74–031

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–159

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002

JULY 25, 2001.—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

REPORT

together with

MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 2620]

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,

2002, 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 ................... 21 22

Title III—Independent Agencies ............................................................... 54 46

American Battle Monuments Commission ........................................ 54 46

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board ........................... 55 48

Community Development Financial Institutions ............................. 56 48

Consumer Product Safety Commission ............................................. 57 49

Corporation for National and Community Service ........................... 57 49

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ...................................... 58 50

Department of Defense—Civil, Cemeterial Expenses, Army .......... 58 50

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ..................... 59 51

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ......................... 59 51

Environmental Protection Agency ..................................................... 60 52

Office of Science and Technology Policy ............................................ 68 71

2

Page number

Bill Report

Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental

Quality .............................................................................................. 68 71

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ............................................ 69 72

Federal Emergency Management Agency ......................................... 69 73

Federal Consumer Information Center ............................................. 74 79

National Aeronautics and Space Administration ............................. 75 80

National Credit Union Administration ............................................. 80 91

National Science Foundation ............................................................. 80 91

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ......................................... 83 97

Selective Service System .................................................................... 83 98

Title IV—General Provisions .................................................................... 84 98

SUMMARY OF THE BILL

The Committee recommends $112,616,553,000 in new budget

(obligational) authority for the Departments of Veterans Affairs

and Housing and Urban Development, and 20 independent agencies and offices. This is $7,483,225,000 above the 2001 appropriations level.

The following table summarizes the amounts recommended in

the bill in comparison with the appropriations for fiscal year 2001

and budget estimates for fiscal year 2002.

3

4

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ................................................. $51,353,821,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation ...................................................... 1 47,948,336,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ................................................... 50,686,213,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ......................... +3,364,485,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................... +667,608,000

1 Includes supplemental requests for Compensation and Readjustment benefits totaling $936,413,000.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is the third largest Federal

agency in terms of employment with an average employment of approximately 205,000. It administers benefits for more than

25,000,000 veterans, and 45,500,000 family members of living veterans and survivors of deceased veterans. Thus, close to 70,000,000

people, comprising about 25 percent of the total population of the

United States, are potential recipients of veterans benefits provided

by the Federal Government. A total of $51,353,821,000 in new budget authority is recommended by the Committee for the Department of Veterans Affairs programs in fiscal year 2002. The funds recommended provide

for compensation payments to 2,681,132 veterans and survivors of

deceased veterans with service-connected disabilities; pension payment for 587,448 non-service-connected disabled veterans, widows

and children in need of financial assistance; education training tuition assistance, and vocational assistance of 672,200 veterans, servicepersons, and reservists, and 50,320 eligible dependents of deceased veterans or seriously disabled veterans; housing credit assistance in the form of 240,000 guaranteed loans provided to veterans and servicepersons; administration or supervision of life insurance programs with 4,289,330 policies for veterans and active

duty servicepersons providing coverage of $554,273,500,000; inpatient care and treatment of beneficiaries in 172 medical centers, 43

domiciliaries, 135 nursing homes and 876 outpatient clinics which

includes independent, satellite, community-based, and rural outreach clinics involving 40,634,000 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 TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ................................................. $24,944,288,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation ...................................................... 1 23,355,689,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ................................................... 24,944,288,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ......................... +1,588,599,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................... 0

1 Includes a supplemental request of $589,413,000.

This appropriation provides funds for service-connected compensation payments to an estimated 2,681,132 beneficiaries and

pension payments to another 587,448 beneficiaries with non-service-connected disabilities. The average cost per compensation case

in 2002 is estimated at $8,131, and pension payments are projected

at a unit cost of $5,050. The estimated caseload and cost by program for 2001 and 2002 are as follows:

5

2001 2002 Difference

Caseload:

Compensation:

Veterans ............................................................ 2,324,225 2,371,834 +47,609

Survivors ........................................................... 306,842 308,316 +1,474

Children ............................................................. 936 982 +46

Clothing allowance (non-add) .......................... (76,285) (76,234) (¥51)

Pensions:

Veterans ............................................................ 360,724 352,033 ¥8,691

Survivors ........................................................... 249,142 235,415 ¥13,727

Minimum income for widows (non-add) .......... (558) (523) (¥35)

Vocational training (non-add) .......................... (5) (3) (¥2)

Burial allowances ............................................. 91,740 93,740 +2,000

Funds:

Compensation:

Veterans ............................................................ $16,621,523,000 $17,939,507,000 +$1,317,984,000

Survivors ........................................................... 3,676,267,000 3,805,051,000 +128,784,000

Children ............................................................. 13,431,000 14,808,000 +1,377,000

Clothing allowance ........................................... 41,687,000 41,652,000 ¥35,000

Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101–508 and

102–568) ...................................................... 1,266,000 1,286,000 +20,000

Medical exams pilot program (Public Law

104–275) ...................................................... 26,701,000 28,749,000 +2,048,000

Pensions:

Veterans ............................................................ 2,312,739,000 2,306,208,000 ¥6,531,000

Survivors ........................................................... 683,736,000 656,848,000 ¥26,888,000

Minimum income for widows ............................ 3,585,000 3,444,000 ¥141,000

Vocational training ........................................... 6,000 4,000 ¥2,000

Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101–508, 102–

568, and 103–446) ...................................... 8,521,000 8,564,000 +43,000

Payment to medical care (Public Laws 101–508

and 102–568) ....................................................... 7,632,000 8,090,000 +458,000

Payment to medical facilities (non-add) .................. (2,207,000) (2,320,000) (+113,000)

Burial benefits ........................................................... 129,837,000 130,300,000 +463,000

Other assistance ........................................................ 3,212,000 3,221,000 +9,000

Unobligated balance and transfers ........................... ¥174,455,000 ¥3,444,000 +171,011,000

Total appropriation 1 .............................................. 23,355,689,000 24,944,288,000 +1,588,599,000

1 Totals do not add due to rounding.

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee is recommending the budget

estimate of $24,944,288,000 for compensation and pensions. The

bill also includes requested language not to exceed $17,940,000 in

reimbursements of which $9,850,000 is transferred to the General

Operating Expenses account and $8,090,000 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 Department pension cap for Medicaid-eligible single

veterans and surviving spouses alone in Medicaid-covered nursing

homes. Also, 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 language that would provide

indefinite 2002 supplemental appropriations for compensation and

6

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 2002 recommendation ................................................. $2,135,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation ...................................................... 1 1,981,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ................................................... 2,135,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ......................... +154,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................... 0

1 Includes a supplemental request of $347,000,000.

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

is 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 $2,135,000,000 for readjustment benefits in fiscal year 2002. The

Administration has proposed language that would provide indefinite 2002 supplemental appropriations for readjustment benefits.

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 2001

and 2002 are as follows:

2001 2002 Difference

Number of trainees:

Education and training: dependents ......................... 47,107 50,320 +3,213

All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:

Veterans and servicepersons ............................ 324,300 334,300 +10,000

Reservists .......................................................... 71,500 70,500 ¥1,000

Vocational rehabilitation ............................................ 53,250 53,400 +150

Tuition assistance ...................................................... 161,000 214,000 +53,000

Total ....................................................................... 657,157 722,520 +65,363

Funds:

Education and training: dependents ......................... $173,694,000 $186,036,000 +$12,342,000

All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:

Veterans and servicepersons ............................ 1,356,150,000 1,444,752,000 +88,602,000

Reservists .......................................................... 115,850,000 123,504,000 +7,654,000

Vocational rehabilitation ................................... 419,200,000 432,100,000 +12,900,000

Tuition assistance ............................................. 24,900,000 34,500,000 +9,600,000

Licensing and certification tests ...................... 2,860,000 16,860,000 +14,000,000

Housing grants ................................................. 22,805,000 22,805,000 0

Automobiles and other conveyances ................ 7,947,000 7,947,000 0

Adaptive equipment .......................................... 27,500,000 27,500,000 0

7

2001 2002 Difference

Work-study ........................................................ 50,500,000 49,500,000 ¥1,000,000

Payment to States ............................................ 14,000,000 14,000,000 0

Reporting fees ................................................... 3,052,000 3,500,000 +448,000

Unobligated balance and other adjustments 1 ¥237,458,000 ¥228,004,000 +9,454,000

Total appropriation ................................................ 1,981,000,000 2,135,000,000 +154,000,000

1 Includes offsetting collections.

VETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $26,200,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 19,850,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 26,200,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +6,350,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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 $26,200,000 for veterans insurance and

indemnities in fiscal year 2002 is included in the bill. The amount

provided will enable the Department to transfer more than

$18,760,000 to the service-disabled veterans insurance fund and

transfer $8,260,000 in payments for the 3,250 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 eliminate

the need for a supplemental request. 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)

Program account Limitation on direct

loans

Administrative expenses

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ................................................. $203,278,000 $300,000 $164,497,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation ...................................................... 165,740,000 300,000 162,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ................................................... 203,278,000 300,000 164,497,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................... +37,538,000 0 +2,497,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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.

8

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 downpayment if the lender agrees. The Department requires that a downpayment 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 (es- timated to total $203,278,000) for funding subsidy payments,

$300,000 for the limitation on direct loans, and $164,497,000 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 does not recommend the Administration’s proposal to eliminate the Secretary’s authority (38 U.S.C. 3733) to finance the sale of acquired properties.

EDUCATION LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account Limitation on direct

loans

Administrative expenses

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ................................................. $1,000 $3,400 $64,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation ...................................................... 1,000 3,400 220,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ................................................... 1,000 3,400 64,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................... 0 0 ¥156,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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

$64,000 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)

Program account Limitation on direct

loans

Administrative expenses

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ................................................. $72,000 $3,301,000 $274,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation ...................................................... 52,000 2,726,000 432,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ................................................... 72,000 3,301,000 274,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................... +20,000 +575,000 ¥158,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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

9

includes administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct

loan program. Loans of up to $866 (based on indexed chapter 31

subsistence allowance rate) are available to service-connected disabled veterans enrolled in vocational rehabilitation programs when

the veteran is temporarily in need of additional assistance. Repayment is made in 10 monthly installments, without interest,

through deductions from future payments of compensation, pension, subsistence allowance, educational assistance allowance, or

retirement pay. 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 $72,000 for funding sub- sidy program costs and $274,000 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

$3,301,000. It is estimated that the Department will make 5,400

loans in fiscal year 2002, with an average amount of $611.

NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Administrative expenses:

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ............................................. $544,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .................................................. 532,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ................................................ 544,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ...................... +12,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ................... 0

This program is testing the feasibility of authorizing the Department 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, 2001. The bill includes the budget request of $544,000 for administrative expenses, which may be transferred to and merged with the General Operating Expenses account.

GUARANTEED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOANS FOR HOMELESS

VETERANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

This program was established by Public Law 105–368, the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998. All funds authorized for

this program were appropriated in fiscal year 2000. Therefore, no

appropriation request has been included for fiscal year 2002. Bill

language is included allowing the use of funds in Medical Care and

General Operating Expenses to administer this program.

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

MEDICAL CARE

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $21,281,587,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 20,281,587,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 20,979,742,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +1,000,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +301,845,000

The Department of Veterans Affairs operates the largest Federal

medical care delivery system in the country, with 172 medical cenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
10

ters, 43 domiciliaries, 135 nursing homes, and 876 outpatient clinics which include 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 are 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 healthscience fields to support the Department’s medical programs. The bill includes $21,281,587,000 for medical care in fiscal year 2002, an increase of $1,000,000,000 above the enacted level and

$301,845,000 over the budget request. In addition, the Committee

estimates $812,000,000 will be collected and available from the

Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF).

The Committee is providing two-year spending authority for $500,000,000 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 $900,000,000 of funds requested for the equipment and land and

structures object classifications until August 1, 2002. The budget

requested the delayed availability of $675,000,000 of such funds.

The bill also includes requested language in the Compensation and

Pensions appropriation transferring $8,090,000 for administrative

expenses of implementing cost saving provisions required by the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and the Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1992.

The Committee has again included bill language limiting the

amount the VA may obligate for maintenance and operations of

medical facilities to $3,000,000,000, which should be allocated on a

system other than VERA. The Committee strongly supports the Department’s Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services

(CARES) initiative and believes that the Department desperately

needs to address the issue of facility resource management.

