
Office of Field Policy and Management...................      77,410,000
Office of Administration................................     241,761,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

    Total, Management and Administration................   1,070,299,000

    The Department may reallocate funds between the amounts 
specified above for these offices in accordance with operating 
plan and/or reprogramming procedures. Amounts provided are 
consistent with the Department's budget submission, excluding 
amounts assumed contingent upon enactment of legislative 
changes to legacy retirement costs, updated to include the 
effects of the reorganization implemented during fiscal year 
2002. Consistent with modifications to the original budget 
submission, the object classification distribution, which shall 
also serve as the basis for operating plan and reprogramming 
changes is as follows:

          Personal Services--$860,693,000
          Travel and Transportation of Persons--$25,508,000
          Transportation of Things--$700,000
          Rent, Communications and Utilities--$124,572,000
          Printing and Reproduction--$4,644,000
          Other Services--$77,807,000
          Supplies and Materials--$4,932,000
          Furniture and Equipment--$1,180,000
          Indemnities--$194,000

    Operating Plans/Reprogramming Requirements.--The Committee 
appreciates the need for management flexibility to allocate 
management and administrative resources or reorganize offices 
and programs to address changing requirements at the 
departments and agencies funded in the bill, including HUD. To 
provide such flexibility, while ensuring appropriate 
consultation and oversight, the departments and some agencies 
are required to submit operating plans and reprogramming 
letters for Committee approval. Guidance regarding operating 
plan and reprogramming requirements is described in greater 
detail at the beginning of this report. The Committee is 
concerned that HUD has not consistently adhered to these 
requirements and instead has reallocated resources among 
programs, projects and activities, reorganized offices and 
created new offices without prior notification and approval by 
the Committee. The Committee expects established procedures to 
be followed so that the Committee is kept informed of, and 
therefore is better able to respond to, changing requirements 
at the Department. Therefore, HUD is reminded that operating 
plans or reprogramming requirements apply to any reallocation 
of resources totaling more than $500,000 among any program, 
project or activity; any proposed creation or elimination of 
any program or office, regardless of the dollar amount 
involved; and any reorganization, regardless of the dollar 
amount involved. Object classification changes above $500,000 
also are subject to operating plan or reprogramming 
requirements. Unless otherwise specified in this Act or the 
accompanying report, the approved level for any program, 
project, or activity is that amount detailed for that program, 
project, or activity in the Department's annual detailed budget 
justification document. These requirements apply to all funds 
provided to the Department. The Department is expected to make 
any necessary changes during fiscal year 2003 to its current 
procedures and systems to ensure that it is able to meet the 
necessary operating plan and reprogramming requirements applied 
to other agencies funded in the bill.
    Funds Control/Financial Management.--For years, the 
Committee, the General Accounting Office, and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) have raised concerns about the lack 
of adequate policies and procedures in place at the Department 
to ensure appropriate funds control and financial management, 
including its inability to identify and correct deficiencies in 
a timely manner in accordance with applicable statutes, 
regulations, and circulars. Every Federal department or agency 
has a responsibility to obligate and expend its funds in 
compliance with all statutes, regulations, and OMB circulars, 
including compliance with the Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA). The 
Committee expects each department and agency to have vigorous 
funds control and financial management policies and procedures 
in place so that it may meet its stewardship responsibilities. 
Further, the Committee expects each Department or agency to 
take all necessary corrective actions to expeditiously resolve 
any violation consistent with the law.
    Last year, the Committee became aware that the Department 
was responsible for three violations of the ADA which occurred 
between 1998 and 2001, and became increasingly concerned over 
the Department's failure to make timely formal determination of 
such ADA violations as required by law. At the same time, OMB 
concerns over HUD's funds control systems had become so severe 
that in November 2001, OMB warned the Department it would 
revoke the Department's authority to hold and distribute its 
funding unless HUD updated and strengthened its funds control 
systems. In response to these concerns, the Committee directed 
its Surveys and Investigations staff to review the Department's 
established procedures to investigate and enforce the ADA. This 
review found that the Department lacked adequate funds control 
policies and procedures with respect to oversight, checks and 
balances, automated systems, audits, and training.
    Based on the findings, the Committee has included bill 
language and additional funding above the request to assist the 
Department's efforts to improve funds control and financial 
management systems. The Committee notes that the authority and 
responsibility to ensure compliance with the ADA and other 
appropriations laws and regulations rests with the Office of 
the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). Therefore, the Committee 
has included $21,000,000 and bill language to ensure that the 
OCFO has the tools it needs to fulfill this responsibility. 
Language is also included in the bill which vests the OCFO with 
the sole authority to investigate, determine, and report 
compliance with the ADA and all other appropriations laws; 
establishes an appropriations law division within the OCFO and 
transfers no less than four appropriations attorneys from the 
Office of General Counsel (OGC) to the OCFO for this new 
division; reaffirms well-established appropriations law related 
to the point of obligation of funds; requires the Chief 
Financial Officer (CFO) to establish control of and maintain 
adequate accounting systems as well as policies and procedures 
to investigate and determine potential and actual violations; 
requires the CFO to submit a revised departmental funds control 
handbook to the Committee; and requires the OCFO to determine 
that any official or employee of the Department designated as 
an allotment holder of funds has received appropriate training 
and has in place adequate funds control systems.
    To ensure that the OCFO has the necessary resources to 
fulfill these responsibilities, the Committee recommends 
$21,000,000 for the OCFO to be used exclusively for funds 
control improvements including automated financial management 
systems improvements, additional training of departmental 
employees, establishment of a division of appropriations law 
within the OCFO, and ADA compliance audits of all departmental 
programs. Of this amount, $20,000,000 is provided as an 
increase above the request for this account, and $1,000,000 has 
been transferred from the OGC to the OCFO to reflect the 
personnel transfer included in the bill. To improve audit and 
compliance at the Department, the Committee directs the OCFO to 
contract for independent audit services by an entity with 
adequate ADA and appropriations law training, experience, and 
resources to conduct rotating ADA compliance audits of all 
Department programs, with each program audited no less than 
once every three years. All audit reports shall be directed to 
the Secretary, the CFO and the Budget Officer.
    The Committee believes that funds control and financial 
management improvements are critical and looks forward to 
working with the Department toward this goal.
    Budget Submission.--While the Committee appreciates the 
Department's efforts last year to improve the information 
included in its annual Budget Justification, the Committee 
believes that further improvements are required. The Committee 
reiterates that object classification displays are supplements, 
not substitutes, for detailed displays which delineate prior 
year, current year, and requested funding levels for each 
program, project, or activity within each account. In addition, 
the Committee directs HUD to submit a detailed budget 
justification for the Management and Administration account 
which includes prior year, current year, and requested 
position, FTE, and funding levels for each program within each 
office, delineated by headquarters and field office components. 
The Committee expects HUD, in consultation with the Committee, 
to further revise its detailed budget justifications to address 
these concerns as part of its fiscal year 2004 budget 
submission.
    Language is included in the bill, similar to language 
carried in prior Acts, which: (1) designates amounts provided 
from various accounts for salaries and expenses; (2) transfers 
no less than $85,000,000 to the Working Capital Fund; (3) 
limits the total number of GS-14 and GS-15 positions in the 
Department; and (4) requires submission of a staffing plan.

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $276,300,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................             \1\ 0
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................      $276,300,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........  \1\ +276,300,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                0

\1\ Previously, funds were provided for by transfer from various HUD
  accounts.

    The Working Capital Fund was established pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. 3535 to provide necessary capital for the development 
of, modifications to, and infrastructure for Department-wide 
information technology systems, and for the continuing 
operation of both Department-wide and program-specific 
information technology systems.
    The Committee recommends $351,400,000 for the Working 
Capital Fund, a $300,000 increase over the fiscal year 2002 
comparable level, of which $276,300,000 is provided as a 
separate account to support Department-wide information 
technology systems activities, as requested in the budget 
submission. An additional $75,100,000 is provided by transfer 
from the following accounts to support program-specific 
information technology systems, as requested in the budget 
submission:

          Salaries and expenses--$10,500,000
          FHA, Mutual mortgage insurance fund--$21,360,000
          FHA, General and special risk insurance fund--
        $14,240,000
          Community development fund--$3,400,000
          HOME investment partnerships program--$1,100,000
          Homeless assistance--$1,500,000
          Public housing capital fund--$18,600,000
          Native American Indian block grants--$600,000
          Housing certificate fund--$3,000,000
          Housing for special populations--$500,000
          Office of Inspector General--$300,000

    In prior years, all information technology system 
activities were provided for through transfers from the various 
accounts within the bill.
    The Committee remains committed to improving HUD's 
information technology capacity. To a large extent, both HUD's 
and Congress' ability to oversee the effectiveness of HUD's 
programs is undermined due to the failure of HUD's information 
systems to provide the information necessary to assess program 
performance and ensure effective resource management. The 
Committee understands that information technology systems 
improvements are organizationally and technically challenging 
endeavors. Effective development and implementation of such 
improvements requires strong oversight by the Department, 
strong program management, early and thorough planning, user 
input, clearly defined systems objectives and requirements, and 
appropriate milestones. Absent a clearly defined framework and 
implementation plan, the Committee is concerned that such 
endeavors will be vulnerable to uncontrollable cost growth and 
mission failure. Based on these concerns, for the last two 
years the Department was directed to provide the Committee with 
a comprehensive multi-year information technology plan as part 
of its budget submissions. In addition, the fiscal year 2002 
conference report directed HUD not to expend any of the funds 
on planning and development for a re-competition of its 
information technology platform and information technology 
support services platform--the HUD Information Technology 
Services (HITS) contract--until such a plan was provided. The 
Department did not deliver the required plan and despite the 
Committee's direction, the Department moved forward with the 
re-competition.
    The Committee understands that the HITS contract is to be a 
performance-based, outcome-oriented contract which will provide 
the entire physical infrastructure and infrastructure support 
services to satisfy HUD's information processing requirements. 
The Committee questions how HUD can successfully select and 
manage a HITS contract that will fully meet the Department's 
long-term needs in a cost effective fashion when HUD still 
lacks a comprehensive five year information technology plan 
identifying the information technology needs to be supported by 
that contract. Therefore, language is included in the bill 
prohibiting any funds from being used to award a new HITS 
contract until 90 days after the Department submits a 
comprehensive five year information technology plan to the 
Committee which must include, but is not limited to, the 
following: (1) an inventory of all current HUD information 
technology systems and the operational status of each system; 
(2) a detailed documentation of user systems needs, as 
identified by the user community; (3) a detailed documentation 
of systems requirements and systems architecture which 
addresses the highest priority user needs; (4) a detailed 
procurement strategy which incorporates appropriate risk 
management and contract management strategies, including 
appropriate milestones and deliverables; (5) an evaluation of 
the ability of separate HUD systems to be integrated to 
maximize efficiencies; (6) a detailed plan identifying the 
strategy for integrating existing systems and systems upgrades 
into the HITS platform, including an identification of 
contractor responsibilities for systems integration and 
support; and (6) a complete development and deployment schedule 
for all planned HUD systems including detailed cost estimates 
for each system. The Committee directs HUD to consult with the 
Committee as it develops this plan. Further, the Committee 
encourages the Department to use funds provided for the Working 
Capital Fund to contract with outside information technology 
experts as necessary to successfully develop this five year 
plan.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Appropriation      FHA funds      Public housing       Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.............      $73,341,000      $23,343,000            \1\ 0      $96,684,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation..............       66,555,000       22,343,000   \1\ $5,000,000       93,898,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.............       74,341,000   \1\ 23,343,000             \1\0      -97,684,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002                   +6,786,000       +1,000,000   \1\ -5,000,000       +2,786,000
 appropriation..............................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget            -1,000,000                0                0      -1,000,000
 request....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In fiscal year 2002, a transfer was provided to the Office of Inspector General from the Public Operating
  Subsidies account.

    The Office of Inspector General provides agency-wide audit 
and investigative functions to identify and correct management 
and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for 
existing or potential instances of fraud, waste and 
mismanagement. The audit function provides internal audit, 
contract audit, and inspection services. Contract audits 
provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on 
accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, 
award, administration, re-pricing and settlement of contracts. 
Internal audits evaluate all facets of agency operations. 
Inspection services provide detailed technical evaluations of 
agency operations. The investigative function provides for the 
detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities 
involving programs, personnel and operations.
    The Committee recommends the $96,684,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General as requested, an increase of $2,786,000 above 
the amount provided in fiscal year 2002. Of this amount, 
$23,343,000 is derived from transfers from FHA funds.
    Language is included in the bill, similar to language 
carried in prior Acts, which: (1) designates amounts available 
to the Inspector General from other accounts; and (2) clarifies 
the authority of the Inspector General with respect to certain 
personnel issues.

                         CONSOLIDATED FEE FUND

                              (RESCISSION)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       -$8,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        -6,700,000
FY 2003 budget request................................        -8,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        -1,300,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    Section 7(j) of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development Act establishes fees and charges from selected 
programs which are deposited in the fund to offset the costs of 
audits, inspections and other related expenses that may be 
incurred by the Department in monitoring these programs. These 
fees were misclassified as deposit funds in previous years, and 
have been reclassified as on-budget Federal funds.
    The Committee recommends a rescission of $8,000,000 from 
the Fund, as requested, to partially offset the funding 
requirements of the Office of the Inspector General.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $30,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        27,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        30,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        +3,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) 
was established in 1992 to regulate the financial safety and 
soundness of the two housing government-sponsored enterprises 
(GSEs)--the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) 
and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). 
The office was authorized in the Federal Housing Enterprises 
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which also provided 
the regulator enhanced authority to enforce these standards. In 
addition to financial regulation, the OFHEO monitors the GSEs 
compliance with affordable housing goals that were contained in 
the Act.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,000,000, 
an increase of $3,000,000 above fiscal year 2002 level and the 
same amount included in the budget request.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    The bill contains a number of administrative provisions.
    Section 201 relates to the division of financing adjustment 
factors, as requested.
    Section 202 prohibits available funds from being used to 
investigate or prosecute lawful activities under the Fair 
Housing Act, which was proposed for deletion.
    Section 203 continues language to correct an anomaly in the 
HOPWA formula that results in the loss of funds for certain 
States, however requested language to make this provision 
permanent is not included.
    Section 204 extends a technical amendment included in the 
fiscal year 2000 appropriations Act relating to the allocation 
of HOPWA funds in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, as 
requested.
    Section 205 authorizes the Secretary to waive certain 
requirements related to an assisted living pilot project, as 
requested.
    Section 206 continues language, carried in previous years 
in title IV of the Act, requiring funds appropriated to be 
distributed on a competitive basis in accordance with the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989.
    Section 207 continues language, carried in previous years 
in title IV of the Act, regarding the availability of funds 
subject to the Government Corporation Control Act and the 
Housing Act of 1950.
    Section 208 continues language, carried in previous years 
in title IV of the Act, regarding allocation of funds in excess 
of the budget estimates.
    Section 209 continues language, carried in previous years 
in title IV of the Act, regarding the expenditure of funds for 
corporations and agencies subject to the Government Corporation 
Control Act.
    Section 210 continues language, carried in previous years 
in title IV of the Act, requiring submission of a spending plan 
for technical assistance, training and management improvement 
activities prior to the expenditure of funds.
    The Committee does not recommend four new administrative 
provisions requested in the budget.

                               TITLE III

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $35,246,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        35,466,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        30,400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........          -220,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......        +4,846,000

    The Commission is responsible for the administration, 
operation and maintenance of cemetery and war memorials to 
commemorate the achievements and sacrifices of the American 
Armed Forces where they have served since April 6, 1917. In 
performing these functions, the American Battle Monuments 
Commission maintains twenty-four permanent American military 
cemetery memorials and thirty-one monuments, memorials, markers 
and offices in fifteen foreign countries, the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the British dependency of 
Gibraltar. In addition, five memorials are located in the 
United States: the East Coast Memorial in New York; the West 
Coast Memorial, The Presidio, in San Francisco; the Honolulu 
Memorial in the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in 
Honolulu, Hawaii; and the American Expeditionary Forces 
Memorial and the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, 
DC.
    The Committee recommends $35,246,000 for fiscal year 2003 
to administer, operate and maintain the Commission's monuments, 
cemeteries, and memorials throughout the world. The Committee 
is aware of the severe operational difficulties experienced by 
the Commission in France resulting from that country's adoption 
of a 35 hour work week and has therefore included $846,000 
above the budget request for salaries and benefits of up to 20 
additional ABMC employees. The Committee expects that these 
additional employees will be used on either a full or part-time 
basis to meet the manpower needs of any of the ABMC cemeteries 
or offices where a manpower shortage has or could potentially 
cause delays in necessary maintenance and operations.
    The Committee has also included an additional $4,000,000 as 
a second installment towards the cost of planning and 
construction of a new visitor center at the Normandy American 
Cemetery in France. The cemetery averages nearly two million 
visitors per year, and the existing facilities are over 40 
years old and inadequate to serve this large number of 
visitors. The new and expanded visitor center can provide a 
fuller array of interpretive services to put the D-Day landings 
and the following battles in Europe in perspective as one of 
the greatest military achievements of all time, albeit at a 
staggering price in American and Allied casualties. The battle 
at Normandy is universally recognized a pivotal moment in World 
War II and for determining the future course of European and 
world history. As ABMC has begun initial planning of this 
project and may soon move to design and other pre-construction 
activities, the Committee withdraws its limitation of 
expenditures for non-construction related costs as noted in the 
2002 appropriations legislation.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................        $6,500,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................         7,850,000
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.......................         7,850,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        -1,350,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request..............        -1,350,000

    The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board was 
authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to 
investigate accidental releases of certain chemical substances 
resulting in serious injury, death, or substantial property 
loss. The Board became operational in fiscal year 1998.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee is recommending 
$6,500,000, a decrease of $1,350,000 from the level for fiscal 
year 2002.
    Again this year, bill language has been included which 
limits the number of career senior executive service positions 
to three. Bill language has also been included which makes 
$2,500,000 of the appropriated funds available for two fiscal 
years.
    In the five years since the Board began operations, the 
Committee has received three independent reports identifying 
serious deficiencies in the management, control, and direction 
of the Board's activities. The Committee also finds that 
despite its past warnings against pursuing outreach and data 
activities before becoming fully operational, the Board has 
continued to engage in these activities from limited funds and 
has pursued these activities at the expense of overextending 
its technical staff.
    Accordingly, the Committee directs that the Office of 
Prevention, Outreach and Policy proposed in the budget request 
is to be limited to no more than two positions and that the 
three additional positions proposed for this Office be 
transferred to the Office of Investigations and Safety Programs 
to fill the need for technical investigators. The Committee 
also expects that the Board vet future reorganizations of 
offices, programs, and activities with the Committee prior to 
the planned implementation of such reorganizations, consistent 
with the language at the front of this report. Additionally, 
the Committee directs that unobligated funds from fiscal year 
2002, which are available through fiscal year 2003, be used 
first and foremost for hiring and developing technical staff. 
At the time of this Committee print, close to $1,400,000, or 
more than seventeen percent of the fiscal year 2002 
appropriation, was unobligated and carried over from fiscal 
year 2002.
    Additionally, the Committee directs that of the amounts 
approved in this appropriation, the Board must limit transfers 
of funds between object classifications to not more than 
$50,000 without prior notification of the Committees on 
Appropriations. Changes from the budget request in excess of 
$250,000 shall be subject to the normal Committee reprogramming 
guidelines as outlined at the beginning of this report. No 
changes may be made to any expense as reflected in the budget 
justification, except as approved by the Committees on 
Appropriations, if it is construed by the Committee to be 
policy or change in policy. It is the intent of the Committee 
that all carryover funds for the Board, including recaptures 
and deobligations, are subject to the normal reprogramming 
requirements outlined above and at the beginning of this 
report. The Committee looks forward to working with the new 
leadership of the Board to correct continued management 
problems identified by GAO and the Inspector General for the 
Board.

                       Department of the Treasury

              Community Development Financial Institutions

   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $80,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        80,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        68,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request..............       +12,000,000

    The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund 
provides grants, loans and technical assistance to new and 
existing community development financial institutions such as 
community development banks, community development credit 
unions, revolving loan funds and micro-loan funds. Recipients 
must use the funds to support mortgage, small business and 
economic development lending in currently underserved, 
distressed neighborhoods. The Fund will also be responsible for 
implementation of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000, 
upon completion of appropriate rules and regulations by the 
Internal Revenue Service.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $80,000,000 
for the program in fiscal year 2003. The recommendation is an 
increase of $12,000,000 to the budget request and the same as 
the fiscal year 2002 appropriation. The Committee 
recommendation includes bill language designating $2,000,000 
for financial and technical assistance for Native American, 
Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native communities.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $57,117,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        55,200,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        56,767,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        +1,917,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request..............          +350,000

    The Consumer Product Safety Act established the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission (CPSC), an independent Federal 
regulatory agency, to reduce unreasonable risk of injury 
associated with consumer products. Its primary responsibilities 
and overall goals are: to protect the public against 
unreasonable risk of injury associated with consumer products; 
to develop uniform safety standards for consumer products, 
minimizing conflicting State and local regulations; and to 
promote research into prevention of product-related deaths, 
illnesses, and injuries.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $57,117,000 
for fiscal year 2003, an increase of $1,917,000 over the fiscal 
year 2002 appropriation and $350,000 above the amount included 
in the budget request. The increase provided is for additional 
salary costs not provided for in the budget request.
    The Committee has not included language requested as a 
General Provision in this bill to exempt CPSC litigation travel 
from the requirements of Section 401 of this Act. The Committee 
finds that there are sufficient opportunities to address 
changes to litigation travel needs through the Committee's 
normal reprogramming procedures.
    The Committee is concerned that incidents related to 
hairdryers from a specific manufacturer may have increased 
since 1994. It is unclear to the Committee how these incidents 
compare with and what impact these have on national injury 
statistics. Accordingly, the Committee directs CPSC to provide 
a report detailing injuries related to specific hairdryers of 
concern and any actions taken in recalling defective products 
within this category. To the extent data is available to CPSC, 
the report shall include injury trend data, by manufacturer, 
since 1980. The Committee directs CPSC to provide this report 
by January 2003.
    The Committee remains concerned about fire injuries related 
to children's sleepwear and the limits of data currently 
available as identified by GAO in its April 1999 report. The 
Committee emphasizes that it is important that CPSC continue 
with its efforts to reach out to other interested groups to 
improve its data collection efforts related to children's 
sleepwear injuries. The Committee therefore directs that CPSC 
provide an annual report to the Committee addressing outreach 
efforts made to interested groups to improve its data 
collection efforts, enforcement actions taken regarding the 
current children's sleepwear regulation, and updates on 
children's sleepwear related injuries, including the number of 
reported injuries and deaths.
    The Committee is also concerned about whether small sample 
sizes of injuries, particularly burns related specifically to 
children's sleepwear, make it difficult for the CPSC to achieve 
the most accurate annual national injury estimates. The 
Committee therefore directs that CPSC provide a report to the 
Committee addressing improvements made in data collection since 
the GAO 1999 report and those still needed for developing the 
necessary measures to track trends in injuries related to 
children's sleepwear and to provide more accurate national 
estimates. The report should also identify the cost estimates 
for implementing the recommended changes. CPSC is directed to 
provide both reports to the Committee by April 2003.

             Corporation for National and Community Service

       NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS OPERATING EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................                $0
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       401,980,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       631,342,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........      -401,980,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......      -631,342,000

    The Corporation for National and Community Service was 
established by the National and Community Service Trust Act of 
1993 to enhance opportunities for national and community 
service and provide national service educational awards. The 
Corporation makes grants to States, institutions of higher 
education, public and private nonprofit organizations, and 
others to create service opportunities for a wide variety of 
individuals through full-time national and community service 
programs. National service participants may receive educational 
awards which may be used for full-time or part-time higher 
education, vocational education, job training, or school-to-
work programs. Funds for the Volunteers in Service to America 
and the National Senior Service Corps are provided in the 
Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill.
    The fiscal year 2003 budget request for program and 
administrative activities of the Corporation for National and 
Community Service is $631,342,000, which would have 
dramatically expanded the program and provided earmarked funds 
to the Points of Light Foundation and America's Promise. The 
Committee recommends eliminating Corporation in fiscal year 
2003 and has provided authority for prior year funding to be 
used for the orderly termination of operations.
    The Committee directs the Corporation to submit an 
operating plan within 90 days of enactment of this bill and 
abide by the reprogramming requirements outlined at the 
beginning of this report.
    The Committee is not providing funds for the proposed 
Senior Service Initiative. The Corporation should instead 
propose streamlining and consolidating the already existing 
senior programs and encourage Americorp opportunities for 
retirees and young adults alike.
    The Committee recommends funding for America's Promise 
should the Corporation be funded in the future. In addition, 
the Committee recommends funding for the U.S. Soccer Foundation 
for the National Soccer Program Development Initiative.
    Should the Corporation's programs be reauthorized and 
funded in the future, the Committee believes that Corporation 
grants should be a catalyst for service organizations, but not 
a regular funding stream year after year. The Committee directs 
the Corporation to add as a part of its application process an 
element requiring all applicants to outline how the 
organization will successfully operate in the future without 
Corporation funding. The Committee directs the Corporation to 
include in the fiscal year 2003 operating plan the details of 
how this new requirement was integrated into the application 
process.
    Further, the Committee is encouraged by the Corporation's 
goal to improve the accountability of its grantees. The 
Committee directs the Corporation to establish performance 
measures with each grantee. The Corporation shall require any 
grantee that does not achieve the established levels of 
performance on the measures, as determined by the Corporation, 
to submit to the Corporation for approval a plan of correction. 
If the grantee fails to achieve the established levels of 
performance, the Committee directs the Corporation to either 
reduce some portion or terminate the entire amount of 
assistance provided to the grantee consistent with established 
due process requirements.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................        $5,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................         5,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................         5,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    The Office of Inspector General is authorized by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. This Office provides 
an independent assessment of all Corporation operations and 
programs, including those of the Volunteers in Service to 
America and the National Senior Service Corps, through audits, 
investigations, and other proactive projects.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2003, the same as the budget request and the fiscal 
year 2002 funding level.

               U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $14,326,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        13,221,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        14,612,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        +1,105,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......          -286,000

    The Veterans Benefits Administration Adjudication Procedure 
and Judiciary Review Act established the Court of Appeals for 
Veterans Claims. The Court reviews appeals from Department of 
Veterans Affairs claimants seeking review of a benefit denial. 
The Court has the authority to overturn findings of fact, 
regulations and interpretations of law.
    The bill includes $14,326,000 for the Court of Appeals for 
Veterans Claims in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $1,105,000 
above the current year appropriation and $286,000 below the 
budget request.
    The bill also identifies $1,045,000 of the funds provided 
to fully fund the pro bono representation program.
    The Committee is not recommending funds for purchasing all 
public spaces in the parking garage of the private building 
that currently houses the Court. The Committee strongly urges 
the Court to continue working with the General Services 
Administration, the building owners, and the other tenants to 
come to an agreeable solution. If a solution is not agreed to, 
the Committee recommends the Court look for alternative Federal 
office space to meet its needs.

                      Department of Defense--Civil

                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $32,445,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        22,537,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        24,445,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        +9,908,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......        +8,000,000

    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 2001, the remains of 289,494 
persons were interred/inured in these cemeteries. There were 
3,727 interments and 2,212 inurnments in fiscal year 2001. It 
is projected that there will be 3,925 interments and 2,700 
inurnments in fiscal year 2003. 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 4,000,000 visitors annually.
    The Committee recommends $32,445,000 for operations and 
maintenance of the Cemetery, an increase of $9,908,000 over the 
fiscal year 2002 funding level and $8,000,000 over the budget 
request. The Committee has provided an additional $6,000,000 
over the budget request for much-needed repairs to the Memorial 
Amphitheater in fiscal year 2003.
    The Committee has also provided an additional $2,000,000 
over the budget request to accelerate phase II of the land 
utilization program for Arlington National Cemetery with 
respect to the development plan for section 90. There is a 
growing demand for burial space in Arlington National Cemetery. 
Funding for this project will accelerate the completion of a 
boundary wall that will provide space for an additional 
columbarium in that section.

                Department of Health and Human Services

                     National Institutes of Health

          NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $84,074,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        70,228,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    \1\ 74,471,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +13,846,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......        +9,603,000

\1\ Budget request does not include a proposed transfer of $1,603,000
  from the National Cancer Institute.

    The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, an 
agency within the National Institutes of Health, was authorized 
in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to conduct certain 
research and worker training activities associated with the 
nation's Hazardous Substance Superfund program.
    For fiscal year 2003 the Committee has recommended a 
funding level of $84,074,000, an increase of $9,603,000 above 
the budget request and an increase of $13,846,000 over the 
fiscal year 2002 level. The Committee's recommendation assumes 
inclusion of $1,603,000 proposed by the Administration to be 
transferred from the National Cancer Institute to NIEHS, but 
not included in the budget documents forwarded to the Congress. 
The budget request and the Committee's recommendation thus 
provide $48,936,000 for research and $27,138,000 for the worker 
training program.
    In addition, the Committee has included $8,000,000 
previously provided but not requested by the Administration as 
a contingent emergency in the fiscal 2002 supplemental 
appropriations legislation. These funds, which include 
$4,000,000 each for worker training and research programs, are 
intended to be used to undertake and continue research and 
worker training programs related to the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001.

            Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

            TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $88,688,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        78,235,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        77,388,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +10,453,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......       +11,300,000

    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.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has recommended a 
funding level of $88,688,000, an increase of $10,453,000 above 
the fiscal year 2002 funding level and an increase of 
$11,300,000 above the budget request. The Committee's 
recommendation provides the budget request as well as an 
additional $11,300,000 provided by the Congress in the fiscal 
2002 supplemental appropriations legislation but not requested 
as a contingent emergency by the Administration. Of this 
additional amount, $1,800,000 is to reimburse ATSDR for direct 
and indirect costs related to the events of September 11, 2001 
which were not assumed in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation, 
and $9,500,000 is to be used to enhance the capacity of the 
States to respond to chemical terrorism events. As noted in the 
past, these and similar expenses are expected to be ``one time 
only'' costs of the Agency to assist the States and are not to 
become recurring costs in support of new State personnel.
    The Committee encourages ATSDR to continue to provide 
adequate funds for minority health professions, as well as for 
continuation of a health effects study on the consumption of 
Great Lakes fish.

                    Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    $8,204,465,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     8,078,813,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     7,620,513,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........      +125,652,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......      +583,952,000

    The Environmental Protection Agency was created by 
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which consolidated nine 
programs from five different agencies and departments. Major 
EPA programs include air and water quality, drinking water, 
hazardous waste, research, pesticides, radiation, toxic 
substances, enforcement and compliance assurance, pollution 
prevention, oil spills, Superfund, Brownfields, and the Leaking 
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program. In addition, EPA 
provides Federal assistance for wastewater treatment, sewer 
overflow control, drinking water facilities, and other water 
infrastructure projects. The agency is responsible for 
conducting research and development, establishing environmental 
standards through the use of risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis, monitoring pollution conditions, seeking compliance 
through a variety of means, managing audits and investigations, 
and providing technical assistance and grant support to states 
and tribes, which are delegated authority for actual program 
implementation. Under existing statutory authority, the Agency 
may contribute to specific homeland security efforts and, 
additionally, may participate in some international 
environmental activities.
    Among the statutes for which the Environmental Protection 
Agency has sole or significant oversight responsibilities are:

          National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 
        amended.
          Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 
        as amended.
          Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended.
          Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
          Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended.
          Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 
        1972, as amended.
          Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
          Public Health Service Act (Title XIV), as amended.
          Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended.
          Clean Air Act, as amended.
          Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended.
          Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
        and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended.
          Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields 
        Revitalization Act of 2001 (amending CERCLA).
          Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 
        1986.
          Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.
          Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended.

    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has recommended a total 
program and support level of $8,204,532,000, an increase of 
$125,652,000 above last year's appropriated level and an 
increase of $583,952,000 above the budget request.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Agency must limit transfers of funds between 
objectives to not more than $500,000, except as specifically 
noted, without prior approval of the Committee. No changes may 
be made to any account or objective except as approved by the 
Committee, if it is construed to be policy or a change in 
policy. Any activity or program cited in the report shall be 
construed as the position of the Committee and should not be 
subject to reductions or reprogramming without prior approval 
of the Committee. It is the intent of the Committee that all 
carryover funds in the various appropriations accounts are 
subject to the normal reprogramming requirements outlined 
above. The Agency is expected to comply with all normal rules 
and regulations in carrying out these directives. Reprogramming 
requests associated with States and Tribes applying for 
Partnership Grants do not need to be submitted to the Committee 
for approval should such grants exceed the normal reprogramming 
limitations. Finally, the Committee wishes to continue to be 
notified regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, or 
activities prior to the planned implementation of such 
reorganizations, as well as be notified, on a monthly basis, of 
all ongoing litigation, including any negotiations or 
discussions, planned or ongoing, regarding a consent decree 
between the Agency and any other entity.