The Committee, however, did not include the Administration’s

proposal to set-aside $30,000,000 in Medical Care to fund CARES

projects. Instead, the Committee directed the set-aside of funds in

both Major Construction and Minor Construction to address any

construction projects resulting from the final CARES decisions. The

Committee recommends that the $30,000,000 be redirected to support core VA treatment services in the areas of mental health, spinal cord injury, blindness, homelessness, substance abuse, physical

rehabilitation, long-term care, traumatic brain injury, and women’s

health.

For a number of years GAO and the Committees on Veterans Affairs and Appropriations have been encouraging the VA and the

Department of Defense (DOD) to work together to find ways to

share resources and provide better health care for our Nation’s

11

military, military retirees, and veterans. The number and scope of

cooperative efforts in this area is under whelming. The Committee

directs the VA, in cooperation with DOD, to submit to the Committees on Appropriations a credible plan by September 1, 2002 for no

less than three demonstration sites where the VA and DOD will

fully integrate operations, billing and records, and treatment. Further, the Committee directs the VA to include in the plan VA/DOD

sharing options that complement CARES principles.

Additionally, the Committee strongly urges the VA to continue

working with DOD to create a shared computer-based patient

record system.

The Committee is again extremely concerned this year about the

lack of progress made by the VA on collection efforts for ‘‘third

party/first party’’ revenues. Continuing on this course that permits

millions of dollars of revenue from third parties to go uncollected

is not acceptable. The Committee has included funding for the VA

to initiate a demonstration for a minimum period of two years of

a total Patient Financial Services system that will be compatible

with the existing VA financial system and will supplement it to

overcome the existing system shortcomings. 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 other coverage or other responsibility to pay 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. Cost sharing with the contractor combined with cost recovery incentives may be considered

in the development of this demonstration. Accordingly, the Committee directs that the effort of this demonstration be not less than

$3,000,000.

The Secretary is required by law, when determining the VA’s enrollment capabilities, to ‘‘ensure that the provision of care to enrollees is timely and acceptable in quality.’’ In this regard, the Committee is extremely concerned that enrolled veterans, especially

those veterans in priority categories 1–6, are not able to access

health care in a reasonably timely manner. Therefore, the Committee directs the VA to continue providing medical care for all

upper-priority veterans and those veterans already enrolled in the

VA medical care system. The Committee further directs that the

Secretary, prior to making the fiscal year 2002 enrollment decision,

report to the Committees on Appropriations the enrollment decision and justification. The Committee strongly urges the Secretary

to limit the enrollment of new priority seven veterans in VISNs

where receipt collection is below 50 percent of the billed amounts.

The Committee is aware the President signed the Veteran’s Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2001, (Public Law 107–14) on

June 5, 2001. The benefits included in that legislation were not included in the Department’s fiscal year 2002 budget request and no

funds in this Act have been identified to provide those benefits. The

12

Committee recommends that the Administration deliver an official

budget amendment to the Committees on Appropriation prior to

any conference activities to ensure that this new legislation is adequately funded in fiscal year 2002.

The Committee expects the VA to ensure that its medical facilities consistently make testing for hepatitis C broadly available to

veterans and use all available funds and therapies in the most

clinically appropriate manner. The Committee urges the VA to

work closely with veterans’ service organizations and other entities

to mount a comprehensive public service education and outreach

campaign to screen veterans who may have been exposed. Further,

the Committee directs the leadership of VHA to communicate this

expectation with every VISN and facility director in the veterans

health care system.

The Committee believes that the funding level for mental health

treatment and services should not be less than that provided in fiscal year 2001. In addition, the Committee strongly encourages the

Department to establish two new Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Centers in fiscal year 2002.

The Committee strongly urges the Department to expand its

mental health intensive case management program and report

semi-annually, beginning four months after the date of enactment,

on the number of veterans covered by case management programs.

The expansion of this very successful program should not come

from funds already identified in the budget justification materials

for mental health services.

The Committee directs the Department to immediately suspend

the fail first policy as applied to anti-psychotic medications and to

stop the promulgation of any new schizophrenia treatment guidelines until the National Institute of Mental Health presents the results of the Clinical Anti-Psychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness Project, which is studying whether, and the circumstances in

which, certain atypical anti-psychotic medications may have significant advantages over the others.

The Committee is concerned that VISN directors are ignoring

simple population statistics when moving or consolidating medical

services from one facility to another. Critical care services should

remain at the facility serving the greater number of enrolled and

vested veterans and not moved to a facility serving fewer enrolled

and vested patients. The Committee strongly discourages the VA

from permitting the transfer of critical care services away from one

central location serving the larger portion of veterans in the VISN.

The Committee continues to support the Joslin Diabetes Center

and VA deployment and refinement of the Joslin Vision Network

(JVN) in several VISNs across the VA health care system. The

Committee has been informed of the VA’s intent to incorporate the

JVN as a telemedicine platform component within VA medical protocol in the near future. Therefore, the Committee encourages the

VA to initiate new pilot sites and assist wiith further technical advancement of the JVN technology and software compatibility toward off-the-shelf deployment and integration into the VA health

care system.

The Committee has become increasingly concerned that as the

veterans population ages and more facilities are integrating and

consolidating services, transportation to VA facilities becomes a

13

greater obstacle for veterans. The Committee requests that the Department report on the transportation options available to veterans

and the adequacy of those options four months from the date of enactment of this Act.

The Committee encourages the Department to submit a report

within four months of enactment of this Act on the cost and effectiveness of the hospital contract program in east central Florida

and the feasibility of expanding such a program to other locations

with similar conditions.

The Committee urges the Department to address the critical

problem of periodontal disease among the veterans population.

The Committee encourages the VA to increase the number of VA

Centers for Women Veterans and other women’s health initiatives.

The Committee urges the Department to create two new Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Centers (GRECC) in fiscal

year 2002, giving first priority to those VISNs that currently do not

have a GRECC.

The Committee encourages the Department to establish community based outpatient clinics in Toledo, Ohio; St. Tammany Parish,

Louisiana; Passaic County, New Jersey; and Montrose, Pennsylvania; and Storm Lake, Iowa.

The Committee encourages the development of a dementia-related illness treatment program in North Carolina and a

hydrotherapy treatment program in Connecticut.

Last year the Committee expressed its concern that many of the

antibiotics upon which modern medicine relies are becoming ineffective and suggested that VA hospitals and clinics can serve as

innovators and examples for other hospitals on this important public health matter. The Committee strongly urges the VA to develop,

implement and evaluate innovative antibiotic-use practices, including the routine use of vaccinations against streptococcus pneumonia among elderly and immunocompromised veterans and their

dependents.

The Committee stands behind the commitments Congress made

in the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act (P.L.

106–117) to provide veterans with additional long-term care and

emergency care services. The Committee is concerned that the

budget request may not adequately take into account the demand

for these enhanced services. The Committee urges the Administration to include full funding for the Veterans Millennium Health

Care and Benefits Act in its Fiscal Year 2003 budget request. The

Committee directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to report by December

1, 2001, on the steps being taken to ensure adequate funding and

full implementation of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and

Benefits Act.

MEDICAL CARE COLLECTIONS FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

The Committee expects the Department to collect $812,000,000

from first and third party payers in fiscal year 2002. Bill language

is included transferring those receipts to the Medical Care account

to remain available until expended.

14

MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $371,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 351,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 360,237,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +20,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +10,763,000

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 $371,000,000 for medical and prosthetic research in fiscal year 2002. This funding level is

$20,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 appropriation and

$10,763,000 over the budget request.

The Committee encourages the Department to expand research

opportunities in the areas of integrative neuroscience, mental illness, substance abuse, lymphoid malignancies and Agent Orangerelated conditions.

The Committee is encouraged by the progress made by the VA

and the National Technology Transfer Center during the past year

in identifying promising VA technological advances that offer the

potential for commercial applications. The Committee strongly

urges that this partnership should be continued at the current level

of effort and that a targeted partnership identification process is

essential to the successful marketing and licensing process.

MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING

EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $66,731,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 62,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 67,628,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +4,731,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... ¥897,000

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 $66,731,000, an increase of $4,731,000 from the

fiscal year 2001 funding level and $897,000 below the budget request which reflects the Department’s decision to move the function

of asset management to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer

which is funded in the General Operating Expenses account.

15

The Committee is concerned that in the momentum to decentralize the veterans health care system, the VA is not providing the

leadership necessary to guarantee quality healthcare and sound fiscal management across the system. Three examples are in the

areas of hepatitis C, National Reserve Fund allocations, and collections.

As GAO recently pointed out in the report, ‘‘Observations on VA’s

Assessment of Hepatitis C Budgeting and Funding,’’ VISN directors

reported that they were not aware that funding had been requested

for hepatitis C related programs in the Department’s fiscal year

2001 budget and subsequently provided in the appropriation or

that the VA was strongly advocating screening and testing of affected veterans. The Committee applauds the Department’s decision to move the hepatitis C program to the office of public health

and recognizes that more veterans are now being screened, but the

Committee is incredulous that hepatitis C screening, education and

treatment was not made a part of each VISN director’s 2001 performance agreement.

Similarly, the Committee is deeply concerned about how the Department is going to assist those VISNs which requested supplemental funding for a second consecutive year. The Committee supports the National Reserve and the process to evaluate those needs.

However, the Committee questions the rationale for giving loans

requiring repayment from the National Reserve to VISNs needing

supplemental funding the year before.

Finally, the VA has never consistently met its anticipated collections goals. Much of the receipt short-fall was attributed to collections and billing being a new responsibility for the VA system, the

inability of VA to bill for reasonable charges and the lack of Medicare subvention. However, further investigation shows that many

VISNs and facilities have still not developed the systems required

to fully collect on medical billing, leaving some VISNs with a large

sum of accounts receivable, but a very small balance in the collections fund.

The Committee directs the VA to accept immediate authority and

responsibility for providing guidance and definite performance

measures in the areas of fiscal management and maintaining core

service to veterans. The VA is further directed to submit with the

fiscal year 2002 operating plan the signed performance agreements

of all 22 VISN directors, action plans for each VISN on how that

VISN will improve collection rates, and financial reports from the

three VISNs which received supplemental loans and funding for

the second consecutive year summarizing how those VISNs have

become financially sound.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $1,195,728,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 1,050,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,194,831,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +145,728,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +897,000

The General Operating Expenses appropriation provides for the

administration of non-medical veterans benefits through the VetVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
16

erans 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 $165,379,000 in other accounts for these credit programs. In

addition, $9,850,000 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 Department estimates that $37,170,000

will be utilized for such purposes in fiscal year 2002. Prior to fiscal

year 1996, such costs were included in the general operating expenses appropriation. Thus, in total, $1,639,437,000 is requested in

fiscal year 2002 for administrative costs of non-medical benefits.

The Committee recommends $1,195,728,000 for General Operating Expenses in fiscal year 2002. This amount represents an increase of $145,728,000 above the current level and $897,000 above

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 four motor vehicles for the VBA office in Manila, Philippines, and a travel limitation of $15,665,000.

The Committee directs the VBA to be funded at not less than

$955,352,000 as proposed in the budget justification. The Committee trusts that this budget request provides for the maximum

number of new claims processors, both for compensation and pension and education, VBA could hire and train in fiscal year 2002.

The Committee supports VBA’s hiring initiative in both program

and expects VBA to achieve the FTE increases requested in the

budget request.

The recent legislation enacted at the beginning of fiscal year

2001 presented some challenges to the already strained benefits

processing system. The Committee is in the process of providing

supplemental funding from Medical Care in the pending supplemental legislation. However, the claims processing delay forecasted

for fiscal year 2002 is unacceptable. The Committee is encouraged

by the formation of the claims processing task force and is cautiously optimistic on hearing its findings. The Committee directs

the Secretary, with the VBA leadership and recommendations of

the task force, to present a plan to the Committees on Appropriations on how the Department will improve processing times, without sacrificing accuracy, by May 2002.

The Committee is concerned about GAO’s findings published in

the report, ‘‘Training for Claims Processors Needs Evaluation.’’ The

expeditious training of new veterans service representatives is essential to VBA’s plan for reducing processing times. The Committee

directs the Department to submit a comprehensive training plan by

January 1, 2002. In the report, the Department should include a

timeline detailing how long the training program will last for new

17

employees and by which standards the Department will use to determine the effectiveness of the training.

The Committee urges the Department to find a way to greatly

reduce the administrative expenses of the various loan programs.