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation \1\...................      $714,578,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       698,089,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       670,008,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +16,489,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......       +44,570,000

\1\ Total does not include transfer of $86,168,000 from the Hazardous
  Substance Superfund.

    The Science and Technology account funds all Environmental 
Protection Agency research (including Hazardous Substances 
Superfund research activities) carried out through grants, 
contracts, and cooperative agreements with other Federal 
agencies, states, universities, and private business, as well 
as on an in-house basis. This account also funds personnel 
compensation and benefits, travel, supplies and operating 
expenses for all Agency research. Research addresses a wide 
range of environmental and health concerns across all 
environmental media and encompasses both long-term basic and 
near-term applied research to provide the scientific knowledge 
and technologies necessary for preventing, regulating, and 
abating pollution, and to anticipate emerging environmental 
issues.
    The Committee has recommended an appropriation of 
$714,578,000 for Science and Technology for fiscal year 2003, 
an increase of $16,489,000 above last year's spending level, 
and an increase of $44,570,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee's recommended appropriation includes the 
following increases to the budget request:
    1. $2,500,000 for EPSCoR.
    2. $4,000,000 for Water Environmental Research Foundation.
    3. $5,000,000 for the American Water Works Association 
Research Foundation.
    4. $2,500,000 for the National Decentralized Water Resource 
Capacity Development Project, in coordination with EPA, for 
continued training and research and development of the program.
    5. $5,000,000 for the STAR Fellowship program. The 
Committee's recommendation restores this program, eliminated in 
the budget request, to more than 50% of its 2002 funding level.
    6. $1,000,000 to the American Water Works Association as a 
one-time grant to assist AWWA in its drinking water security 
training activities.
    7. $500,000 for the University of South Alabama, Center for 
Estuarine Research.
    8. $500,000 for the city of San Bernardino, California/San 
Bernardino Valley Metropolitan Water District for the Lakes and 
Streams project.
    9. $750,000 to the University of California, Riverside for 
continued research of advanced vehicle design, advanced 
transportation systems, vehicle emissions, and atmospheric 
pollution at the CE-CERT facility.
    10. $500,000 to the Monterey County, California Water 
Resources Association for planning activities for the Salinas 
Valley Water Project.
    11. $2,000,000 for the International Center for Water 
Technology at California State University, Fresno.
    12. $1,000,000 for the Central California Air Quality Study 
conducted by the Central California Air Quality Coalition.
    13. $800,000 to Barry University for minority science 
training.
    14. $1,000,000 to the University of Miami in Florida for 
the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science for 
continued research into coral reefs.
    15. $300,000 to Florida International University to utilize 
non-destructive techniques to characterize and develop 
contamination strategies.
    16. $250,000 for ongoing research and development of 
multipurpose sensors for detecting and analyzing environmental 
contaminants at Boise State University, the University of Idaho 
and the University of Utah.
    17. $500,000 to the Illinois Waste Management and Research 
Center through the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign 
for implementation of a program to increase the adoption of 
innovative pollution prevention technologies by businesses.
    18. $200,000 for the Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium.
    19. $500,000 for the National Center for Manufacturing 
Sciences in Ann Arbor, Michigan for assisting EPA in meeting 
the Strategic Goals Program in the metal finishing sector.
    20. $500,000 for the Michigan Biotechnology Institute for 
development and demonstration of environmental cleanup 
technologies.
    21. $500,000 for the Great Lakes Hydrological Center of 
Excellence at Western Michigan University.
    22. $200,000 to Montana State University Bozeman to develop 
a Water Center Drinking Water Assistance Program for Small 
Systems.
    23. $250,000 to the Desert Research Institute for Clean 
Water Research of the Western Great Basin Rivers.
    24. $7,650,000 for the Environmental Systems Center of 
Excellence at Syracuse University for research and technology 
transfer in the fields of indoor environmental quality and 
urban ecosystems sustainability.
    25. $200,000 to the State University of New York, College 
of Environmental Sciences and Forestry for research and 
outreach at the Roosevelt Sustainability Center.
    26. $500,000 to the Syracuse Research Corporation in 
Syracuse, New York, a not for profit corporation, for the 
continuation of environmental research at its Probability Risk 
Assessment Center.
    27. $1,000,000 for the Integrated Petroleum Environmental 
Consortium.
    28. $500,000 for the University of South Carolina for a 
geologic study for uranium groundwater contamination.
    29. $2,000,000 for the Mickey Leland National Urban Air 
Toxics Research Center.
    30. $500,000 for the Texas Institute for Applied 
Environmental Research at Tarleton State University.
    31. $500,000 for the Texas Institute for Environmental 
Assessment and Management at the University of North Texas, 
Denton, Texas.
    32. $970,000 for the Canaan Valley Institute in close 
coordination with the Regional Vulnerability and Assessment 
(ReVA) initiative to develop research and educational tools 
using integrative technologies to predict future environmental 
risks and support informed, proactive decision-making to be 
undertaken in conjunction with the Highlands action program.
    33. $500,000 for Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Dauphin Island, 
Alabama, for coastal ecosystem research.
    In addition to the funds provided through appropriations 
directly to this account, the Committee has recommended that 
$86,168,000 be transferred to ``Science and Technology'' from 
the ``Hazardous Substance Superfund'' account for ongoing 
research activities consistent with the intent of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980, as amended.
    In order to increase the flexibility of the Office of 
Research and Development in the hiring of necessary and 
appropriate personnel, the Committee has included bill language 
which will give EPA the ability to contract for the temporary 
or intermittent services of students or recent graduates. 
Identical language was used in Public Law 106-113 to provide 
such authority to the United States Geological Survey.
    The Committee continues to support the partnership between 
the EPA and the National Technology Transfer Center and directs 
that the Agency continue the cooperative agreement at the 
fiscal year 2001 funding level.
    The Committee is concerned with the progress of completing 
IRIS assessments in a timely manner. The Agency is strongly 
urged to provide adequate resources to the IRIS program. The 
Agency is also expected to consolidate all IRIS resources to be 
centrally managed by the Office of Research and Development to 
accelerate both the development of IRIS values as well as 
update current ones.
    The Committee has long been aware of the environmental 
concerns in and around the Coeur d'Alene River Basin in 
northern Idaho resulting from over a century of hard rock 
mining and decades of ore smelting. This region at one time 
produced nearly 50% of the nation's silver and about 30% each 
of the nation's lead and zinc. However, smelting operations 
ceased in the early 1980's and, since 1983, a 21 square-mile 
area surrounding the Bunker Hill mining and smelting complex 
has been on EPA's Superfund National Priority List (NPL). The 
second largest Superfund site on the NPL, this area has been 
undergoing remediation activities throughout the 1990's. In 
1997, EPA expanded its investigations beyond the Bunker Hill 
site and, in October 2001, proposed a 20 to 30 year remediation 
program on an area that would grow from 21 square miles to 
approximately 1500 square miles. Predictably, this plan to 
exponentially expand the mandated remediation area has resulted 
in severe criticism and has brought to question the scientific 
and technical merits of EPA's assessments and decision making 
process.
    Because of the unique nature of EPA's proposal, the 
Committee believes it is particularly important to have the 
benefit of an independent, scientific review of the decision. 
Accordingly, $850,000 is made available from within available 
funds for the Agency to contract with the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) so that the NAS can independently evaluate the 
Coeur d'Alene Basin Superfund site in its examination of EPA's 
scientific and technical practices in Superfund site 
definition, human and ecological assessment, remedial planning, 
and decision making. NAS is further expected to assess the 
adequacy and application of EPA's own Superfund guidance in 
terms of currently available scientific and technical knowledge 
and best practices, as well as to provide guidance to 
facilitate scientifically based and timely decision making for 
the Coeur d'Alene site. While the NAS report may discuss 
various remedial options, the Committee does not expect the NAS 
to recommend a specific remedial strategy for this site.
    The Agency is directed to execute a contract with the NAS 
for this study within 120 days of approval of this legislation, 
and the NAS is expected to complete the study within 24 months 
of the contract date. In directing this study, it is not the 
intent of the Committee that ongoing and planned remediation 
activities with the original 21 square mile NPL site be 
disrupted or adversely impacted in any way.
    The Committee is impressed by very recent technological 
breakthroughs in the delivery of ultra-high intensity pulsed 
ultraviolet (PUV) light that may present advances in 
environmentally safe disinfection of water and wastewater as 
well as protections and methods for defeating air- and water-
borne biological and chemical attacks. The Committee 
understands that newly commercialized PUV machines deliver 
light at very high energy levels utilizing advanced technology 
that eliminates environmental compromises involving the use of 
toxic chemicals and/or mercury-based lamps. The Committee 
believes that such technology could present a significant 
advancement in the areas of water treatment and security, and 
requests that the Agency prepare and make available to the 
Committee within 120 days of passage of the bill a report which 
details the potential impact of such new PUV technology on 
process safety, plant safety and security, and potential 
defense of biological terrorism in public water and wastewater 
treatment applications as well as public and private buildings.
    The Committee continues to support the Gulf Coast Hazardous 
Research Center and directs that the Agency continue funding 
for the Center at no less than the fiscal year 2002 level.

                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    $2,111,677,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     2,054,511,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     2,047,704,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +57,166,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......       +63,973,000

    The Environmental Programs and Management account 
encompasses a broad range of abatement, prevention, and 
compliance activities, and personnel compensation, benefits, 
travel, and expenses for all programs of the Agency except 
Science and Technology, Hazardous Substance Superfund, Leaking 
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, Oil Spill Response, and 
the Office of Inspector General.
    Abatement, prevention, and compliance activities include 
setting environmental standards, issuing permits, monitoring 
emissions and ambient conditions and providing technical and 
legal assistance toward enforcement, compliance, and oversight. 
In most cases, the states are directly responsible for actual 
operation of the various environmental programs. In this 
regard, the Agency's activities include oversight and 
assistance in the facilitation of the environmental statutes.
    In addition to program costs, this account funds 
administrative costs associated with the operating programs of 
the Agency, including support for executive direction, policy 
oversight, resources management, general office and building 
services for program operations, and direct implementation of 
all Agency environmental programs--except those previously 
mentioned--for Headquarters, the ten EPA Regional offices, and 
all non-research field operations.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has recommended 
$2,111,677,000 for Environmental Programs and Management, an 
increase of $63,973,000 above the budget request and an 
increase of $57,166,000 above the fiscal year 2002 funding 
level. For this account only, the Agency may transfer funds of 
not more than $500,000 between programs and activities without 
prior notice to the Committee, and of not more than $1,000,000 
without prior approval of the Committee. But for this 
difference, all other reprogramming procedures as outlined 
earlier shall apply.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following 
changes to the funding levels included in the budget 
submission:
          1. $21,000,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Program, an 
        increase of $349,000 above the budget request;
          2. $15,500,000 for the Great Lakes National Program 
        Office, an increase of $372,000 above the request;
          3. $23,521,000 for the National Estuary Program, an 
        increase of $4,275,000 above the budget request;
          4. $5,500,000 for the Gulf of Mexico program, an 
        increase of $1,173,000 above the budget request;
          5. $2,000,000 for the Long Island Sound Program 
        Office, an increase of $1,523,000 above the budget 
        request;
          6. $5,000,000 for Environmental Justice programs, an 
        increase of $921,000 above the budget request;
          7. $177,183,000 for the Compliance Assistance, 
        Compliance Monitoring, and Civil Enforcement programs 
        within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
        Assurance, an increase of $10,407,000 above the budget 
        request;
          8. $10,000,000 for Capacity Building, an increase of 
        $489,000 above the fiscal year 2002 funding level;
          9. $13,057,000 for Information Integration, an 
        increase of $7,273,000 above last year's level;
          10. $42,000,000 for Legal Services, an increase of 
        $216,000 above the fiscal 2002 level;
          11. $102,291,000 for Management Services and 
        Stewardship, an increase of $5,956,000 above last 
        year's funding level;
          12. $41,000,000 for Planning and Resource Management, 
        an increase of $2,440,000 above the fiscal year 2002 
        funding level;
          13. $14,750,000 for the TRI/Right-to-Know program, 
        and increase of $549,000 above last year;
          14. $27,200,000 for the EPM account's portion of the 
        Brownfields program, an increase of $24,381,000 above 
        the level provided in fiscal year 2002.
    The Committee's recommended appropriation also includes the 
following increases to the budget request:
          1. $18,000,000 for rural water technical assistance 
        activities and groundwater protection with distribution 
        as follows: $10,000,000 for the NRWA; $4,000,000 for 
        RCAP, to be divided equally between assistance for 
        water programs and assistance for wastewater programs; 
        $1,000,000 for GWPC; $2,000,000 for Small Flows 
        Clearinghouse; and $1,000,000 for the NETC.
          2. $1,000,000 for implementation of the National 
        Biosolids Partnership Program.
          3. $2,000,000 for source water protection programs.
          4. $5,000,000 for a cost-shared grant program to 
        school districts for necessary upgrades of their diesel 
        bus fleets.
          5. $3,000,000 to the NRWA to assist small water 
        systems to conduct vulnerability assessments as 
        required in title IV of the Public Health Security and 
        Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act of 2002.
          6. $3,000,000 for EPA's National Computing Center to 
        provide for the remote mirroring of all critical 
        information and related systems to achieve a 
        Continuance of Operations (COOP)/Disaster Recovery 
        capability.
          7. $6,000,000 for grants to interested States to 
        establish a long-term ambient monitoring and assessment 
        framework at relevant geographic scales to support all 
        water quality management objectives.
          8. $250,000 to the University of Arkansas to develop 
        bio-engineering solutions to provide state of the art 
        watershed management tools.
          9. $500,000 for the San Joaquin River Resource 
        Management Coalition of California.
          10. $100,000 to the Tuolumne Utility District in 
        California for the canal optimization study.
          11. $250,000 to establish a Santa Ana River Watershed 
        Research and Training Program at the Water Resources 
        Institute of California State University, San 
        Bernardino.
          12. $250,000 for the San Bernardino Valley Municipal 
        Water District for research and design (cost evaluation 
        and environmental studies) of a mitigation project 
        addressing the city's contaminated high groundwater 
        table and dangers presented by liquefaction.
          13. $300,000 for the Sacramento River Toxic Pollutant 
        Control Program and Sacramento River Watershed Program.
          14. $250,000 to Edward Waters College of 
        Jacksonville, Florida for research education and 
        training with regard to community environmental 
        conditions.
          15. $1,500,000 for enhanced environmental education, 
        research and training programs at Florida Gulf Coast 
        University's Institute for Coastal and Watershed 
        Studies.
          16. $300,000 to Miami-Dade County, Florida for lead 
        screening, testing, outreach, and education in the 
        Liberty City Neighborhood.
          17. $300,000 to Miami-Dade County, Florida to expand 
        the existing environmental education program.
          18. $500,000 to the Georgia Environmental Training 
        and Education Authority for a lagoon waste management 
        demonstration project.
          19. $1,000,000 to the Columbus Water Works, Columbus, 
        Georgia for an Advanced Biosolids Flow-Through 
        Thermophilic Treatment Process demonstration project.
          20. $200,000 to Cerro Gordo County, Iowa for 
        environmental planning related to the Ventura Marsh 
        initiative and overall water quality assessment in 
        connection with the Clear Lake, Iowa Restoration 
        Project.
          21. $300,000 to the Friends of the Teton River, Inc. 
        for the Upper Teton Watershed project.
          22. $750,000 to the Illinois Environmental Protection 
        Agency for the Fox River Watershed Management Program.
          23. $500,000 to Purdue University in Indiana for the 
        Contaminant Remediation Optimization Program (CROP).
          24. $200,000 for the Equus Beds Water Quality 
        Protection program in Wichita, Kansas.
          25. $100,000 for the Metropolitan Area Planning 
        Council for a Comprehensive Water Resources Strategy 
        for the I-495 Corridor of Massachusetts.
          26. $300,000 to Caroline County, Maryland for the 
        initial design and engineering of a regional plan for 
        wastewater needs.
          27. $175,000 for the Hypoxia Education and 
        Stewardship Project in Kansas City, Missouri.
          28. $250,000 for continuation of the Mecklenburg 
        County, North Carolina Surface Water Improvement 
        Management Initiative.
          29. $850,000 for continued activities of the North 
        Carolina Central University research initiative.
          30. $250,000 for Wake County, North Carolina for 
        planning, environmental analysis and design of a 
        watershed management plan.
          31. $250,000 to Rowan University in Glassboro, New 
        Jersey for the Environmental Community Revitalization 
        and Research Initiative.
          32. $1,000,000 to continue the sediment 
        decontamination technology demonstration in the New 
        York-New Jersey Harbor.
          33. $500,000 to the Tompkins County, New York Soil 
        and Water Conservation District for the Cayuga Lake 
        Watershed Protection Project.
          34. $500,000 for the Alfred University Center for 
        Environmental and Energy Research.
          35. $150,000 to the Town of North Salem, New York for 
        the Peach Lake pollution study.
          36. $750,000 to Columbia University in New York City, 
        New York for education, training and equipment related 
        to ongoing biomedical research on environmentally 
        induced cancers and immunological responses, at the 
        Audubon Biomedical Science and Technology Park.
          37. $1,000,000 for the Water Systems Council 
        WellcareTM Program.
          38. $250,000 to the Rochester Institute of Technology 
        (RIT) for the National Materials Recovery and Recycling 
        Center of Excellence.
          39. $1,500,000 for continued work on water management 
        plans for the Central New York watersheds in Onondaga 
        and Cayuga counties.
          40. $750,000 to Cortland County, New York for 
        continued work on the aquifer protection plan, of which 
        $150,000 is for continued implementation of the 
        comprehensive water quality management program in the 
        Upper Susquehanna Watershed.
          41. $100,000 for a Water Consortium Feasibility Study 
        in Oklahoma with Washington County Water District #3, 
        Rogers County Rural Water District #3, the City of 
        Collinsville, and the City of Owasso.
          42. $500,000 to Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma, Inc., 
        a non-profit organization, for demonstration projects 
        which include research, education and training 
        activities related to the development of 
        environmentally beneficial vermicomposting processes.
          43. $500,000 for the City of Philadelphia, 
        Pennsylvania's Department of Health in consultation 
        with the Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth 
        for lead screening, testing, outreach, and education 
        throughout the City.
          44. $2,000,000 to the Neighborhood Environmental 
        Action Team of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (N.E.A.T. 
        Philadelphia), in support of N.E.A.T.'s comprehensive 
        neighborhood based, environmental education and 
        awareness project in the West Philadelphia 
        neighborhood.
          45. $500,000 for the Texas Agricultural Experiment 
        Station in Tarrant County, Texas for research of water 
        supplies and development of an integrated watershed 
        protection plan.
          46. $350,000 to the Brazos River Authority of College 
        Station, Texas for the Brazos/Navasota Watershed 
        Management Project.
          47. $500,000 to the Southwest Clean Air Agency for 
        the Columbia River Gorge Phase I Technical Foundation 
        Study.
          48. $200,000 to the Tri-State Water Council for the 
        Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Tri-State Water Quality Study.
          49. $1,630,000 for on-going activities at the Canaan 
        Valley Institute, including activities relating to 
        community sustainability.
          50. $1,700,000 for the Canaan Valley Institute to 
        continue to develop a regional sustainability support 
        center and coordinated information system in the Mid-
        Atlantic Highlands.
          51. $900,000 to the Polymer Alliance Zone's MARCEE 
        initiative.
          52. $300,000 to the West Virginia High Technology 
        Consortium Foundation, Inc. (WVHTCF) for research to 
        demonstrate the capture and utilization of CO2 and CH4 
        at the Meadowfill Landfill near Bridgeport, West 
        Virginia.
          53. $450,000 to the Fayette County Commission of West 
        Virginia for a wastewater treatment engineering study 
        to address water quality concerns in the New River 
        Gorge National River.
    The Committee has recommended no general reduction for this 
account.
    The Committee has, within available funds, provided 
$2,000,000 for the eight Environmental Finance Centers, the 
same as for fiscal year 2002. Also from within available funds, 
the Agency is provided $350,000 for the maintenance and 
updating of the Cumulative and Aggregate Risk Evaluation System 
(CARES) software program, and $250,000 to continue development 
of BASINS models, GIS mapping, integration with other financial 
and planning tools, and incorporation of cost-effectiveness 
considerations into integrated priority ranking systems.
    Again this year, the Agency is directed to provide no less 
than the budget request levels for Pesticide Registration and 
Re-registration programs and, from within available funds, no 
less than last year's level of $9,160,000 for the Environmental 
Education programs. The Agency is directed to distribute funds 
under the Environmental Education program proportionally in a 
manner consistent with the provisions of the National 
Environmental Education Act.
    Bill language has been included under Administrative 
Provisions which authorizes for one year the collection by EPA 
of $20,000,000 in maintenance fees. The Committee expects that, 
in the absence of a new tolerance fee, funds requested in the 
budget submission to support FTEs in the re-registration 
program may be used to support tolerance reassessment 
activities. Bill language is also once again included under 
Administrative Provisions prohibiting the use of funds to 
promulgate a final regulation to implement changes in the 
payment of pesticide tolerance processing fees as proposed at 
64 Federal Register 31040, or any similar proposal; and 
prohibiting the collection of pesticide registration fees if a 
new maintenance fee has gone into effect.
    Bill language has also been included which directs the 
Administrator to certify two grant amendments regarding the 
Landis Sewerage Authority in Vineland, New Jersey. The 
Committee notes that this action is of a technical nature and 
is required only because the State of New Jersey can no longer 
certify a grant amendment as required under the former EPA 
construction grant program.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has provided 
$177,183,000 for the Compliance Assistance, Compliance 
Monitoring, and Civil Enforcement programs under the Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, an increase of 
$10,407,000 over the budget request and an increase of 
$5,785,000 over the fiscal 2002 funding level for those 
programs. In making this recommendation, the Committee has 
provided sufficient funds to retain the 88 FTEs associated with 
these three programs which have been proposed for reduction in 
the fiscal 2003 budget submission. The Committee expects to be 
kept informed on a regular basis as to the Agency's activities 
and progress toward maintaining an OECA workforce at the levels 
provided herein.
    In addition to funds provided to the NRWA, RCAP, the GWPC, 
NETC, and the Small Flows Clearinghouse, the Committee has 
again provided $2,000,000 for source water protection programs. 
The Committee intends that these funds be used to develop local 
source water protection programs within each state utilizing 
the infrastructure and process of an organization now engaged 
in groundwater and wellhead protection programs.
    With regard to Brownfields, the Committee has 
enthusiastically supported the budget request of slightly more 
than $170,000,000 for various programs under the State and 
Tribal Assistance Grant account. In addition, $27,200,000 has 
been provided in this account for, among other things, the 
hiring of up to 40 additional FTEs necessary to operate this 
enhanced program. The total FTE level thus supported through 
the EPM account should thus not exceed 127.
    The Committee has recommended $5,000,000 to begin a new 
program to provide grants to local school districts to reduce 
emissions from their buses. Specifically, the Committee intends 
that these grants are to be used in part for diesel particulate 
filters, oxidation catalysts, and other similar retrofit 
technologies that can maximize the removal of the particulate 
matter and hydrocarbons emissions from school buses. Such 
grants to school districts should be awarded first based on the 
age and condition of a district's current bus fleet, then to 
those areas where large numbers of children ride the bus or 
where children ride the bus for extended periods, and to those 
areas where predominantly economically-disadvantaged children 
live and ride the bus. It is the Committee's intent that in 
developing this new program the Agency should require, where 
appropriate, a modest cost-share commitment on the part of the 
recipient school district.
    In a further effort to assist the States in assessing the 
health of watersheds and to develop plans to address concerns 
in this regard, the Committee has provided $6,000,000 for 
grants to States to establish a long-term ambient monitoring 
and assessment framework at relative geographic scales to 
support all water quality management objectives. It is the 
Committee's intent that this framework should include a plan 
for assessing biological, physical and chemical conditions and 
should be aimed at all waters of a state, not just a subset. 
Additionally, the framework should indicate how each 
participating State plans to link watershed-based ambient 
monitoring with traditional compliance or source monitoring, 
and should also outline how the state will incorporate data 
readily available and of sufficient quality from private and 
public sources. The Committee expects that the Agency may 
reserve up to five percent from the total appropriation to 
administer the program and enable it to provide technical 
assistance to States in developing and implementing multi-year 
ambient monitoring and assessment frameworks.
    Earlier in the year, the Agency was asked to undertake an 
agreement with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review 
the current draft dioxin reassessment. Since that time, another 
NAS committee assessing the impact of dioxin on the food supply 
has delved into the scientific methods used by the Agency. In 
addition, the EPA has determined to send the draft dioxin 
reassessment to an Interagency Working Group on Dioxin (IWG). 
The Committee understands that the IWG includes representatives 
from the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, the Centers for Disease Control, the White House 
Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of 
Management and Budget, as well as other government agencies. 
The Committee further understands, that the IWG review will 
address many of the toxicological questions that have been 
raised concerning the dioxin reassessment, including, but not 
limited to, the scientific evidence used to classify the 
carcinogenicity of dioxin to humans, the Agency's use of a 
linear dose-response model to estimate cancer risk levels, the 
scientific support for the use of the Toxic Equivalency Factors 
for dioxins, and the use of body burden as the appropriate dose 
metric.
    The Committee acknowledges that the issues addressed by the 
Agency's risk assessment for dioxin are highly complex. There 
are significant limitations in the current knowledge and 
understanding of dioxin's mechanism of action, and these data 
gaps affect the Agency's ability to characterize the risks that 
result from exposure to dioxins. While some at the SAB and 
elsewhere have suggested that additional research may not 
bridge many of these important data gaps, the EPA Science 
Advisory Board has also emphasized the need for the Agency to 
develop improved risk assessment procedures to better 
characterize the range of exposures and exposure-response 
relationships.
    The Committee's interest and concerns regarding this 
important issue are longstanding, and the frustrations 
surrounding the lack of progress on the part of EPA and others 
are shared by many. The Agency and the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy are thus expected to move swiftly with the 
other participants of the IWG to review the draft dioxin 
reassessment and make appropriate recommendations as to how 
this matter should proceed. Should such review not move forward 
in a progressive manner, the Committee believes that further 
action on its part may be necessary.
    The Committee has provided $900,000 to the Polymer Alliance 
Zone's MARCEE Initiative with oversight intended to be provided 
by the Office of Solid Waste. Recycling and remediating e-waste 
has become an issue of national urgency. The Committee 
recognizes the Polymer Alliance Zone's (PAZ) important 
contributions to developing national recycling and reuse 
solutions for this growing waste stream, including development 
of: 1) electronics demanufacturing business simulation 
modeling, 2) national supply chain logistics planning, 3) 
comprehensive recycling e-commerce platform (Green Online), 4) 
economics modeling for recovery of e-waste and plastics 
separation, and 5) alliance with the European Union's Virtual 
Environmental Recycling Center (VERC) to create a global best 
practices template for e-waste recovery. The Committee supports 
PAZ's continued efforts to forge relationships with the leading 
private sector, public sector, and non-governmental 
stakeholders to help build a national consensus for efficient 
and environmentally preferable recovery of e-waste.
    The Committee recognizes the potential of the new ambient 
temperature glass technology to reduce airborne and waterborne 
chemicals released into the environment, as well as the 
potential health benefits for indoor air quality and 
cleanliness in homes, institutions, and hospitals. The Air 
Quality Planning and Standards Office of the EPA has been 
provided $200,000 from within available funds to set standards 
and to increase public and government awareness of the benefits 
for this technology.
    The Committee expects EPA to establish and implement a 
Highlands Action Program (HAP) in partnership with Canaan 
Valley Institute (CVI) to take action on the problems 
identified in the follow-up Mid-Atlantic Highlands report that 
Congress directed the EPA to prepare in the Fiscal Year 2002 
House and Conference Reports. The HAP should, among other 
things, use environmental indicators, strong science, and 
partnerships to identify the causes of those problems; develop 
solutions and management actions to resolve the identified 
problems; and develop a management plan that includes states, 
non-governmental organizations, local communities and the 
private sector. The Agency is expected to periodically assess 
the status of the HAP and report back to Congress on the 
findings and the successes of the program.
    The Committee is fully supportive of the children's health 
research centers program jointly funded by the EPA and the 
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at NIH and 
looks forward to continuation of this constructive partnership.
    The Committee is pleased to note that in response to 
Congressional direction in the 2002 Committee report, EPA plans 
to send the current version of the Multi-Media, Multi-Pathway, 
Multi-Receptor, Risk Assessment (3MRA) model and sample results 
from the model to the Science Advisory Board (SAB) for its 
review. The Committee again strongly encourages the Agency to 
spend no resources to use the 3MRA risk model or any portion of 
the model, for any regulatory or other similar purposes until 
recommendations of the Science Advisory Board are incorporated 
into the model.
    The Committee is concerned with regulations proposed by EPA 
that will allocate companies' HCFC production and consumption 
allowances based on their historic production of HCFCs. It is 
the Committee's understanding that the proposed rules would 
permit production allowances to be transferred to foreign 
countries. A former U.S. manufacturer could use its production 
and consumption allowances to produce HCFCs in a foreign 
country and then import HCFCs into the United States. The 
unintended result of the proposed rules would be to encourage 
the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas. The Committee strongly 
urges EPA to ensure that the proposed regulations do not 
allocate allowances to companies that have stopped producing 
HCFCs in this country prior to January 1, 2003. The Agency is 
further encouraged to not promulgate an arbitrary allocation 
system that promotes market distortion and the movement of jobs 
outside of the United States.
    The Committee expects EPA to continue to work with the 
Maritime Administration to implement a pilot program to export 
obsolete vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet of the 
Maritime Administration. This program should ensure the 
expeditious implementation of a pilot program for export and 
disposal of obsolete vessels during fiscal year 2003.
    The Committee is aware that through a recently issued 
document the Agency has given guidance on the CERCLA/EPCRA 
definition of federally permitted releases. In it, EPA 
clarifies certain issues relating to air releases and states 
that it supports, and is apparently willing to move forward 
with, in accordance with law, an administrative exemption from 
CERCLA and EPCRA reporting for specific NO and NO2 releases. 
The Committee strongly urges the Agency to utilize appropriate, 
available funding resources to move expeditiously to complete 
this process.
    The Committee is aware of the recent decision by the Board 
of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) in 
Orange County, California to move as expeditiously as 
practicable to full secondary treatment and to withdraw from 
the Clean Water Act Sec. 301(h) waiver program. The Committee 
is also aware that the Clean Water Act has no provision for 
such an eventuality. Therefore, the Committee strongly urges 
the Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California 
to work with OCSD to protect OCSD from lawsuits and 
administrative penalties while it pursues the difficult 
challenge of achieving the secondary treatment standard under 
the terms and conditions of the Clean Water Act and the 
compliance schedule in the applicable NPDES permit issued by 
EPA and the State.
    The Committee notes that a fundamental goal of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act is the recovery and conservation 
of energy and materials that would otherwise be discarded. 
Nonetheless, industrial secondary materials largely remain 
untapped resources for such recovery. The Committee is aware of 
EPA's initiative to identify opportunities to further the goal 
of resource conservation and recovery while remaining true to 
the mission of ensuring safe and protective waste management 
practices. The Committee supports the initiative and encourages 
the use of Agency funding and staff resources to implement the 
necessary policy changes to further this important statutory 
goal.
    The Committee is aware of the urgent need for certainty 
with respect to regulations governing the underground injection 
of treated waste-water in south Florida and Miami-Dade County 
and thus strongly urges the Agency to issue, no later than 
March 1, 2003, a final rule for the revision of the federal 
underground injection control requirements for class 1 
municipal wells in Florida that conforms to section 1421(d)(2) 
of the Public Health Service Act as amended by the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)(2)).
    The Committee urges EPA to cooperate with the manufactured 
housing industry, including the Manufactured Housing Research 
Alliance (MHRA), to facilitate industry participation and 
research planning for the Energy Star Labeled Homes Program.
    The Committee directs the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to report to the Congress, not 
later than 180 days after the date of enactment, on the pending 
radon in drinking water regulaions. In developing such report, 
the Administrator shall (1) consult with the State drinking 
water, air, and radiation programs; and (2) evaluate options to 
implement a single drinking water standard for radon.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation \1\...................       $35,325,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        34,019,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        35,325,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        +1,306,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

\1\ Total does not include transfer of $12,742,000 from the Hazardous
  Substance Superfund account.

    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. This account funds personnel compensation and 
benefits, travel, and expenses (excluding rent, utilities, and 
security costs) for the Office of Inspector General. The 
appropriation for the OIG is funded from two separate accounts: 
Office of Inspector General and Hazardous Substance Superfund.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends a total 
appropriation of $48,067,000 for the Office of Inspector 
General, an increase of $2,181,000 above last year's funding 
level and the same as the budget request. Of the amount 
provided, $12,742,000 shall be derived by transfer from the 
Hazardous Substance Superfund account.
    Bill language has been included which directs the Inspector 
General to prepare and submit to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House and the Senate an audit management 
plan and the personnel requirements which will enhance the 
expertise and maximize the efficiencies of the Office.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $42,918,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        25,318,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        42,918,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +17,600,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    This appropriation 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. The funds are to be used to correct unsafe conditions, 
protect health and safety of employees and Agency visitors, and 
prevent deterioration of structures and equipment.
    The Committee is recommending $42,918,000, the budget 
request, for Buildings and Facilities. This funding level 
represents an increase of $17,600,000 above the fiscal year 
2002 funding level. This recommendation provides for necessary 
maintenance and repair and improvement costs at Agency 
facilities and the ongoing renovation of EPA's new 
headquarters.

                     HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    $1,422,888,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     1,270,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,272,888,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........      +152,888,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......      +150,000,000

    The Hazardous Substance Superfund (Superfund) program was 
established in 1980 by the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act to clean up emergency 
hazardous materials, spills, and dangerous, uncontrolled, and/
or abandoned hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Amendments 
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) expanded the program 
substantially in 1986, authorizing approximately $8,500,000,000 
in revenues over five years. In 1990, the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act extended the program's authorization through 
1994 for $5,100,000,000 with taxing authority through calendar 
year 1995.
    The Superfund program is operated by EPA subject to annual 
appropriations from a dedicated trust fund and from general 
revenues. Enforcement activities are used to identify and 
induce parties responsible for hazardous waste problems to 
undertake clean-up actions and pay for EPA oversight of those 
actions. In addition, responsible parties have been required to 
cover the cost of fund-financed removal and remedial actions 
undertaken at spills and waste sites by Federal and State 
agencies. Through transfers to the Office of Inspector General 
(OIG) and Science and Technology accounts, the OIG and the 
Office of Research and Development also receive funding from 
this account. 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.
    For fiscal year 2003, $1,422,888,000 has been recommended 
by the Committee, an increase of $150,000,000 above the budget 
request and an increase of $152,888,000 above last year's 
funding level. Bill language is included which provides 
$711,444,000 of the appropriated amount from the Superfund 
Trust Fund and an identical amount from general revenues of the 
treasury.
    Bill language has been included which transfers $12,742,000 
from this account to the Office of Inspector General and 
$86,168,000 to the Science and Technology account. The 
Committee expects EPA to prioritize resources to the actual 
cleanup of sites on the National Priority List and, to the 
greatest extent possible, limit resources directed to 
administration, oversight, support, studies, design, 
investigations, monitoring, assessment, and evaluation.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following 
program level:
    $1,006,952,000 for Superfund remedial, removal and other 
response/cleanup activities.
    $143,600,000 for enforcement activities.
    $134,600,000 for management and support.
    $12,742,000 to be transferred to the Office of Inspector 
General. Bill language is included which provides for this 
transfer.
    $86,168,000 to be transferred to Science and Technology for 
research and development activities. Bill language is included 
which provides for this transfer.
    $28,150,000 for the Department of Justice.
    $10,676,000 for other necessary, reimbursable interagency 
activities, including reimbursements to the Department of the 
Interior, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration, and the United States Coast Guard.
    In providing over $1,000,000,000 for Superfund response 
actions, the Committee recognizes the importance of cleaning up 
Superfund hazardous waste sites. In this regard, EPA is 
encouraged to expedite cleanup efforts, especially those 
underway. In addition, the Committee encourages EPA to focus 
particular attention to remediate sites in the states with the 
largest number of Superfund sites.
    The Committee supports the national pilot worker training 
program which recruits and trains young persons who live near 
hazardous waste sites or in the communities at risk of exposure 
to contaminated properties for work in the environmental field. 
The Committee directs EPA to continue funding this effort in 
cooperation and collaboration with NIEHS. The research 
activities of NIEHS can compliment the training and operational 
activities of EPA in carrying out this program.
    For several years, the Committee expressed its concern that 
any reversal of the long-standing policy of the EPA to defer to 
the NRC for cleanup of NRC licensed sites was not a good use of 
public or private funds. The interaction of the EPA with the 
NRC, NRC licensees, and others with regard to sites being 
remediated under NRC regulatory requirements--when not 
specifically requested by the NRC--threatened to create 
legitimate stakeholder concerns regarding the authority and 
finality of NRC licensing decisions, the duration and costs of 
site cleanup, and the potential future liability of parties 
associated with affected sites. The Committee of course 
recognized that there may exist circumstances at specific NRC 
licensed sites where the EPA's expertise may be of critical use 
to the NRC. In the interest of ensuring that sites do not face 
dual regulations, the Committee had each of the past few years 
directed both agencies to enter into a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) which clarifies the circumstances for EPA's 
involvement at NRC sites when requested by the NRC.
    The Committee is aware that the two parties have completed 
an MOU and it is expected to be signed. While this is certainly 
a step in the right direction, the Committee is also aware that 
the proposed MOU does not completely address the intent of the 
Committee because the threat of dual regulation will remain for 
certain NRC licensees. The Committee's direction was for the 
two agencies to enter into an MOU which would clarify the 
circumstances for EPA's involvement at NRC sites ``when 
requested by the NRC.'' This direction was not followed.
    The Agency is, therefore, directed to enter into an amended 
Memorandum of Understanding which completely addresses the 
previous direction of the Committee. In addition, the Agency is 
directed to provide a report to the Committee no later than the 
28th day of each month following approval of this legislation 
detailing the progress that has been made in following this 
explicit direction of the Committee.
    The Committee notes that the proper selection, design, 
implementation, enforcement and use of institutional controls 
are critical to the successful remediation and reuse of 
redeveloped brownfields, CERCLA, and RCRA sites. The Committee 
also recognizes that mechanisms must be implemented to ensure 
that institutional controls are well designed, cost-effective, 
implemented as planned, operated and maintained over time, and 
enforced as needed. The Committee therefore expects the 
Environmental Protection Agency to work closely with state and 
local governments, communities and site owners to develop 
administrative mechanisms that will ensure that institutional 
controls are implemented, maintained, and enforced over time so 
that the public will have confidence that these tools are an 
effective and reliable component of remedial action. The 
Committee also encourages the EPA to fund pilot projects that 
would evaluate the extent to which insurance products, third-
party oversight, and various systems for tracking institutional 
controls may supplement state and local government and 
responsible party roles in future maintenance of site 
institutional controls.

              LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $72,313,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        73,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        72,313,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........          -687,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by 
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, authorized 
the establishment of a response program for clean-up of 
releases from leaking underground storage tanks. Owners and 
operators of facilities with underground tanks must demonstrate 
financial responsibility and bear initial responsibility for 
clean-up. The Federal trust fund is funded through the 
imposition of a motor fuel tax of one-tenth of a cent per 
gallon, which generates approximately $170,000,000 per year. 
Most states also have their own leaking underground storage 
tank programs, including a separate trust fund or other funding 
mechanism, in place.
    The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund provides 
additional clean-up resources and may also be used to enforce 
necessary corrective actions and to recover costs expended from 
the Fund for clean-up activities. The underground storage tank 
response program is designed to operate primarily through 
cooperative agreements with states. However, funds are also 
used for grants to non-state entities including Indian tribes 
under Section 8001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has provided 
$72,313,000, a decrease of $687,000 below last year's 
appropriated level and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee is aware of concerns expressed by several 
states that LUST funds not be used in a disproportionate manner 
for federal projects instead of state projects as anticipated 
by the authorizing statutes. The Committee concurs in this 
position of predominate use in the states and tribes and notes 
that its recommendation will allow for approximately 85% of the 
total appropriation to be used in the states and tribes.

                           OIL SPILL RESPONSE

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $15,581,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        15,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        15,581,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........          +581,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act as 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. In 
addition, 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 clean-up and removal 
activities posing a threat to public health and the 
environment; conducting site inspections; providing for a means 
to achieve cleanup activities by private parties; reviewing 
containment plans at facilities; reviewing area contingency 
plans; and pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed clean-ups; 
and, conducting research of oil clean-up 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.
    The Committee recommends $15,581,000 for fiscal year 2003, 
the same as the budget request and an increase of $581,000 
above the fiscal year 2002 spending level.

                   STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    $3,789,185,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     3,733,276,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     3,463,776,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +55,909,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......      +325,409,000