The Committee fully supports the new Office of Asset Enterprise Management and has provided $897,000 over the budget request to

fund this function in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. The

Committee encourages the new office to catalog and evaluate all

current leases held by the Department. The Committee directs that

the Office create a policy for all VA leasing activities and communicate that policy to all VISN and office directors.

NATIONAL CEMETERY SYSTEM

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $121,169,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 109,889,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 121,169,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +11,280,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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 service

persons 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 152

cemeterial installations in 39 States, the District of Columbia, and

Puerto Rico.

The Committee recommends $121,169,000 for the National Cemetery Administration in fiscal year 2002. This funding level is

$11,280,000 over the 2001 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.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $52,308,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 46,464,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 48,308,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +5,844,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +4,000,000

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 $52,308,000 for the Office of Inspector General in fiscal year 2002. This amount is an increase of

$5,844,000 above the current year appropriation and $4,000,000

over the budget request. The Committee has provided additional

18

funding for the Office of Inspector General to hire up to its statutory floor. The Committee directs the IG to use the additional

funds for increased oversight and review of the VA health care system.

CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $183,180,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 66,040,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 183,180,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +117,140,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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 Department, including

planning, architectural and engineering services, Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) activities, 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 Department proposes a change in the appropriation language to allow available funds to be expended for activities related

to the ongoing CARES studies. The Committee directs that

$60,000,000 of the funds made available in this account be used for

CARES activities. This will enable VA to fund advance planning,

design development, construction documents, and construction for

major capital initiatives stemming from the CARES recommendations. Any CARES related major construction project would continue to meet authorization (medical facilities $4,000,000 and over)

and budgetary requirements (approved by Congress in the budgetary process). Ten million dollars of the $60,000,000 dedicated to

CARES in the major construction fund has been included to accomplish the Phase III studies (the remaining 14 networks) to begin in

FY 2002. If less than $10,000,000 is needed to perform the Phase

III studies, the remaining balance may be used to fund other major

construction CARES needs. However, none of the CARES studies

or construction funds may be used for unplanned, site-specific, contractor-conducted ‘‘studies’’ to justify a project or series of projects

at a facility or site which has not already been reviewed in a larger

CARES study.

Appropriation language is included providing up to $20,000,000

for costs associated with land acquisitions for national cemeteries

in the vicinity of Sacramento, California; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;

and Detroit, Michigan. The Veterans Millennium Health Care and

Benefits Act, Public Law 106–177, directs the Secretary of Veterans

Affairs to establish six national cemeteries to serve veterans and

their families.

The bill provides $183,180,000 for construction, major projects, in

fiscal year 2002 as requested in the budget justification an increase

of $117,140,000 over last year’s funding level.

The specific amounts recommended by the Committee are as follows:

19

DETAIL OF BUDGET REQUEST

[In thousands of dollars]

Location and description Available through

2001 2002 request House recommendation

Medical Program:

General: Miami, FL Utility Plant and Electrical Distribution 0 28,000 28,000

Advance planning fund: various stations ............................. 0 5,000 5,000

CARES Fund ........................................................................... 0 60,000 60,000

Asbestos abatement: various stations .................................. 0 18,000 18,000

Subtotal, medical programs .............................................. 0 111,000 111,000

Veterans Benefits Administration: Advance planning fund ........... 0 1,500 1,500

National Cemetery Administration:

Atlanta, GA Phase I Development ......................................... 0 28,200 28,200

Massachusetts National Cemetery Columbaria Expansion/

Cemetery Improvement ...................................................... 0 9,200 9,200

Miami, FL National Cemetery Design .................................... 15,000 2,000 2,000

Tahoma, WA, National Cemetery Columbaria Expansion/

Cemetery Improvements .................................................... 0 6,900 6,900

Land Acquisition .................................................................... 0 18,000 18,000

Design Fund ........................................................................... 0 5,180 5,180

Subtotal, NCA .................................................................... 15,000 69,480 69,480

Claims Analyses: various stations ................................................. 0 1,200 1,200

Total construction, major projects .................................... $15,000 183,180 183,180 ’

The Committee expects the Department to deliver the report outlining the country’s veteran cemetery needs by the due date of December 31, 2001. The Committee further expects that the needs of

New Mexico and Tennessee will be addressed in that report.

FACILITY REHABILITATION FUND

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $300,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 0

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 0

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +300,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +300,000,000

The Committee recommends $300,000,000 for a new construction

account to provide for safety and seismic repairs to VA medical facilities and the rehabilitation of VA research facilities as authorized by H.R. 811, the Veterans Hospital Emergency Repair Act, as

passed by the House of Representatives on March 27, 2001. No

funds were provided in fiscal year 2001 or requested in the fiscal

year 2002 budget request for this account. The bill language provides $30,000,000 exclusively for the rehabilitation of research facilities and $270,000,000 for safety and seismic repairs to medical

facilities. The Committee recommends that all projects considered

for funding also be subject to CARES criteria.

The bill includes language prohibiting new building construction

without the Department first submitting a report to the Committees on Appropriations detailing how the construction of a new

building will be the most cost-effective means of correcting infrastructure safety and seismic deficiencies at a specific location. The

report should be submitted at least 30 days prior to the award of

a design or construction contract.

20

CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $178,900,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 170,840,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 178,900,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +8,060,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... 0

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. Program focus is placed on outpatient care projects. Public Law 106–117, gave VA the authority

to make capital contributions from minor construction in enhanceduse leases.

The Committee recommends $178,900,000 for the construction,

minor projects appropriation in fiscal year 2002, the same level as

the budget request and an increase of $8,060,000 over the fiscal

year 2001 appropriation.

The Committee directs that VHA’s minor construction resources

should be utilized in a manner that is consistent with current

CARES initiative. All VHA minor construction projects must be reviewed by a central office work group that will consist of both VHA

and other Department officials. For evaluation purposes, the work

group is to utilize criteria that is consistent with those developed

for CARES. If total costs of projects being initiated at any facility

exceeds $4 million (the Capital Investment Board threshold), the

recommendations of the work group must be approved by the Deputy Secretary.

PARKING REVOLVING FUND

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $4,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 0

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 4,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +4,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... 0

This appropriation provides funds for the construction, alteration, and acquisition (by purchase or lease) of parking garages at

Department 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.

In addition to the collected parking fees, the Committee recommends the budget request of $4,000,000 to be derived from the

General Fund of the Treasury.

GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $100,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 100,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 50,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. 0

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +50,000,000

This program provides grants to assist States to construct State

home facilities for furnishing domiciliary or nursing home care to

21

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 2002. This

amount is equal to last year’s funding level and $50,000,000 over

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 in the southern part of the state.

GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS CEMETERIES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $25,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 25,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 25,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. 0

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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 $25,000,000

for grants for the construction of State veterans cemeteries in fiscal

year 2002.

The Committee encourages the Department to work with the

States of California and Louisiana as those States apply for grants.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

The bill continues the existing seven administrative provisions as

proposed in the budget and includes four new administrative provisions.

For simplicity in accounting and scorekeeping, the Committee included section 108 which deposits all receipts collected under the

Health Services Improvement into the Medical Care Collection

Fund. Section 109 extends the Department’s authority to operate

Franchise Funds. Section 110 allows the Department to deduct administrative expenses from proceeds of enhanced-use lease authority receipts. Section 111 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 $28,555,000

for ORM and $2,383,000 for OEDCA.

22

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ................................................. $29,979,968,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation ...................................................... 1 28,590,735,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ................................................... 30,580,617,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ......................... 1+1,389,233,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................... ¥600,649,000 1Fiscal year 2001 totals in this title reflect the amounts appropriated in the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law

106–377), and do not reflect the 0.22% rescission enacted pursuant to Public Law 106–566. The totals also

reflect the technical reclassification of mutual mortgage insurance fund receipts pursuant to an agreement

between the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the House and Senate

Budget Committees.

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 $29,979,968,000 for the Department

of Housing and Urban Development, a $1,389,233,000 increase

above the fiscal year 2001 level, and $600,649,000 below the request.

PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER AND RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ................................................. $15,694,242,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation ...................................................... 13,940,907,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ................................................... 15,717,392,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ......................... +1,753,335,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................... ¥23,150,000

The Housing Certificate Fund (HCF) provides funding for the renewal of expiring section 8 contracts, amendments to existing section 8 contracts, new ‘‘incremental’’ section 8 vouchers including enhanced vouchers, relocation assistance, and the costs associated

with the administration of section 8 contracts.

The Committee recommends a total of $16,334,242,000 for the

HCF in fiscal year 2002, of which $15,694,242,000 is provided as

a direct appropriation, and $640,000,000 is derived from fiscal year

2001 carryover. Consistent with the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution, the Committee recommends $4,200,000,000 in advance appropriations. This amount represents an increase of $1,753,335,000

over the amount appropriated for the HCF in fiscal year 2002. The

recommendation includes the following:

Renewal of expiring section 8 contract: $15,725,153,031 to fully

fund the renewal of all expiring section 8 housing assistance conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
23

tracts and contracts entered into pursuant to section 441 of the

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. Included in this

amount is $46,400,000 for continued funding of the Family SelfSufficiency Coordinators program. Funds are not provided in the

HCF for the renewal of section 811 tenant-based assistance, but instead the Committee has included funding under the Housing for

special populations account. Pursuant to the budget request, no

new funding is provided for section 8 contract amendments for fiscal year 2002, and instead amendment requirements are to be

funded through recaptures in fiscal year 2002.

‘‘Incremental’’ section 8 vouchers: $197,246,000 to fund 34,000

new section 8 vouchers. Of this amount, $157,344,000 is provided

for 26,086 new vouchers to be distributed on a fair share basis to

those PHAs which have a 97% voucher utilization rate. The remaining $39,912,000 is provided for 7,914 new vouchers for distribution to non-elderly, disabled residents who are affected by the

designation of public and assisted housing as ‘‘elderly-only’’ developments. The Committee recognizes that persons with disabilities

who are dependent on Supplemental Security Income or have very

low paying jobs are often unable to find affordable housing absent

section 8 tenant-based rental assistance. Therefore, language is included in the bill earmarking these amounts for this purpose to enable people with disabilities to live integrated lives in their home

communities.

Tenant protection vouchers: $202,842,070 for new tenant protection vouchers to replace lost project-based section 8 assistance with

tenant-based assistance. Funding for new vouchers under the

HOPE VI program is provided within the Revitalization of severely

distressed public housing (HOPE VI) account as requested.

Section 8 contract administrators: $195,600,730 for section 8 contract administrators. Language is included in the bill, as requested

and carried in prior years, that precludes HUD from paying increased administrative fee costs in the tenant-based section 8 program as a result of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility

Act of 1998.

Voucher Utilization: The recommendation brings to 223,000 the

total number of new section 8 vouchers provided over the last four

years. In the past, the Committee has expressed concern over both

the Department’s and the PHAs’ abilities to award and utilize

these vouchers in a timely fashion. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000,

HUD was provided $629,650,000 to fund 110,000 new vouchers.

However, in each of those years, HUD failed to award those vouchers in a timely fashion, resulting in none of those funds being used.

At the same time, PHAs’ underutilization of vouchers continues to

be a significant problem as evidenced by a drop in the national utilization rate average from 96.7 percent in fiscal year 1999 to an estimated 92.4 percent in fiscal year 2001. As a result, a significant

amount of unused funding has been recaptured each year. The

Committee believes it is critical that the Department and the PHAs

take steps to increase the timely award and utilization of section

8 vouchers. Therefore, language is included in the bill requiring

that new vouchers be distributed only to those PHAs that have a

voucher utilization rate of 97 percent. The Committee directs that

HUD award the new fair share vouchers provided in the bill within

four months of enactment of this Act, and report to the Committee

24

no later than February 15, 2002, on its compliance with this direction. The Committee also expects that implementation of the Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) in fiscal

year 2002 will assist HUD in identifying troubled PHAs and providing remediation services to rectify this problem. Funding has

been provided under the Public housing capital fund as requested

for SEMAP remediation activities. HUD is requested to provide the

Committee a report, no later than February 28, 2002, which identifies those PHAs designated as ‘‘troubled’’ under the SEMAP system, and the remediation activities planned for each PHA identified.

In addition, the Committee recommends a rescission of

$886,000,000 from this account to be derived from the recapture of

section 8 funds provided in fiscal year 2001 and prior years.