    The State and Tribal Assistance Grant account provides 
grant funds for programs operated primarily by state, local, 
tribal and other governmental partners. The account provides 
funding for infrastructure projects through the State Revolving 
Funds, geographic specific projects in rural Alaska and Alaska 
Native Villages and on the United States-Mexico Border, and 
other targeted special projects. In addition, the account funds 
Brownfields assessment and revitalization grants as well as 
miscellaneous categorical grant programs.
    The largest portion of the STAG account is the State 
Revolving Funds (SRFs), which provide Federal financial 
assistance to protect the nation's water resources. The Clean 
Water State Revolving Funds are intended to help eliminate 
municipal discharge of untreated or inadequately treated 
pollutants and thereby maintain or help restore this country's 
water to a swimmable and/or fishable quality. This program 
provides resources for municipal, inter-municipal, state, 
interstate agencies, and tribal governments to plan, design, 
and construct wastewater facilities and other projects, 
including non-point source, estuary, stormwater, and sewer 
overflow projects. The Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 
program finances improvements to community water systems so 
that they can achieve compliance with the mandates of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act and continue to protect public health.
    This account also funds various categorical grant programs 
to ensure continued environmental protection nation-wide. Among 
these are non-point source grants under Section 319 of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, Public Water 
System Supervision grants, Section 106 water quality grants, a 
new targeted watershed grant, Clean Air Act Section 105 and 103 
air grants, a program targeted to environmental information, 
Brownfields cleanup grants, and other grants utilized by the 
states, tribes, and others to meet Federal environmental 
statutory and regulatory requirements.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends a total of 
$3,789,185,000, an increase of $55,909,000 above the current 
fiscal year spending level, and $325,409,000 above the level 
proposed in the budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the following 
program level:
          $1,300,000,000 for Clean Water State Revolving Funds;
          $850,000,000 for Safe Drinking Water State Revolving 
        Funds;
          $75,000,000 for high priority U.S./Mexico border 
        projects;
          $35,000,000 for Alaska rural and Native Villages;
          $120,500,000 for Brownfields assessment and 
        revitalization grants;
          $8,225,000 for the National Community Decentralized 
        Wastewater Demonstration program;
          $1,172,882,000 for state and tribal program/
        categorical grants; and
          $227,578,000 for a program targeting grants to 
        communities for the construction of drinking water, 
        wastewater and storm water infrastructure and for water 
        quality protection.
    Bill language has been included which provides specific 
dollar amounts for each of the above listed programs. In 
addition, new bill language has been included which stipulates 
that, consistent with section 603 of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, as amended, $75,000,000 of the 
$1,300,000,000 proposed for the Clean Water SRF program is to 
be made available by the States for interest-free loans that 
increase non-point and non-structural, decentralized 
alternatives, thus expanding the choices available to 
communities in their fight for clean water. Finally, bill 
language has been included which makes a technical 
clarification to grants made for a specific basin stormwater 
retention and reuse project, and which makes a technical 
clarification with respect to a grant made for water 
infrastructure improvements.
    Under the language proposed herein, projects which receive 
awards must have as their primary purpose the protection, 
preservation, or enhancement of water quality. Projects must 
also address sewage or stormwater pollution with one or more 
approaches which include, but are not limited to, decentralized 
or distributed stormwater controls, decentralized wastewater 
treatment, conservation easements, on-site source controls 
(such as green roofs and rain gardens), stream buffers, low-
impact development and urban redevelopment, water conservation 
and reuse, and wetlands restoration.
    From within the Committee's $75,000,000 recommendation for 
the United States-Mexico Border program, the Agency is expected 
to provide $2,000,000 for continuation of the Brownsville, 
Texas area water supply project, and $7,000,000 for 
continuation of the El Paso, Texas area desalination and water 
supply project.
    For the first time since fiscal year 2000, the Committee is 
recommending $8,225,000 for continuation of the National 
Community Decentralized Wastewater Demonstration Project. This 
program, developed initially by the Committee, has shown 
tremendous success in meeting its goal of developing and 
transferring technologies which offer alternatives to 
centralized wastewater treatment facilities. The six projects 
proposed for fiscal 2003 include Lowndes County, Alabama 
($575,000); Upper Patuxent River Watershed, Maryland 
($1,000,000); West Philadelphia and Rodale Institute Farm, 
Pennsylvania ($1,700,000); Upper Rio Grande Valley Colonias, 
Texas ($900,000); Chittenden County, Vermont Integrated Water 
Resource Project ($3,050,000); and Mud River Watershed, Lincoln 
County, West Virginia ($1,000,000). As in previous years, these 
projects were determined by non-governmental, independent 
analysis based upon their unique and diverse geology and 
geography, their ability to provide the greatest technological 
diversity using limited financial resources, and the commitment 
of each community or regional area to find and fund appropriate 
alternative technologies to resolve their wastewater treatment 
needs. The Committee expects the Agency to continue the cost 
share requirements for these six projects as was provided 
previous projects under this program.
    The Committee has provided an increase of $14,606,100 above 
the budget request for state and tribal program assistance/
categorical grants. The Committee's recommendation for each 
categorical grant follows:
          (1) $225,000,000 for air resource assistance to State 
        and local governments under sections 103 and 105 of the 
        Clean Air Act, including $10,000,000 for the five 
        State/Regional Haze planning organizations;
          (2) $11,044,500 for air resource assistance grants to 
        Tribal governments;
          (3) $8,139,900 for radon grants;
          (4) $195,000,000 for water pollution control agency 
        resource supplementation under section 106 of FWPCA;
          (5) $10,000,000 for beach grants to develop and 
        implement monitoring and information programs for 
        coastal recreation waters pursuant to the Beach 
        Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 
        2000;
          (6) $5,000,000 for Homeland Security State Counter-
        terrorism coordinators under PWSS;
          (7) $250,000,000 for section 319 of FWPCA non-point 
        source pollution grants, including programs formerly 
        eligible under the section 314 Clean Lakes program;
          (8) $14,967,000 for wetlands program development 
        grants;
          (9) $18,958,200 for water quality cooperative 
        agreements under section 104(b)(3) of FWPCA;
          (10) $93,100,200 for public water system supervision 
        grants;
          (11) $10,950,900 for underground injection control 
        grants;
          (12) $106,363,600 for RCRA financial assistance 
        grants;
          (13) $50,000,000 for Brownfields categorical cleanup 
        grants;
          (14) $11,918,400 for underground storage tank grants;
          (15) $13,085,500 for pesticides program 
        implementation grants;
          (16) $13,682,000 for lead risk reduction grants;
          (17) $5,138,800 for toxic substances compliance/
        enforcement grants;
          (18) $19,867,800 for pesticides enforcement grants;
          (19) $24,999,900 for the information exchange network 
        program;
          (20) $5,986,300 for pollution prevention incentive 
        grants;
          (21) $2,209,300 for sector and multimedia enforcement 
        and compliance grants;
          (22) $57,469,700 for Indians general assistance 
        grants; and
          (23) $20,000,000 for targeted watershed grants.
    Section 106 pollution control grants have been provided 
$195,000,000 an increase of $14,623,100 above the budget 
request and $2,523,100 above last year's funding level. The 
Committee believes that an adequately funded section 106 
program provides the necessary flexibility for the states to 
address a wide variety of water related problems, and is 
particularly important for the states to meet the long-term 
needs of the TMDL program.
    Section 319 non-point source pollution grants would receive 
$250,000,000, an increase of $11,523,200 above the budget 
request and $12,523,200 above last year's appropriated level.
    The Committee has increased grants to state and local air 
quality agencies under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air 
Act by $3,459,900 over the Administration's request and the 
fiscal 2002 funding level. Of the total funding amount, 
$10,000,000 is for the Regional Haze program.
    The Committee has not recommended funding for EPA's new 
Enforcement Grant program which would have made small grants 
available to States for specific enforcement plans or programs.
    For a targeted program making grants to communities for the 
construction of drinking water, wastewater and storm water 
infrastructure and for water quality protection, the Committee 
has provided $227,578,000. As in past years, these grants shall 
be accompanied by a cost-share requirement whereby 45 percent 
of a project's cost is to be the responsibility of the 
community or entity receiving the grant. In those few cases 
where such cost-share requirement poses a particular burden on 
the recipient community or entity, the Agency retains its long-
standing administrative flexibility to reduce or waive this 
requirement.
    The distribution of funds under this program is as follows:
          1. $200,000 to Attalla, Alabama for sewerage system 
        improvements.
          2. $200,000 to Powell, Alabama for sewerage system 
        improvements.
          3. $100,000 to Lawrence County, Alabama for the 
        Bankhead Forest Water Project.
          4. $100,000 to Phil Campbell, Alabama for water 
        system improvements.
          5. $1,000,000 to Fort Payne, Alabama for sewerage 
        system improvements.
          6. $300,000 to Franklin County, Alabama for water 
        infrastructure improvements.
          7. $200,000 to Douglas, Alabama for sewerage system 
        improvements.
          8. $200,000 to Marion County, Alabama for water 
        system improvements.
          9. $100,000 to the Fayette Water Board, Fayette, 
        Alabama for water security system improvements.
          10. $150,000 to the Cullman County Commission, 
        Alabama for the North Cullman County water systems 
        upgrades.
          11. $250,000 to the City of Calera, Alabama for water 
        and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          12. $250,000 to the City of Alabaster, Alabama for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          13. $1,700,000 to South Alabama Utilities of the town 
        of Citronell, Alabama for water infrastructure 
        improvements in western Mobile County.
          14. $500,000 to the Southwest Alabama Regional Water 
        Authority for water infrastructure improvements.
          15. $750,000 to the City of Huntsville, Alabama for 
        water system improvements.
          16. $750,000 to the City of Moulton, Alabama for 
        wastewater system improvements.
          17. $125,000 to the Town of Woodville, Alabama for 
        wastewater system improvements.
          18. $200,000 to the Limestone County, Alabama Water 
        and Sewer Authority for drinking water improvements.
          19. $200,000 to the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water 
        Authority for drinking water improvements.
          20. $275,000 to the Town of Littleville, Alabama for 
        wastewater system improvements.
          21. $200,000 to the City of Athens, Alabama for 
        wastewater system improvements.
          22. $350,000 to the City of Montgomery, Alabama for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          23. $350,000 to the Coosa Valley Water Authority for 
        water infrastructure improvements in St. Clair County, 
        Alabama.
          24. $500,000 for the Osage Basin Wastewater District, 
        Arkansas for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          25. $250,000 to the Town of Menifee, Arkansas for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          26. $500,000 to the City of Scottsdale, Arizona for 
        the Scottsdale Arsenic Removal pilot project.
          27. $1,000,000 to Huachuca City, Arizona for its 
        effluent recharge project.
          28. $250,000 to the City of Goodyear, Arizona for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
          29. $500,000 to the Litchfield Park Service Company 
        for construction of the Litchfield Park arsenic 
        treatment facility in Arizona.
          30. $750,000 to the Mission Springs Water District in 
        California for groundwater protection and water 
        infrastructure improvements.
          31. $750,000 to the City of Murrieta, California for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          32. $1,000,000 to the City of Newport Beach, 
        California for the Big Canyon Reservoir Cover Project.
          33. $700,000 to the Irvine Ranch Water District of 
        Irvine, California for improvement for the San Diego 
        Creek Watershed Natural Treatment System.
          34. $700,000 to the City of Laguna Beach, California 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          35. $1,900,000 to the Olivenhain Municipal Water 
        District in Encinitas, California for water 
        infrastructure improvements.
          36. $2,000,000 to the Placer Nevada Wastewater 
        Authority for wastewater infrastructure improvements in 
        Placer County, California.
          37. $1,500,000 for water infrastructure improvements 
        for the Cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre, California.
          38. $500,000 to the Metropolitan Water District of 
        Southern California for the Desalination Research and 
        Innovation Partnership.
          39. $600,000 to Ventura County, California for water 
        and wastewater infrastructure improvements related to 
        the completion and implementation of the Calleguas 
        Creek Watershed Management Plan.
          40. $500,000 to the United Water Conservation 
        District for groundwater protection in Ventura County, 
        California.
          41. $250,000 to the County of Ventura, California for 
        wastewater infrastructure needs for El Rio.
          42. $350,000 to the City of El Segundo, California 
        for sanitary sewer overflow infrastructure 
        improvements.
          43. $500,000 to the City of Redding, California for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements for 
        the Redding Stillwater Industrial Park.
          44. $500,000 for stormwater pollution mitigation 
        improvements and infrastructure in Los Angeles County, 
        California.
          45. $275,000 for the City of Oceanside, California 
        for infrastructure improvements to the Mission San Luis 
        Rey Waterline.
          46. $500,000 to the City of Brisbane, California for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          47. $100,000 for the Mojave Water Agency for design 
        and construction of a pipeline and facilities to supply 
        supplemental water to the Mojave River Middle Basin 
        Transition Zone.
          48. $300,000 for the continuation of water 
        infrastructure improvements in Twentynine Palms, 
        California.
          49. $250,000 for the Warren Valley Basin Recharge/
        Reuse project in Yucca Valley, California.
          50. $100,000 for the Lower Owens River Project in 
        Inyo County, California.
          51. $100,000 for the continuation of water 
        infrastructure improvements in the Yucaipa Valley Water 
        District in Yucaipa, California.
          52. $100,000 for the development of a water master 
        plan to serve the water infrastructure needs of the 
        City of Hesperia, California.
          53. $100,000 for planning and design of a sewage 
        treatment and water reclamation facility in Apple 
        Valley, California.
          54. $50,000 for Basin Water to conduct a national 
        demonstration project for Highly Efficient/Minimum 
        Waste Ion Exchange Treatment of Potable Water Supplies.
          55. $1,000,000 to the City of Sacramento, California 
        for combined sewer system improvements.
          56. $250,000 to the City of Compton, California for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
          57. $250,000 to the City of Chino Hills, California 
        for stormwater infrastructure improvements for the 
        intersection of Eucalyptus and Peyton Drive.
          58. $250,000 to the City of Brea, California for 
        wastewater and stormwater infrastructure improvements.
          59. $250,000 to the City of Norwalk, California for 
        drinking water infrastructure construction and 
        improvements for the Norwalk Reservoir Project.
          60. $1,000,000 to the City and County of San 
        Francisco, California for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements for the Hunters Point Naval 
        Shipyard.
          61. $500,000 to the City of Ripon, California for 
        water infrastructure improvements to assist in the 
        removal of arsenic from drinking water.
          62. $350,000 to Madera County, California Resource 
        Management Agency for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements in Oakhurst, California.
          63. $1,000,000 to the City of Huntington Beach, 
        California for stormwater and sanitary sewer 
        infrastructure improvements.
          64. $250,000 to the City of Garden Grove, California 
        for stormwater infrastructure improvements.
          65. $500,000 to the City of Glendale, California 
        working in conjunction with the Utah State University 
        in Logan, Utah, the University of Colorado in Boulder, 
        and UCLA for a research study and pilot treatment plant 
        focused on the removal of chromium 6 from drinking 
        water.
          66. $350,000 to the City of Willits, California for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements and wetlands 
        mitigation.
          67. $250,000 to Sonoma County, California for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements for the Canon 
        Manor community.
          68. $250,000 to Marin County, California wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements for Tomales Bay.
          69. $1,000,000 to the City of New Britain, 
        Connecticut for water infrastructure improvements.
          70. $500,000 to the City of Southington, Connecticut 
        for water infrastructure improvements.
          71. $500,000 for the Pioneer Valley Planning 
        Commission in Massachusetts and the Metropolitan 
        District Commission in Connecticut for wastewater 
        infrastructure and combined sewer overflow improvements 
        on the Connecticut River in Connecticut and 
        Massachusetts.
          72. $175,000 to the Town of Wolcott, Connecticut for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
          73. $175,000 to the Town of New Fairfield, 
        Connecticut for water infrastructure improvements.
          74. $750,000 to the towns of Vernon and Bolton, 
        Connecticut to support the Vernon-Bolton Lake Sewer 
        Project System.
          75. $1,000,000 to the District of Columbia Water and 
        Sewer Authority to mitigate combined sewer overflows 
        into the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers.
          76. $500,000 to the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          77. $500,000 to the City of Clearwater, Florida for 
        wastewater and reclaimed water infrastructure 
        improvements.
          78. $900,000 to the Taylor County, Florida Water and 
        Sewer District for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements.
          79. $500,000 to Orange County, Florida for wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements.
          80. $250,000 to the City of Jacksonville, Florida for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          81. $350,000 to the City of Tampa, Florida for the 
        South Tampa Area Reclaimed Project.
          82. $1,000,000 to the City of Sweetwater, Florida for 
        wastewater and stormwater infrastructure improvements.
          83. $1,000,000 to the Solid Waste Authority of Palm 
        Beach County, Florida for pre-construction engineering 
        and design of the Tri-County Biosolids Pelletization 
        Facility.
          84. $150,000 to the City of South Miami, Florida for 
        drinking water,wastewater, stormwater and sewer 
        infrastructure improvements.
          85. $150,000 to the City of Opa-locka, Florida for 
        drinking water, wastewater, stormwater and sewer 
        infrastructure improvements.
          86. $1,000,000 to the Volusian Water Alliance of 
        Volusian County, Florida for the Regional Aquifer 
        Management Project and water infrastructure 
        improvements.
          87. $500,000 for the Sarasota County, Florida 
        Phillippi Creek Septic System Replacement Project.
          88. $250,000 to the Escambia County, Florida Utility 
        Authority for its Wastewater Treatment Public/Private 
        Partnership project.
          89. $500,000 to DeSoto County, Florida for water and 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          90. $250,000 to the Sebring Airport Authority of 
        Florida for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements for a light industrial/commercial business 
        park.
          91. $500,000 to the City of Boca Raton, Florida for 
        improvements for the Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment 
        Facility.
          92. $500,000 for the City of West Palm Beach, Florida 
        for its wetlands-based water project.
          93. $250,000 to the City of Lighthouse Point, Florida 
        for stormwater system upgrades and repairs.
          94. $500,000 to the City of Umatilla, Florida for 
        stormwater infrastructure improvements.
          95. $9,000,000 to the Southwest Florida Water 
        Management District for continuation of the Tampa Bay 
        Reservoir Project.
          96. $1,000,000 for Lake Seminole, Pinellas County, 
        Florida for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements.
          97. $1,000,000 to the Metropolitan North Georgia 
        Water Planning District for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements.
          98. $750,000 to the City of Roswell, Georgia for the 
        Big Creek Watershed Demonstration Project.
          99. $450,000 to the Liberty County, Georgia 
        Development Authority for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements for the Coastal MegaPark.
          100. $750,000 to Gwinnett County, Georgia for water 
        and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          101. $500,000 to continue the Ground Water 
        Chlorination System Replacement and Upgrade Project on 
        Guam.
          102. $500,000 to the City of Ottumwa, Iowa for 
        comined sewer overflow system improvements.
          103. $1,000,000 to the City of Des Moines, Iowa for 
        stormwater and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          104. $800,000 to the City of Mason City, Iowa for 
        water infrastructure improvements and a radium 
        reduction project.
          105. $250,000 to the Bayview Water and Sewer District 
        of Idaho for the Cape Horn Area Clean Water Compliance 
        Project.
          106. $500,000 to DuPage County, Illinois for water 
        infrastructure improvements.
          107. $500,000 to the Lake County Stormwater 
        Management Commission of Lake County, Illinois for 
        stormwater detention, infrastructure, modeling, design 
        and management activities in the Upper Des Plaines 
        River watershed.
          108. $500,000 to the Village of Johnsburg, Illinois 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          109. $200,000 to the Village of Port Byron, Illinois 
        for water infrastructure improvements.
          110. $200,000 to the City of Hamilton, Illinois for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
          111. $200,000 to the Dallas Rural Water District, 
        Illinois for water infrastructure improvements in 
        Hancock County, Illinois.
          112. $700,000 to the Village of Montgomery, Illinois 
        for removal of lead-based paint from water storage 
        tanks.
          113. $260,000 to the Village of Somonauk, Illinois 
        for construction of a water storage tower.
          114. $1,000,000 for the Metropolitan Water 
        Reclamation District of Chicago, Illinois for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          115. $500,000 to the Village of Granville, Illinois 
        for water infrastructure improvements.
          116. $500,000 to the Village of Toulon, Illinois for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          117. $250,000 to the Village of LaGrange, Illinois 
        for water infrastructure improvements.
          118. $250,000 to the Village of Justice, Illinois for 
        water infrastructure improvements for the Wesley Fields 
        water system.
          119. $500,000 to the City of Galena, Illinois for 
        construction of a wastewater treatment plant.
          120. $250,000 to the City of Flora, Illinois for 
        water infrastructure improvements for the Gateway 
        Regional Water System.
          121. $400,000 to the City of Breese, Illinois for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
          122. $25,000 to the Village of Patoka, Illinois for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
          123. $100,000 to the City of Salem, Illinois for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          124. $750,000 to the City of Wilmington, Illinois for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          125. $750,000 to the City of Carmel, Indiana for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
          126. $100,000 to Madison Township, Indiana for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          127. $165,000 to the Town of Cicero, Indiana for its 
        stormwater infrastructure improvements and pollution 
        prevention project.
          128. $250,000 to the Twin Lakes Sewer District in 
        White County, Indiana for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements.
          129. $350,000 to Tell City, Indiana for wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements.
          130. $750,000 to the City of Hobart, Indiana for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements for the Green 
        Acres subdivision.
          131. $300,000 to the City of Ottawa, Kansas for water 
        and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          132. $500,000 to Augusta, Kansas for water 
        infrastructure improvements.
          133. $500,000 to the Franklin County Fiscal Court of 
        Kentucky for the Choateville Sewer Project.
          134. $250,000 to the Spencer County, Kentucky Fiscal 
        Court for water infrastructure improvements.
          135. $250,000 to the City of Shepherdsville, Kentucky 
        for wastewater infrastructre improvements.
          136. $250,000 to the City of Carrollton/Carrollton 
        Utilities of Kentucky for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements at the Carroll-Gallatin-Owen Regional 
        Wastewater Treatment Plant.
          137. $500,000 to the Louisville/Jefferson County 
        Redevelopment Authority for water infrastructure 
        improvements for a technology park in Louisville, 
        Kentucky.
          138. $605,000 to the City of Paintsville, Kentucky 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          139. $400,000 to the City of Morehead, Kentucky for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          140. $1,000,000 to the City of Corbin, Kentucky for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          141. $400,000 to the City of Monticello, Kentucky for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          142. $750,000 to the City of Prestonsburg, Kentucky 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          143. $400,000 to the City of Beattyville, Kentucky 
        for water infrastructure improvements.
          144. $200,000 for the City of Clay, Kentucky for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          145. $200,000 to the Marshall County Sanitation 
        District #2 for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements for the City of Draffenville, Kentucky.
          146. $200,000 for the City of Bardwell, Kentucky for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          147. $200,000 for the City of Greenville, Kentucky 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          148. $500,000 to the Military Department of Louisiana 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements for the 
        Gillis W. Long Center.
          149. $1,000,000 the Sewerage and Water Board of the 
        City of New Orleans, Louisiana for continuation of the 
        New Orleans Sanitary Sewer System Inflow Infiltration 
        project.
          150. $1,000,000 to the City of Shreveport, Louisiana 
        for installation of backflow preventers within the 
        water distribution system ($500,000), and for water and 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements associated with 
        programs of the Red River Watershed Management 
        Institute ($500,000).
          151. $1,000,000 to St. John the Baptist Parish, 
        Louisiana for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements.
          152. $200,000 to the City of New Iberia, Louisiana 
        for joint water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements with Iberia Parish.
          153. $200,000 to St. Martin Parish, Louisiana for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          154. $250,000 to St. Charles Parish, Louisiana for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements 
        related to the Lake Pontchatrain Basin project.
          155. $250,000 to St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          156. $100,000 to St. James Parish, Louisiana for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements 
        coordinated with the Town of Gramercy.
          157. $500,000 to the City of Hammond, Louisiana for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements related to the 
        Lake Pontchatrain Basin project.
          158. $250,000 to the City of Slidell, Louisiana for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements related to the 
        Lake Pontchatrain Basin project.
          159. $200,000 to the City of Brockton, Massachusetts 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          160. $150,000 for combined sewer overflow mitigation 
        in Lawrence, Massachusetts.
          161. $250,000 to the City of Baltimore, Maryland for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          162. $500,000 to the Town of Elkton, Maryland for 
        biological nutrient removal upgrades.
          163. $500,000 to the Town of Federalsburg, Maryland 
        for biological nutrient removal upgrades.
          164. $1,045,000 for water supply and distribution 
        infrastructure improvements, sanitary sewer collection 
        system modifications, and wastewater and stormwater 
        infrastructure improvements in La Plata, Maryland.
          165. $500,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements for Woodlawn Village in Maryland.
          166. $1,250,000 to the City of Rockville, Maryland 
        for its Stormwater Management Improvement Project.
          167. $500,000 to the Washington Suburban Sanitary 
        Commission for water infrastructure improvements in 
        Prince George's and Montgomery Counties, Maryland.
          168. $300,000 to the City of Bad Axe, Michigan for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
          169. $1,000,000 for continuation of the Rouge River 
        National Wet Weather Demonstration Project.
          170. $750,000 to the City of Grand Rapids, Michigan 
        for combined sewer overflow infrastructure 
        improvements.
          171. $500,000 to the Genesee County Drain Commission 
        for the North-East Relief Sewer and Kearsley Creek 
        Inceptor project.
          172. $400,000 to the Detroit Water and Sewer 
        Department, Michigan for water, wastewater and combined 
        sewer overflow infrastructure improvements.
          173. $1,500,000 for the Evergreen-Farmington Sanitary 
        Sewer Overflow demonstration project in Oakland County, 
        Michigan.
          174. $1,000,000 to Oakland County, Michigan for water 
        and wastewater infrastructure improvements within the 
        George W. Kuhn Drainage District.
          175. $1,500,000 to the City of Springfield, Missouri 
        for feasibility studies, design and construction of 
        stormwater infrastructure improvements for the Upper 
        James River.
          176. $350,000 to the City of St. Louis, Missouri for 
        water infrastructure improvements for Forest Park.
          177. $2,000,000 to the Clean Water Committee of 
        Jefferson County, Missouri for wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements.
          178. $350,000 to Caldwell County, Missouri for water 
        infrastructure improvements.
          179. $500,000 to the Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water 
        Commission for water infrastructure improvements in 
        Monroe County, Missouri.
          180. $500,000 to the City of Lake Saint Louis Duckett 
        Creek Sanitary District, Missouri for wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements and watershed protection 
        projects.
          181. $750,000 to the City of Lake, Mississippi for 
        water infrastructure improvements ($72,000), and the 
        City of Louisville, Mississippi for Water Treatment 
        system upgrades ($678,000).
          182. $500,000 to the City of Newton, Mississippi for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements for an 
        industrial park.
          183. $300,000 to the City of McComb, Mississippi for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          184. $300,000 to the City of Gulfport, Mississippi 
        for water infrastructure improvements.
          185. $550,000 to the City of Corinth, Mississippi for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          186. $500,000 to the City of Tupelo, Mississippi for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          187. $200,000 to the Town of Granite Falls, North 
        Carolina for water infrastructure improvements.
          188. $300,000 to the Town of Bakersville, North 
        Carolina for water infrastructure improvements.
          189. $200,000 to the Town of Valdee, North Carolina 
        for the Inflow/Infiltration Reduction Sanitary Sewer 
        Project.
          190. $100,000 to the Town of Drexel, North Carolina 
        for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          191. $200,000 to the Town of Spruce Pine, North 
        Carolina for construction of the Cemetery Hill Water 
        Storage Tank.
          192. $500,000 to the City of Henderson, North 
        Carolina for the next phase of the rehabilitation and 
        expansion of the water treatment facilities of the Kerr 
        Lake Regional Water System.
          193. $1,000,000 to the City of Concord, North 
        Carolina for the Tri-County Regional Water Project in 
        Cabarrus, Rowan, and Stanly Counties, North Carolina.
          194. $250,000 to the County of Granville, North 
        Carolina for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements.
          195. $750,000 to Richmond County, North Carolina for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          196. $1,000,000 to the Neuse Regional Water and Sewer 
        Authority in Lenoir County, North Carolina for water 
        infrastructure improvements.
          197. $1,000,000 for Orange County, North Carolina for 
        wastewater infrastructure needs.
          198. $400,000 to the Town of Cary, North Carolina for 
        construction of a biosolids dryer facility.
          199. $500,000 to the Town of Highlands, North 
        Carolina for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements.
          200. $500,000 to the Buncombe County, North Carolina 
        Solid Waste Management Facility for water and 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          201. $400,000 to the Town of Mooresville, North 
        Carolina for water infrastructure improvements.
          202. $600,000 for Wayne State College of Wayne, 
        Nebraska for the Wayne Community Greywater project.
          203. $400,000 to Lincoln, Nebraska for the South Salt 
        Creek Sanitary Sewer project.
          204. $500,000 to the City of Omaha, Nebraska for a 
        combined sewer overflow project.
          205. $1,000,000 to the City of Nashua, New Hampshire 
        to mitigate combined sewer overflows.
          206. $600,000 to the City of Portsmouth, New 
        Hampshire for mitigation of combined sewer overflows.
          207. $500,000 to the City of Somersworth, New 
        Hampshire for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          208. $435,000 to the Borough of New Providence, New 
        Jersey for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements.
          209. $1,000,000 to the Township of Jefferson, New 
        Jersey for wastewater infrastructure improvements to 
        help protect water quality of Lake Hopatcong, New 
        Jersey.
          210. $2,500,000 to the Passaic Valley Sewerage 
        Commission for its combined sewage overflow reduction 
        program and the Passaic River/Newark Bay Restoration 
        program.
          211. $250,000 for the North Hudson Sewerage Authority 
        for combined sewer overflow improvements.
          212. $1,000,000 to the City of Ruidoso, New Mexico 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          213. $500,000 to the City of Los Lunas, New Mexico 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          214. $500,000 to the City of Belen, New Mexico for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          215. $200,000 to the Greater Chimayo Mutual Domestic 
        Water Consumers Association for water infrastructure 
        improvements.
          216. $200,000 to the City of Bloomfield, New Mexico 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          217. $350,000 to the Town of Bernalillo, New Mexico 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          218. $350,000 to the Village of Los Lunas, New Mexico 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          219. $700,000 to the Virgin Valley Water District, 
        Nevada for construction of an arsenic treatment 
        facility for the cities of Mequite and Bunkerville, 
        Nevada.
          220. $1,000,000 to the City of Little Falls, New York 
        for water infrastructure improvements.
          221. $250,000 for the Village of Floyd, New York 
        Water Quality/Quantity Improvement Project.
          222. $250,000 to the Village of Whitney Point, New 
        York for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          223. $1,000,000 to the Village of Walden, New York 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          224. $500,000 the the State of New York for the South 
        Shore Estuary Reserve Council of Long Island, New York 
        for stormwater infrastructure improvements.
          225. $750,000 to the Town of North Hempstead, New 
        York for stormwater management infrastructure 
        improvements within Manhasset Bay and Hempstead Harbor 
        on the Long Island Sound.
          226. $1,000,000 to the City of Niagara Falls, New 
        York for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          227. $500,000 to the City of Rye, New York for water 
        and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          228. $500,000 for the Lake Neatahwanta Reclamation 
        project in Oswego County, New York.
          229. $1,000,000 to the City of Oswego, New York for 
        combined sewer overflow system improvements.
          230. $200,000 to the Village of Sloan, New York for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          231. $500,000 to the Town of Hamburg, New York for 
        sanitary sewer overflow improvements.
          232. $1,000,000 to the City of Buffalo, New York 
        Water Division for water infrastructure improvements.
          233. $1,000,000 to the Monroe County, New York Water 
        Authority for construction of a covered reservoir and 
        security improvements.
          234. $1,000,000 to the Saratoga County Water 
        Committee for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements.
          235. $12,000,000 for continued clean water 
        improvements for Onondaga Lake, New York.
          236. $2,000,000 to the City of Syracuse, New York for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          237. $500,000 to the Village of Port Byron, New York 
        for construction of a wastewater treatment plant.
          238. $6,000,000 for drinking water infrastructure 
        needs in the New York City watershed.
          239. $4,000,000 for water quality infrastructure 
        improvements for Long Island Sound, New York.
          240. $500,000 to the Cortland County Industrial 
        Development Agency for water and wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements to the Cortland County 
        Business Park.
          241. $500,000 to the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing 
        Authority for water infrastructure improvements for the 
        ``City West'' community.
          242. $250,000 to the City of Van Wert, Ohio for 
        expansion of a drinking water reservoir.
          243. $375,000 to the City of Napoleon, Ohio for water 
        infrastructure improvements.
          244. $800,000 for water infrastructure upgrades for 
        Northern Perry County Water District, Ohio.
          245. $750,000 for water infrastructure upgrades for 
        the Village of Crooksville, Ohio.
          246. $200,000 for the Village of Amanda, Ohio for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
          247. $500,000 for the Village of Spring Valley, Ohio 
        to upgrade its water treatment and distribution system.
          248. $400,000 for Greene County, Ohio for water and 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          249. $100,000 for the Pickaway County Sewer District 
        for a regional sewer study in Pickaway County, Ohio.
          250. $750,000 to the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer 
        District for the Doan Brook Watershed Area in Ohio for 
        continued development of a storm water abatement system 
        in the Doan Brook Watershed Area of Ohio.
          251. $1,800,000 for the City of Toledo, Ohio for the 
        development of facilities related to its Methane 
        Biogases Capture and Reuse Initiative.
          252. $700,000 to the City of Port Clinton, Ohio for a 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements and mitigation 
        of combined sewer overflows.
          253. $500,000 to Perry County, Ohio for water 
        infrastructure improvements.
          254. $1,000,000 to the City of Delphos, Ohio for the 
        Tri-County Regional Water System Reservoir Project.
          255. $1,000,000 to the City of North Canton, Ohio for 
        a water treatment project.
          256. $1,000,000 for the City of Massillon, Ohio for 
        wastewater and stormwater infrastructure improvements.
          257. $200,000 for the Mahoning County, Ohio for 
        wastewater treatment infrastructure improvements in 
        Springfield Township.
          258. $200,000 to the Village of Morristown, Ohio for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          259. $250,000 to the Village of Hartford, Ohio for 
        wastewater and sanitary sewer infrastructure 
        improvements.
          260. $250,000 to the City of Hulbert, Oklahoma for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements for the Hulbert 
        Community Health Center.
          261. $500,000 to the City of Midwest City, Oklahoma 
        for water infrastructure improvements.
          262. $500,000 to the City of Altus, Oklahoma for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
          263. $500,000 to the City of Portland, Oregon for its 
        wet weather pollution control program.
          264. $500,000 to the City of Albany, Oregon for the 
        Albany-Millersburg Joint Water project.
          265. $200,000 for Tillamook County, Oregon for 
        construction of a animal waste composting facility.
          266. $500,000 to La Pine, Oregon for wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements.
          267. $300,000 to the City of North Plains, Oregon for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
          268. $2,500,000 for the Three Rivers Wet Weather 
        Demonstration program in Allegheny County, 
        Pennsylvania.
          269. $540,000 for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements for the City of Hermitage, Pennsylvania 
        and the Borough or Sharpsville, Pennsylvania.
          270. $1,500,000 to Derry Township Municipal Authority 
        in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania for wastewater 
        infrastructure improvements.
          271. $500,000 for Pulaski Township, Pennsylvania for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          272. $500,000 to the Wyoming Valley Sanitary 
        Authority of Pennsylvania for combined sewer overflow 
        infrastructure improvements.
          273. $430,000 to the Nanty Glow Water Authority of 
        Cambria, Pennsylvania for water infrastructure 
        improvements.
          274. $500,000 to the Derry Borough Water Authority in 
        Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania for water 
        infrastructure improvements.
          275. $300,000 to the Borough of Wellsboro, 
        Pennsylvania for combined sewer overflow improvements.
          276. $500,000 to the City of Franklin, Pennsylvania 
        for combined sewer overflow infrastructure 
        improvements.
          277. $500,000 to the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania 
        for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          278. $350,000 to the York City Sewer Authority for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          279. $500,000 to Lycoming County, Pennsylvania for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements in the 
        Boroughs of Hughesville and Muncy and at Halls Station.
          280. $500,000 to the Department of Susquehanna County 
        Economic Development in Montrose, Pennsylvania for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
          281. $350,000 to the Chestnut Ridge Area Joint 
        Municipal Authority for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements for East St. Clair, West St. Clair, King 
        and Napier Townships and in New Paris Borough, 
        Pennsylvania.
          282. $500,000 to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
        Sewer and Water Authority for wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements in the municipality of Arecibo.
          283. $500,000 to the City of Woonsocket, Rhode Island 
        for water infrastructure improvements.
          284. $250,000 to the Narragansett Bay Commission, 
        Rhode Island, for wastewater and combined sewer 
        overflow infrastructure improvements.
          285. $500,000 to Berkeley County, South Carolina for 
        extension of water lines to Cross Community Schools.
          286. $500,000 to the City of Myrtle Beach, South 
        Carolina Downtown Redevelopment Corporation for 
        stormwater infrastructure improvements for the Pavilion 
        Area Master Plan.
          287. $500,000 to the City of Florence, South Carolina 
        for continued construction of a regional surface water 
        plant.
          288. $250,000 to the Town of Eastover, South Carolina 
        for water infrastructure improvements.
          289. $190,000 to the Town of Jackson, South Carolina 
        for removal of radium from the water supply.
          290. $220,000 to the City of Walhalla, South Carolina 
        for water infrastructure improvements in Oconee County.
          291. $500,000 to Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities, 
        South Carolina for a phosphorous reduction program.
          292. $200,000 to Charleston County, South Carolina 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          293. $500,000 to the City of Groton, South Dakota for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          294. $500,000 to the City of Elk Point, South Dakota 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          295. $450,000 to the River Road Utility District for 
        water infrastructure improvements in Cheatham County, 
        Tennessee.
          296. $390,000 to the City of Cross Plains, Tennessee 
        for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          297. $1,500,000 to the Athens Utilities Board of 
        Tennessee for wastewater infrastructure improvements at 
        the Oostanaula Wastewater Treatment Plant.
          298. $500,000 to the City of Lawrenceburg, Tennessee 
        for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          299. $100,000 to the Watauga River Regional Water 
        Authority in Carter County, Tennessee for water 
        infrastructure improvements.
          300. $1,200,000 to Polk County, Tennessee for water 
        infrastructure improvement for the Linsdale community.
          301. $1,000,000 to the City of Eagle Pass, Texas for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          302. $1,000,000 for West Fort Bend County, Texas for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
          303. $500,000 to the City of Meridian, Texas for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements for 
        the Meridian/Bosque Regional Water Supply and Treatment 
        Project.
          304. $1,000,000 to the City of Dallas, Texas for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          305. $300,000 to the City of Port Arthur, Texas for 
        water infrastructure improvements in the Sabine area.
          306. $500,000 to Park City, Utah for water 
        infrastructure improvements at the Park City Judge 
        Tunnel Water Treatment Plant.
          307. $500,000 for Tooele City, Utah for water and 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          308. $250,000 to Sandy City, Utah for water and 
        stormwater infrastructure improvements.
          309. $1,000,000 to the Town of Dublin, Virginia for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
          310. $350,000 to the Town of Orange, Virginia for 
        construction of a raw water storage basin.
          311. $1,000,000 to Dale Service Corporation for water 
        and wastewater infrastructure improvements in Dale 
        City, Virginia.
          312. $950,000 to the Fairfax County Water Authority 
        of Virginia for water system infrastructure and 
        security enhancements.
          313. $525,000 to Chesterfield County, Virginia for 
        drainage and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          314. $400,000 for Nelson County, Virginia for water 
        and wastewater system installation and improvements.
          315. $150,000 for Camp Virginia Jaycee in Blue Ridge, 
        Virginia for a wastewater treatment project.
          316. $400,000 to Fluvanna County, Virginia for water 
        and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          317. $350,000 for St. Paul College in Lawrenceville, 
        Virginia for water and wastewater infrastructure 
        improvements.
          318. $400,000 for Pittsylvania County and the Town of 
        Gretna, Virginia for water infrastructure improvements.
          319. $300,000 for Franklin County, Virginia for a 
        drinking water infrastructure project.
          320. $300,000 for Buckingham County, Virginia for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements for 
        Buckingham County and the Town of Dillwyn.
          321. $200,000 for Cumberland County, Virginia for 
        water infrastructure improvements.
          322. $2,000,000 to the City of Richmond, Virginia 
        ($1,000,000) and to the City of Lynchburg, Virginia 
        ($1,000,000) for combined sewer overflow infrastructure 
        improvements.
          323. $750,000 to the City of Alexandria, Virginia for 
        the sanitary and stormwater sewer reconstruction and 
        extension project to mitigate overflows polluting Four 
        Mile Run Creek.
          324. $350,000 to Accomack County, Virginia for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          325. $200,000 to the City of Norfolk, Virginia for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements at the North Fox 
        Hall and Sewell Garden pump stations.
          326. $200,000 to the City of Norfolk, Virginia for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements in Fairmont 
        Park.
          327. $1,000,000 to Loudon County, Virginia Department 
        of Building and Development for the Water Resources 
        Management Program.
          328. $500,000 to the Government of the Virgin Islands 
        for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          329. $900,000 to the City of Shelton, Washington for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          330. $110,000 to the Town of South Prairie, 
        Washington for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          331. $500,000 to Parker, Washington for water 
        infrastructure improvements.
          332. $500,000 to the City of Roslyn, Washington for 
        wastewater infrastructure improvements.
          333. $250,000 to the City of Blaine, Washington for 
        completion of a feasibility study for the Northwest 
        Whatcom County Wastewater Management Plan, Lummis 
        Diviersion, and for related updates of the City's 
        general sewer plan.
          334. $375,000 for the Village of Curtiss, Wisconsin 
        for the expansion of their wastewater treatment plant.
          335. $925,000 for the Town of Mercer, Wisconsin for 
        the extension of their water infrastructure to the new 
        business park.
          336. $1,200,000 for the City of Wisconsin Rapids, 
        Wisconsin for the extension of sewer and water to the 
        East Side Business Park and the Village of Biron.
          337. $300,000 for the Putnam County Commission of 
        West Virginia for the Fishers Ridge water 
        infrastructure project.
          338. $265,000 to the Midland Public Service District 
        in Randolph County, West Virginia for the extension of 
        waterlines for Haddix Road.
          339. $2,717,000 to the City of Weirton, West Virginia 
        for water treatment plant upgrades.
          340. $2,500,000 to the City of Moundsville, West 
        Virginia for construction of a water treatment 
        facility.
          341. $2,050,000 to the City of Grafton, West Virginia 
        for upgrades to the Berkeley Run Pump Station, Front 
        Street sewer improvements, Fannie Street sewer 
        improvements, Bluemont Cemetery sewer improvements, and 
        Fetterman's sewer improvements.
          342. $2,155,000 to the City of Grafton, West Virginia 
        for wastewater treatment plant upgrades.
          343. $506,000 to the City of Sistersville, West 
        Virginia for water treatment plant upgrades.
          344. $560,000 to the City of Wellsburg, West Virginia 
        for replacement of the 11th Street Wastewater Lift 
        Station.
          345. $635,000 to the Village of Beach Bottom, West 
        Virginia for the extension of water lines, water plant 
        construction and water line replacement.
          346. $250,000 to the City of Cudahy, California for 
        wastewater and sewer infrastructure improvements.
          347. $250,000 to the City of Maywood, California for 
        wastewater and sewer infrastructure improvements.
          348. $1,000,000 to the City of Manchester, New 
        Hampshire for wastewater infrastructure improvements 
        associated with a combined sewer overflow project.
          349. $100,000 for the City of Fulton, Alabama for 
        water system improvements.
          350. $650,000 for the City of Jackson, Alabama for 
        water infrastructure.
          351. $250,000 for the Mobile County Water, Sewer and 
        Fire Protection Authority, Alabama for water system 
        improvements.
          352. $700,000 for the Cities of Daphne, Foley and 
        Fairhope, Alabama for comprehensive water 
        infrastructure assessment.
          353. $650,000 for Mobile Area Water and Sewer System 
        and the City of Prichard, Alabama for combined sewer 
        outflow project.
          354. $100,000 for Mt. Vernon, Alabama for water 
        system improvements.
          355. $100,000 for Summerdale, Alabama for water 
        infrastructure.
          356. $400,000 to the Town of Exeter, New Hampshire 
        for planning and design of new wastewater 
        infrastructure facilities.
    Recent studies by EPA and others suggest that there has 
been a substantial deterioration in the nation's wastewater 
infrastructure, including aging wastewater treatment plants and 
leaking sewer collection systems. Substantial contributions of 
wet weather flows and other non-point sources of pollution have 
also been identified. In addition, the additional expenditures 
needed to achieve TMDL requirements and groundwater protection 
in future years are expected to be extensive. Because the 
federal government funds only a portion of wastewater 
infrastructure investments, the states have urged maximum 
flexibility in their allocation of federal resources, so as to 
direct investments at the point-source and non-point-source 
areas of greatest need. However, states also recognize that 
they must be held accountable to the goals of the Clean Water 
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other wastewater-related 
federal statutes. The Committee is aware that septic system 
repair and management projects and other non-point source 
pollution prevention and control measures, which can produce 
substantial benefits of water quality protection, are not 
eligible for SRF funding in most of the states. Further, many 
recipients of federal wastewater assistance have not instituted 
user fees to provide for long-term maintenance and repair of 
the infrastructure, and the results of that lack of maintenance 
are now evident.
    To help address this situation, EPA, at the request of the 
Committee, established during the Spring of 2002 a working 
group of representatives from many stakeholder groups in order 
to address the basic means by which EPA may accord flexibility 
to the states and yet also assure that federal investments 
achieve the greatest possible benefits. Specifically, the 
following questions were addressed by this new working group: 
(1) are the SRF and other federal financial assistance programs 
achieving maximum water quality protection in terms of public 
health and environmental outcomes; (2) are alternatives other 
than wastewater treatment plants and collection systems 
eligible for federal assistance, and, if not, why not; (3) do 
the priority ranking systems which states use to prioritize 
eligible treatment works projects properly account for 
environmental outcomes, including indirect impacts from air 
deposition of treatment plant effluent or stormwater runoff 
from sewer construction-induced growth; (4) are recipients of 
federal assistance required to adopt appropriate financial 
planning methods, which would reduce the cost of capital and 
guarantee that infrastructure would be maintained; and (5) have 
sufficient performance measures and information systems been 
developed to assure the Congress that future federal assistance 
will be spent wisely by the states?
    The Committee has been kept apprised of the developments of 
this working group and expects that the group's report 
addressing the aforementioned questions and other related 
issues be fully utilized by the Agency.
    As was the case in past years, no reprogramming requests 
associated with States and Tribes applying for Partnership 
grants need to be submitted to the Committee for approval 
should such grants exceed the normal reprogramming limitations.

                        ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

    The Committee has again this year included an 
administrative provision giving the Administrator specific 
authority to, in the absence of an acceptable tribal program, 
award cooperative agreements to federally recognized Indian 
Tribes or Intertribal consortia so as to properly carry out 
EPA's environmental programs.
    In order to continue providing sufficient and necessary 
resources for EPA's pesticide re-registration program, the 
Committee has included bill language which authorizes for one 
year the collection by EPA of $20,000,000 in maintenance fees. 
This provision extends to September 30, 2003 the date upon 
which such authority for collections expires. Bill language is 
also once again included prohibiting the use of funds to 
promulgate a final regulation to implement changes in the 
payment of pesticide tolerance processing fees as proposed at 
64 Federal Register 31040, or any similar proposal; and 
prohibiting the collection of pesticide registration fees if a 
new maintenance fee has gone into effect.

                   Executive Office of the President

                OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................        $5,750,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................         5,267,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................         5,368,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........          +483,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request..............          +382,000

    The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was 
created by the National Science and Technology Policy, 
Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP advises the 
President and other agencies within the Executive Office on 
science and technology policies and coordinates research and 
development programs for the Federal Government.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,750,000 for 
fiscal year 2003, an increase of $483,000 above the fiscal year 
2002 appropriation and $382,000 above the budget request to 
address unfunded salary needs.

  COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................        $3,031,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................         2,974,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................         3,031,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........           +57,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request.......                 0

    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established 
by Congress under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA). The Office of Environmental Quality (OEQ), which 
provides professional and administrative staff for the Council, 
was established in the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 
1970. The Council on Environmental Policy has statutory 
responsibility under NEPA for environmental oversight of all 
Federal agencies and is to lead interagency decision-making of 
all environmental matters.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has recommended the 
budget request of $3,031,000 for the CEQ and OEQ, an increase 
of $57,000 above last year's spending level. The Committee's 
proposed funding for CEQ will allow full cost of living 
increases for the current staff of 24 FTEs as well as other 
necessary expense adjustments. The Committee directs that CEQ's 
total staffing level not exceed 24 FTEs at any time during the 
fiscal year.
    As in previous years, bill language is included which 
stipulates that, notwithstanding the National Environmental 
Policy Act, the CEQ can operate with one council member and 
that member shall be considered the chairman for purposes of 
conducting the business of the CEQ and OEQ.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $30,848,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        33,660,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        30,848,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        -2,812,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    Funding for the Office of the Inspector General at the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is provided pursuant to 
31 U.S.C. 1105(a)(25), which requires a separate appropriation 
account for appropriations for each Office of Inspector General 
of an establishment defined under section 11(2) of the 
Inspector General Act of 1978.
    The Committee recommendation, the same as the budget 
request, provides for the transfer of $30,848,000 from the Bank 
Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and the 
FSLIC Resolution Fund to finance the Office of Inspector 
General for fiscal year 2003.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation...................        $3,611,895,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation....................       $10,535,825,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request...................        $6,703,912,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation....       $-6,923,930,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request...       $-3,092,017,000

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created 
by reorganization plan number 3 of 1978. The Agency carries out 
a wide range of program responsibilities for emergency planning 
and preparedness, disaster response and recovery, and hazard 
mitigation.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends 
$3,611,895,000 which represents a decrease of $6,923,930,000 
from the fiscal year 2002 appropriation and a decrease of 
$3,092,017,000 from the 2003 budget request.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Agency must limit transfers of funds between 
programs and activities to not more than $500,000 without prior 
approval of the Committee. Further, no changes may be made to 
any account or program element if it is construed to be a 
change in policy. Any program or activity mentioned in this 
report shall be construed as the position of the Committee and 
should not be subject to any reductions or reprogrammings 
without prior approval of the Committee.
    The Committee urges the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
to work with the U.S. Forest Service and state and local 
officials to develop disaster mitigation measures to avoid 
potentially catastrophic forest fires in the Angeles, San 
Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests. Extreme drought 
conditions and insect depredations have killed tens of 
thousands of trees in these national forests and on adjacent 
private property. The Committee urges FEMA to deal with this 
problem.
    The Committee is disturbed that FEMA did nothing during the 
last fiscal year to implement the minority emergency 
preparedness demonstration program which was authorized by a 
general provision of the fiscal year 2002 VA-HUD appropriations 
bill. In the future, the Agency is cautioned that its personnel 
must read the entire appropriations bill and follow all 
direction in the bill and accompanying reports, including the 
general provisions in title IV. The Committee directs FEMA to 
report to the Committee by February 3, 2003 on the actions it 
has taken to implement the minority emergency preparedness 
demonstration program. At a minimum, FEMA is directed to spend 
no less than $1,500,000 in fiscal year 2003 to implement the 
program.

                            DISASTER RELIEF

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    $1,820,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     9,171,571,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,842,843,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........    -7,351,571,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......       -22,843,000

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency has responsibility 
for administering disaster assistance programs and coordinating 
the Federal response in Presidential disasters declarations. 
Major activities under the disaster assistance program are 
human services which provides aid to families and individuals; 
infrastructure which supports the efforts of State and local 
governments to take emergency protective measures, clear debris 
and repair infrastructure damage; hazard mitigation which 
sponsors projects to diminish effects of future disasters; and 
disaster management, such as disaster field office staff and 
automated data processing support.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends 
$1,820,000,000 for disaster relief, a decrease of $22,843,000 
from the budget request and a decrease of $7,351,571,000 
compared to the fiscal year 2002 level.
    The budget request included a proposal to discontinue the 
section 404 post-disaster mitigation grants program and replace 
it with a competitive pre-disaster mitigation grant program. 
The Committee agrees with the objectives of a pre-disaster 
mitigation program and has addressed this issue in the 
appropriate place in the report. With regard to the section 404 
grant program, the Committee has proposed a change in statute 
which will reduce the amount of funding for the program, but 
maintains the program as an effective mechanism to ensure 
mitigation activities are undertaken when the need is most 
apparent which is immediately after a disaster strikes. The 
Committee is concerned that the section 404 program is not 
being fully utilized in a timely manner, and directs FEMA to 
take any steps necessary to ensure that mitigation projects are 
approved quickly and work is accomplished within a reasonable 
amount of time. At a minimum, FEMA should consider rules or 
regulations which will recapture any funds not spent within 
four years.
    The Committee is aware of two issues related to repairs 
undertaken by the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) to 
Project 184, a 22 megawatt hydropower plant and associated 
water supply flumes, as a result of landslides and flooding 
that occurred on January 4, 1997. First, the Committee 
understands that FEMA has imposed a deadline of October 31, 
2002, for EID to complete all of the required repair work. The 
Committee is concerned that this deadline may be unrealistic 
given the environmentally sensitive location of the repair 
work, the complex licensing requirements of the Federal Power 
Act, and the delays caused by the events of September 11, 2001, 
related to the importation of equipment critical to the repair 
from overseas. Therefore, the Committee urges FEMA to extend 
the deadline for completing the repair for a minimum of 6 
months.
    Second, the Committee is concerned that FEMA's 
determination to approve improved project status to the Mill 
Creek to Bull Creek tunnel portion of the repair work may have 
been based upon erroneous damage survey reports that may have 
underestimated the actual costs associated with the repair 
work. Therefore, the Committee urges FEMA to reexamine the 
damage survey reports in light of all currently available 
information.
    The Committee recognizes that the citizens and the medical 
community of Houston, Texas suffer unprecedented losses due to 
Tropical Storm Allison and that the Texas Medical Center 
provides important services to its 42 member hospitals and 
institutions that provide medical care and vital medical 
research. Therefore, it is the Committee's direction that the 
Texas Medical Center is to be provided Public Assistance and 
Hazard Mitigations grants as if it were an eligible applicant 
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act and has included bill language to that effect. 
However, specific projects are still subject to Federal and 
State eligibility criteria and guidelines except that the 
eligibility of applications submitted due to Tropical Storm 
Allison shall be considered as of the day of receipt.
    The Committee recommendation includes a provision for the 
transfer of $2,900,000 to ``Emergency Management Planning and 
Assistance'' for the consolidated emergency performance grant 
program which has been carried in prior years' appropriations 
bills. A new provision included in the bill this year allows 
for the use of $21,577,000 from the Disaster Relief Fund for 
activities of the FEMA Inspector General.