PHA Reserve Funds: As requested, the Committee recommenda- tion assumes that $640,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 carryover will

be derived by reducing from two months to one month the amount

of reserve funding available to PHAs. Adoption of this change will

still provide PHAs a $640,000,000 reserve, in addition to their regular full year appropriation, to address any unforeseen cost increases. It is the Committee’s understanding that in fiscal year 2000, PHAs only utilized $46,190,228 in reserve funding. Further,

the fiscal year 2002 budget reflects a change in the calculation of

the cost per voucher to more accurately reflect PHA’s actual costs

and local inflation rates. Therefore, the Committee does not believe

this reduction will have an adverse impact on PHAs ability to assist their clients.

Language is included in the bill, similar to language carried in

prior Acts, which: (1) transfers funds to the Working Capital Fund;

(2) designates amounts available for incremental section 8 vouchers

for certain purposes; (3) prohibits payment of increased administrative fees; (4) reduces reserve funds; and (5) rescinds excess funds

from prior years.

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $2,555,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 3,000,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 2,293,400,000

Comparison with Fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................ ¥445,000,000

Comparison with Fiscal year 2002 budget request ......................... +261,600,000

The Public Housing Capital Fund provides funding for all public

housing capital programs, like 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 recommends funding this program at

$2,555,000,000, which is $445,000,000 below the fiscal year 2001

level, and $261,600,000 above the request.

The Committee appreciates the need to modernize public housing. To this end, the Committee has increased funding for this account over and above the budget request for each of the last three

years. However, the Committee must acknowledge that there is a

significant pipeline of these funds which remains unspent. It is the

25

Committee’s understanding, based on data provided by the PHAs

to HUD, that as of June 2001, PHAs had not yet spent

$4,687,962,000 of the funds provided in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and

2000, of which $2,717,194,528 had not yet been obligated, i.e. put

under contract by the PHAs for repair and modernization work.

The Committee understands that $733,423,311, or 27 percent, of

these unobligated funds are from funds provided in fiscal years

1998 and 1999 with 25 PHAs accounting for 73 percent of these unobligated funds.

The Committee believes that residents of public housing deserve

timely improvements to the public housing stock, as Congress intends and has funded. The Committee would note that Congress’ concern over lengthy delays in the expenditure of funds provided

for modernization and repair work led to the inclusion of several

provisions in the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act

(QHWRA) of 1998 to compel more timely utilization of these funds.

Under section 9(j) of QHWRA, PHAs are required to obligate their

funds within 24 months and must fully spend such funds within 48

months. Sanctions for failure to comply with the law include a complete withholding of all capital funds from any PHA in violation of

this requirement and the recapture of funds provided in prior years

from a non-compliant PHA. Under QHWRA, these withheld and recaptured funds are to be redistributed to PHAs which have proven

capable of utilizing their funds. The Committee understands that

last year HUD decided to delay implementation of the provisions

of QHWRA, a position that the Committee finds clearly inconsistent with the statute and congressional intent.

The Committee expects HUD to hold the PHAs accountable for

their compliance with the statute. The Committee also believes

that additional funds under this account should be directed to

those PHAs which are capable of utilizing these funds in a timely

fashion. Therefore, the Committee recommends that $262,000,000

be allocated only to those PHAs which have met the 24-month statutory requirement to obligate their funds in accordance with

QHWRA. In accordance with QHWRA, PHAs which have obligated

90 percent or more of their fiscal year 1999 and prior year funds

or have received a waiver from the 24 month requirement will be

eligible to receive this additional funding. This will ensure that

those PHAs which have demonstrated an ability to fully utilize

their money will receive funds in addition to their annual accrued

maintenance allocation to continue addressing their backlog requirements in fiscal year 2002.

The Committee notes that the sanctions for non-compliance of

this deadline under QHWRA require a complete withholding of any

capital funds to a PHA. Non-compliant PHAs’ prior year funds are

also subject to recapture and redistribution to compliant PHAs.

Given that fiscal year 2002 represents the first full year of implementation of the requirements of QHWRA, the Committee appreciates that a complete withholding of funds may be too severe a

sanction for non-compliant PHAs. Therefore, the Committee includes language to waive this withholding requirement, and instead requires the Secretary to recapture fiscal year 1999 and prior

year funds from those PHAs which have failed to obligate their

funds within the statutory deadline and redistribute those funds to

those PHAs in compliance with QHWRA. The Committee believes

26

such action will minimize the impact of implementation of QHWRA

on PHAs during the first year of full implementation while ensuring that capital funds are expended in a timely fashion as required

by QHWRA.

The Committee directs HUD to provide quarterly reports on the

obligation and expenditure of capital funds, delineated by PHA and

fiscal year, of all funds provided under this heading in fiscal years

2002 and prior years, with the first such report due not later than

February 1, 2002.

Therefore, language is included to ensure that HUD implements

QHWRA in accordance with the statute and congressional intent,

including provisions which: restate the effective date of QHWRA to

apply to fiscal year 1999 funds; maintain HUD’s ability to waive

certain deadlines, but require that such waivers be granted only by

the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary; and require the Secretary

to recapture funds from PHAs not in compliance with the statutory

deadlines and redistribute those funds to PHAs which are compliant with the statute.

Language is also included in the bill, similar to language carried in prior years, designating the following: (1) up to $51,000,000 for

technical assistance, contract expertise, training, interventions in

troubled authorities, independent physical inspections, and management improvements, including $10,000,000 for remediation activities related to SEMAP; (2) no less than $43,000,000 to be transferred to the working capital fund for development and maintenance of information technology systems; and (3) up to $75,000,000

to be provided for repairs resulting from natural disasters and

emergencies. In addition, language is included making funds available for two years.

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $3,494,868,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 3,242,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 3,384,868,000

Comparison with Fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................ +252,868,000

Comparison with Fiscal year 2002 budget request ......................... +110,000,000

The Public Housing Operating Fund (PHOF) subsidizes a portion

of the costs associated with operating and maintaining public housing. This subsidy supplements funding received by public housing

authorities 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 $3,494,868,000 for the PHOF, an increase of $252,868,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level, and

$110,000,000 above the request. This amount represents an 8.1

percent increase over the current year appropriation and 3.5 percent above the request.

The Committee recommends an 8.1 percent increase in this account to augment the funding received by all PHAs through the operating subsidies program, in lieu of providing a separate suppleVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
27

mental funding source for selected PHAs through the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP). The Committee notes

that anti-drug and anti-crime activities are allowable uses of public

housing operating funds, and the vast majority of PHAs fund their

anti-crime and anti-drug programs from within their existing operating subsidy allocation. By contrast, the PHDEP provides supplemental funding on top of their regular operating subsidies for only

1,000 of the 3,400 PHAs, with four PHAs receiving 25 percent of

the total funding available under the PHDEP formula grants program.

The Committee notes that since the PHDEP program was created in 1989, Federal funding to States and localities for police,

crime and drug prevention programs has grown dramatically, particularly through assistance provided by the Department of Justice.

Over the last six years, over $9,000,000,000 in new Federal assistance has been provided through the Justice Department for similar

purposes, including funding to put 110,000 new police officers on

the street, funds for crime and drug enforcement and prevention

programs, and funding to establish 1,000 new Boys and Girls Clubs

exclusively in public housing communities. The Committee believes

that States and localities have a responsibility to allocate their

funds and services to meet the needs of all residents, including

those in public housing.

The Committee questions whether providing supplementary

funding through the PHDEP is the most effective and equitable

mechanism to provide these services to residents of public housing.

Currently, there exists a huge backlog in unspent PHDEP funds.

As of June 30, 2001, the backlog for fiscal year 2000 and prior

years totaled $396,995,963, of which $96,751,000 was provided in

fiscal years 1997 through 1999. Given the large amount of unspent

funds remaining in the pipeline, the Committee questions the efficiency and effectiveness of this program.

The Committee also questions HUD’s ability to administer anticrime and anti-drug activities, as evidenced by HUD’s decisions to

allow PHAs to use PHDEP funds for ‘‘creative wellness’’ programs

that teach residents to surround themselves with colored

gemstones and incense, for vacations and trips, and for controversial gun buy backs. The Committee instead believes that the Department of Justice can more effectively determine when and what

type of targeted assistance may be necessary to address local crime

and drug programs in public housing over and above the activities

already provided for through other Federal programs. Therefore,

the Committee has also designated $10,000,000 of the funds provided under this account to be allocated by the Attorney General

through existing Department of Justice programs, such as Weed

and Seed, to address those areas where additional assistance is

needed to augment State and local efforts to effectively fight crime

and drugs in public housing.

Language is included in the bill which: (1) provides two-year

availability for funds provided under this account; (2) transfers

$10,000,000 to the Office of Inspector General for Operation Safe

Home; (3) designates $10,000,000 to be administered by the Attorney General for programs which assist in the investigation, prosecution and prevention of crime and drug offenses in public and asVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
28

sisted housing; and (4) prohibits funds from being used for section

9(k) activities.

DRUG ELIMINATION GRANTS FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... 0

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $310,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 0

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥310,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... 0

Drug Elimination grant funds are provided to public housing

agencies and Indian housing authorities to eliminate drug-related

crime in housing developments. Funds may be used to pay for law

enforcement personnel and investigators, to provide for physical

improvements that enhance security, to support tenant patrols and

initiatives, and to develop drug abuse prevention programs.

The Committee does not recommend separate funding for this

program but has instead addressed this requirement under the

Public housing operating fund.

REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING (HOPE VI)

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $573,735,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 575,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 573,735,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥1,265,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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 programs provide 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 $573,735,000,

as requested, and the same amount provided in fiscal year 2001.

Of the total amount provided, $5,000,000 is for technical assistance

as requested and the same level provided in fiscal year 2001. In addition, up to $10,000,000 is available for tenant-based relocation

assistance, as requested. Language is included in the bill making

funds available for two years.

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $648,570,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 650,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 648,570,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥1,430,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... 0

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 $648,570,000 for this account, the

full amount requested. Of the total amount provided: $5,987,000 is

29

for the section 601 Loan Guarantee program to guarantee a total

loan volume of $52,726,000; $5,000,000 is for inspections, training,

travel costs, and technical assistance; $2,200,000 is for the National American Indian Housing Council to conduct training programs and to provide technical assistance; no less than $2,000,000

is for transfer to the Working Capital Fund for development and

maintenance of information technology systems; and $150,000 is

for transfer to the HUD salaries and expenses account for administrative expenses.

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account Limitation on direct loans

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation .................................................................................. $5,987,000 $234,283,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation ....................................................................................... 6,000,000 71,956,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request .................................................................................... 5,987,000 234,283,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ........................................................... ¥13,000 +162,327,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................................................ 0 0

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 funding this program at the request

of $5,987,000, the same amount available in fiscal year 2001. However, based on changes to the subsidy rate, the appropriation will

guarantee $162,327,000 in additional loans in fiscal year 2002.

Language is included transferring $200,000 to the HUD salaries

and expenses account for administrative expenses.

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $277,432,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 258,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 277,432,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +19,432,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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).

30

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $277,432,000, an increase of $19,432,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level, and the

full amount requested. The increase will allow funding for new jurisdictions expected to become eligible for funding in fiscal year

2002, 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. Requested language is not included requiring continued funding of all

prior competitive grant awards once the original award has concluded.

RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... 0

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $25,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 0

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥25,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... 0

The Committee does not recommend continued funding for this

program. The budget request proposed termination of this program

on the basis that it duplicates several other programs, including

the Community Development Block Grant program and programs

within the Department of Agriculture.

EMPOWERMENT ZONES/ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... 0

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $90,000,000

Miscellaneous appropriation (P.L. 106–554) ............................. 110,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 150,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥200,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... ¥150,000,000

Funding constraints prevent the Committee from providing funds

for Round II Empowerment Zones at this time.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $4,801,993,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 5,057,550,000

Miscellaneous appropriation (P.L. 106–554) ............................. 66,128,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 4,801,993,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥321,685,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... 0

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 $4,801,993,000 for the

Community development fund account. Funding under this account

is allocated as follows:

$4,399,300,000 for Community Development Block Grants;

$69,000,000 for Native American Community Development

Block Grants;

$29,387,000 for the National Community Development Initiative (NCDI), as follows: $4,442,000 for Habitat for Humanity

capacity building activities; and $24,945,000 for the Enterprise

Foundation and LISC capacity building activities, including

$4,989,000 for activities in rural areas;

31

$34,424,000 for section 107 activities, as follows: $6,985,000

for insular areas; $9,978,000 for Historically Black Colleges

and Universities; $2,993,000 for Community Development

Work Study; $6,486,000 for Hispanic Serving Institutions; and

$7,982,000 for Community Outreach Partnerships;

$3,300,000 for the Housing Assistance Council;

$2,794,000 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;

$25,000,000 for neighborhood initiatives;

$54,879,000 for the Resident Opportunity and Social Services

program;

$21,956,000 for the Self-Help Housing Opportunity Program

(SHOP);

$59,868,000 for Youthbuild, including $2,000,000 for capacity

building activities; and

$77,000,000 for economic development initiatives.