                 NATIONAL PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION FUND

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $250,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       300,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........      +250,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......       -50,000,000

    The Committee recommends a fiscal year 2003 appropriation 
of $250,000,000 for the National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, 
a decrease of $50,000,000 from the budget request. While there 
was no appropriation for this fund in fiscal year 2002, the 
Congress did provide an appropriation of $25,000,000 for 
Project Impact, an initiative to demonstrate the viability of 
pre-disaster mitigation. The Committee has found that Project 
Impact achieved its goals and it is now time to move on to a 
more robust competitive program to undertake mitigation 
projects that will significantly reduce damages from and costs 
of natural disasters. The Committee does not believe this fund 
should be used for mitigation projects primarily caused by non-
natural forces and directs FEMA to issues rules and regulation 
accordingly. The Committee believes that State and local 
entities would benefit from a grant program for planning pre-
disaster mitigation projects and directs FEMA to provide 
$250,000 per year to each State, the District of Columbia, 
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
    Finally, the Committee notes that in September of 2000 FEMA 
selected five universities to join the University of California 
at Berkeley in the pilot phase of the Disaster Resistant 
University program: University of Alaska/Fairbanks, University 
of Miami, University of North Carolina/Wilmington, Tulane 
University, and University of Washington/Seattle. The purpose 
of the program is to help the nation's colleges and 
universities facing the threat of natural disasters to assess 
their vulnerabilities and find ways to protect their research, 
facilities and the lives of students, faculty and staff. The 
Committee directs FEMA to continue the Disaster Resistant 
University Program with grants of $500,000 to each of the six 
pilot Disaster Resistant Universities and $100,000 each to at 
least six additional universities, including at least one HBCU, 
to join the program.
    The Committee recognizes the need for continued mitigation 
research integral to natural disasters, particularly those 
associated with hurricane and high wind damage. The Committee 
therefore directs the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) to work with the State University System of Florida on 
comprehensive hurricane mitigation research.

                    COMMUNITY DISASTER LOAN PROGRAM

    The Committee notes that previous direction of the Congress 
with regard to the Community Disaster Loan Program has 
restricted the use of the funds solely for loans to municipal 
governments for emergency education operations assistance where 
school districts have incurred unanticipated requirements 
because of displacement of students. The Committee understands 
that there may have been overwhelming justification for such a 
restriction in the past, but does not believe the same 
circumstances exist today. Therefore, FEMA may make loans under 
this program for any purpose henceforth.

            DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                            STATE SHARE LOAN

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................                 0
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................          $405,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........          -405,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

                                        Limitation on    Administrative
                                        direct loans        expenses

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.....     ($25,000,000)          $557,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation......      (25,000,000)           543,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.....      (25,000,000)           557,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002                   (0)           +14,000
 appropriation......................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003                   (0)                 0
 request............................

    Beginning in 1992, loans made to States under the cost 
sharing provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act were funded in accordance with the 
Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. The Disaster Assistance 
Direct Loan Program Account, which was established as a result 
of the Federal Credit Reform Act, records the subsidy costs 
associated with the direct loans obligated beginning in 1992 to 
the present, as well as administrative expenses of this 
program.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends no funding 
for the cost of State Share Loans, a decrease of $405,000 from 
the fiscal year 2002 appropriation and the same amount as the 
President's request. In addition, the Committee has provided 
$25,000,000 for the limitation on direct loans pursuant to 
section 319 of the Stafford Act, as well $557,000 for 
administrative expenses of the program.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $250,690,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       233,801,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       239,690,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +16,889,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......       +11,000,000

    This activity encompasses the salaries and expenses 
required to provide executive direction and administrative 
staff support for all agency programs in both the headquarters 
and field offices. The account funds both program support and 
executive direction activities.
    The bill includes $250,690,000 for salaries and expenses, 
an increase of $11,000,000 from the budget request, and an 
increase of $16,889,000 when compared to the fiscal year 2002 
appropriation.
    FEMA has experienced significant increases in program 
growth and responsibility over the past few years and with this 
budget undertakes two new initiatives that will severely tax 
its capabilities. The recommendation includes, in addition to 
the budget request, 64 new full time equivalents for the 
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division, 27 for the United 
States Fire Administration, and 24 for the Financial and 
Acquisition Management Division. Funding for these positions 
totals $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and has been added to 
the budget request.
    FEMA is directed to provide $1,750,000 to the 
Administrative and Resource Planning Directorate for its 
efforts to archive key agency documents by digitization to 
optical disks, including related activities.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $11,549,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        10,303,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        11,549,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        +1,246,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    The Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established 
administratively within FEMA at the time of the Agency's 
creation in 1979. Through a program of audits, investigations 
and inspections, the OIG seeks to prevent and detect fraud and 
abuse and promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the 
Agency's programs and operations. Although not originally 
established by law, FEMA's OIG was formed and designed to 
operate in accordance with the intent and purpose of the 
Inspector General Act of 1978. The Inspector General Act 
Amendments of 1988 created a statutory Inspector General within 
FEMA. The FEMA Inspector General has the added responsibility 
to act in that capacity for the Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends an 
appropriation of $11,549,000 for the Office of Inspector 
General, an increase of $1,246,000 above the fiscal year 2002 
appropriation and the same as the President's budget request.

              EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation \1\...................      $367,040,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................   \2\ 850,023,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     3,747,214,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........      -482,983,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......    -3,380,174,000

\1\ Does not include funding for Fire Fighters Assistance grants.
\2\ Includes $360,000,000 in Fire Fighters Assistance grants.

    This appropriation provides program resources for the 
majority of FEMA's ``core'' activities, including, response and 
recovery; preparedness, training and exercises; mitigation 
programs, fire prevention and training; information technology 
services; operations support; and executive direction. Costs 
for the floodplain management component are borne by 
policyholders and reimbursed from the National Flood Insurance 
Fund.
    The Committee recommends a fiscal year 2003 appropriation 
of $367,040,000, a decrease of $482,983,000 to the fiscal year 
2002 level and a decrease of $3,380,174,000 to the fiscal year 
2003 budget request. In addition, the Committee recommends a 
transfer of $2,900,000 from the Disaster Relief account for the 
consolidated emergency performance grants program. This account 
has in the past included funding for Fire Fighter Assistance 
grants. With this bill, the fire fighter grant program is given 
its own account.
    Of the amount provided, no more than $30,000,000 is 
provided for the Citizen Corps program, up to $30,000,000 is 
provided for all-hazard planning activities, and $78,000,000 is 
provided for communications interoperability.
    The Committee expects that comprehensive State strategies 
will address immediate State and local responder needs to 
effectively respond to all types of terrorist or weapons of 
mass destruction attacks. These plans should include the 
equipment, training, exercise, technical assistance, and 
planning needs for all types of State and local first 
responders including law enforcement, fire, emergency, medical 
service, and hazardous material response. In the development 
and implementation of their plans, States are expected to 
consult with local governments regarding the scope, design, and 
allocation of resources so that State and local strategies are 
consistent.''
    The September 11th attacks taught Federal, State, and local 
first responders the importance of having communications 
equipment and plans that allow all types of responder from 
multiple jurisdictions to maintain communications lines during 
an emergency. This interoperability program shall provide State 
and local agencies with grants to develop multi-jurisdiction 
emergency communications plans, procure emergency 
communications equipment, and procure equipment allowing 
existing communications systems to be interoperable. The 
Committee remains concerned about the inefficient use of 
appropriated funds. The Committee notes that, historically, 
efforts to address public safety wireless issues have been 
fragmented resulting in duplication and wasted resources. The 
Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program, 
known as Project SAFECOM was established to promote a more 
efficient and coordinated effort to achieve critical network 
interoperability. The Committee endorses Project SAFECOM as the 
means to accomplish this purpose. FEMA, through Project 
SAFECOM, is directed to develop requirements, goals, and 
timeframes and report back to the Committee by March 31, 2003 
on its efforts.
    The Committee directs FEMA, within 90 days of enactment of 
this legislation, to update its guidance on outdoor warning and 
mass notification systems, CPG 1-17, and immediately upon its 
publication to disseminate the guidance to units of government 
at the federal, state and local level to aid them in the 
purchase of this equipment. The committee recognizes that many 
of the basic principles outlined in the guidance document 
continue to apply to these systems, but the guidance document 
must be updated to reflect some of the technological advances 
that have taken place since originally published in 1980. The 
updated guidance shall reflect the benefits of using voice 
technology to address all natural and man-made hazards, 
including acts of terrorism, and shall require that all warning 
systems be operable in the absence of AC power supply. Further, 
the Committee urges FEMA to consult with other relevant 
agencies and use the updated CPG 1-17 as the baseline for 
formulating a national standard for outdoor warning and mass 
notification that reflects the latest state-of-the art 
technology.
    FEMA is directed to continue its partnership with the 
National Technology Transfer Center at the fiscal year 2000 
level to bring technology applications to the local, state, and 
Federal levels of the emergency management community for the 
purpose of responding to both natural disasters and terrorist 
attacks and reducing their impact.

                     FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $450,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................   \1\ 360,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........   \1\ +90,000,000
Comparison with budget request........................      +450,000,000

\1\ Funding for this activity was included under Emergency Management
  Planning and Assistance.

    This account supports a grant program of assistance to 
local fire fighting departments for the purpose of protecting 
the health and safety of the public and fire fighting 
personnel, including volunteers and emergency medical service 
personnel, against fire and fire-related hazards.
    The Committee recommends funding of $450,000,000 in fiscal 
year 2003, an increase of $90,000,000 when compared to fiscal 
year 2002 appropriations and an increase of $450,000,000 when 
compared to the budget request. A provision is included in the 
bill which transfers a portion of these funds to Salaries and 
Expenses to necessary administrative costs.
    The Committee urges FEMA to work in a collaborative and 
inclusive manner in the planning, training and equipping of all 
front line responders, including but not limited to all 
components of EMS, fire, police, and other parties a locality 
may employ. Additionally, the Committee believes that FEMA 
should give priority to applicants proposing entry-level 
physicals or immunizations under the Health and Wellness grant 
category.

                RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND

    The fiscal year 1999 bill included language establishing 
the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Fund. The Committee 
recommendation includes continuation of this Fund in fiscal 
year 2003.

                   EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $153,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       140,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       153,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +13,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......          +308,000

    The Emergency Food and Shelter Program within the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency originated in the 1983 Emergency 
Jobs legislation. Minor modifications were incorporated in the 
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. The program is designed 
to help address the problems of the hungry and homeless. 
Appropriated funds are awarded to a National Board to carry out 
programs for sheltering and feeding the needy. This program is 
nationwide in scope and provides such assistance through local 
private voluntary organizations and units of government 
selected by local boards in areas designated by the National 
Board as being in highest need.
    The Committee has recommended $153,000,000 for the 
Emergency Food and Shelter Program, an increase of $13,000,000 
when compared to the fiscal year 2002 appropriation and the 
same as the budget request. The budget had proposed that this 
program be transferred to the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development in an effort to consolidate ``homeless'' programs. 
The Committee recommends that the program remain at FEMA where 
it has a proven track record of providing assistance to those 
most in need at the lowest possible cost.
    Once again this year, bill language is included which 
limits administrative costs to 3.5% for fiscal year 2002.

                      FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $200,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       300,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........      +200,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......      -100,000,000

    The budget request included $300,000,000 for the Flood Map 
Modernization Fund in recognition of the overwhelming need to 
update maps which are on average close to 14 years old. Maps 
this old do not always reflect the current state of development 
and hydrology and in many cases are of little use in 
determining the true risk to homes or buildings. The Committee 
noted last year that floods are the nation's most costly and 
frequent natural disasters and at that time proposed funding of 
over $150,000,000 to begin a robust flood map modernization 
program. Unfortunately, the Conference on this bill last year 
was not able to endorse the House position due to a lack of 
funding. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2003 
includes $200,000,000 for the Flood Map Modernization Fund.
    The Committee wants to emphasize that modernization of 
flood maps should not sacrifice quality for quantity and 
program performance goals should not emphasize short-term 
quantity over product quality. At a minimum, the Committee 
directs FEMA to use no less than $75,000,000 for ``basin-wide'' 
analyses and up to $45,000,000 shall be dedicated to working 
with State and local communities to build on local knowledge 
and capabilities through Cooperating Technical Partnership 
agreements.
    The Committee commends FEMA for its development of 
Cooperating Technical Partnerships with local and state 
governments and regional entities. Such involvement of state, 
local, and regional government bodies is encouraged since such 
engagement improves the quality of the new maps and fosters 
heightened local risk awareness. Voluntary contributions, 
either monetary or in-kind, are expected so that the investment 
of federal dollars is leveraged. Recognizing that some 
communities can commit significantly more resources than others 
and that accurately mapping risk serves the national interest 
and assists in reducing natural disaster costs to the nation, 
cost shares will vary on a case by case basis but a goal of 20% 
is to be sought. FEMA is directed to make $2,000,000 available 
to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation for 
the New York Flood Plain Mapping Program, and use $2,000,000 to 
continue the Louisiana pilot project to provide two-foot 
contour interval mapping of ground elevations.
    FEMA is directed to make $250,000 available to the Canaan 
Valley Institute to develop flood plane maps of West Virginia 
for areas that are currently unmapped and/or update existing 
flood plain maps.
    The Committee has been made aware that the state of Alabama 
is in the process of developing a statewide Geographic 
Information System (GIS) clearinghouse responsible for 
collecting and distributing GIS data to the various federal, 
state, local and private users. The Committee is encouraged by 
this GIS initiative and believes it is consistent with the 
overarching goals of FEMA's Flood Map Modernization Program. 
Therefore, the Committee urges FEMA to partner with the Alabama 
Department of Revenue and the state of Alabama in order to 
further develop the Alabama statewide GIS initiative.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 requires the 
purchase of insurance in communities where it is available as a 
condition for receiving various forms of Federal financial 
assistance for acquisition and construction of buildings or 
projects within special flood hazard areas identified by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. All existing buildings and 
their contents in communities where flood insurance is 
available, through either the emergency or regular program, are 
eligible for a first layer of coverage of subsidized premium 
rates.
    Full risk actuarial rates are charged for new construction 
or substantial improvements commenced in identified special 
flood hazard areas after December 31, 1974, or after the 
effective date of the flood insurance rate map issued to the 
community, whichever is later. For communities in the regular 
program, a second layer of flood insurance coverage is 
available at actuarial rates on all properties, and actuarial 
rates for both layers apply to all new construction or 
substantial improvements located in special flood hazard areas. 
The program operations are financed with premium income 
augmented by Treasury borrowings.
    The Committee has included bill language proposed in the 
budget request for salaries and expenses to administer the 
fund, not to exceed $32,393,000, and for mitigation activities, 
not to exceed $77,666,000. Also included is a limitation of 
$20,000,000 for expenses under Section 1366 of the National 
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, which shall be 
available for transfer to the National Flood Mitigation Fund.
    The Committee is aware that authorization to write new 
policies during all of fiscal year 2003 does not currently 
exist. The Committee has included bill language which extends 
this authority through December 31 of 2004 to ensure the 
seamless operation of the program.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $20,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        20,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        20,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriations.......                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    The budget request includes a program to address the issue 
of repetitive loss properties within the National Flood 
Insurance Program. This program targets properties with a high 
incidence of repetitive losses, and offer removal or elevation 
of structures with the goal of significantly reducing the 
future costs of the National Flood Insurance Fund. The 
Committee recommends $20,000,000 for this effort in fiscal year 
2003, to be derived by transfer from the National Flood 
Insurance Program.

                        ADMINISTRATION PROVISION

    The Committee has included an administrative provision 
which specifies that a hospital meeting the standard for 
occupancy under regulations established by the California 
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) 
shall also have satisfied FEMA's criteria for ``Immediate 
occupancy.'' The Committee has taken this action because FEMA 
has been unable to resolve a dispute with regard to Valley 
Presbyterian Hospital in California as directed in the report 
accompanying the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill.
    The Committee has included an administrative provision 
which gives FEMA authority to provide funds to the City of New 
York and the State of New York for costs unreimbursed under the 
Stafford Act. These funds are to be derived from appropriations 
for the Disaster Relief account made available under Public Law 
107-117. It is the understanding of the Committee that the 
categories of costs will include, but not be limited to, 
salaries for uniformed and other personnel, capital expenses 
necessary to protect public safety and health, and fire 
department costs. It is not the intent of the Committee that 
any of these funds shall be used for the non-Federal share of 
any cost share programs. Prior to receipt of these funds, the 
City of New York and the State of New York shall provide FEMA 
and the Committee with a detailed spending plan with full cost 
justifications. These plans must include a certification that 
the items paid for with these funds have not been reimbursed 
under the Stafford Act.

                    General Services Administration

                FEDERAL CITIZEN INFORMATION CENTER FUND

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $11,541,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................         7,276,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        12,541,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        +4,265,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request..............        -1,000,000

    The Consumer Information Center (CIC) was established 
within the General Services Administration (GSA) by Executive 
Order on October 26, 1970, to help Federal departments and 
agencies promote and distribute consumer information collected 
as a byproduct of the Government's program activities.
    The Federal Information Center (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 a nationwide toll-free 
telephone call center.
    On January 28, 2000, the Consumer Information Center 
assumed responsibility for the operations of the FIC program 
with the resulting organization being officially named the 
Federal Consumer Information Center. The Federal Consumer 
Information Center combines the nationwide toll-free telephone 
assistance program and the database of the FIC with the CIC 
website and publications distribution programs.
    During fiscal year 2002, the Federal Consumer Information 
Center became part of GSA's newly established Office of Citizen 
Services and Communications and was renamed the Federal Citizen 
Information Center (FCIC). The new Office serves as a central 
federal gateway for citizens, businesses, other governments, 
and the media to obtain information and services from the 
government. FCIC assumed operational control of the 
FirstGov.gov website and in fiscal year 2003 plans to begin 
accepting e-mail and fax inquiries from the public.
    Public Law 98-63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a 
revolving fund for the CIC. Under this fund, FCIC activities 
are financed from the following: annual appropriations from the 
general funds of the Treasury, reimbursements from agencies for 
distribution of publications, user fees collected from the 
public, and any other income incident to FCIC activities. All 
are available as authorized in appropriation acts without 
regard to fiscal year limitations. The bill includes a 
limitation of $18,000,000 on the availability of the revolving 
fund. Any revenues accruing to this fund during fiscal year 
2003 in excess of this amount shall remain in the fund and are 
not available for expenditure except as authorized in 
appropriation Acts.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $11,541,000, 
an increase of $4,265,000 over the level for fiscal year 2002 
and a decrease of $1,000,000 from the budget request. The 
Committee recognizes the importance and is supportive of the 
Administration's interest in expanding FCIC services to the 
public. To this end, the Committee has increased funding for 
FCIC by almost sixty percent over the level provided in fiscal 
year 2002.
    The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from 
Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications, 
user fees from the public, and other income. FCIC's anticipated 
obligations for fiscal year 2003 will total approximately 
$15,946,000.
    The Committee is supportive of the expansion of the Federal 
Citizen Information Center to include management of the 
FirstGov portal. This is in keeping with the FCIC mission to be 
a one-stop, multi-channel provider of Federal information to 
the public through print, the media, and online. Further, the 
Committee is strongly opposed to any weakening in staffing of 
the consumer mission of the program and firmly believes that 
moving the consumer media staff outside of FCIC would seriously 
diminish FCIC's ability to inform and educate the public about 
vital consumer issues. Additionally, the Committee is convinced 
that removing the Comptroller of the FCIC Fund out of the FCIC 
organization would fragment the fiduciary accountability of 
this appropriation.
    Because of the Committee's commitment to protect and 
strengthen both the FCIC program as a whole and its financial 
integrity, and to avoid any conflict of Committee jurisdiction, 
the Committee directs that the FCIC organization and management 
structure as presented in the fiscal year 2003 Congressional 
Justification be retained, notwithstanding the changes that 
have already been implemented to incorporate the management and 
staffing of the FirstGov portal.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................   $15,300,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    14,901,700,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    15,000,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........      +398,300,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request..............      +300,000,000

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was 
created by the National Space Act of 1958. NASA conducts space 
and aeronautics research, development, and flight activity 
designed to ensure and maintain U.S. preeminence in space and 
aeronautical endeavors.
    The Committee has recommended a total program level of 
$15,300,000,000 in fiscal year 2003, which is an increase of 
$300,000,000 from the budget request and an increase of 
$398,300,000 when compared to the fiscal year 2002 enacted 
appropriation.
    The Committee strongly believes that NASA's goal of 
significantly improving the agency's financial management 
process, as a primary goal, is noteworthy. The Committee is 
convinced that this increased emphasis on financial management, 
and the improved cost visibility that will result from these 
efforts, will yield substantially improved decision making in 
the future.
    Integrated Financial Management Program. The Committee is 
aware that there have been two previous NASA attempts at 
fielding a new financial management system, neither of which 
was successful. The Committee concurs with recent revisions to 
the program, which, in order to reduce risk, has focused on 
fielding the core financial programs initially, and on reducing 
overlap with follow-on modules. However, the Committee is 
concerned about the current estimated overall cost of the IFMP 
at $644,300,000. The Committee directs that NASA undertake a 
comprehensive review of all elements of IFMP and follow-on IFMP 
modules in order to reduce the overall cost; this review should 
include consideration by NASA of other financial applications 
already operating within the government. NASA is directed to 
submit the results of this review not later than February 15, 
2003.
    Working Capital Fund. In support of efforts to improve cost 
visibility, the Committee has authorized the establishment of a 
working capital fund. The Committee recommends that information 
technology (IT) be adopted as the first area for inclusion in 
the fund since Agency reports indicate that IT funding has not 
been sufficiently managed in the past, and this lack of control 
has threatened the performance of numerous Agency-wide systems, 
not the least of which has been information financial 
management. The Committee cautions the Agency that the working 
capital fund should not be used as a means to circumvent the 
normal appropriations process.
    Full Cost Accounting/Reports. The Committee also notes that 
the Agency plans to submit the fiscal year 2004 budget under a 
full cost model. It should be noted, however, that there are 
numerous recurring reports and cost limitations that may be 
affected as a result of this change, not the least of which is 
the limitation on expenditures for the International Space 
Station. NASA is directed to submit, in conjunction with the 
fiscal year 2004 budget, recommended changes to existing law, 
if necessary, to the ``cost caps'' to reflect full cost 
methodology.
    Title IV of the bill includes four general provisions which 
directly affect NASA operations. Section 419 provides for the 
establishment of a working capital fund. Section 420 provides 
NASA with enhanced lease authority. Section 421 provides NASA 
with authority to privatize certain utility systems. This 
authority is similar to that provided to the Department of 
Defense. The Committee has taken this action in anticipation of 
NASA getting more reliable and cost efficient utility service 
in selected locations. Included in the legislation is direction 
requiring NASA to present to the Congress a detailed economic 
analysis prior to entering into any agreement to convey 
utilities to a private party. Finally, Section 422 extends 
NASA's authority to offer buy-out incentives to employees for 
three additional years.

                           HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    $6,130,900,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     6,912,400,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     6,130,900,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........      -781,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request..............                +0

    This appropriation provides for human space flight 
activities, including development of the international space 
station and operation of the space shuttle. This account also 
includes support of planned cooperative activities with Russia, 
upgrades to the performance and safety of the space shuttle, 
and required construction projects in direct support of the 
space station and space shuttle programs. Starting with the 
fiscal year 2002 appropriation, this account also includes 
funding for activities previously carried in the Mission 
Support appropriations account.
    The Committee recommends a total of $6,130,900,000 for the 
human space flight account in fiscal year 2003.
    In the past this Committee and the Congress have been 
staunch supporters of NASA's efforts to upgrade its shuttle 
fleet in the areas of safety and reliability. It is with deep 
regret that the Committee notes that once again, major safety 
upgrades funded in prior years' budgets have been cancelled due 
to technological obstacles or cost constraints. The Committee 
is frustrated that NASA cannot seem to accurately evaluate the 
risks of its proposed upgrade program components and the cost 
of those components. The Committee directs NASA to undertake a 
serious evaluation of the process by which safety upgrades are 
proposed and approved, only to be cancelled or deferred less 
than one year later. NASA is directed to report to the 
Committee on Appropriations within 60 days on the steps being 
taken to correct deficiencies in the process.

                  SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND TECHNOLOGY

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    $9,144,500,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     7,889,600,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     8,844,500,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........    +1,287,400,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request..............      +300,000,000

    This appropriation provides for the research and 
development activities of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. These activities include: space science, life 
and microgravity science, earth sciences, aero-space 
technology, advanced concepts and technology, space operations, 
and academic programs. Funds are also included for the 
construction, maintenance, and operation of programmatic 
facilities. Starting in fiscal year 2002, this account also 
includes funding for activities previously carried in the 
Mission Support appropriations account.
    The Committee recommends $9,144,500,000 for Science, 
Aeronautics and Technology in fiscal year 2003. The amount 
recommended is an increase of $300,000,000 to the budget 
request, and $1,287,400,000 more than the fiscal year 2002 
appropriation.

                             Space Science

    Within the Space Science portion of this account, the 
Committee recommends $3,556,200,000, a net increase of 
$141,900,000 to the budget request.
    The Committee is supportive of the New Frontiers Program as 
a competitive process to undertake missions to the outer 
planets. The Committee is concerned that the New Frontiers 
Program as proposed by NASA may be unduly constrained by a 
uniform cap on mission costs of $650 million. Since the purpose 
of the program is to undertake scientifically valuable 
missions, the cap should not limit the mission options being 
considered. The Committee supports New Frontiers with a 
flexible cap for each new opportunity ($500 million to $1 
billion in fiscal year 2002 dollars) prior to open competition, 
giving due consideration to specified scientific objectives.
    The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
    1. An increase of $2,500,000 for the Center for Space 
Sciences at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
    2. An increase of $105,000,000 for the Kuiper Belt/Pluto 
mission.
    3. An increase of $40,000,000 for the Europa mission. In 
light of the high priority by the National Academy decadal 
study for a Europa Orbiter Mission and the public support for 
Europa exploration as indicated by the recent survey of the 
Planetary Society, the Committee directs NASA to conduct a 
focused technology program and begin Phase A activities to 
ensure that this mission is ready at the earliest possible 
opportunity and that NASA preserves its core capabilities to 
implement and manage such a mission at the Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory. The Committee recommendation includes $30,000,000 
for this activity and an additional $10,000,000 for instrument 
technology. The Committee is aware that JPL has an 
relationships with research universities on its outer planetary 
programs and anticipates that a majority of the $10,000,000 
million will be expended solidifying those relationships.
    4. An increase of $500,000 for Morehead State University, 
Kentucky, for upgrades to its ADAS satellite tracking facility.
    5. An increase of $2,000,000 for propulsion testing 
facilities at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
    6. An increase of $500,000 for the Ultra-lightweight 
Electroformed Segmented Large Aperture Optics program at 
Alabama A&M University.
    7. An increase of $900,000 for High-Energy Photonics 
Instrumentation at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
    8. An increase of $7,500,000 for development of a 
lightweight carrier pallet to support the Hubble Space 
Telescope program. The recent success of the Hubble servicing 
mission has underscored the continued importance of the Hubble 
Space Telescope. NASA's plan for HST has been to discontinue 
servicing missions after 2004 in order to create a funding 
wedge for the next generation space telescope (NGST), the 
community's highest priority, and to return HST to earth in 
2010. Although this scenario creates an important funding 
wedge, it also leads to a significant probability that HST will 
degrade over the intervening six-year period and become 
inoperable well before 2010. This gap may be so long that HST 
archival data alone may not sustain a productive scientific 
community. The Committee directs that NASA carry out an in-
depth study of possible alternatives to the 2010 return mission 
that would increase the probability of operating HST until NGST 
becomes available. This study should address the possibility of 
an additional servicing mission, SM5, and as an alternative, a 
final servicing mission in 2007 in lieu of the 2010 mission 
that would include a means of disposing of HST other than by 
Shuttle return. This study should address the relative costs of 
such scenarios, the potential scientific benefits, and the 
mission constraints that will need to be considered for the 
2010 return mission.
    9. An increase of $19,900,000 to the Mars program to cover 
recent cost increases. This funding is derived through a 
decrease in funding for the flight projects building, a 
cancelled project at the Jet Propulsion Lab.
    10. A decrease of $10,000,000 from the Nuclear Electric 
Propulsion program and a decrease of $7,000,000 from the 
Nuclear Power System program.

                    Biological and Physical Research

    Within the Biological and Physical Research portion of this 
account, the Committee recommends $854,200,000, a net increase 
of $11,900,000 to the budget request.
    Within the amount provided, the Committee directs NASA to 
establish a floor of funding support for the National Space 
Biomedical Research Institute at $30,000,000 in fiscal year 
2003.
    The Committee remains committed to a healthy and productive 
Materials Science research program. This program has undergone 
multiple reviews by the National Research Council. It has also 
produced a backlog of well-respected investigators whose 
experiments have undergone multiple peer reviews, certifying 
that they will provide useful scientific returns that can only 
be obtained in the microgravity environment of space.
    The Committee is concerned that recent changes to the 
Materials Science program have jeopardized the ability of the 
International Space Station to support a robust materials 
science research program. Therefore, the Committee expects NASA 
to maintain its commitment to a healthy materials research 
program, which at a minimum includes the timely completion of 
the Materials Science Research Rack--1, its experiment modules 
and module inserts, and the planned, peer-reviewed materials 
investigations that were to utilize this facility.
    The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
    1. An increase of $4,000,000 for the Space Radiation 
program at Loma Linda University Hospital.
    2. An increase of $1,000,000 for Canisius College for 
multi-user scientific equipment in life sciences.
    3. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Institute for 
Proteomic and Nanobiotechnology at Northwestern University.
    4. An increase of $400,000 for the Center for Research and 
Training in gravitational biology at North Carolina State 
University.
    5. An increase of $5,000,000 for the National Center of 
Excellence in Bioinformatics in Buffalo, New York.
    6. An increase of $8,000,000 for procurement of animal and 
plant habitats for the international space station.
    7. A decrease of $11,200,000 from the Generations program. 
The Committee recognizes the value of the research being 
proposed through the Generations program, but finds the program 
to unaffordable at this time given shortages in funding for 
equipment for the International Space Station.
    8. The Committee notes that NASA's 15 Commercial Space 
Centers are all under the management of the Office of 
Biological and Physical Research and directs NASA to support 
Centers at a funding level of $18,500,000, an increase of 
$3,700,000 to the budget request.

                             Earth Sciences

    Within the Earth Sciences portion of this account, the 
Committee recommends $1,675,000,000, a net increase of 
$46,600,000 to the budget request.
    The Committee commends the work of the New Jersey NASA 
Specialized Center of Research and Training and its application 
not only to long duration space missions but its impact on the 
agricultural and environmental business sectors. The Committee 
encourages NASA to continue funding these vital efforts and 
recommends the agency create a technology development and 
demonstration center focusing on life support issues in closed 
environments in New Jersey.
    The fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill and accompanying 
reports gave NASA Congressional direction to establish an 
implementation plan for Earth science applications 
partnerships. NASA completed the report on its implementation 
plan in June of 2002 and forwarded the report to the Committee 
for its review. The Committee has reviewed the report and finds 
that it offers a good basis on which to build a credible 
program utilizing remote sensing data from the Earth Observing 
System. Accordingly, the Committee recommendations do not 
include any funding for new remote sensing applications 
centers, but urges NASA to follow through with its 
implementation plan which calls for a widely competed program.
    The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
    1. An increase of $650,000 for the NASA Center for Marine 
Remote Sensing at the University of New England.
    2. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Advanced Tropical 
Remote Sensing Center of the National Center for Tropical 
Remote Sensing Applications and resources at the Rosenstiel 
School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.
    3. An increase of $500,000 for continuation of emerging 
research that applies remote sensing technologies to forest 
management practices at the State University of New York, 
College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry.
    4. An increase of $2,500,000 for NASA's Regional 
Application Center for the Northeast.
    5. An increase of $15,000,000 for the Institute of Software 
Research for development and construction of research 
facilities.
    6. An increase of $1,750,000 for on-going activities at the 
Goddard Institute for Systems, Software, and Technology 
Research, including UAV and remote sensing technology research.
    7. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Clustering and 
Advanced Visual Environments initiative.
    8. An increase of $6,000,000 for data storage back-up and 
recovery managed services that supports the Goddard Space 
Flight Center (GSFC) programs, providing heterogeneous support 
to existing information systems and scalability to serve future 
requirements.
    9. An increase of $10,000,000 to be transferred to the Air 
Force Research Laboratory (PE 602204F Aerospace Sensors) to 
develop dual-use lightweight space radar technology.
    10. An increase of $1,500,000 for the United States portion 
of a joint U.S./Italian satellite development program to 
remotely observe forest fires.
    11. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Little River Canyon 
field school.

                         Aero-Space Technology

    Within the Aero-Space Technology portion of this account, 
the Committee recommends $2,883,850,000 a net increase of 
$68,050,000 to the budget request.
    The Committee has grown increasingly concerned that today's 
airspace modernization efforts fall short of addressing 
existing and emerging needs. Growing numbers of flight delays 
and cancellations over the past few years can be attributed to 
fundamental limitations in aviation system capacity. 
Congestion, delays and inefficient routing have serious 
economic and environmental consequences. The events of 
September 11, 2001 not only highlighted the importance of 
aviation to our entire economy, but also demonstrated the need 
to enhance aviation system security to reduce the risk that 
future threats result in the shutdown of our national airspace 
system.
    The Committee strongly urges the NASA Administrator, in 
consultation with the FAA Administrator to participate in a 
national initiative with the objective of defining and 
developing an air traffic management system designed to meet 
national long-term aviation security, safety, capacity and 
efficiency needs. Such an initiative would result in a multi-
agency blueprint for acquisition and implementation of an air 
traffic management system that would build upon current air 
traffic management and infrastructure initiatives. The 
initiative should take a system of systems approach toward 
integrating the requirements, resources, and capabilities of 
all key agencies or department and utilize stakeholder based 
system performance requirements to determine an optimal 
operational concept and system architecture. New modeling, 
simulation, and analysis tools should be used to validate 
system performance and benefits. The national initiative should 
also develop a transition plan for successful implementation 
into the National Airspace System (NAS).
    The Committee recognizes that any significant improvement 
in the National Airspace System will depend upon a robust 
technology development program. Given the thirty-year 
involvement of Glenn Research Center in developing innovative 
communications research and technology for NASA, the Center 
should play a significant role in achieving the development of 
this technology.
    The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
    1. An increase of $19,000,000 for Intelligent Propulsion 
for Next Generation Aircraft to build on and leverage the Ultra 
Efficient Engine Technology and Quiet Aircraft Technology 
programs.
    2. An increase of $2,500,000 for the NASA-Illinois 
Technology Commercialization Center at DuPage County Research 
Park.
    3. An increase of $300,000 for the Rural Technology 
Transfer and Commercialization Center of Durant, Oklahoma.
    4. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Tulane Institute for 
Macromolecular Engineering and Science for polymer research.
    5. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Glennan Microsystem 
Initiative.
    6. An increase of $500,000 to be used for continued 
development of an electric/diesel hybrid engine at Bowling 
Green State University in conjunction with the University of 
Toledo.
    7. An increase of $6,000,000 for the HITS multilateration 
sensor and surveillance server for Airport Surface Detection 
and Management System.
    8. An increase of $5,000,000 to develop in partnership with 
the Air Force Research Laboratory-Information Directorate, the 
JVIEW modeling and simulation system for satellite coverage 
analysis, ground radars and air traffic over the United States.
    9. An increase of $5,000,000 for Project SOCRATES.
    10. An increase of $7,000,000 for continuation of the Space 
Alliance Technology Outreach Program, including $3,000,000 for 
business incubators, in Florida and New York.
    11. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Advanced Interactive 
Discovery Environment engineering research program at Syracuse 
University.
    12. An increase of $5,000,000 for the National Center of 
Excellence in Infotonics in Rochester, New York.
    13. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Virtual Collaboration 
Center at the North Carolina GigaPop.
    14. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Garrett Morgan 
Commercialization Initiative in Ohio.
    15. An increase of $1,000,000 for on-going activities in 
support of NASA Dryden Flight Research Center's Intelligent 
Flight Control System (IFCS) research project.
    16. An increase of $1,250,000 for ongoing research at 
Marshall Space Flight Center in the area of advanced and 
breakthrough solutions for propulsion.
    17. An increase of $9,000,000 for hydrogen research being 
conducted by the Florida State University System.
    18. An increase of $5,000,000 to develop in partnership 
with the Air Force Research Laboratory-Information Directorate, 
the JVIEW modeling and simulation system for satellite coverage 
analysis, ground radars and air traffic over the United States.
    19. An increase of $500,000 for aerospace projects being 
accomplished by the Montana Aerospace Development Authority.
    20. An increase of $800,000 for Middle Tennessee State 
University for the SATS Aerospace Flight Education Research 
Initiative.
    21. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Advanced Power 
Systems project.
    22. An increase of $5,000,000 for the DP-2 vectored thrust 
program.
    23. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Energy Momentum Wheel 
project at Goddard Space Flight Center.
    24. An increase of $1,000,000 for COM simulation 
architecture program.
    25. An increase of $4,000,000 for NASA's Independent 
Verification and Validation Facility
    26. An increase of $2,000,000 for equipment for the 
Computer Forensics Technology Center at Utica College of 
Syracuse University.
    27. An increases of $7,000,000 for the Small Aircraft 
Transportation System. The Committee is concerned that NASA has 
not requested sufficient funding to enable the Small Aircraft 
Transportation System (SATS) program to demonstrate the 
practical application of the SATS Program concept, which offers 
the promise of extending reliable point-to-point air service to 
smaller communities and has provided this increase. The 
additional funding is to be invested through the governance 
process of the National Consortium for Aviation Mobility 
(NCAM), exclusively for acceleration of regional service 
demonstrations that apply those SATS and related technologies 
ready for implementation, and for automotive technology 
transfer. The Committee expects NCAM to use these additional 
funds to accelerate the planning and conduct of SATS regional 
service demonstrations in states with strong state, community, 
and transportation service provider participation in the NCAM 
partnership. This funding for NCAM is in addition to the 
$11,750,000 proposed by NASA for fiscal year 2003. Further, the 
Committee expects the SATS service demonstrations to provide 
the participating communities and their representative 
organizations with an opportunity to participate in SATS 
transportation service demonstrations, an analysis of economic 
impacts and related implications of improved air access to 
smaller communities, and an explanation of the technologies 
behind the concept.
    The Committee expects the SATS program to engage NCAM 
partners in efforts to enhance the affordability of SATS to 
end-users through an inter-modal transportation technology 
transfer effort in coordination with relevant industrial 
automotive technology development efforts.
    The Committee expects the SATS service demonstrations to be 
done in collaboration with the FAA and, as appropriate, in 
cooperation with the FAA's Safe Flight 21 Program. The SATS 
project will address issues raised by the FAA regarding 
operational procedures and safety criteria for the SATS 
technologies and their deployment. A primary objective of the 
FAA-NASA collaboration in the SATS program is for the output of 
the 2005 demonstration activities to be sufficient to define 
the implementation actions required for deployment of SATS 
transportation services.
    NASA is directed to provide a report to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the House and the Senate on the status of 
program progress and results on March 31 of each year. Finally, 
the Committee directs that future budget requests for SATS 
shall identify sufficient funding to enable NCAM to fully carry 
out the service demonstrations and the automotive technology 
transfer, including adequate funding to support full 
collaboration between SATS and the FAA.
    28. A decrease of $31,000,000, without prejudice, from the 
Space Launch Initiative program. The Committee recommendation 
includes the full request for of $62,700,000 for Alternative 
Access to Station. Because NASA's Research Maximization and 
Prioritization Task Force has called for additional ``upmass'' 
to improve ISS research productivity, the Committee directs 
that these funds be used to demonstrate a near-term commercial 
ISS re-supply service.
    29. An increase of $500,000 for the Advanced Space 
Propulsion Materials Research and Technology Center at Alabama 
A&M University.
    30. An increase of $1,000,000 for high temperature 
nanotechnology research to be conducted at Glenn Research 
Center.
    31. An increase of $1,000,000 for the computing, 
information, and communications technology program only for the 
development, demonstration and assessment of a mobile, 
wireless, broadband internet capability.
    The Committee supports the mission of Wallops Flight 
Facility and that facility's fully capable test range for low-
cost, aerospace-based, science and technology research through 
small to medium-sized missions. However, the Committee does not 
support the alteration of existing roles and responsibilities 
of NASA's flight centers.

                           Academic Programs

    Within the Academic Programs portion of this account, the 
Committee recommends $178,950,000 an increase of $35,250,000 to 
the budget request.
    The Committee has provided $82,100,000 for NASA's minority 
university research and education activities, the same as the 
budget request. The Committee directs that the Minority 
University Research and Education Program be retained as a 
discrete budget line in future budgets and that the Minority 
University Research and Education Division be continued within 
the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs.
    The Committee has serious concerns that too few students 
are pursuing advanced degree in aerospace science and 
engineering, with a result that the Nation's future in the 
utilization and exploration of space will be compromised. The 
Committee recognizes that for advanced education to be 
effective, it must be pursued in universities with active 
research programs. NASA, with its longstanding support of 
university-based research, is in a unique position to ensure 
that the university research base, and the educational 
opportunities that accompany it, are sufficient to the Nation's 
needs. Accordingly, NASA is directed, in cooperation with the 
Nation's leading research universities, to develop a 
comprehensive plan and implementation strategy that will result 
in an increase in the number of students pursuing advanced 
degrees in the presence of vibrant university research efforts. 
The plan should include means to increase the number of 
university research and educational groups, to increase the 
number of new, young faculty; to build cooperative 
relationships between universities and NASA centers; and means 
for attracting and supporting students. The plan should be 
submitted to the Committee by March 15, 2003 and will serve as 
the basis for consideration of the fiscal year 2004 NASA 
budget.
    The Committee encourages NASA to develop closer working 
relationships with universities in regions adjacent to national 
laboratories. National laboratories have assets and 
capabilities that are important to graduate student support and 
collaborations with regional universities.
    The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
    1. An increase of $250,000 for Niagara University for 
science, engineering and math programs.
    2. An increase of $1,200,000 for the NASA Educator Resource 
Center at South East Missouri State University.
    3. An increase of $1,050,000 for the Carl Sagan Discovery 
Science Center at the Children's Hospital at Montefiore Medical 
Center to implement the educational programming for this 
science learning project.
    4. An increase of $2,500,000 for the JASON Foundation.
    5. An increase of $4,000,000 for continuation of programs 
at the American Museum of Natural History.
    6. An increase of $1,000,000 to the U.S. Space and Rocket 
Center for an Educational Training Center.
    7. An increase of $1,000,000 for academic and 
infrastructure needs at St. Thomas University in Miami, 
Florida.
    8. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Ohio View Consortium.
    9. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Alabama Math, Science, 
and Technology initiative.
    10. An increase of $2,500,000 to the Educational 
Advancement Alliance to support the Alliance's math, science, 
and technology enrichment program.
    11. An increase of $5,000,000 for the National Space Grant 
College and Fellowship program. The funding level recommended 
by the Committee is $24,100,000, the same as the fiscal year 
2002 appropriation. By this action, the Committee has funded 
the core programs of the 52 consortia, including some modest 
upgrades. NASA is encouraged to use these consortia to continue 
workforce development initiative to attract and retain 
educated, skilled diverse employees for ANSA and aerospace 
industries. It is imperative that NASA encourage additional 
young people to pursue careers in science and engineering and 
these consortia are on the front lines for this effort.
    12. An increase of $500,000 for Science, Engineering, Math 
and Aerospace Academy programs at Central Arizona College.
    13. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Center for Science 
and Math at the University of Redlands.
    14. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Chabot Space and 
Science Center for math and science education.
    15. An increase of $2,000,000 for the City College of New 
York to establish a community-based science and technology 
education facility.
    16. An increase of $500,000 for Science, Engineering, Math 
and Aerospace Academy programs at Livingstone College.
    17. An increase of $550,000 for the Patriots Technology 
Training Center in Seat Pleasant, Maryland.
    18. An increase of $5,400,000 for the EPSCoR program for a 
total funding level of $10,000,000, the same as fiscal year 
2002.
    19. An increase of $800,000 for Science, Engineering, Math, 
and Aeronautics Academy in Miami, Florida.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $24,600,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        23,700,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        24,600,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request..............                 0

    The Office of the Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978 and is responsible for audit and 
investigation of all agency programs.
    The Committee recommends $24,600,000 for the Office of the 
Inspector General in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $900,000 
to the amount provided in fiscal year 2002 and the same as the 
budget request for fiscal year 2002.

                       Administrative Provisions

    The bill includes four administrative provisions as carried 
in prior appropriations acts, three of which were proposed in 
the budget.

                  National Credit Union Administration

                       CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FACILITY

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on
                                     Limitation on      administrative
                                     direct loans          expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.    ($1,500,000,000)          ($309,000)
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation..     (1,500,000,000)           (309,000)
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.     (1,500,000,000)                 (0)
Comparison with fiscal year 2002                 (0)                 (0)
 appropriation..................
Comparison with fiscal year 2003                 (0)                 (0)
 request........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility Act 
established the National Credit Union Administration Central 
Liquidity Facility (CLF) on October 1, 1979, as a mixed-
ownership government corporation within the National Credit 
Union Administration. It is managed by the National Credit 
Union Administration and is owned by its member credit unions. 
Loans may not be used to expand a loan portfolio, but are 
authorized to meet short-term requirements such as emergency 
outflows from managerial difficulties, seasonal credit, and 
protracted adjustment credit for long-term needs caused by 
disintermediation or regional economic decline.
    The Committee recommends a limitation of $1,500,000,000 on 
CLF lending activity to member credit unions from borrowed 
funds. This limitation represents the same level as fiscal year 
2002 and the same as the budget request. The Committee expects 
to be kept apprised of CLF lending activity.
    The Committee recommends the budget request of not more 
than $309,000 for administrative expenses.

               COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................        $1,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................         1,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................         1,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request..............                 0

    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 five years, although 
shorter repayment periods may be considered. Technical 
assistance grants are also available to low-income credit 
unions. Until fiscal year 2001, only earnings generated from 
the CDRLF were available to fund technical assistance grants. 
Grants are available for improving operations as well as 
addressing safety and soundness issues.
    The Committee recommends $1,000,000 be provided to the 
Community Development Revolving Loan Fund for loans to 
community development credit unions, the same level as 
requested in the budget request. Within this amount, $700,000 
is available until expended for loans to community development 
credit unions and $300,000 is available for fiscal year 2003 
for additional technical assistance grants to low-income and 
community development credit unions.

                      National Science Foundation

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    $5,422,942,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................     4,808,540,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     5,028,210,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........      +614,402,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request..............      +394,732,000

    Established in 1950 and receiving its first appropriation 
of $225,000 in 1951, the National Science Foundation celebrates 
its 51st anniversary as an important, highly regarded federal 
agency during fiscal year 2002. The primary purpose behind its 
creation was to develop a national policy on science, and 
support and promote basic research and education in the 
sciences filling the void left after World War II. Since its 
first appropriation in 1951, NSF has grown to what in fiscal 
2002 is a multi-billion dollar agency.
    The Committee recommends a total of $5,422,942,000 for 
fiscal year 2003. This recommendation is an increase of 
$614,402,000, or 13 percent, above last year's appropriation 
and an increase of $394,732,000 above the President's budget 
request.
    The Committee is strongly supportive of the National 
Science Foundation and committed to its mission of providing 
national leadership and federal financial support of research 
as the basis for scientific and social advancement for the 
nation and for the entire world. This commitment is reflected 
in the substantial 13 percent increase provided in this bill 
for the NSF for FY 2003.
    As Congress, the executive branch and the American people 
begin to consider a multi-year build-up of financial support 
for the NSF, however, the Committee also believes that a review 
of the agency's organizational, programmatic and personnel 
structures is appropriate and can provide assurance to the 
public that the agency is positioned to maximize the 
opportunities which increased funding can create. The Committee 
has allocated $1,000,000 within the agency ``Salaries and 
Expenses'' appropriation for a contract with the National 
Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to conduct such a 
study. The Committee expects this contract to be awarded no 
later than December 31, 2002.
    Without prejudicing the outcome of this NAPA review, the 
Committee is concerned about the following issues:
    Organizational and program structure. Over the last decade 
the NSF has evolved into a very complex and multi-layered 
system of directorates, sub-directorates and programs each with 
its own leadership and budget. This organizational structure is 
then managed and evaluated against a system of goals which were 
established under the Government Performance and Results Act as 
well as a set of six cross-cutting priority areas which change 
from year to year. All programs are required to justify 
themselves according to how they serve both the goals and the 
priorities. Assets flow and personnel are evaluated based on 
such evaluations even though not every program clearly is 
designed to serve every goal and every priority. There is 
concern that this system, each aspect of which may have been 
created with the best of intentions, may have become overly 
bureaucratic. Some observers have characterized this current 
structure as both Byzantine and balkanized. This reflects a 
concern that the system is broken up into large numbers of 
parts which may channel significant portions of research 
funding into narrow areas making it difficult for researchers 
to follow broader interdisciplinary projects or innovative 
research areas not yet reflected in NSF's view of scientific 
opportunity. Because recent NSF budget requests have heavily 
favored the agency's own priority areas at the expense of 
research in core disciplines, investigators often feel 
compelled to apply for support in certain areas because of a 
sense that proposals which do not fit into NSF's priorities are 
significantly disadvantaged. The Committee believes that a 
thoughtful review should ask whether the current NSF 
organization and management structure and its goal and priority 
systems should be simplified or changed.
    The balance between field driven and NSF driven science 
priority setting. Second, but clearly related, the Committee 
believes that this review should consider whether the NSF's 
approach to its stewardship mission creates the proper balance 
between necessary and appropriate levels of agency leadership 
of NSF sponsored science and the need to ensure that this 
research remains principally investigator initiated work. A 
corollary question is whether the structure of NSF and 
management control of its priority setting methodologies have 
negatively influenced the balance between NSF initiatives and 
appropriate resource allocations for core science investments.
    The underlying principal around which NSF was founded and 
which the Committee believes is still the pedestal upon which 
the success of America's taxpayer supported research rests is 
that both the choice of research priorities and the choice of 
individual projects should flow principally from practicing 
scientists in the field as expressed through organized systems 
of advice and through external peer review. The Committee 
believes that it is appropriate to review whether the balance 
of power in setting research priorities is the appropriate one 
or whether NSF has become too directive in managing its 
research portfolios.
    Role of the National Science Board. The NSF is unique in 
entrusting both advisory and executive authority for the agency 
in an ``independent'' board appointed by the president. Recent 
Congressional action has highlighted, however, the concerns 
about the relationship between the Board and the agency and its 
Director and in particular the issue as to how independent the 
Board is able to operate given its dependence on the Agency for 
financial support and personnel. The Committee has not adopted 
the proposals made by its Senate counterpart to provide for a 
separate budget for the Board but instead would request that 
the organizational review of NSF here directed include an 
analysis of the extent to which the Board has fulfilled its 
original purpose and a review of the role and the structure of 
the Board in the future.
    Personnel policies. The NSF has chosen over the years to 
rely significantly on contractual and on temporary personnel 
assigned to the agency under the IPA system to manage its 
science programs including its grant selection processes. 
Almost one-tenth of the approximately 1500 staff of the agency 
are university based researchers detailed to NSF under the 
Intergovernmental Personnel Act (so-called IPA's) and over 200 
are contractors. The assignment of non-permanent personnel to 
management positions now includes the heads of its science 
directorates. The advantage of this system is a continuous flow 
of individuals from the field who are current in their science. 
The disadvantage, however, is a cadre of agency personnel, 
including some of its most senior staff, who have less 
experience and could have split loyalties between their federal 
roles and their past or future employment base. The Committee 
believes a thoughtful review of the agency's structure should 
include an evaluation of the use of temporary staff and term 
appointments, especially to the extent this involves the heads 
of the science directorates.
    In laying out these particular concerns, the Committee does 
not mean this to be an exclusive list. The review by NAPA 
should be carried out by very senior and thoughtful persons who 
should feel free to analyze any other factors which the group 
believes are central to the question of determining what 
organizational, programmatic and personnel systems will 
facilitate the most effective partnership between the National 
Science Foundation and the scientific community for the benefit 
of the nation.
    Of the amounts approved in the following appropriations 
accounts, the Foundation must limit transfers of funds between 
programs and activities to not more than $500,000 without prior 
approval of the Committee. Further, no changes may be made to 
any account or program element if it is construed to be policy 
or a change in policy. Any activity or program cited in this 
report shall be construed as the position of the Committee and 
should not be subject to reductions or reprogramming without 
prior approval of the Committee. Finally, it is the intent of 
the Committee that all carryover funds in the various 
appropriations accounts are subject to the normal reprogramming 
requirements outlined above.

                    RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation......................     $4,150,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation.......................      3,598,340,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request......................      3,783,200,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation.......       +551,660,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request.............       +366,800,000

    The appropriation for Research and Related Activities 
covers all programs in the Foundation except Education and 
Human Resources, Salaries and Expenses, Major Research 
Equipment and Facilities Construction, and the Office of 
Inspector General. These are funded in other accounts in the 
bill. The Research and Related Activities appropriation 
includes United States Polar Research Programs and Antarctic 
Logistical Support Activities and the Critical Technologies 
Institute, which were previously funded through separate 
appropriations. Beginning with fiscal year 1997, the 
President's budget provided funding for the instrumentation 
portion of Academic Research Infrastructure in this account.
    The Committee recommends a total of $4,150,000,000 for 
Research and Related Activities in fiscal year 2003, an 
increase of $551,660,000 above last year's funding level and an 
increase of $366,800,000 above the budget request. This 
represents a 15.3 percent increase over the fiscal year 2002 
appropriated level for this entire account, and provides an 
increase of at least 15 percent over the fiscal 2002 funding 
level for seven of the nine Research and Related Activities' 
directorates. The Committee's recommendation includes the 
following program levels: (1) Biological Sciences, 
$584,670,000; (2) Computer and Information Science and 
Engineering, $592,110,000; (3) Engineering, $543,160,000; (4) 
Geosciences, $700,890,000; (5) Mathematical and Physical 
Sciences, $1,058,510,000; (6) Social Behavioral and Economic 
Sciences, $195,610,000; (7) U.S. Polar Research Programs, 
$254,000,000; (8) U.S. Antarctic Logistical Support Activities, 
$70,440,000; and (9) Integrative Activities, $150,610,000.
    Except as specifically noted herein, in allocating the 
increases provided by the Committee, the Foundation should give 
the highest priority to increasing research opportunities for 
investigator initiated research in the core scientific 
disciplines. Should the NSF find it necessary to pursue funds 
for ``emergency'' research needs at any time during the fiscal 
year, the Committee will make every effort to respond to 
appropriate reprogramming requests as quickly as possible.
    Of the amounts made available for Biological Sciences, the 
Committee has recommended $75,000,000, the budget request, to 
continue research on the genomics of plants of major economic 
importance. In addition, the Committee's recommendation 
provides $26,000,000 for Biocomplexity in the Environment 
research, an increase of 53% over the fiscal year 2002 funding 
level of $16,900,000.
    It is the Committee's intent that not to exceed $12,500,000 
of the additional funds made available for Computer and 
Information Science and Engineering, may be used by NSF for 
ongoing operational support of the two funded terascale 
computing systems. The remaining additional resources over the 
budget request should, to the greatest extent practicable, be 
focused on information technology research and cyber-security 
research.
    From within the Engineering Directorate, the Committee is 
concerned that researchers are reaching the physical limits of 
current complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) process 
technology and that this will have significant implications for 
continued productivity growth in the information economy. The 
Committee encourages NSF to examine the challenges and 
timelines outlined in the most recent International Technology 
Roadmap for Semiconductors and, where feasible, increase 
research support in this area accordingly.
    Under the Geosciences Directorate, the Committee has not 
recommended approval of the budget request to transfer to the 
NSF the Environmental Education program, currently operated by 
the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Sea Grant 
Program, operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, or the Hydrology of Toxic Substances program, 
operated by the United States Geological Survey. Each of these 
programs works well within its current framework and the 
Committee has not been convinced that such transfer as proposed 
in the budget submission will either enhance the individual 
programs or benefit the ongoing programs of the Foundation.
    Within the additional funds made available for the 
Mathematical and Physical Sciences directorate, the Committee 
expects the Foundation to allocate funds on a basis which 
provides a high priority for astronomy, including individual 
investigator grants, and sufficient resources to begin 
development of important new projects recommended in a recent 
National Academy of Sciences 10-year plan for astronomical 
science activities. In addition, the Committee's recommendation 
for the Astronomical Sciences activity includes $5,000,000 
above the budget request for the National Radio Astronomy 
Observatory (NRAO) program, $4,300,000 above the budget request 
for the National Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO), 
$2,000,000 above the budget request for the National Astronomy 
and Ionosphere Center (NAIC), and no less than the budget 
request of $4,000,000 for the Telescope Systems Instrumentation 
Program (TSIP). The Foundation is expected to aggressively 
continue its program, begun in fiscal 2001, of upgrading on a 
priority basis its astronomical facilities and equipment.
    Also within Mathematical and Physical Sciences, the 
Committee's recommendation includes the budget request of 
$181,870,000 for Mathematical Sciences and not less than 
$225,000,000, a 15% increase over the fiscal year 2002 funding 
level, for Physics programs.
    With regard to the Social, Behavioral, and Economic 
Sciences Directorate (SBE), the Committee recognizes that 
investment in basic, multidisciplinary research on learning is 
crucial to both successful educational reform and effective 
workforce development. In this regard, the Committee's 
recommendation includes support for the NSF Science of Learning 
Centers. This program is intended to build collaborative 
research communities of scientists, educators, community 
groups, and industry capable of addressing fundamental 
questions in learning and then integrating these results into 
ongoing federal education reform initiatives.
    Also within the SBE directorate, the Committee has included 
$6,000,000 for the Children's Research Initiative (CRI). This 
level of funding, an increase of $1,000,000 above that provided 
for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, will allow NSF to emphasize 
ongoing research related to enhancing literacy and improving 
math and science skills.
    For the Office of Polar Programs (OPP), an increase of 
$18,260,000 above the budget request has been provided to 
enhance the ongoing research effort as well as to provide 
additional necessary resources for operations, research support 
and logistics, and science and research grant support. In 
addition, the Committee is aware of the pressing need to 
provide both upgraded living facilities and adequate, indoor 
storage facilities at NSF's McMurdo Station in Antarctica. In 
this regard, the Committee requests that the OPP prepare and 
deliver to the Committee at the earliest date possible a report 
outlining the work that needs to be performed to upgrade these 
facilities as well as the estimated short- and long-term costs 
involved with such upgrades. The report should detail whether 
such facilities would be new construction or retrofits or 
upgrades to existing facilities. Upon completion and delivery 
of such report, OPP may utilize available resources provided 
herein to begin planning, design, pre-construction and/or 
construction activities related to such necessary upgrades.
    Finally, from within these additional funds, OPP may begin 
to execute contractual arrangements and make necessary advance 
expenditures in preparation of its plans to provide mechanical 
traverse capability between McMurdo Station and Amundsen-Scott 
South Pole Station. Because all supplies and materials going to 
the South Pole must currently be configured so as to fit in a 
C-130 aircraft, delivery of such is entirely dependent on the 
availability of aircraft and subject to severe weather 
fluctuations. Once fully implemented, this traverse capability 
thus offers the opportunity to safely and in a timely manner 
provide both increased supply volumes and construction supplies 
and equipment requiring less retrofit at a greatly reduced 
cost.
    Within the Integrative Activities Directorate, an 
additional $40,000,000 over the budget request has been 
included for Major Research Instrumentation.

          MAJOR RESEARCH FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $159,510,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       138,800,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       126,280,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +20,710,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request..............       +33,230,000

    This account provides funding for the construction of major 
research facilities that provide unique capabilities at the 
cutting edge of science and engineering.
    The Committee recommends a total of $159,510,000 for the 
major research construction and equipment account for fiscal 
year 2003, an increase of $33,230,000 over the budget request 
and $20,710,000 over the fiscal 2002 funding level.
    The Committee's recommendation includes the budget requests 
of $9,720,000 for the Large Hadron Collider, $13,560,000 for 
the George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering 
Simulation, $30,000,000 for construction funding of the Atacama 
Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) aperture-synthesis radio 
telescope, and $6,000,000 for additional construction 
requirements necessary to meet enhanced capacity needs at the 
new South Pole Station.
    In addition the Committee is recommending $25,530,000 as 
the final installment necessary to complete development of the 
High-performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for 
Environmental Research (HIAPER), and $24,700,000 for continued 
research and development of the IceCube Neutrino Detector 
Observatory in Antarctica. This project, building on the 
successful AMANDA demonstration, is designed to more fully 
develop knowledge of the origins of the universe as well as the 
fundamental nature of physical matter using its unique polar 
telescope. This device will allow scientists to measure, 
quantify and analyze neutrino particles and their role in these 
basic questions of science. The amount provided for fiscal 2003 
will support continued development, acquisition, pre-
construction, testing and logistics support necessary to 
facilitate IceCube's large-scale construction and deployment.
    Finally, the Committee has provided $40,000,000 for first 
year funding for the new EarthScope project instead of 
$35,000,000 as requested in the budget submission, and 
$10,000,000 for support of the Terascale Computing System and 
the Distributed Terascale Facility (also known as 
``Teragrid''), instead of $20,000,000 as proposed in the budget 
request.
    With regard to EarthScope, the five-year budget projections 
of this important project initially called for lesser funding 
requirements in the first, fourth, and fifth years of the 
project and dramatically increased funding in years two and 
three. In an attempt to provide a relatively level funding 
profile for the life of the project, the project's sponsors 
have developed an alternative request which provides 
$40,000,000 in year one, $42,000,000 in year two, $40,000,000 
in year three, $39,000,000 in year four, and $37,000,000 in 
year five. In addition to the obvious benefits such level 
funding will bring to the annual appropriations process, the 
sponsors have suggested this new approach brings the added 
benefits of achieving significant cost savings over the long-
term operation and maintenance of the facility, and providing 
higher quality data through the acquisition of instrumentation 
with uniform technical characteristics.
    With regard to support of the two new terascale facilities, 
it is the Committee's understanding that the original fiscal 
2002 request of $55,000,000 for this project was intended to be 
spent over a three-year period, with $35,000,000 being 
necessary in year one and $10,000,000 necessary in each of 
years two and three. The Congress last year provided the first 
year's $35,000,000 requirement, and the Committee intends to 
continue this pattern by providing $10,000,000 in fiscal 2003 
and $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2004.
    The Committee's recommendation does not include funding for 
the new National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) project 
as requested in the budget submission. This decision, made 
without prejudice to the NEON project, allows the Committee to 
use its limited MREFC resources to fully fund ongoing projects 
as well as begin funding for one new research effort, the 
EarthScope project.