Additionally, not less than $15,000,000 is provided to be transferred to the Working Capital Fund to support the development

and maintenance of information technology systems.

The recommendation does not include $20,000,000 for the Americans with Disabilities Access initiative and $80,000,000 for a Community Technology Centers initiative, requested by the Administration.

The Committee continues its direction that HUD inform State

and local jurisdictions that people with disabilities and their advocates must be at the table when Consolidated Plans are developed.

The Committee again directs HUD to evaluate Consolidated Plans

for this inclusion, determine if the needs reflected in the final plan

match the proposed uses of Federal funds, and take into consideration a community’s efforts to remove impediments to fair housing

for individuals with disabilities.

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as

amended, (Public Law 93–383), requires the targeting of CDBG

funds to assist low and moderate income people. The Committee directs that HUD provide a detailed description, analysis, and evaluation of HUD’s administrative oversight of this requirement, and

to report back its findings to the Committee by February 1, 2002.

The Committee recognizes the importance of funding for the

State of South Dakota and the City of Lead, South Dakota, to address the economic transitional needs at Lead, South Dakota. Operations at the Homestake Mine are expected to cease in fiscal year

2002. A proposal has been submitted to the National Science Foundation for the conversion of the mine to a National Underground

Laboratory for the study of neutrinos. The Committee is aware that

studies are currently underway to determine the most appropriate

level, and corresponding cost, of providing for the physical integrity

of the mine structure and related properties, as well as for the economic stability of the region. Upon completion of these studies, the

32

Committee expects to provide the resources necessary to begin facilitating this important effort.

Language is included in the bill, similar to language carried in

prior Acts, which: (1) designates amounts available for the various

programs funded under this account; (2) limits administrative expenses to no more than 20 percent of any grant with certain exceptions; and (3) provides two-year availability for obligation of funds

provided under this heading.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program costs Limitation on guaranteed loans

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation .................................................................................. $15,000,000 $608,696,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation ....................................................................................... 30,000,000 1,261,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request .................................................................................... 15,000,000 608,696,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ........................................................... ¥15,000,000 ¥652,304,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................................................ 0 0

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 $15,000,000 as a separate account

for the section 108 loan program, as requested. Of this amount,

$14,000,000 is provided for the costs to guarantee $608,696,000 in

section 108 loan commitments in fiscal year 2002, 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.

In fiscal year 2000, only $10,000,000 of the $30,000,000 appropriated was used to guarantee a total loan volume of $412,000,000.

The utilization rate for fiscal year 2001 is estimated to be

$400,000,000, significantly below the funded level. Therefore, the

Committee believes the recommendation, which will insure a loan

volume of $608,696,000, is sufficient to fully support program demand in fiscal year 2002.

Language is included in the bill to provide two-year availability

for obligation of funds provided under this account.

BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $25,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 25,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 25,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. 0

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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.

33

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for this program as requested, the same amount provided in fiscal year 2001.

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 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $1,996,040,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 1,796,040,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,796,040,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +200,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +200,000,000

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 $1,996,040,000 for this program, an

increase of $200,000,000 above the request and the fiscal year 2001

level. Of this amount, $200,000,000 is provided for the Downpayment Assistance Initiative requested in the budget. Funds for this

initiative are provided subject to enactment of authorization legislation. Should such legislation not be enacted by June 30, 2002,

these funds may be used by States and local participating jurisdictions for any purposes authorized under the HOME program. The

recommendation also includes $20,000,000 for Housing Counseling

as requested, the same amount provided in fiscal year 2001. However, requested language is not included repealing the sunset date

for certain homeownership housing counseling programs. The Committee expects such changes to be addressed in the context of authorization legislation for Downpayment Assistance Initiative.

In addition, no less than $17,000,000 is to be transferred to the

Working Capital Fund for the development and operation of integrated community development management information systems.

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 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $1,027,745,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 1,025,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,022,745,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +2,745,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +5,000,000

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. Beginning in fiscal year

34

2001, funding for the renewal of shelter plus care vouchers is provided in a separate account.

The Committee recommends funding homeless programs at $1,027,745,000, an increase of $5,000,000 above the request and

the amount available in fiscal year 2001. Of the total amount provided, $14,200,000 is for technical assistance for management information systems and development of an automated client-level

Annual Performance Report System, and $500,000 is for the Interagency Council on the Homeless for administrative costs.

The Committee is concerned that, given the tremendous housing

needs of homeless people, over 50 percent of HUD homeless assistance grant funds are being spent on services rather than on housing. The Committee is aware that the Secretary has initiated a

joint task force with the Secretary of the Department of Health and

Human Services to identify and target each agency’s responsibilities and roles in addressing the needs of the homeless population.

The Committee expects this effort to result in a better targeting of

HUD’s resources to the housing needs of the homeless by eliminating duplication and overlap among Federal programs and reducing barriers which have limited the ability of providers to access

services funding from other Federal agencies. The Committee requests that the Department keep the Committee apprised of the

task force’s progress, and provide a report, no later than February

15, 2002, on its finding and recommendations for changes in HUD

programs. In the interim, the Committee has deferred making any

significant changes to HUD programs. However, HUD is instructed

to use the Notice of Funding Availability and other available mechanisms to encourage communities to seek funding for services from

non-HUD sources so that HUD resources can be directed at providing housing, including permanent supportive housing, for homeless people.

Language is included in the bill which: (1) requires not less than

35 percent of the funds appropriated be used for permanent housing; (2) requires funding recipients to provide a 25 percent match

for social services activities; (3) requires all homeless programs to

coordinate their programs with mainstream health, social services

and employment programs; (4) provides that no less than

$14,200,000 be available for technical assistance for management

information systems and an automated client-level Annual Performance Report System to be transferred to the Working Capital

Fund; (5) provides two-year availability for obligation of funds provided under this account; and (6) designates $500,000 for the Interagency Council on the Homeless.

SHELTER PLUS CARE RENEWALS

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $0

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 100,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 99,780,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥100,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... ¥99,780,000

The Shelter Plus Care program provides rental assistance that,

when combined with social services, supplies supportive housing for

homeless people with disabilities and their families. Shelter Plus

Care provides a variety of housing choices such as group homes or

individual units, coupled with a range of supportive services which

35

are funded from other non-HUD sources. Funding for new Shelter

Plus Care grants is provided under the Homeless assistance grants

program account. However, beginning in fiscal year 2001, funding

for the renewal of existing Shelter Plus Care contracts on a oneyear basis is provided under this account.

The fiscal year 2002 budget requested funds to forward-fund the

fiscal year 2003 renewal costs for this program. The fiscal year

2001 appropriation included sufficient funding to fully support all

renewal costs for Shelter Plus Care contracts for fiscal year 2002.

The Committee does not recommend forward funding for future

year requirements for this program for this program, or any other

program in this bill. Instead the Committee will address the fiscal

year 2003 costs for contract renewals for this program in the context of the fiscal year 2003 bill.

HOUSING PROGRAMS

HOUSING FOR SPECIAL POPULATIONS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $1,024,151,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 996,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,001,009,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +28,151,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +23,142,000

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 $1,024,151,000 for the Housing for special populations program account, an increase of $23,142,000

above the request and $28,151,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level. The Committee recommendation includes $783,286,000 for section 202 housing as requested, an increase of $4,286,000 above the

fiscal year 2001 level. Of the total amount provided for section 202,

$49,890,000 is for service coordinators and the continuation of congregate services grants, $49,890,000 is for the section 202 conversion program, and up to $3,000,000 is for the renewal of expiring

project rental assistance contracts for up to a one-year term.

For the section 811 disabled housing program, the Committee

recommends $240,865,000, an increase of $23,150,000 above the request, and $28,151,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year

2001. The increase above the request is provided to fund the renewal costs of section 811 tenant-based rental assistance. The recommendation also includes up to $1,200,000 for the renewal of expiring project rental assistance contracts for up to a one-year term

as requested.

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

36

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 included in the bill, similar to language carried in

prior appropriations Acts, which: (1) authorizes the Secretary to

waive any statutory or regulatory requirements related to the section 202 and section 811 programs; and (2) transfers no less than

$1,000,000, to be equally divided between section 202 and section

811, to the Working Capital Fund for development and maintenance of information technology systems. In addition, language is

also included providing two-year availability for obligation of funds

provided under this account.

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.

MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $13,566,000

Offsetting collections .......................................................................... ¥13,566,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 1 0

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 17,254,000

Offsetting collections .......................................................................... ¥17,254,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. 1+659,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... ¥3,688,000 1Prior to enactment of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, this the collection and expenditure of fees for manufactured housing inspections activities were not subject to annual appropriations

action. Total spending for these activities in fiscal year 2001 is estimated at $12,907,000.

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.

37

The Committee recommends $13,566,000 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 $3,688,000 below

the budget request, and an increase of $659,000 above the total

spending estimated for these activities in fiscal year 2001.

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Limitation of direct

loans

Limitation of guaranteed loansAdministrative expenses

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................... $250,000,000 $160,000,000,000 $330,888,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................... 250,000,000 160,000,000,000 330,888,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................... 250,000,000 160,000,000,000 336,700,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation .............. 0 0 0

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........... 0 0 ¥5,812,000

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 requested:

$160,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and $250,000,000 for direct

loans, the same amounts provided in fiscal year 2001. The recommendation also includes $330,888,000 for administrative expenses, of which $326,866,000 is transferred to the Salaries and

Expenses account, and $4,022,000 is transferred to the Office of Inspector General. In addition, $145,000,000 is provided for administrative contract expenses, of which no less than $96,500,000 is

transferred to the Working Capital Fund for development and

maintenance of information technology systems. Requested language is not included appropriating additional administrative expenses in certain circumstances.

The Committee recommendation also includes requested legislation under administrative provision elsewhere in this title, allowing

FHA to insure a new Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) product.

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Limitation of direct

loans

Limitation of guaranteed loansAdministrative expenses Program costs

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ........ $50,000,000 $21,000,000,000 $211,455,000 $15,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............. 50,000,000 21,000,000,000 211,455,000 0

Fiscal year 2002 budget request .......... 50,000,000 21,000,000,000 216,100,000 15,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ......................................... 0 0 0 ¥86,000,000

38

Limitation of direct

loans

Limitation of guaranteed loansAdministrative expenses Program costs

Comparison with fiscal year 2002

budget request .................................. 0 0 ¥4,645,000 0

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: $21,000,000,000 for loan guarantees and

$50,000,000 for direct loans, the same levels provided in fiscal year

2001.

As requested, the recommendation includes a $15,000,000 direct

appropriation for credit subsidy to support the following loan guarantee programs: $6,919,000 for the section 221(d)(3) program;

$5,250,000 for the section 241(a) supplemental loans for apartments program; $377,000 for the section 242 operating loss loans

for apartments program; $377,000 for the section 232 operating

loss loans program; and $2,077,000 for the section 2 property improvements program. The recommendation reflects changes in the

premium structure for certain apartment development programs

which become effective on August 1, 2001. Implementation of these

changes will ensure that most FHA apartment development programs, including the section 221(d)(4) program, operate in a selfsustaining manner like most other FHA programs, including the

single-family insurance program, thereby averting further shutdowns in the program which occurred in both fiscal years 2000 and

2001. 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 $211,455,000 for administrative expenses, of which $193,134,000 is transferred to the Salaries

and Expenses account and $18,321,000 is transferred to the Office

of Inspector General. An additional $139,000,000 is provided for

non-overhead administrative expenses, of which no less than

$33,500,000 is transferred to the Working Capital Fund for development and maintenance of information technology systems. Requested language is not included appropriating additional administrative expenses in certain circumstances.