                     EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $910,580,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       875,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       908,080,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +35,580,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request..............        +2,500,000

    The Foundation's Education and Human Resources activities 
are designed to encourage the entrance of talented students 
into science and technology careers, to improve the 
undergraduate science and engineering education environment, to 
assist in providing all pre-college students with a level of 
education in mathematics, science, and technology that reflects 
the needs of the nation and is the highest quality attained 
anywhere in the world, and extend greater research 
opportunities to underrepresented segment of the scientific and 
engineering communities.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends 
$910,580,000, an increase of $35,580,000 above last year's 
appropriated level and $2,500,000 above the budget request. The 
Committee's recommendation includes the following program 
levels: Math and Science Partnership, $160,000,000; Educational 
System Reform, $40,250,000; EPSCoR, $86,000,000; Elementary, 
Secondary and Informal Education, $177,440,000; Undergraduate 
Education, $155,600,000; Graduate Education, $128,380,000; 
Human Resource Development, $95,710,000; and Research, 
Evaluation and Communication, $67,200,000.
    In addition to the $86,000,000 recommended for the EPSCoR 
program under the Education and Human Resources account, the 
Committee has concurred in the budget request of $5,000,000 for 
EPSCoR from within the Integrated Activities directorate in the 
Research and Related Activities account, bringing the total 
EPSCoR program level for fiscal 2003 to $91,000,000.
    Within the Committee's recommendation for the Elementary, 
Secondary and Informal Education activity is an additional 
$6,000,000 for Informal Science, bringing the total program 
level to $61,000,000.
    Within the Undergraduate Education activity, increases 
above the budget request have been provided for the Advanced 
Technological Education (ATE) program (+$4,000,000), the STEM 
Talent Expansion Program (STEP) (+$13,000,000), and the Robert 
Noyce Scholarship Program (+$3,000,000). The total funding 
level for each of these three programs is $42,160,000, 
$15,000,000, and $7,000,000, respectively.
    Finally, within the Human Resource Development Activity, an 
additional $2,000,000 above the budget request has been added 
to the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation 
(LSAMP) program for a total funding level of $28,530,000, and 
$3,500,000 above the budget request has been added to 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate 
Program (HBCU-UP) for a total 2003 program level of 
$17,470,000.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $193,852,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       170,040,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       202,950,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........       +23,812,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request..............        -9,098,000

    The Salaries and Expenses activity provides for the 
operation, support and management, and direction of all 
Foundation programs and activities and includes necessary funds 
that develop, manage, and coordinate Foundation programs.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $193,852,000 
for salaries and expenses, a decrease of $9,098,000 below the 
President's budget request and an increase of $23,812,000 above 
last year's appropriated level.
    The Committee shares the belief that the increased 
activities, responsibilities, and financial resources of the 
Foundation make it necessary to provide increased personnel 
resources as well. The Committee's recommendation therefore 
includes $128,662,000 for Personnel Compensation and Benefits, 
an increase of $8,812,000 above the fiscal year 2002 funding 
level. This funding level is sufficient to provide 
comparability and locality pay increases for existing staff, 
within-grade increases, career promotions and appropriate 
bonuses, and will allow the employment of up to 25 additional 
FTEs, bringing the total workforce to 1175 for fiscal year 
2003.
    In addition, the Committee's recommendation includes an 
additional $15,000,000 above the fiscal 2002 funding level for 
General Operating Expenses, including increases for space 
rental, travel and transportation, training, supplies and other 
necessary operating expenses, as well as for the Foundation's 
ongoing Information Infrastructure program.
    As the Committee has not approved the transfer of programs 
from the EPA, NOAA, and the U.S. Geological Survey as proposed 
in the budget submission, the Committee's recommendation for 
Salaries and Expenses does not include the 17 FTEs that would 
have transferred with these programs.
    The Foundation is expected to use up to $1,000,000 from 
within the Salaries and Expenses account to contract with the 
National Academy of Public Administration for an extensive 
organizational study as outlined earlier in this Report.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................        $9,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................         6,760,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................         7,700,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        +2,240,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 request..............        +1,300,000

    This account provides National Science Foundation audit and 
investigation functions to identify and correct management and 
administrative deficiencies which could lead to fraud, waste, 
or abuse.
    For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has recommended 
$9,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General. This amount is 
$2,240,000 above last year's funding level and is $1,300,000 
above the budget request.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................      $105,000,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       105,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       105,000,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........                 0
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, established by 
title VI of Public Law 95-557 in October 1978, is committed to 
promoting reinvestment in older neighborhoods by local 
financial institutions working cooperatively with community 
people and local government. This is primarily accomplished by 
assisting community-based partnerships (NeighborWorks 
organizations) in a range of local revitalization efforts. 
Increase in homeownership among lower-income families is a key 
revitalization tool. Neighborhood Housing Services of America 
(NHSA) supports lending activities of the NeighborWorks 
organizations through a national secondary market that 
leverages its capital with private sector investment.
    The Committee recommends a funding level of $105,000,000 
for fiscal year 2002, the same amount as the budget request and 
the fiscal year 2002 appropriation.
    A set-aside of $10,000,000, as proposed in the budget, is 
included for continuation of an innovative initiative that 
combines a conventional mortgage, section 8 assistance, and the 
NRC revolving loan fund, with pre- and post-purchase counseling 
thereby enabling low-income families to attain the goal of 
homeownership.

                        Selective Service System

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................       $26,480,000
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        25,003,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        26,480,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2002 appropriation........        +1,477,000
Comparison with fiscal year 2003 budget request.......                 0

    The Selective Service System was reestablished by the 
Selective Service Act of 1948. The basic mission of the System 
is to be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces 
adequate to ensure the security of the United States during a 
time of national emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have 
relied on volunteers to fill military manpower requirements. 
However, the Selective Service System remains the primary 
vehicle by which men will be brought into military if Congress 
and the President should authorize a return to the draft.
    For fiscal year 2003, the bill includes the budget request 
of $26,480,000 for the Selective Service System, $1,477,000 
above the fiscal year 2002 funding level.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommends inclusion of twenty-two general 
provisions, fifteen of which were carried in the fiscal year 
2002 Appropriations Act (Public Law 107-73). The Committee has 
included new provisions which (1) prohibits the expenditure of 
funds to any department or agency created after enactment of 
this Act, (2) changes the formula for hazard mitigation grant 
funding, (3) modifies the Consumer Product Safety Act to 
clarify that CPSC has jurisdictional authority regarding the 
regulation of low-speed electric personal assistive mobility 
devices, (4) provides new authorities to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration as described in the NASA 
section of this report, and (5) provides for a reduction in the 
State cost share for construction of emergency operations 
centers from 50 percent to 25 percent.

              House of Representatives Report Requirements

    The following items are included in accordance with various 
requirements of the rules of the House of Representatives.

                        Constitutional Authority

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states: ``Each report of a committee on bill or 
joint resolution of a public character, shall include a 
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in 
the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint 
resolution.''
    The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to 
report this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I 
of the Constitution of the United States of America which 
states: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *''
    Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to 
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of 
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure 
authorizes funding:
    The Committee on Appropriations considers program 
performance, including a program's success in developing and 
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing 
funding recommendations.

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2), rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following statements are made 
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying 
bill.
    The Committee has included language transferring not to 
exceed $17,138,000 from compensation and pensions to general 
operating expenses and medical care. These funds are for the 
administrative costs of implementing cost-savings proposals 
required by the omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992. Language is also included 
permitting necessary sums to be transferred to the medical 
facilities revolving fund to augment funding of medical centers 
for nursing home care provided to pensioners as authorized by 
the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992.
    The Committee recommends transferring the following amounts 
to the VA's general operating expenses appropriation pursuant 
to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990: the veterans housing 
benefit program fund program account ($168,207,000), the 
education loan fund program account ($70,000), the vocational 
rehabilitation loans program account ($289,000) and the Native 
American veteran housing loan program account ($558,000). In 
addition, the bill provides up to $750,000 in general operating 
expenses and medical care for administration of the guaranteed 
transitional housing loans for homeless veterans program 
account.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Veterans Affairs which would transfer funds from the medical 
care collections fund to medical care.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Veterans Affairs which would transfer $5,000,000 from medical 
and prosthetic research to medical care.
    The Committee recommends providing authority under 
administrative provisions for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs for any funds appropriated in 2003 for compensation and 
pensions, readjustment benefits, and veterans insurance and 
indemnities to be transferred between those three accounts. 
This will provide the Department of Veterans Affairs 
flexibility in administering its entitlement programs. Language 
is also included permitting the funds from three life insurance 
funds to be transferred to general operating expenses for the 
costs of administering such programs.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring all uncommitted 
prior balances of excess rental charges as of fiscal year 2002 
and all collections made during fiscal year 2003 to the 
flexible subsidy fund.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring the following 
amounts to the salaries and expenses account for administrative 
expenses: FHA mutual mortgage insurance and general and special 
risk insurance program accounts ($548,202,400); GNMA guarantees 
of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account 
($10,343,000); community development loan guarantees program 
account ($1,000,000); Indian housing loan guarantee fund 
program account ($200,000); native Hawaiian housing loan 
guarantee fund ($35,000); and Native American housing block 
grants account ($150,000).
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring $13,000,000 from the 
manufactured housing fees trust fund to the manufactured 
housing standards program.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring no less than the 
following amounts to the working capital fund under the 
salaries and expenses account for development and management of 
information technology systems: housing certificate fund 
($3,000,000); public housing capital fund ($18,600,000); 
community development fund ($3,400,000); home investment 
partnership program account ($1,100,000); homeless assistance 
grants account ($1,500,000); housing for special populations 
account ($500,000); FHA mutual mortgage insurance program 
account ($21,360,000); FHA general and special risk insurance 
program account ($14,240,000); Office of Inspector General 
($300,000); and native American housing block grants account 
($600,000).
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring $23,343,000 from the 
various funds of the Federal Housing Administration to the 
Office of Inspector General.
    The Committee has included language under the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development transferring $30,000,000 from the 
federal housing enterprise oversight fund to the office of 
federal housing enterprise oversight account.
    The Committee has included language under the Environmental 
Protection Agency transferring funds from the hazardous 
substance superfund trust fund ($12,742,000) to the Office of 
Inspector General. In addition, $86,168,000 is transferred from 
the hazardous substance superfund trust fund to the science and 
technology account.
    The Committee has included language under the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation transferring up to $30,848,000 
from the Bank Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance 
Fund, and the FSLIC Resolution Fund to the Office of Inspector 
General.
    The Committee has included language under the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency transferring $2,900,000 from the 
disaster relief account to the emergency management planning 
and assistance account and $21,577,000 to the Office of 
Inspector General.
    The Committee has included language under the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency transferring up to $20,000,000 from 
the National Flood Insurance Fund to the National Flood 
Mitigation Fund.
    The Committee has included language which provides for the 
transfer of up to five percent of firefighter assistance grants 
funding to salaries and expenses.
    The Committee has included general transfer language under 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, human space 
flight account and the science aeronautic and technology 
account. This language will allow for the transfer of funds 
among these two accounts, as necessary, to reflect full cost 
accounting recently scheduled for implementation.

                  Rescissions Recommended in the Bill

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted 
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying 
bill:

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing 
    Certificate Fund....................................  -1,300,000,000
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Rental 
    Housing Assistance..................................    -100,000,000

          Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART II--GENERAL BENEFITS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   CHAPTER 17--HOSPITAL, NURSING HOME, DOMICILIARY, AND MEDICAL CARE

                          Subchapter I--General

Sec.
1701. Definitions.
     * * * * * * *

   Subchapter III--Miscellaneous Provisions Relating to Hospital and 
           Nursing Home Care and Medical Treatment of Veterans

1721. Power to make rules and regulations.
     * * * * * * *
[1729B. Health Services Improvement Fund.]
     * * * * * * *

   Subchapter III--Miscellaneous Provisions Relating to Hospital and 
Nursing Home Care and Medical Treatment of Veterans

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1722A. Copayment for medications

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Amounts collected [under subsection (a)] under this 
section shall be deposited in the Department of Veterans 
Affairs Medical Care Collections Fund. [Amounts collected 
through use of the authority under subsection (b) shall be 
deposited in the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services 
Improvement Fund.]
    [(d) The provisions of subsection (a) expire on September 
30, 2002.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1729A. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care Collections 
                    Fund

    (a) * * *
    (b) Amounts recovered or collected after June 30, 1997, 
under any of the following provisions of law shall be deposited 
in the fund:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (8) Section 8165(a) of this title.
          (9) Section 113 of the Veterans Millennium Health 
        Care and Benefits Act (Public Law 106-117; 38 U.S.C. 
        8111 note).
          [(8)] (10) Public Law 87-693, popularly known as the 
        ``Federal Medical Care Recovery Act'' (42 U.S.C. 2651 
        et seq.), to the extent that a recovery or collection 
        under that law is based on medical care or services 
        furnished under this chapter.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 1729B. Health Services Improvement Fund

    [(a) There is established in the Treasury of the United 
States a fund to be known as the Department of Veterans Affairs 
Health Services Improvement Fund.
    [(b) Amounts received or collected after the date of the 
enactment of this section under any of the following provisions 
of law shall be deposited in the fund:
          [(1) Section 1713A of this title.
          [(2) Section 1722A(b) of this title.
          [(3) Section 8165(a) of this title.
          [(4) Section 113 of the Veterans Millennium Health 
        Care and Benefits Act.
    [(c) Amounts in the fund are hereby available, without 
fiscal year limitation, to the Secretary for the purposes 
stated in sub-paragraphs (A) and (B) of section 1729A(c)(1) of 
this title.
    [(d) The Secretary shall allocate amounts in the fund in 
the same manner as applies under subsection (d) of section 
1729A of this title with respect to amounts made available from 
the fund under that section.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART VI--ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   CHAPTER 81--ACQUISITION AND OPERATION OF HOSPITAL AND DOMICILIARY 
    FACILITIES; PROCUREMENT AND SUPPLY; ENHANCED-USE LEASES OF REAL 
PROPERTY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

           Subchapter V--Enhanced-Use Leases of Real Property

Sec.  8165. Use of proceeds

    (a)(1) Funds received by the Department under an enhanced-
use lease and remaining after any deduction from those funds 
under subsection (b) shall be deposited in the [Department of 
Veterans Affairs Health Services Improvement Fund established 
under section 1729B of this title] Department of Veterans 
Affairs Medical Care Collections Fund established under section 
1729A of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  SECTION 113 OF THE VETERANS MILLENNIUM HEALTH CARE AND BENEFITS ACT

SEC. 113. ACCESS TO CARE FOR TRICARE-ELIGIBLE MILITARY RETIREES.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Depositing of Reimbursements.--Amounts received by the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs under the agreement under 
subsection (a) shall be deposited in the [Department of 
Veterans Affairs Health Services Improvement Fund established 
under section 1729B of title 38, United States Code, as added 
by section 202] Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care 
Collections fund established under section 1729A of title 38, 
United States Code.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SECTION 225 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN 
     DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

                            HOPWA TECHNICAL

    Sec. 225. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the amount allocated for fiscal [year 2000, and the amounts 
that would otherwise be allocated for fiscal year 2001 and 
fiscal year 2002] years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, to the City 
of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of the Philadelphia, 
PA-NJ Primary Metropolitan Area (hereafter ``metropolitan 
area''), under section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity 
Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)), the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development shall adjust such amounts by allocating to the 
State of New Jersey the proportion of the metropolitan area's 
amount that is based on the number of cases of AIDS reported in 
the portion of the metropolitan area that in located in New 
Jersey.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Sec. 136a-1 (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) Maintenance fee.--
                  (A) Subject to * * *
                  (B) In the case of * * *
                  (C)(i) The amount of each fee prescribed 
                under subparagraph (A) shall be adjusted by the 
                Administrator to a level that will result in 
                the collection under this paragraph of, to the 
                extent practicable, an aggregate amount of 
                [$17,000,000] $20,000,000 in [each] fiscal year 
                2003.
                  (D) The maximum * * *
                  (E)(i) For a small * * *
                  (F) The Administrator shall * * *
                  (G) If any fee * * *
                  (H) The authority provided under this 
                paragraph shall terminate on September 30, 
                [2002] 2003.
          (6) Other fees.--During the period beginning on 
        October 25, 1988, and ending on September 30, [2002] 
        2003, the Administrator shall * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (k) * * *
          (3) Expedited processing of similar applications.--
                  (A) The Administrator shall use for each of 
                the fiscal years 1997 through [2002] 2003, not 
                more than \1/10\ of the maintenance fee 
                collected * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ACT OF 1968

                  TITLE XIII--NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE

                              SHORT TITLE

    Sec. 1301. This title may be cited as the ``National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER I--THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                               FINANCING

    Sec. 1309. (a) All authority which was vested in the 
Housing and Home Finance Administrator by virtue of section 
15(e) of the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 
1084) (pertaining to the issue of notes or other obligations or 
the Secretary of the Treasury), as amended by subsections (a) 
and (b) of section 1303 of this Act, shall be available to the 
Director for the purpose of carrying out the flood insurance 
program under this title; except that the total amount of notes 
and obligations which may be issued by the Director pursuant to 
such authority (1) without the approval of the President, may 
not exceed $500,000,000, and (2) with the approval of the 
President, may not exceed $1,500,000,000 through December 31, 
[2002] 2004, and $1,000,000,000 thereafter. The Director shall 
report to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate at any time when he 
requests the approval of the President in accordance with the 
preceding sentence.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                           PROGRAM EXPIRATION

    Sec. 1319. No new contract for flood insurance under this 
title shall be entered into after December 31, [2002] 2004.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART A--INDUSTRY PROGRAM WITH FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  EMERGENCY IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM

    Sec. 1336. (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this 
title, for the purpose of providing flood insurance coverage at 
the earliest possible time, the Director shall carry out the 
flood insurance program authorized under chapter I during the 
period ending December 31, [2002] 2004, in accordance with the 
provisions of this part and the other provisions of this title 
insofar as they relate to this part but subject to the 
modifications made by or under subsection (b).
    (b) In carrying out the flood insurance program pursuant to 
subsection (a), the Director--
          (1) shall provide insurance coverage without regard 
        to any estimated risk premium rates which would 
        otherwise be determined under section 1307; and
          (2) shall utilize the provisions and procedures 
        contained in or prescribed by this part (other than 
        section 1334) and sections 1345 and 1346 to such extent 
        and in such manner as he may consider necessary or 
        appropriate to carry out the purpose of this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER IV--APPROPRIATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                             APPROPRIATIONS

    Sec. 1376. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
may be necessary through December 31, [2002] 2004, for studies 
under this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  SECTION 404 OF THE ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND EMERGENCY 
                             ASSISTANCE ACT

SEC. 404. HAZARD MITIGATION.

  (a) In General.--The President may contribute up to 75 
percent of the cost of hazard mitigation measures which the 
President has determined are cost-effective and which 
substantially reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, loss, 
or suffering in any area affected by a major disaster. Such 
measures shall be identified following the evaluation of 
natural hazards under section 322 and shall be subject to 
approval by the President. Subject to section 322, the total of 
contributions under this section for a major disaster shall not 
exceed [15] 7.5 percent of the estimated aggregate amount of 
grants to be made (less any associated administrative costs) 
under this Act with respect to the major disaster.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                      CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT

                     short title; table of contents

  Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Product 
Safety Act''.

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 38. Low-speed electric personal assistive mobility devices.
     * * * * * * *

         LOW-SPEED ELECTRIC PERSONAL ASSISTIVE MOBILITY DEVICES

  Sec. 38. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 
low-speed electric personal assistive mobility devices, other 
than those excluded by 15 USC 2052(a)(1)(A), are consumer 
products within the meaning of section 3(a)(1) of this Act.
  (b) For the purpose of this section, the term ``low-speed 
electric personal assistive mobility device'' means a self-
balancing two non tandem wheeled device with an electric 
propulsion system whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, 
when powered solely by such a propulsion system while ridden by 
an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph; 
provided, however, that this term shall exclude devices that 
are subject to jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration 
pursuant to Section 321 (h) of the Title 21, United States 
Code.
  (c) To further protect the safety of consumers who ride low-
speed electric personal assistive mobility devices, the 
Commission may promulgate new or amended requirements 
applicable to such devices as necessary and appropriate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

  Sec. 314. There is hereby established in the United States 
Treasury a National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
working capital fund. Amounts in the fund are available for 
financing activities, services, equipment, information, and 
facilities as authorized by law to be provided within the 
Administration; to other agencies or instrumentalities of the 
United States; to any State, Territory, or possession or 
political subdivision thereof; to other public or private 
agencies; or to any person, firm, association, corporation, or 
educational institution on a reimbursable basis. The fund shall 
also be available for the purpose of funding capital repairs, 
renovations, rehabilitation, sustainment, demolition, or 
replacement of NASA real property, on a reimbursable basis 
within the Administration. Amounts in the fund are available 
without regard to fiscal year limitation. The capital of the 
fund consists of amounts appropriated to the fund; the 
reasonable value of stocks of supplies, equipment, and other 
assets and inventories on order that the Administrator 
transfers to the fund, less the related liabilities and unpaid 
obligations; amounts received from the sale or exchange of 
property; and payments received for loss or damage to property 
of the fund. The fund shall be reimbursed, in advance, for 
supplies and services at rates that will approximate the 
expenses of operation, such as the accrual of annual leave, 
depreciation of plant, property and equipment, and overhead.

                  ENHANCED-USE LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY

  Sec. 315. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the Administration may enter into a lease 
under this section with any person or entity (including another 
department or agency of the Federal Government or an entity of 
a State or local government) with regard to any real property 
under the jurisdiction of the Administration.
  (b) Consideration.--
          (1) A person or entity entering into a lease under 
        this section shall provide consideration for the lease 
        at fair market value as determined by the 
        Administrator, except that in the case of a lease to 
        another department or agency of the Federal Government, 
        that department or agency shall provide consideration 
        for the lease equal to the full costs of the 
        Administration in connection with the lease.
          (2) Consideration under this subsection may take one 
        or a combination of the following forms:
                  (A) the payment of cash;
                  (B) the maintenance, construction, 
                modification or improvement of facilities on 
                real property under the jurisdiction of the 
                Administration;
                  (C) the provision of services to the 
                Administration, including launch services and 
                payload processing services; or
                  (D) use by the Administration of facilities 
                on the property.
          (3)(A) The Administrator may utilize amounts of cash 
        consideration received under this subsection for a 
        lease entered into under this section to cover the full 
        costs of the Administration in connection with the 
        lease. These funds shall remain available to the 
        Administration until expended.
          (B) Any amounts of cash consideration received under 
        this subsection that are not utilized in accordance 
        with subparagraph (A) shall be deposited in a capital 
        asset account to be established by the Administrator, 
        shall be available for maintenance, capital 
        revitalization, and improvements of the real property 
        assets of the Administration, and shall remain 
        available to the Administration until expended.
  (c) Lease Term.--The term of any lease entered into under 
this section shall not exceed 75 years.
  (d) Scoring.--For the sole purpose of scoring leaseback 
agreements for purposes of the Federal budget, if the non-
Federal entity shall exercise management control of the 
business of the public-private entity and holds a majority 
interest in ownership in the public-private venture, then the 
project shall not be considered to be constructed on 
Government-owned land for the purposes of the application of 
scoring rules.
  (e) Authority for Disposition of Leased Property.--If, during 
the term of a lease entered into under this section, or within 
90 days after the end of the term of the lease, the 
Administrator determines that the leased property is no longer 
needed by the Administration, the Administrator may initiate 
action for the transfer to the lessee of all right, title, and 
interest of the United States in the property by:
          (1) requesting the Administrator of General Services 
        Administration to dispose of the property for such 
        consideration as the NASA Administrator and the 
        Administrator of General Services jointly determine is 
        in the best interests of the United States and upon 
        such other terms and conditions as the Administrators 
        consider appropriate; or
          (2) taking such other disposal action authorized by 
        statute for the transfer of property under the 
        jurisdiction of the Administration.
  (f) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Administrator may 
require such terms and conditions in connection with a lease 
under this section as the Administrator considers appropriate 
to protect the interests of the United States.
  (g) Relationship to Other Lease Authority.--The authority 
under this section to lease property of the Administration is 
in addition to any other authority to lease property of the 
Administration under law.

                     CONVEYANCE OF UTILITY SYSTEMS

  Sec. 316. (a) Conveyance Authority.--The Administrator may 
convey a utility system or part of a utility system under the 
jurisdiction of the Administrator to a municipal, private, 
regional, district, or cooperative utility company or other 
qualified entity. The conveyance may consist of all right, 
title, and interest of the United States in the utility system 
or such lesser estate as the Administrator considers 
appropriate to serve the interests of the United States.
  (b) Selection of Conveyee.--The Administrator shall carry out 
the conveyance through the use of competitive procedures if 
more than one of the entities and utilities referred to in 
subsection (a)--
          (1) are eligible to operate and maintain the conveyed 
        utility system under applicable law regulating 
        utilities; and
          (2) notify the Administrator of an interest in the 
        conveyance under subsection (a).
  (c) Consideration.--The Administrator shall require as 
consideration for a conveyance under subsection (a) an amount 
equal to the fair market value (as determined by the 
Administrator) of the right, title, or interest of the United 
States conveyed. The consideration may take the form of--
          (1) a lump-sum payment; or
          (2) a reduction in charges for utility services 
        provided by the utility or entity concerned to the 
        facility at which the utility system is located for a 
        period of time that is sufficient to amortize the value 
        of the utility system (including any real property or 
        interest in real property) conveyed.
  (d) Treatment of Payments.--Subject to appropriations, a 
lump-sum payment received under subsection (c) shall be merged 
with and made available for the same purposes as amounts 
available for construction of facilities in the ``Human space 
flight'' and the ``Science, aeronautics, and technology'' 
accounts.
  (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Administrator may 
require such additional terms and conditions in connection with 
a conveyance under subsection (a) as the Administrator 
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
States.
  (f) Utility System Defined.--In this section, the term 
``utility system'' means any of the following:
          (1) a system for the generation or distribution of 
        electric power;
          (2) a system for the treatment or supply of water;
          (3) a system for the collection or treatment of 
        wastewater;
          (4) a system for the generation or supply of steam, 
        hot water, or chilled water;
          (5) a system for the supply of natural gas;
          (6) a system for the transmission of 
        telecommunications; or
          (7) any other utility system that the Administrator 
        considers to be appropriate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

                          (Public Law 104-204)

  Sec. 432. To Promote and Support Management 
Reorganization of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.--(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (j) Effective Date.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) No voluntary separation incentive under this 
        section may be paid based on the separation of an 
        employee after September 30, [2002] 2005.

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    The Committee submits the following statements in 
compliance with clause 3, rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, describing the effects of provisions proposed 
in the accompanying bill which may be considered, under certain 
circumstances, to change the application of existing law, 
either directly or indirectly.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue ongoing activities and programs where authorizations 
have not been enacted to date.
    In some cases, the Committee has recommended appropriations 
which are less than the maximum amounts authorized for the 
various programs funded in the bill. Whether these actions 
constitute a change in the application of existing law is 
subject to interpretation, but the Committee felt that this 
should be mentioned.
    The Committee has included limitations for official 
reception and representation expenses for selected agencies in 
the bill.
    Sections 401 through 415 of title IV of the bill, all of 
which are carried in the fiscal year 2001 Appropriations Act, 
are general provisions which place limitations or restrictions 
on the use of funds in the bill and which might, under certain 
circumstances, be construed as changing the application of 
existing law.
    The bill includes, in certain instances, limitations on the 
obligation of funds for particular functions or programs. These 
limitations include restrictions on the obligation of funds for 
administrative expenses, the use of consultants, and 
programmatic areas within the overall jurisdiction of a 
particular agency.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, medical care, earmarking and delaying the availability 
of certain equipment and land and structures funds, and 
limiting funds available for the operations and maintenance of 
facilities.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs providing for the deposit of receipts collected under 
the Millennium Health Care and Benefits Improvements Act of 
1999 in the medical care collections fund.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, general operating expenses, providing for the 
reimbursement to the Department of Defense for the costs of 
overseas employee mail. This language has been carried 
previously and permits free mailing privileges for VA personnel 
stationed in the Philippines.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, construction, major projects, establishing time 
limitations and reporting requirements concerning the 
obligation of major construction funds, limiting the use of 
funds, and allowing the use of funds for program costs.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, construction, minor projects, providing that 
unobligated balances of previous appropriations may be used for 
any project with an estimated cost of less than $4,000,000, 
allowing the use of funds for program costs, and making funds 
available for damage caused by natural disasters.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, administrative provisions, permitting transfers 
between mandatory accounts, limiting and providing for the use 
of certain funds, funding administrative expenses associated 
with VA life insurance programs from excess program revenues, 
extending authority to operate the Franchise Fund, allowing 
reimbursement from enhanced-use leases, and allowing for 
reimbursement for certain services. Eleven provisions have been 
carried in previous Appropriations Acts. Six new provisions 
have been added.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, administrative provisions limiting medical services 
for non-service connected veterans to those who have provided 
insurance and income information.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, administrative provisions delaying the implementation 
of geographic means test for one year.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, administrative provisions requiring new funds to be 
appropriated for adjudication of disability claims arising from 
any new concurrent receipt legislation.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, administrative provisions merging the Health Services 
Improvement Fund with the Medical Care Collections Fund and 
extending the Department's authority to collect receipts.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, administrative provisions providing $19,900,000 for 
information technology initiatives at the Department.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, administrative provisions prohibiting funds in this 
Act from being used to implement provisions of H.R. 3253 as 
passed by the House on September 18, 2002.
    Language is included under the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, administrative provisions limiting funds in Medical 
Care and the Medical Care Collections Fund for security 
training and equipment to $11,000,000.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, which designates funds for various programs, 
activities, and purposes, and specifies the uses of such funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, housing certificate fund, which specifies the 
allocation of certain funds; establishes a reserve fund for 
certain purposes; sets forth certain reporting requirements; 
places a limitation on certain fees and fee balances; and 
requires certain data to be submitted.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, public housing capital fund, which specifies the 
allocation of certain funds; limits the delegation of certain 
waiver authorities; waives certain penalties related to 
withholding of funds; requires reallocation of certain funds; 
prohibits funds from being used for certain activities; and 
requires final regulations to be issued by a date certain.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, public housing operating fund, which designates 
certain funds to be distributed by the Attorney General through 
a reimbursable agreement; and prohibits funds from being used 
for certain activities.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, revitalization of severely distressed public 
housing (HOPE VI), which prohibits the use of funds for awards 
to settle litigation or pay judgments; and specifies the 
allocation of certain funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, home investment partnerships program, which 
specifies the allocation of certain funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, homeless assistance grants, which establishes 
certain minimum funding and matching requirements; and requires 
grantees to integrate homeless programs with other social 
service providers.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, housing for special populations, which allows 
funds to be used to renew certain contracts; and specifies the 
allocation of certain funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, flexible subsidy fund, which permits the use of 
excess rental charges.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, manufactured housing fees trust fund, which 
permits fees to be modified.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, fair housing and equal opportunity, which places 
restrictions on the use of funds for lobbying activities.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, management and administration, which specifies the 
allocation of funds; designates the use of certain funds; sets 
forth certain authorities of, and requirements on, the Office 
of the Chief Financial Officer; requires the transfer of 
certain personnel; places limitations on personnel; and 
requires submission of a staffing plan.
    Language is included under the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, working capital fund, which places 
restrictions on the use of funds.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, office of federal housing enterprise oversight, 
which limits net appropriations for the General Fund of the 
Treasury.
    Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, administrative provisions, which maintains and 
reduces annual adjustment factors; prohibits funds to 
investigate or prosecute certain lawful activities; revises 
allocations for housing opportunities for persons with AIDS 
grant recipients; waives certain section 8 rental payment 
limits for a demonstration program; relates to the expenditures 
for certain corporations and agencies; relates to allocations 
of funds in excess of budget estimates; and requires submission 
of a spending plan.
    Language is included under Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board, salaries and expenses, which limits 
certain personnel employed by the Board.
    Language is included under Department of the Treasury, 
Community Development Financial Institutions, community 
development financial institution program account, which sets 
aside funds for various purposes.
    Language is included under the Court of Appeals for 
Veterans Claims, salaries and expenses, permitting the use of 
funds for a pro bono program.
    Language is included under Department of Health and Human 
Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 
toxic substances and environmental public health, limiting 
availability of funds for toxicological profiles.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, environmental programs and management, which requires 
the certification of grant amendments.
    Language is included under the Environmental Protection 
Agency, administrative provisions, which permits the 
Administrator to award cooperative agreements to Indian Tribes 
or Intertribal consortia under certain circumstances, prohibits 
the use of funds for implementation of a specific new pesticide 
tolerance fee, and which authorizes for one year a pesticide 
maintenance fee.
    Language is included under Environmental Protection Agency, 
state and tribal assistance grants, making technical changes in 
grants provided in previous appropriations acts.
    Language is included under the Council on Environmental 
Quality, which limits the size of the Council.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, emergency management planning and assistance, which 
authorizes the director of FEMA to provide consolidated 
emergency management performance grants.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, emergency food and shelter, limiting administrative 
expenses.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, national flood insurance fund, which limits 
administrative expenses, program costs, and the amount 
available for repayment of debt. Language is also included 
which extends the authorization for the program.
    Language is included under the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, national flood insurance fund, which establishes a fund 
for flood mitigation activities.
    Language is included under the General Services 
Administration, Federal Citizen Information Center, limiting 
certain fund and administrative expenses.
    Language is included under the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, administrative provision, extending the 
availability of construction of facility funds, permitting 
funds for contracts for various services in the next year, and 
transferring of prior year appropriations to the appropriate 
new appropriations accounts.
    Language is included under the National Credit Union 
Administration, central liquidity facility, limiting loans from 
borrowed funds and administrative expenses.
    Language is included under the National Science Foundation, 
research and related activities, providing for the use of 
receipts from other research facilities, requiring under 
certain circumstances proportional reductions in legislative 
earmarkings, and use of funds.
    Language is included under the National Science Foundation, 
education and human resources activities, requiring under 
certain circumstances proportional reductions in legislative 
earmarkings.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table lists the 
agencies in the accompanying bill which contain appropriations 
that are not authorized by law:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Appropriation in
          Agency/Program              Last year of       Authorization       last year of     Appropriation this
                                     authorization           level           authorization           bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Construction, Major:
    Seismic Corrections for Palo   .................  ..................  ..................        $14,013,000
     Alto, CA, Building 2........
    Seismic Corrections for Palo   .................  ..................  ..................         21,750,000
     Alto, CA, Building 4........
    Seismic Corrections for San    .................  ..................  ..................         31,000,000
     Francisco, CA, Building 203.
    Seismic Corrections for West   .................  ..................  ..................         27,200,000
     Los Angeles, CA, Building
     500.........................