39

GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation of guaranteed loansAdministrative

expenses

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation .................................................................................. $200,000,000,000 $9,383,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation ....................................................................................... 200,000,000,000 9,383,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request .................................................................................... 200,000,000,000 9,383,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ........................................................... 0 0

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................................................ 0 0

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 2001. The Committee also recommends $9,383,000 for administrative expenses to be transferred

to the Salaries and Expenses account as requested, the same level

provided in fiscal year 2001.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $46,900,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 53,500,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 43,404,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥6,600,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +3,496,000

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 $46,900,000 for research and technology, an increase of $3,496,000 above the budget request. Of this amount, the

Committee recommends $45,400,000 for research, technology, and

policy analysis, including $7,500,000 for the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) Initiative. Additionally, the

Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the Millennial Housing

Commission. Language is included making funds available for obligation for two years.

40

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $45,899,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 46,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 45,899,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥101,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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. This amount represents a $7,500,000 increase

for FHAP and FHIP programs above the fiscal year 2001 level, due

to the fact that continued funding of $7,500,000 is no longer required to support the Housing Discrimination Survey in fiscal year

2002. Instead of reducing the fiscal year 2002 appropriation to reflect the non-recurring costs associated with the survey, the Committee instead recommends a $7,500,000 increase for FHAP and

FHIP programs. Funding is provided as follows: $26,450,000 is for FHAP programs, of which $13,500,000 is

for case processing; $1,900,000 is for capacity building;

$3,100,000 is for training; $1,700,000 is for special enforcement

initiatives; $5,000,000 is for the FHAP partnership initiative;

and $1,250,000 is for administrative costs. Funding has been

provided above the request for case processing and related activities to enable FHAP agencies to continue to make progress

in reducing the backlog of existing cases which remain unsolved for over 100 days.

$19,445,000 is for FHIP programs, of which $5,500,000 is for

education and outreach; $11,949,000 is for private enforcement; and $2,200,000 is for fair housing organizations.

While the Committee has recommended additional funds for

these programs in fiscal year 2002, the Committee remains dissatisfied with continued large carryover balances in this account. The

Committee expects HUD to put mechanisms into place that will result in funds being dispersed and utilized in a more timely fashion.

HUD is directed to provide a report to the Committee, not later

than November 15, 2001, on the mechanisms that have been established to expedite utilization of these funds. HUD is further directed to provide quarterly reports to the Committee on obligation

and expenditure of these funds, delineated by each program and

41

activity, with the first such report due no later than February 15,

2002.

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $109,758,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 100,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 109,758,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +9,758,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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 $109,758,000 for this account as requested, an increase of $9,758,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level,

as follows:

$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. $80,000,000 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

$20,000,000 increase above the fiscal year 2001 level for these

activities as requested.

$9,758,000 is for technical assistance and support to State

and local agencies and private property owners 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 communitybased 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 commuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
42

nity-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 to create the CEHRC

and provide a grant if warranted.

Language is included in the bill which makes a technical modification to the Healthy Homes Initiative. However, requested language related to environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act is not included.

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

By transfer

Appropriation FHA funds GNMA funds CPD Title VI Indian

housing Total

FY 2002 recommendation ........... $556,067,000 $520,000,000 $9,383,000 $1,000,000 $150,000 $200,000 $1,086,800,000

FY 2001 appropriation ................ 543,267,000 518,000,000 9,383,000 1,000,000 150,000 200,000 1,072,000,000

FY 2002 budget request ............. 556,067,000 530,457,000 9,383,000 1,000,000 150,000 200,000 1,097,257,000

Comparison with fiscal year

2001 appropriation ................. +12,800,000 +2,000,000 0 0 0 0 +14,800,000

Comparison with fiscal year

2002 budget request .............. 0 ¥10,457,000 0 0 0 0 ¥10,457,000

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 $1,086,800,000 for

the salaries and expenses of the Department, a net increase of

$14,800,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The recommendation provides an increase of $31,938,000 for pay and related inflationary costs, partially offset by a $14,780,000 decrease

in automated data processing services. The amount provided will

enable the Department to support 9,100 full-time equivalents

(FTE), as requested. Funds are to be allocated by object class as

follows:

Personnel Services—$788,270,000;

Travel and Transportation of Persons—$22,573,000;

Transportation of Things—$370,000;

Rent, Communications and Utilities—$119,427,000;

Printing and Reproduction—$4,644,000;

Other Services—$145,838,000;

Supplies and Materials—$4,932,000;

Furniture and Equipment—$582,000; and

Indemnities—$164,000.

Departmental Staffing Requirements.—In the past, the Committee has expressed concerns about HUD’s approach to planning,

allocating and utilizing its staff resources. The Committee has also

been concerned that the average cost per HUD employee is excessive compared to other Federal agencies due to the aging of the

HUD workforce, as well as a previous decision to permanently hire

43

400 community builders at an average salary cost of $91,000. As

a result, the average cost per FTE in fiscal year 2002 is estimated

at $87,772 as compared to $83,662 in fiscal year 2001, and $78,800

in fiscal year 2000. The Committee continues to believe that a longterm staffing strategy, based on a comprehensive resource management system, must be put in place at HUD to ensure staff resources are allocated to enable HUD to effectively manage its core

programs. Last year, the Committee directed HUD to implement

the Resource Estimation and Allocation Process (REAP) and develop a staffing plan based on this process. The Committee understands that HUD is in the process of completing this staffing plan.

Language is included in the bill requiring HUD to submit this plan

to the Committee no later than November 1, 2001. The Committee

also expects this plan to include strategies to reduce the average

salary cost per employee while reallocating staffing to address core

mission requirements. Language is therefore included in the bill,

similar to language carried in the fiscal year 2001 Act, limiting the

number of vacancies which can be filled at the GS–14 and GS–15

levels. The bill also includes language requiring the Department of

submit its staffing plan to the Committee no later than November

1, 2001.

Budget Submission.The Committee believes that the annual

Budget Justification submitted by HUD to the Committee lacks

sufficient information to enable the Committee to fully analyze

HUD’s budget requirements. While object classification displays are

an informative part of any budget justification document, such displays should be a supplement, not a substitute, for detailed displays which delineate prior year, current year, and requested funding levels for each program, project, or activity within each account. In addition, if HUD is to continue its current practice of consolidating all funds for salaries and expenses within one account,

the budget justification must be revised to reflect detailed information on prior year, current year, and requested position, FTE, and

funding levels for each program office, delineated by headquarters

and field office components, rather than simply providing an object

class distribution at the account level. The Committee expects

HUD, in consultation with the Committee, to develop revised budget justifications for submission as part of its fiscal year 2003 budget request. HUD is directed to provide a draft of this revised justification structure to the Committee no later than August 22,

2001.

Working Capital Fund/Information Technology Systems.—The

Committee remains committed to improving HUD’s capacity to disseminate useful information about program performance. To a

large extent, both HUD’s and Congress’ ability to oversee the effectiveness of HUD’s programs is undermined because data is inaccessible. Perennially, this deficiency continues to be cited by the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office. Last year, the

Committee began to direct the transfer of specific amounts from

various program accounts, including the Salaries and Expenses account, to the Working Capital Fund for development and maintenance of information technology systems. Language is included

again this year transferring no less than $318,450,000 for the Fund

from the following accounts:

Salaries and expenses—$85,000,000

44

FHA, Mutual mortgage insurance fund program— $96,500,000

FHA, General and special risk insurance fund program— $33,500,000

Community development fund—$15,000,000

HOME investment partnerships program—$17,000,000

Homeless assistance—$14,200,000

Public housing capital fund—$43,000,000

Native American Indian block grants—$2,000,000

Housing certificate fund—$11,000,000

Housing for special populations—$1,000,000

The Committee has not recommended the budget request of $362,150,000 for the Fund for fiscal year 2002, an increase of

$35,032,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level, due to the failure of

HUD to follow the Committee’s direction to submit a comprehensive multi-year budget plan for information technology systems as

part of its fiscal year 2002 budget justification. The plan was to delineate, on a program-by-program basis, a prioritized list of expenditures for information technology systems, based upon the deficiencies cited by GAO and the Inspector General. The Committee

directs HUD to submit this plan to the Committee, no later than

August 22, 2002, which reflects fiscal year 2001 and planned fiscal

year 2002 expenditures, by program, from the Fund. Upon review

of this plan, the Committee will reconsider HUD’s fiscal year 2002

request for information technology systems.

The Committee is aware that concerns have been expressed

about the impact of the Federal Reserve/Department of Treasury

proposed regulation to redefine real estate brokerage and management activities as it relates to HUD’s regulatory authorities under

the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA). The

Committee expects HUD to examine the impact of this proposed

rule as it relates to HUD’s current regulations under RESPA and

report back to the Committee on its findings no later than September 1, 2001.

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.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation FHA funds Public housing Total

FY 2002 recommendation .............................................. $61,555,000 $22,343,000 1 $10,000,000 $93,898,000

FY 2001 appropriation ................................................... 52,657,000 22,343,000 110,000,000 85,000,000

FY 2002 budget request ................................................ 61,555,000 22,343,000 110,000,000 93,898,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ......... +8,898,000 0 10 +8,898,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ...... 0 0 0 0

1 In fiscal year 2001, a transfer was provided to the Office of Inspector General from the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program account.

In fiscal year 2002, this transfer is provided from the Public Housing Operating Subsidies account as requested.

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 poVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
45

tential 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 $93,898,000 for the Office of Inspector General as requested, an increase of $8,898,000 above the

amount provided in fiscal year 2001. This increase is necessary to

maintain the Inspector General’s current program level as a result

of a reduction in prior year carryover funds previously available to

support this account. To partially offset the increased appropriation, a rescission of $6,700,000 from the Consolidated Fee Fund is

included in the bill. Of this total amount provided, $10,000,000 is

derived by transfer from the Public Housing Operating Subsidies

account for Operation Safe Home, and $22,343,000 is transferred

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)

FY 2002 recommendation .................................................................. ¥$6,700,000

FY 2001 appropriation ....................................................................... 0

FY 2002 budget request ..................................................................... ¥6,700,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥6,700,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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 $6,700,000 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 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $23,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 22,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 27,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +1,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... ¥4,000,000

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)

was established in 1992 to regulate the financial safety and soundVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
46

ness 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 $23,000,000 which is $1,000,000 above fiscal year 2001 and $4,000,000 below

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 FHA to insure hybrid adjustable rate

mortgages, slightly modified from the requested language.

Section 206 authorizes the Secretary to change the premium

structure in the FHA condominium and single family rehabilitation

loan programs to make the premiums charged consistent with

other FHA single family programs.

The Committee does not recommend nine new administrative

provisions requested in the budget.

Section 207 authorizes the Secretary to waive certain requirements related to an assisted living pilot project.

TITLE III

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $35,466,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 28,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 28,466,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. 7,466,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... 7,000,000

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

47

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 $35,466,000 for fiscal year 2002 to

administer, operate and maintain the Commission’s monuments,

cemeteries, and memorials throughout the world. This amount includes $2,000,000 for the fifth and final increment provided the

Commission to reduce the maintenance backlog identified prior to

passage of the fiscal 1998 appropriation. After fiscal year 2002, it

is the Commission’s plan, as well as the Committee’s expectation,

that maintenance requirements will be budgeted for and dealt with

in a timely manner so as to ensure that the cemeteries and memorials under ABMC’s jurisdiction are maintained at a high standard

to reflect the nation’s continuing commitment to its Honored War

Dead and their families. The Committee notes and commends the

work performed by the Commission in first prioritizing and then

eliminating its lengthy backlog of maintenance needs.

The Committee has included an additional $5,000,000 for the

American Battle Monuments Commission for the cost of construction of a new visitor center at the American Cemetery in Normandy, France. The cemetery averages 1.6 million visitors per

year. Existing facilities are 40 years old and inadequate to serve

this large number of visitors. In addition, a new and expanded visitor center can provide a fuller array of interpretive services to put

the D-Day landings and the following battle 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.

The Committee intends that the Commission work with the National Park Service on a study regarding the placement, scope and

character of a new center which will accommodate current and future visitation projections while respecting the solemnity of the site

and sensitivity of interested parties including families of servicemen interred at the cemetery, the host nation, and Allied forces

who participated in the invasion and ensuing battle. The Park

Service has extensive experience in this area and has collaborated

with foreign governments on numerous visitor service projects. In

addition, the Committee believes the American Folklife Center of

the Library of Congress, which has been charged by Congress with

developing a record of oral histories of American veterans can be

a helpful partner in the efforts to interpret the battle and the sacrifices of American servicemen who were killed or wounded in the

D-Day landings and ensuing battle.