 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
           DEVELOPMENT
Housing Certificate Fund:
    Section 8 contract renewals                 1994         $8,446,173          $5,458,106          16,071,162
     and administrative expenses.
    Section 441 contracts........               1994            109,410             150,000              16,808
    Section 23 leased housing                   1994             13,303   ..................                500
     conversions.................
    Section 8 preservation,                     1994            759,259             541,000             259,517
     protection, and family
     unification.................
    Incremental Vouchers.........               1994          2,060,725   ..................             40,000
    Contract Administrators......  .................  ..................  ..................            196,000
Revitalization of Severely                      2002          Such sums             573,735             574,000
 Distressed Public Housing (HOPE
 VI).............................
Native American Housing Block                   2001          Such sums             636,000             649,000
 Grant...........................
Housing Opportunities for Persons               1994            156,300             156,000             292,000
 with AIDS.......................
Rural Housing and Economics        .................  ..................  ..................             25,000
 Development.....................
Empowerment Zones/Enterprise       .................  ..................  ..................             30,000
 Communities.....................
Community Development Fund:
    Community Development Block                 1994          4,168,000           4,380,000           4,577,000
     Grants......................
    Housing Assistance Council...  .................  ..................  ..................              3,300
    Native American Indian         .................  ..................  ..................              2,200
     Housing Council.............
    National Housing Development   .................  ..................  ..................              5,000
     Corporation.................
    National Council on La Raza    .................  ..................  ..................              5,000
     HOPE Fund...................
    Self-Help Housing Opportunity               2000          Such sums              20,000              28,500
     Program.....................
    Capacity Building............               1994             25,000              20,000              29,500
    Economic Development           .................  ..................  ..................            144,600
     Initiatives.................
    Neighborhood Initiatives.....  .................  ..................  ..................             23,400
    YouthBuild...................               1994             41,680              28,000              65,000
HOME Investment Partnerships.....               1994          2,173,612           1,275,000           2,221,040
    Homeless Assistance Grants...               1994            465,774             599,000           1,250,000
FHA General and Special Risk
 Program Account:
    Limitation on guaranteed                    1995          Such sums         (20,885,072)        (23,000,000)
     loans.......................
    Limitation on direct loans...               1995          Such sums            (220,000)            (50,000)
    Credit Subsidy...............               1995          Such sums             188,395              15,000
    Administrative Expenses......               1995  ..................            197,470              93,780
GNMA Mortgage-Backed Securities
 Loan Guarantee Program Account:
    Limitation on guaranteed                    1996       (110,000,000)       (110,000,000)       (200,000,000)
     loans.......................
    Administrative Expenses......               1996          Such sums               9,101              10,343
    Policy Development and                      1994             36,470              35,000              47,000
     Research....................
    Fair Housing Activities, Fair               1994             26,000              20,481              20,250
     Housing Initiatives Program.
    Lead Hazards Reduction                      1994            276,000             185,000             126,000
     Program.....................
    Salaries and Expenses........               1994          1,029,496             916,963           1,090,299
Community Development Financial                 1998            111,000              80,000              80,000
 Institutions Fund...............
Neighborhood Reinvestment                       1994             30,714              32,000             105,000
 Corporation.....................
Consumer Product Safety                         1992             45,000              40,200              54,000
 Commission......................
Federal Citizen Information
 Center Fund:
    Federal Information Center...               1980              7,000               4,492               3,447
    Consumer Information Center                 1970     Not applicable                   0               3,829
     Fund........................
National Credit Union                           1979                  0                   0               1,000
 Administration, loan fund.......

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Categorical Grants:
    Clean Air Act................            FY 1997          Such sums             167,230
    Radon Abatement Act..........            FY 1991             10,000               9,000
    Clean Water Act (FWPCA)......         FY 1990-91  ..................  ..................
    BEACH Act....................            FY 2005             30,000   ..................
    Safe Drinking Water Act......            FY 2003            115,000   ..................
    Solid Waste Disposal Act                 FY 1988             70,000              71,391
     (RCRA)......................
    Toxic Substances Control Act.            FY 1983              1,500               5,100
    Pollution Prevention Act.....            FY 1993              8,000               6,800
    Indian Environmental General             FY 1998          Such sums              38,585
     Assistance Program Act......
    Clean Water SRF..............            FY 1992          1,800,000           2,400,000
    Sewer Overflows..............            FY 2003            750,000   ..................
    Drinking Water SRF...........            FY 2003          1,000,000   ..................
    Alaskan Native Village.......            FY 1979              2,000       Not available
Hazardous Substance Superfund....            FY 1994          5,100,000           1,480,853
LUST Trust Fund..................            FY 1988             10,000              14,400
Oil Spills (FWPCA)...............      No expiration             35,000              15,000
Science and Technology:
    Clean Air Act................            FY 1997          Such sums             177,150
    Clean Water Act..............            FY 1990            159,520              27,028
    FIFRA........................            FY 1991       95,000 (part)             11,890
    Safe Drinking Water Act......            FY 2003          Such sums              51,501
    ERDDA........................            FY 1981          1,115,591             217,828
Office of Inspector General......      No expiration          Such sums              34,019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statutory authority for appropriations in all eight of 
EPA's accounts is provided to the Agency through a wide variety 
of primarily media-specific statutes as shown in the following 
chart:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Terms of
                Section title                     Statute section        authorization           Expiration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act

Res., Invest., Train., Tech. Asst., Info.      104(U)(1)...........  $22.77m, FY86-90....  33,146.
 Activ.
Train. Progs. for Treat. Works Personnel.....  104(U)(2)...........  $3m, FY86-90........  33,146.
Forecasting Manpower.........................  104(U)(3)...........  $1.5m, FY86-90......  33,146.
Agricul. Research............................  104(U)(4)...........  $10m, FY73-75.......  27,575.
Fresh Water Aquatic Ecosystems Res. Grants...  104(U)(5)...........  $15m, FY73-75.......  27,575.
Thermal Discharge Cont.......................  104(U)(6)...........  $10m, FY73-75.......  27,575.
Res., Dev., Demo. Grants Storm Water Poll.     105(H)..............  $75m, FY73-75, 10%    27,575.
 Cont.                                                                for 105(E).
Grants for Pollution Control and Enforce.....  106(A)..............  $75m, FY86-90.......  33,146.
Mine Wtr. Poll. Control......................  107(E)..............  $30m, until expend..  When expended.
Great Lakes Pollution Control Demo. Projects.  108(C)..............  $20m, until expend..  When expended.
Lake Erie Corp. of Eng. Deno. Project........  108(E)..............  $5m, until expend...  When expended.
Train, Grts., Cont., Schol...................  112(C)..............  $7m, FY86-90........  33,146.
Alaska Vill. Deno. Proj......................  113(D)..............  $2m.................  29,128.
In-Place Toxic Poll. Removal From Ports......  115.................  $15m................  When expended.
Hudson Say PCB Reclamation Demo. Proj........  116(D)..............  $20m................  Indefinite.
Chesapeake-Bay Program.......................  117(D)..............  $3m, FY87-90........  33,146.
                                                                     $10m for grants,      33,146.
                                                                      FY87-90.
Great Lakes Program..........................  118(g)..............  $11m, FY87-91 (30%    9/30/91.
                                                                      to NOAA).
Assur. for Every State.......................  205(E)..............  $75m, FY79-90.......  9/30/90.
Reserve % for Admin. Specific Sections.......  205(G)..............  Limit subject to      No exp. date.
                                                                      formula.
Set-Aside for Altern. Conv. Sewage Treat.      205(H)..............  Limit subject to      No exp. date.
 Wrks.                                                                formula.
Altern. and Innovative Technologies-Fed.       205(I)..............  Limit subject to      9/30/90.
 Share.                                                               formula.
Reserve Con. Grants for WQ Mgt. Planning.....  205(J)..............  Limit subject to      No exp. date.
                                                                      formula.
Nonpoint Source Resrv........................  205(J)(5)...........  Limit subject to      No exp. date.
                                                                      formula.
Sewage Covey. Cost NYC-NTWTON Treatment Plant  205(K)..............  Limit subject to      9/30/82.
                                                                      formula.
Reim. for Treat. Works.......................  206(E)..............  $2600m for 206(a)...  When expended.
                                                                     $750m for 206(b)....  When expended.
Grants for Construct. of Treatment Works.....  207.................  $1200m, FY89-90.....  9/30/90.
Grants to Areawide Waste Mgt. Agencies.......  208(F)(3)...........  Such sums FY 83-90..  9/30/90.
Corps of Eng. Program of Tech Asst...........  208(H)(2)...........  $50m, FY73-74.......  6/30/74.
DOI.Natl. Wetlands Inv.......................  208(i)(2)...........  $6m.................  12/31/81.
Agri Contracts-Control Non-Point Source Poll.  208(J)(9)...........  Such sums FY83-90...  9/30/90.
Water Resources Council Basin Planning.......  209(C)..............  $200m...............  When expended.
IAG Transf. to Supp. WQ......................  304(K)(3)...........  $100m, FY79-83......  9/30/90.
                                                                     Such sums FY84-90...  9/30/90.
Rev. Fund for Remov. of Oil or Haz. Sub.       311(K)..............  $35m................  No exp. date.
 Progs.
Clean Lakes Grants...........................  314(C)(2)...........  $30m, FY86-90 until   9/30/90.
                                                                      expend.
Clean Lakes Demo. Proj.......................  314(D)(4)...........  $40m................  When expended.
Natl. Study Commission.......................  315(H)..............  $17.25m.............  When expended.
Non-Point Source Mgt. Prog. Grants to States.  319(J)..............  $130m, FY-91 until    9/30/91.
                                                                      expend.
Sewage Sludge Studies........................  405(G)(2)...........  $5m, FY87...........  No exp. date.
Con. Grants--San Diego.......................  510(J)..............  $600m, FY94.........  No exp. date.
Oakwood Beach/Red Hood.......................  512(B)..............  $7m, FY87 and beyond  No exp. date.
Boston Harbor & Adj. Wtrs....................  513(D)..............  $100m, FY87.........  When expended.
San Diego Wastewater Reclamation Demo........  514(C)..............  $2m, FY87 and beyond  No exp. date.
Des Moines Sewage Plnt.......................  515(B)..............  $50m, FY87 and        No exp. date.
                                                                      beyond.
General Authorization........................  517.................  $135m, FY86-90......  9/30/90.
Studies of Wtr. Poll. Probs. in Aquifers.....  520(C)..............  $7m, FY87 and beyond  No exp. date.
Great Lakes Consumptv. Use Study.............  521(D)..............  $750k, FY87 and       No exp. date.
                                                                      beyond.
Sulfide Corrosn. Study.......................  522(D)..............  $1m, FY87 and beyond  No exp. date.
State Water Poll. Cont. Revolving Fund Auth..  607.................  $1.8b, FY92.........  9/30/94.

       Marine Prot. Rsrch. & Sanct. Act

            Ocean Dumping Ban Act

For Title I..................................  111.................  $14m, FY94-97.......  When expended.

                Clean Air Act

General Authorization........................  327(A)..............  Such sums FY90-97...  9/30/97.
Local Impl. Revisn. Grants...................  327(A)(1)...........  $50m, FY91..........  9/30/91.

FIFRA--Food Quality Protection Act

Gen. Authorization/Res.......................  31..................  $95m, FY91..........  9/30/91.

    Asbestos School Hazards Abatement Act

    Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act

General Authorization........................  512.................  $100m, FY85-90......  9/30/90.
Estab. Trust Fund for Collect. Loan            4(A)/5(E)...........  $25m, FY87-90.......  No date spec.
 Repayments.

        Resource Conserv. & Recov. Act

           Solid Waste Disposal Act

Tire Shredding Grants........................  2004................  $750K, FY78-79......  9/30/79.
General Authorization........................  2007(A).............  $80m, FY88..........  9/30/88.
Criminal Investigators.......................  2007(E).............  $2.529m, FY88.......  9/30/88.
Undrgrnd. Storg. Tank Reg....................  2007(F)(1)..........  $10m, FY85-88.......  9/30/88.
St. Asst.-UST Prog. Dev......................  2007(F)(2)..........  $25m, FY85-88.......  9/30/88.
St. Haz. Wst. Prog. Grants...................  3011(A).............  $60m, FY88..........  9/30/88.
Grants to States for Invntory Haz. Wst. Sites  3012................  $25m, FY85-88.......  9/30/88.
Solid Wst. Prog. St. Grts....................  4008(A)(1)..........  $10m, FY85-88.......  9/30/88.
Grants for Studies & Market Analysis.........  4008(A)(2)(D).......  $10m, FY85-88.......  9/30/88.
St. Asst. for Provisns. Relt. to Recycled Oil  4008(A)(3)(A).......  $4m, FY82-86........  9/30/86.
Spec. Communities Disposal Site Grants.......  4008(E)(2)..........  $500K, FY85-88......  9/30/88.
Municip. Asst. for Enrgy. Conserv. & Recov.    4008(F)(2)..........  $8m, FY82-86........  9/30/86.
 Plang.
St. Asst. for Recycled Oil Programs..........  4008(G)(4)..........  $5m, FY85-88........  9/30/88.
Rural Community Grants.......................  4009(D).............  $15m, FY81-82.......  9/30/82.
Dept. of Commerce Funct......................  5006................  $1.5m, FY85-88......  9/30/88.
Resource Conserv. Comm.......................  8002(J)(5)..........  $2m.................  When expended.
Drilling Fluids. Study.......................  8002(M).............  $1m.................  When expended.
Special Studies..............................  8002(Q).............  $8m, FY78-79........  7/30/91
Res., Training & Info........................  8007................  $35m, FY78..........  9/30/79.
Medical Waste Tracking. Demo. Program........  11012...............  Such sums FY89-91...  9/30/78.
Natl. Ground Water Comm......................  04(I) Title VII.....  $7m, FY85-87........  1/11/87.

           Safe Drinking Water Act

Health Risk Red. & Cost Analysis in            1412(b)(3)(C)(iv)...  $35m, FY96-03.......  9/30/03.
 Regulation Dev.
Arsenic and Sulfate Studies..................  1412(b)(12)(A)(vi)..  $2.5m, FY97-00......  9/30/00.
Small Systems Operator Certification Grants..  1419(d)(3)..........  $30m, FY97-03.......  9/30/03.
Small PWS Technology Assistance Centers        1420(f)(6)..........  $2m, FY97-99........  9/30/99.
 Grants.
                                                                     $5m, FY00-03........  9/30/03.
Environmental Finance Centers................  1420(g)(4)..........  $1.5m, FY97-03......  9/30/03.
Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration Program....  1427(m).............  $15m, FY92-03.......  9/30/03.
State Programs to Establish Wellhead Prot.     1428(k).............  $30m, FY92-03.......  9/30/03.
 Areas.
State Ground Water Protection Grants.........  1429(f).............  $15m, FY97-03.......  9/30/03.
Tech. Assist. for Small Systems Circuit Rider  1442(e).............  $15m, FY97-03.......  9/30/03.
Emergency Assistance to States                 1442(d).............  $8,050k, FY91.......  9/30/91.
 (1442(a)(2)(B)).
Research, Tech. Assist., Info., Trng of        1442(d).............  $38,020k, FY91......  9/30/91.
 Personnel.
Grants for State Public Water................  1443(a)(7)..........  $100m, FY97-03......  9/30/03.
Underground Injection Control Grants.........  1443(b)(5)..........  $15m, FY92-03.......  9/30/03.
New York Watershed Protection Program........  1443(d)(4)..........  $15m, FY97-03.......  9/30/03.
Special Study and Demonstration Grants.......  1444(c).............  $10m................  6/30/77.
Grants to Public Sector Agencies for Dev. &    42 U.S.C. (300j-      $25m................  9/30/78.
 Demo. Proj.                                    3a(c)1).
Monitoring Program for Unregulated             1445(a)(2)(H).......  $10m, FY97-03.......  9/30/03.
 Contaminants.
Capitalization of Drinking Water SRFs........  1452(m).............  $1b, FY95-03........  9/30/03.
Grants to Sppt State Source WQ Prot.           1454(e).............  $5m, FY97-03........  9/30/03.
 Partnership Prog.
Drinking Water Assistance to Colonias........  1456(e).............  $25m, FY97-99.......  9/30/99.
Studies on Harmful Substances in Drinking      1458(c)(3)..........  $12.5m, FY97-03.....  9/30/03.
 Water.
Waterborne Disease Occurrence Study..........  1458(d)(3)..........  $3m, FY97-01 (with    9/30/01.
                                                                      limitations).
Grants to States for Remedying School          1465(c).............  $30m, FY91..........  9/30/91.
 Drinking Water.
General Drinking Water Research Authorization  201.................  Such sums (not to     9/30/03.
                                                                      exc. $26.593m).
Grants to Alaska to Improve Sanitation.......  303(e)..............  $15m, FY97-00.......  9/30/00.
Wastewater Assistance to Colonias............  307(e)..............  $25m, FY97-99.......  9/30/99.
Grants for Water Supply Sys. & Source WQ       401(d)..............  $25m, FY97-03         9/30/03.
 Prot. Progs..                                                        uncondit. auth.
                                                                     $25m, FY97-03
                                                                      condit. auth.

           Pollution Prevention Act

EPA Activities--Source Reduct................  6610................  $8m, FY91-93........  9/30/93.
State Grants for Tech. Assist................  6610................  $8m, FY91-93........  9/30/93.

              Noise Control Act

Res., Dev.--Low Noise Prod...................  15(G)...............  $2.42m, FY77........  9/30/77.
General Authorization........................  19..................  $15m, FY79..........  9/30/79.

  Envir. Research., Development., & Demo Act

EPA Environ. Reserach & Dev. Activities......  2...................    ..................  9/30/81.
Health and Ecological Effects program........  2 CAA...............  $45.2m, FY81          .....................
Industrial Processes program.................  ....................  $4.1m, FY81           .....................
Monitoring and Technical Support.............  ....................  $20.8m, FY81          .....................
Health and Ecological Effects................  2 CWA...............  $23.8m, FY81          .....................
Industrial Processes.........................  ....................  $13.7m, FY81          .....................
Public Sector Activities.....................  ....................  $14.3m, FY81          .....................
Monitoring and Technical Support.............  ....................  $12.1m, FY81          .....................
Health and Ecological Effects................  2 SDWA..............  $12.36m, FY81         .....................
Public Sector Activities.....................  ....................  $14.08m FY81          .....................
Monitoring and Technical Support.............  ....................  $1.008m FY81          .....................
                                               2 SWDA..............  $26.446m FY81         .....................
Health and Ecological Effects................  2 PHSA..............  $2.99m FY81           .....................
Monitoring and Technical Support.............  ....................  $191m FY81            .....................
Health and Ecological Effects................  2 IA................  $5.232m FY81          .....................
Monitoring and Technical Support.............  ....................  $2.868m FY81          .....................
Anticipatory Research........................  ....................  $14.745m FY81         .....................
Health and Ecological Effects................  2 FIFRA.............  $5.97m FY81           .....................
Industrial Processes.........................  ....................  $2.9m FY81            .....................
Monitoring and Technical Support.............  ....................  $565k FY81            .....................
Health and Ecological Effects................  2 TSCA..............  $31.87m FY81          .....................
Industrial Process...........................  ....................  $1.77m FY81           .....................
Monitoring and Technical Support.............  ....................  $3.247m FY81          .....................
Health and Ecological Effects................  2 EA................  $50.096m FY81         .....................
Energy Control...............................  ....................  $57.503m FY81         .....................
Program Management...........................  2 EPA...............  $4.666m FY81          .....................

            Inspector General Act

OIG Approp. Accounts.........................  108.................  Amounts as            No exp. date.
                                                                      appropriated.

         Toxic Substances Control Act

             Radon Abatement Act

TSCA Research & Dev..........................  10..................  ....................  9/30/81.
State Programs...............................  28(D)...............  $1.5m, FY82-83......  9/30/83.
General Authorization........................  29(D)...............  $58.646m FY82, $62m,  9/30/83.
                                                                      FY-83.
Radon Profic. Rating.........................  305(E)..............  $1.5m...............  When expended.
Citizen Guide, Model Constr. Stds., Tech.      305(F)..............  $3m, FY89-91........  9/30/91.
 Asst.
Radon St. Prog. Grants.......................  306(J)..............  $10m, FY89-91.......  9/30/91.
Radon Diag./Remedial in High-Risk Schools....  307(B)..............  $1m & 500k (diag. &   When expended.
                                                                      remed.).
Region. Radon Trng. Ctrs.....................  308(F)..............  $1m, FY89-91........  9/30/91.

Comp. Env. Response, Compensation & Liability
                     Act

        Superfund Amend. & Reauth. Act

Emergency Plan. & Community Right to Know Act

Limit. on Sec. 515/516.......................  111(A)..............  $5.1b, FY91-94......  9/30/94.
Pilot Proj. for Removal of Lead Contam. Soil.  111(A)(6)...........  $15b................  No exp. date.
Worker Train. & Ed. Grts.....................  111(C)(12)..........  $20m, FY87-94.......  9/30/94.
Agency--Tox. Sub. Disease....................  111(M)..............  $60m, FY90-94.......  9/30/94.
Limit. on Rad. Demo. Prog....................  111(N)(1)...........  $20m, FY87-94.......  9/30/94.
Limit. on Maz. Sub. R&D, Demo, and Training    111(N)(2)...........  $35m, FY91-94.......  9/30/94.
 Activ.
Gulf Coast Haz. Sub. R&D, and Demo. Center...  118(i)(4)...........  $5m, FY87 and         No exp. date.
                                                                      thereafter.
Pacific Northwest Haz. Sub. R&D and Demo.      118(O)(5)...........  $5m, FY87 and         No exp. date.
 Centr.                                                               thereafter.
Emer. Trng. & Review of Emer. Systems--St. &   305(A)(2)...........  $5m, FY87-90........  9/30/90.
 Locl.
Gen. Auth. T-111 Emer. Plan. Comm. Right to    330.................  Such sums beginning   No exp. date.
 Knw.                                                                 FY87.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

    Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) requires 
that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget 
authority contain a statement detailing how the authority 
compares with the reports submitted under section 302(b) of the 
Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution of 
then budget for the fiscal year. This information follows:

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        302(b) allocation--                  This bill
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget                          Budget
                                                     authority        Outlays        authority        Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...................................          90,993          97,580          91,020          96,978
Mandatory.......................................          28,850          29,093          28,850          29,093
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The Committee will reallocate to eliminate the breach in the budget authority allocation prior to the
  bill's consideration by the House.

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following information was 
provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:

                                                            Millions

Budget Authority in bill..............................
Outlays:
    2003..............................................            71,703
    2004..............................................            19,478
    2005..............................................             8,804
    2006..............................................             4,834
    2007..............................................             4,765

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the Congressional Budget 
Office has provided the following estimate of new budget 
authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for 
financial assistance to state and local governments:

                                                            Millions

Budget Authority in bill..............................            33,080
Fiscal year outlays resulting therefrom...............             7,579

           Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act

    During fiscal year 2003 for purposes of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), 
the following information provides the definition of the term 
``program, project, and activity'' for departments and agencies 
carried in the accompanying bill. The term ``program, project, 
and activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget 
items identified in the 2003 Departments of Veterans Affairs 
and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act, the accompanying House and Senate reports, 
the conference report of the joint explanatory statement of the 
managers of the committee of conference.
    In applying any sequestration reductions, departments and 
agencies shall apply the percentage of reduction required for 
fiscal year 2003 pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 99-
177 to each program, project, activity, and subactivity 
contained in the budget justification documents submitted to 
the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in 
support of the fiscal year 2003 budget estimates, as amended, 
for such departments and agencies, as subsequently altered, 
modified, or changed by Congressional action identified by the 
aforementioned Act, resolutions and reports. Further, it is 
intended that in implementing any Presidential sequestration 
order, (1) no program, project, or activity should be 
eliminated, (2) no reordering of funds or priorities occur, and 
(3) no unfunded program execution, it is not intended that 
normal reprogramming between programs, projects, and activities 
be precluded after reductions required under the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act are implemented.

        MINORITY VIEWS OF HON. ALAN MOLLOHAN AND HON. DAVID OBEY

    The appropriations bill for the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies 
reported by the Committee corrects many of the worst flaws in 
the President's budget. In particular, it adds critically 
needed funds for veterans medical care and services, restores 
many of the cuts in housing programs, provides important 
increases for several environmental programs, and significantly 
increases funds for basic science at the National Science 
Foundation. The bill does much good within it's budget 
allocation and the Chairman has worked cooperatively with 
Committee Members on both sides of the aisle to balance 
priorities based on need, program performance, and the 
interests of Members of the House.
    Unfortunately, however, the Subcommittee's budget 
allocation does not permit it to adequately address the many 
needs and opportunities within the jurisdiction of the 
Subcommittee. The bill remains below the levels necessary to 
fully meet the needs of veterans and low-income individuals and 
underfunds critical infrastructure needs of this nation. 
Specific examples of these shortfalls abound: thousands of 
veterans languish on long waiting lists for needed medical 
care; waiting times for public housing are measured in years 
rather than months; and the EPA has released a new report 
showing a shortfall in funding to provide for clean and safe 
water in the hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition to 
failing to address critical needs, the low allocation has 
forced the Majority to rely on highly questionable budget 
assumptions and practices to stay within the Subcommittee's 
budget ceiling. These include a ``temporary'' recommendation to 
eliminate funding for the Corporation for National and 
Community Service; very conservative projections of the cost of 
maintaining the section 8 public housing voucher program; and, 
most troubling, the decision to provide only $800 million of 
the $3.5 billion which the President requested for ``first 
responder'' activities on the assumption that the Commerce-
Justice-State bill will fund the remainder of the President's 
first responder program. This latter assumption is highly 
suspect since the Commerce-Justice Subcommittee's budget 
allocation is already approximately $2 billion below the level 
likely necessary to pass that bill in the House, making it 
impossible for them to absorb another $2.7 billion to meet the 
President's request for the ``first responders'' program.
    These funding problems are not primarily the result of 
programmatic disagreements between the Majority and the 
Minority on the Committee. Rather, they are the artifacts of 
the President and House Majority Leadership's insistence on an 
overall budget ceiling which is arbitrary and entirely 
inadequate. The Minority believes that within the existing 
budget limitations, this bill's attributes outweigh its 
shortfalls, but we believe strongly that additional amounts 
will need to be made available to the Subcommittee before the 
bill is sent to the President.
Veterans
    Veterans programs are an example of an area where 
constrained resources have meant that the Chairman was unable 
to address critical needs. He is to be praised for his 
recommendation to add $1.1 billion to the President's request 
for veterans' medical care and for rejecting the 
Administration's proposal to establish a deductible of $1,500 
for many veterans. The Chairman has also allocated a much 
needed increase of $31 million for medical and prosthetic 
research. Unfortunately these increased levels are still 
inadequate. At the levels recommended by the Committee, waiting 
times for medical appointments will continue to increase. 
Currently 280,000 veterans wait for an appointment for VA 
health care.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
    The Committee bill restores many of the reductions in the 
President's request for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. For instance, the $417 million cut by the 
Administration to the Public Housing Capital Fund was fully 
restored. The Chairman has also provided substantial increases 
for the HOME program and for homeless assistance grants, 
including $10 million for a demonstration program to develop 
new and innovative solutions to solving the problem of homeless 
Americans.
    By far, the most critical aspect of the Committee bill 
related to public housing is the change in the treatment of 
section 8 renewals. While the bill continues a basic budget 
policy of funding the renewal of all section 8 vouchers, this 
year the Committee's recommended funding level is based on the 
actual number of units leased, as reported by the public 
housingauthorities. This approach is intended to avoid 
replicating the situation that has occurred in recent years where 
amounts appropriated are in excess of actual units leased and the 
excess funds are then ``recaptured'' in the following year. These funds 
are then reallocated to other programs, sometimes for housing, but 
often for other purposes. The Committee has chosen to use these funds 
up front for other fiscal year 2003 housing needs. It is not the intent 
of the Committee to reduce the number of families and individuals 
served by these vouchers. Nor does the Committee intend to limit the 
ability of public housing authorities to reach full utilization of 
authorized vouchers. The intent is to prevent unused funds in this 
account from being spent on programs that do not provide or improve 
housing. These changes to the Housing Certificate Fund, specifically to 
the renewal of tenant-based section 8 vouchers, are of concern to many 
people. The Minority will continue to work with the Majority to address 
these concerns as this bill moves forward.

Environmental Protection Agency

    This bill provides a substantial increase of $560 million 
above the President's request for the Environmental Protection 
Agency. The $8,204 million recommended by the Committee 
supports core activities to protect this nation's water and 
air, to clean-up hazardous wastes and to enforce various laws 
to protect the environment. It also provides resources for 
three important initiatives: approval of the President's 
proposal to double funding for the Brownfields program to 
clean-up abandoned industrial sites from $100 million to $200 
million; a $150 million increase over the President's budget 
for the Superfund program to escalate clean-up of toxic waste 
sites; and a new $21 million program to support the clean-up of 
critical watersheds.
    Notwithstanding these increases, there are a number of 
areas where funding remains inadequate. Principal among these 
is funding for repair of this nation's clean water and 
wastewater infrastructure. On September 30th the Administrator 
of EPA released results of the most recent survey of the gap 
between the need for infrastructure improvements and available 
funds. This study, conducted by EPA, shows a twenty-year 
shortfall totaling $388 billion for clean water facilities and 
$274 billion for safe drinking water facilities. Given this 
need, the Minority does not understand why the Majority has 
proposed a reduction of $50 million to $1,300 million for the 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund.

Science

    Despite constrained resources for the bill, the Chairman 
has made scientific research a priority and has provided a 
generous allocation for the science agencies, especially the 
$5,423 million in the bill for the National Science Foundation. 
The President's budget requested a meager 3 percent real 
increase for the NSF. The Committee has wisely added $395 
million to the President's request bringing the 2003 increase 
to slightly over 13 percent, an amount which will allow the 
agency to significantly expand research in basic physics, 
chemistry, mathematics and engineering as well as take 
advantage of new opportunities which would have not been 
possible under the Bush budget. In approving this increase as a 
first step to a potentially substantial multi-year increase for 
NSF, the Committee has also directed a major review of the 
Foundation's organizational, programmatic and personnel 
policies to assure the Congress and the public that the NSF is 
optimally organized to take advantage of the new opportunities 
that increased resources can provide.
    Although the increases recommended by the Chairman and 
approved by the Committee for NASA is appreciated, they are not 
sufficient to provide for a robust space program. The bill as 
reported does include $15.3 billion for NASA, an increase of 
$300 million above the President's request but a mere three 
percent over last year.
    The space station program was, and is, a concern of the 
Minority. The International Space Station has encountered 
serious cost overruns throughout its history. This Committee 
and Congress continue to await a revised cost estimate in the 
wake of revelations last year of another $5 billion in cost 
growth. Although details of the new cost estimates were 
expected last month, new detailed figures are not now expected 
before the end of October. NASA has not yet provided details of 
how it plans to complete construction of the station while 
ensuring that it will be the ``world class'' research facility 
NASA promised, meet U.S. commitments to its international 
partners, and stay within proposed budget guidelines. We are 
concerned by the reports of the Research Maximization and 
Prioritization (ReMaP) task force and the National Research 
Council that outline the reduction in scientific research 
capability that would result should only the ``core complete'' 
configuration be built. The potential of the space station to 
serve as a premier research laboratory must not be jeopardized. 
In addition, the NASA Management and Cost Estimating task force 
last year criticized the agency's focus on meeting annual 
budgets without dealing with the larger challenge of total 
program costs. The Minority feels that NASA must demonstrate 
not only that it has improved its management and cost 
estimating processes, but also that it will cease taking a 
year-by-year approach to budgeting without considering the 
impact on total program costs.
     There are four general provisions affecting NASA in this 
bill. Two of these provisions are of concern to the Minority: a 
proviso allowing for the ``enhanced-use lease'' of real 
property and a provision concerning the privatization of 
utilities. As we move through the legislative process, these 
issues need to be reviewed and vetted by all parties impacted 
by these provisions.

Corporation for National and Community Service

    Members should note that the Committee has again declined 
to include funding for the Corporation for National and 
Community Service. The Minority remains committed to working 
with the Majority to ensure that adequate funding is made 
available for this important purpose.

Conclusion

    In summary, the Minority is pleased by the Chairman and the 
Committee's efforts in many areas, especially the funds added 
to the President's request for veterans medical care, ongoing 
housing programs, environmental initiatives, and the National 
Science Foundation. However, shortfalls in other areas 
represent ongoing concerns, which we will work to address 
during House and Conference consideration prior to sending the 
bill to the President.

                                   Alan B. Mollohan.
                                   Dave Obey.

                                

```