48

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $8,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 7,500,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 7,621,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +500,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request ....................................... +379,000

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 $8,000,000,

an increase of $500,000 over the level for fiscal year 2001 and an

increase of $379,000 over the President’s budget request.

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.

Bill language included in fiscal year 2001 has again been included stipulating that the Inspector General of the Federal Emergency Management Agency will hereafter serve as the Inspector

General for the Board.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $80,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 118,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 67,948,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥38,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request ....................................... +12,052,000

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 2002. The recommendation is an increase of $12,052,000 to the budget request and is a decrease of

$38,000,000 from the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The Committee recognizes that the recently enacted Community Renewal

Tax Relief Act of 2000 is expected to provide a significant source

of new investment in distressed communities. However, the timetable for completion of the necessary rules and regulations to implement the Act leads to the conclusion that without additional

funding in the core CDFI programs, there will be short-term gaps

49

in providing resources to distressed communities which the Committee finds unacceptable. In order to continue the progress being

made by the CDFI programs, the Committee recommends an increase in the funding for fiscal year 2002 as a gap-filler until the

Internal Revenue Service is be able to finalize the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act rules and regulations.

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $54,200,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 52,500,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 54,200,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +1,700,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request ....................................... 0

The Consumer Product Safety Act established the Consumer

Product Safety Commission, 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 $54,200,000 for fiscal year 2002, an increase of $1,700,000 over the fiscal year 2001

appropriation and the same amount included in the budget request.

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS OPERATING EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $0

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 428,500,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 411,480,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥428,500,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... ¥411,480,000

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 such as students, out-ofschool youth, and adults through innovative, full-time national and

community service programs. National service participants may receive educational awards which may be used for full-time or parttime higher education, vocational education, job training, or schoolto-work programs. Funds for the Volunteers in Service to America

and the National Senior Service Corps are provided in the LaborHealth and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill.

The fiscal year 2002 budget request for program and administrative activities of the Corporation for National and Community Service is $411,480,000. The Committee recommends no funding for

this program in fiscal year 2002. Language is included in the bill

which directs the Corporation to use any funds remaining from

50

prior year’s appropriations to accomplish the orderly closure of the

Corporation.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $5,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 5,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 5,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. 0

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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 2002, the same as the budget request and the fiscal year

2001 funding level.

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $13,221,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 12,445,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 13,221,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +776,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... 0

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 the budget request of $13,221,000 for the Court

of Appeals for Veterans Claims in fiscal year 2002, an increase of

$776,000 above the current year appropriation.

The bill also identifies $895,000 of the funds provided to fully

fund the pro bono representation program.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

CEMETERIAL EXPENSES, ARMY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $22,537,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 17,949,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 18,437,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +4,588,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +4,100,000

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 2000, the remains of 283,553 persons were interred/

inured in these cemeteries. Of this total, 241,024 persons were interred and 28,183 remains inured in the Columbarium in Arlington

National Cemetery, and 14,348 remains were interred in the SolVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
51

diers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery. There were 3,688 interments and 2,223 inurnments in fiscal year 2000. It is projected

that there will be 3,700 interments and 2,400 inurnments in fiscal

year 2001; and 3,800 interments and 2,500 inurnments in fiscal

year 2002. In addition to its principal function as a national cemetery, Arlington is the site of approximately 3,000 nonfuneral ceremonies each year and has approximately 4,000,000 visitors annually. The Committee recommends $22,537,000 for operations and maintenance of the Cemetery, an increase of $4,588,000 over the

fiscal year 2001 funding level and $4,100,000 over the budget request. The Committee commends the administration’s decision to

include the fiscal year 2001 funding increase as a part of the base

in the fiscal year 2002 budget request. The Committee has provided an additional $4,100,000 over the budget request to fully

fund the proposed columbarium construction project in fiscal year

2002.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $70,228,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 63,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 70,228,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +7,228,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... 0

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 2002 the Committee has recommended a funding

level of $70,228,000, the same as the budget request and an increase of $7,228,000 over the fiscal year 2001 level. The Committee’s recommendation includes $46,000,000 for research and

$24,228,000 for the worker training program.

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $78,235,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 75,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 78,235,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +3,235,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... 0

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 preparaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
52

tion 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 2002, the Committee has recommended a funding level of $78,235,000, the same as the budget request and an increase of $3,235,000 above the fiscal year 2001 funding level.

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 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $7,545,445,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 7,828,851,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 7,316,599,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥283,406,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +228,846,000

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

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.

Finally, the Agency participates 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, as amended.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of

1986.

53

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended.

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has recommended a total program and support level of $7,545,445,000 a decrease of

$283,406,000 below last year’s appropriated level and an increase of $228,846,000 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 2002 recommendation 1 .................................................. $680,410,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 696,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 640,538,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥15,590,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +39,872,000

1Total does not include transfer of $36,891,000 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 $680,410,000 for Science and Technology for fiscal year 2002, a decrease of $15,590,000 below last year’s spending level, and an in- crease of $39,872,000 above the budget request.

The Committee’s recommended appropriation includes the following increases to the budget request:

54

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. +$2,000,000 for the National Decentralized Water Resource

Capacity Development Project, in coordination with EPA, for continued training and research and development program. 5. +$30,000,000 for a targeted environmental research grant program.

Other Science and Technology program levels include:

1. Hazardous waste research is funded at $7,500,000, an increase

of $510,000 above the 2001 funding level.

2. The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program is funded at $30,999,800, an increase of $1,386,100 above the fiscal

2001 level.

For Science and Technology, no general reduction is proposed.

In addition to the funds provided through appropriations directly to this account, the Committee has recommended that $36,891,000

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.

Again this year, the Committee notes that the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is designed to

improve the scientific and technological capacity of states with less

developed research infrastructure. Developed with NASA and the

National Science Foundation as partners, the Committee has provided EPA with $2,500,000 for its continued participation in this

program.

The Committee is concerned that the Agency has paid little attention and provided fewer resources to the development of alternative test methods which provide appropriate protection of public

health while at the same time minimizing the numbers of animals

used in the conduct of those tests. The Committee therefore has

provided $4 million from within available funds throughout the

Science and Technology account for the research, development and

validation of non-animal, alternative chemical screening and

prioritization methods, such as rapid, non-animal screens and

Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships (QSAR), for potential

inclusion in EPA’s current and future relevant chemical evaluation

programs. Activities funded in this regard should be designed in

consultation with the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances.

The Committee further requests that the Agency provide a report

to the Committee by April 30, 2002 regarding actual expenditures

and plans for additional expenditures for FY 2002 funds for research, development and validation of non-animal, alternative

methods by the Office of Research and Development. This new research program is not intended to impose or imply any specific

linkage to any of EPA’s current or proposed mandated or voluntary

testing initiatives, nor is it intended to impose or imply an explicit

requirement on any of EPA’s current or proposed mandated or voluntary testing initiatives to include alternative methods.

The Committee is aware of concerns in Escambia County, Florida

regarding anecdotal evidence of a link between elevated levels of

55

illness in Northwest Florida and the levels of toxic pollutants in

the area. The Agency is urged to review all available environmental and health information to determine if these relationships

pose a scientific basis for further review and action.

The Committee is concerned that while the Agency recognizes

that the dose-response relationship for arsenic may be sublinear, a

position supported by the National Academy of Sciences in 1999,

EPA continues to rely on traditional linear modeling because the

Agency ‘‘lacks sufficient available, peer-reviewed information to estimate quantitatively a non-linear mode of action.’’ Consistent with

this acknowledgement and the requirements of the Safe Drinking

Water Act Amendments of 1996, the Committee strongly encourages the Agency to enter into contracts and any cooperative agreements not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this

Act to obligate and fully disburse the funds herein provided for research and its validation that will enable the Agency to describe

the mode of action for arsenic, the shape of the dose-response

curve, identify the key events, and develop a model to estimate

quantitatively the dose-response curve. The Agency shall periodically update the Committees on Appropriations on its progress towards completing this research.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $2,014,799,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 2,087,990,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,972,960,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥73,191,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +41,839,000

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 2002, the Committee has recommended

$2,014,799,000 for Environmental Programs and Management, an

increase of $41,839,000 above the budget request and a decrease of

$73,191,000 below the fiscal year 2001 funding level. For this account only, the Agency may transfer funds of not more than

56

$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 recommended appropriation includes the following increases to the budget request: 1. +$16,000,000 for rural water technical assistance activities

and groundwater protection with distribution as follows: $9,000,000

for the NRWA; $3,500,000 for RCAP; $750,000 for GWPC;

$1,750,000 for Small Flows Clearinghouse; and $1,000,000 for the

NETC.

2. +$1,000,000 for implementation of the National Biosolids Partnership Program. 3. +$1,500,000 for source water protection programs.

4. +$5,000,000 to assist in carrying out EPA’s regional haze rules

regarding the operation of regional planning organizations to address visibility impairments throughout the country; 5. +$5,000,000 to accelerate the development of new and update

current Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) values; 6. +$25,000,000 for a targeted environmental grant program.

Other Environmental Programs and Management activities are

funded at the following levels: 1. $20,799,500 for the Chesapeake Bay Program, an increase of $1,980,800 above the budget request; 2. $15,500,000 for the Great Lakes National Program Office, an increase 0f $537,600 above the request; 3. $20,000,000 for the Estuary Program, an increase of $2,946,800 above the budget request; 4. $107,000,000 for Administrative Services;

5. $9,000,000 for Direct Public Information and Assistance;

6. $15,500,000 for Public Access programs;

7. $51,000,000 for Regional Management activities;

8. $197,524,300 for rent, utilities and security. This funding level

provides a four percent increase above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation while the Congressional Budget Office has assumed a 2.2%

GDP deflator calculation for fiscal 2002 non-personnel costs;

9. $17,000,000 for Reinvention programs; and

10. $2,000,000 for Project XL.

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. This represents an

increase of $751,000 over the budget request for this excellent program. Again this year, the Agency is directed to provide no less

than the budget request levels for Pesticide Registration and Reregistration programs as well as no less than last year’s level for

the Environmental Education programs. Bill language has been included under Administrative Provisions which authorizes for one

year the collection by EPA of $17,000,000 in maintenance fees. The

Committee expects that, in the absence of a new tolerance fee, up

to $9,000,000 requested in the budget submission to support 87

FTE in the reregistration program will be used to support tolerance

reassessment activities.

Again this year, bill language has been included in Title IV, General Provisions, prohibiting funds for use to promulgate a final regVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
57

ulation to implement changes in the payment of pesticide tolerance

processing fees as proposed at 64 Federal Register 31040, or any

similar proposal. Also included in Title IV, General Provisions is

language that prohibits the collection of pesticide registration fees

if a new maintenance fee has gone into effect. The Committee has included an additional $5,000,000 above the

budget request to assist in carrying out EPA’s regional haze rules

regarding operations of the five Regional Planning Organizations

(RPOs). These additional funds are intended to, among other

things, help facilitate the collection of data and the conduct of intensive field studies necessary to develop proper analytical tools

and to support the further development of implementation plans,

as well as to assist in integrating the implementation of the current visibility protection program addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment and of new source review as it relates

to class I areas.

In addition to funds provided to the NRWA, RCAP, the GWPC,

NETC, and the Small Flows Clearinghouse, the Committee has

again provided $1,500,000 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. These resources will provided additional technicians for in-the-field work and will virtually

guarantee that many more communities will adopt local, countrywide and/or regional source water protection programs targeted to

the highest risk watershed areas in each state.

The Committee has provided, from within available funds, $2,000,000 for the Administrator to develop and carry out a lamp

recycling outreach program. In order to increase awareness of proper disposal methods among commercial and industrial users of energy efficient mercury-containing lamps, including fluorescent and

high discharge lamps, this program should be used to promote

lamp recycling, in compliance with the provisions of Federal and

State Universal Waste Rules. The program is to be developed jointly with State environmental agencies, and with lamp manufacturers and lamp recyclers, either as individual companies, or collectively through their trade associations.

The Committee remains concerned regarding the extensive backlog of pending environmental justice cases. To address this concern,

the Committee has provided the budget request of $11,898,000 for

Civil Rights/Title VI Compliance, an increase of $2,758,000 above

the fiscal 2001 level, and encourages the Agency to move expeditiously to resolve as many of these cases as is possible.

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided the budget request of $475,008,000 for all programs of the Office of Enforcement

and Compliance Assistance, an increase of $9,778,000 above the fiscal 2001 funding level and an increase of $32,626,400 above the fiscal 2000 funding level. Within the fiscal year 2002 appropriation,

$26,826,300, an increase of $1,460,600 over 2001, has been provided for Compliance Assistance activities which the Committee believes must remain an essential element of EPA regulatory policy.

In this regard, the Committee is concerned that EPA has largely

failed to deliver on its commitments in its ‘‘Aiming for Excellence’’

report, or its obligations under SBREFA, to issue compliance tools

58

for new regulations. The Committee believes that program offices,

not just OECA, share the obligation to develop these tools, and expects that EPA will now meet these obligations. In developing compliance tools, EPA is expected to make funds within the Compliance Assistance and Centers key program available to program offices developing the relevant rules as may be necessary to assure

timely development of tools. EPA should start working on the tools

while the relevant rule is still under development, rather than

after the rule is finished, since doing so will, in EPA’s words, ‘‘allow

us to develop more effective, understandable regulations designed

for application in real-world situations.’’ EPA should also involve

regulated entities and other interested parties in the development

of these tools, to leverage outside resources and produce tools that

are more useful.

The Committee’s recommendation includes an additional

$3,000,000 above the budget request from within available funds to

assist the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances in

implementing the High Production Volume Chemical Challenge

Program (HPV). These additional resources are intended to assist

the Agency in its test plan review and data review and management of test results activities, thus helping the EPA and industry

meet commitments to have proper HPV data available for distribution to the public in a timely manner.

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 Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 2001 appropriations for EPA included language which requested that EPA

meet its own goal of 21 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

revisions in fiscal 2001. Earlier, the Senate Report accompanying

the 2001 legislation stated that EPA should ‘‘devote all necessary

resources, including continued collaboration with external entities

where possible’’ to updating files. Despite these recent directives,

EPA appears to have taken few steps to accelerate the development

or review of IRIS values, which have averaged only 5 per year

since the inception of the IRIS Pilot Program in 1996. Accordingly,

the Committee has included an additional $5,000,000 above the

budget request for continued work to accelerate new and updated

IRIS values.

The Committee is aware that there are a number of organizations eligible as grantees under title V of the Older Americans Act

for participation in EPA’s Senior Environmental Employment

(SEE) Program that, for a variety of reasons, are not currently participating in the program. In an effort to afford all eligible grantees

an opportunity to take part in this important and worthwhile activity, the Agency is strongly urged to develop program guidelines

which, either on a current or rotating basis, allow more participation in the program from those eligible groups who may wish to

take part.

59

The Committee is concerned with EPA’s progress in compiling

emissions data from the states on the 188 Hazardous Air Pollutant

(HAP) emissions. During the initial database development, just 36

of 50 states responded to the Agency, and many of these 36 states

delivered information on just a few of the 188 HAPs. In an effort

to resolve this serious situation, the Agency is strongly urged to develop and implement a state grant program to specifically fund the

HAP inventory development process. Such a program should concentrate first on the 14 states with little or no HAP inventory, followed by assistance to the many states which still have very rudimentary data on many of their state HAP emissions. Implementing

such a program to specifically assist the states which had limited

database information during the 1996 NTI development would go

a long way towards increasing the accuracy and completeness of

the current inventory and subsequent community risk assessments.

In November 1999, the Agency published a notice outlining a

program to reform the hazardous waste regulatory program by

identifying low-risk wastes that could safely be regulated under

state non-hazardous waste programs. The heart of this program is

a Multi-Media, Multi-Pathway, Multi-Receptor Risk Assessment

model (3MRA), which has been found in independent testing to be

technically flawed and unrealistically conservative, as well as complex and difficult to operate. While the Committee fully supports

the reform of this program, it is important that the tools identifying those wastes which can safely exit RCRA oversight be realistic and workable. The Committee therefore strongly encourages

the Agency to spend no resources to utilize the 3MRA risk model

or any portion of the model, for any regulatory or other similar purposes until the entire model and its individual components have

undergone independent, external peer review and the Agency has

either incorporated the recommendations into the model or has explained publicly why it has not.

The Committee is aware of the extraordinary success the military services have achieved in recent years by utilizing pulse technology in vehicles and equipment. This technology has contributed

to significant cost savings in battery management programs and

has enhanced the ability of the military services to increase the effectiveness of their environmental responsibilities through the extension of the service life of its batteries. The Committee has directed elsewhere in this report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration closely examine the opportunities for cost savings and associated environmental benefits of using pulse technology for their

battery management programs. The Committee also expects EPA

to actively investigate the environmental and monetary benefits

that could be realized by encouraging government-wide use of pulse

technology in the maintenance of the Federal vehicle fleet and

other applicable equipment.

The Committee has provided the full budget request for the Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program and directs that no reductions be proposed in the operating plan submission for this important program. In addition, the Committee is encouraged that the

Agency is establishing the Endocrine Disruptor Methods Validation

Subcommittee (EDMVS) of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy (NACEPT). The EDMVS will provide a means by

60

which interested parties can participate to express their concerns

and work to ensure a scientifically sound validation process for the

animal and non-animal based screens and tests in the developing

program. The Committee urges EPA to develop validation processes that incorporate the advice of the EDMVS, and the Agency

is requested to provide a report to the Committee on the status of

the EDMVS by March 15, 2002.

This Committee and the Agency have long recognized the environmental importance of watersheds. Because the Mid-Atlantic

Highlands is comprised of three major watersheds on 79,000 square

miles, which affect water quality from the Potomac Highlands to

the Gulf of Mexico, there is a need to establish a federal program

for collaborative monitoring, research, management, and restoration activities within this area.

The Agency, in August 2000, published an assessment of the

state of the streams of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. Due to the importance of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands and the success of the

aforementioned assessment, the Committee directs the Agency to

prepare a follow-up report on the state of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands as a whole by April 15, 2002. Further, the Administrator is

expected to enter into an interagency agreement with other Federal

agencies and cooperative agreements with states, local governments and non-governmental organizations, such as the Canaan

Valley Institute, to carry out the goals of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands program. The Administrator should coordinate the actions of

the EPA with those of the appropriate officials of state and local

authorities to improve water quality, living resources, and the

habitat of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands; to obtain support of the appropriate officials of the agencies in achieving the objectives of the

Mid-Atlantic Highlands program; and to implement an outreach

program for public information and education to foster stewardship

of the resources of this area.

In 1992, Congress directed EPA to correct the over-breadth of the

Mixture and Derived-From Rules and revise them accordingly by

October 1994. Because EPA has failed to revise the rules, the Committee once again expects EPA to amend the RCRA mixture and

derived-from rules to provide for low risk treatment residues and

dilute mixtures to be managed by state non-hazardous industrial

waste management programs. EPA has solicited and received comments on at least five specific, targeted reforms to the mixture and

derived-from rules and should be able to move forward on these

recommendations in short order. The time for EPA to gather more

information on this topic expired years ago, and the Committee

now expects EPA to move expeditiously to rectify this unacceptable

situation. The Committee notes further that its expectations in this

regard in no way affect any pending litigation over the validity of

the mixture and derived-from rules.

Due to the controversy surrounding EPA’s proposed regulations

to revise its TMDL program, the Supplemental Appropriations Bill

for Fiscal Year 2000 included statutory language that prohibited

EPA from using funds made available for fiscal year 2000 or 2001

to make a final determination on or to implement any new rule relating to TMDLs published in the Federal Register on August 23,

1999.

61

In July 2000, before the Supplemental Appropriations Bill was

signed into law, EPA issued final regulations to comprehensively

amend its TMDL program. Those final regulations included a provision stating that: ‘‘This regulation is not effective until 30 days

after the date that Congress allows EPA to implement this regulation.’’ To try to resolve some of the controversy surrounding EPA’s

TMDL rule changes, the statement of managers accompanying the

Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations Act directed EPA to, (1) contract

with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a review of the

quality of science used to develop and implement TMDLs, (2) conduct a comprehensive assessment of the costs of the TMDL program, and (3) prepare an analysis of the monitoring data needed

for development and implementation of TMDLs. The National

Academy of Sciences (NAS) recently released its report, with recommendations for significant changes to EPA’s TMDL program.

The Committee expects EPA to carefully review the NAS study before making any decisions about the future and direction of its

TMDL program. Unfortunately, EPA has not yet provided Congress

with the results of its cost assessment or monitoring data analysis.

The Committee expects EPA to expeditiously complete its review of

TMDL program costs and analysis of monitoring data needs and

submit these reports to Congress.

The Committee remains concerned about Region IX and some of

its unprecedented activities, especially in the water quality area.

Specifically, Region IX has previously overruled State authority

with regards to implementing the water quality program and

issuance of water permits. Last year, the Committee expressed concern because this Region issued its own TMDL guidance that was

inconsistent with EPA Headquarter’s policies and indicated that

the Region should revoke this guidance. The guidance was never

officially implemented, but the Region tried to impose new requirements without any regulatory or scientific basis prior to the development of a TMDL. Imposing new permit requirements which

change the obligations of permitees can only be done by notice and

comment rulemaking. The Committee urges the Administrator, and

a new Regional Administrator, to closely scrutinize all Region IX

activities in all program areas, and to ensure that the State’s authority to implement environmental programs is maintained.

EPA’s Office of Environmental Information is strongly encouraged to continue development and implementation of a plan of action to facilitate federal and state efforts to develop and implement

integrated information systems to improve environmental decision

making, reduce the burden on regulated entities and improve the

reliability of information available to the public. Such systems

must provide the capability to implement standard environment

management functions such as permitting, compliance and enforcement; and the Agency’s development of an integrated information

system for federal use must be compatible with the integrated

State systems.

The Committee notes that EPA is continuing to review the radon

in drinking water rule proposed in February, 2000. As proposed,

the rule could have an unnecessary financial impact on large and

small cities alike, as well as on local water agencies. The Committee also notes the General Accounting Office is studying the fiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
62

nancial impacts of the proposed EPA regulation. Prior to finalizing

this rule, the Agency is expected to consider fully the GAO’s findings. The Agency is also expected to provide Congress with alternative regulatory actions that would provide equivalent public

health protection without such unnecessary financial impacts on

communities and drinking water agencies.

The Committee is concerned that despite recent EPA actions to

remedy its grants oversight deficiencies, the Agency is nevertheless

leaving core issues unaddressed. A recent GAO report found,

among other things, that EPA oversight activities under its new

post-award management policy are not likely to identify improper

nonprofit grantee spending on unallowable costs such as litigation,

lobbying or political activities; EPA’s policy is not designed to identify unallowable cost spending; EPA grant managers lack the training to identify whether grantees are spending funds on unallowable

costs; and EPA grant managers rarely select nonprofit grantees for

the in-depth review necessary to determine how they are spending

grant funds. To remedy this matter, the Committee strongly encourages EPA’s Office of Grants and Debarment to provide funds

for an additional staff of auditors to supplement current grants

management activities. These grants auditors would, among other

activities, conduct on-sight reviews of at-risk and nonprofit EPA

grantees, using techniques such as transaction testing, to the degree necessary to determine whether grantees are expending government grant funds on unallowable costs. EPA should continue its

quarterly reporting on its grants management activities including

the accomplishments of these additional grants auditing staff.

The Committee recognizes that voluntary efforts to use nonozone depleting substances prior to the Clean Air Act mandate provides benefit to stratospheric ozone recovery. The Committee once

again encourages EPA to develop a more comprehensive strategy to

promote the benefits of ozone protection. In developing this strategy, EPA should consider increased public awareness, education,

and outreach on the importance of ozone protection beyond those

activities employed by EPA today and should design and support

voluntary incentives that encourage the use of non-ozone depleting

substances.

Given the uncertainty on whether monitored exceedances were

due to natural causes, the Committee urges EPA to fully review

the matter and work towards reversing its determination that the

Wallula area of Washington State has not attained the PM–10 national ambient air quality standard.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation1 ................................................... $34,019,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 34,094,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 34,019,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥75,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... 0

1Total does not include transfer of $11,867,000 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

63

two separate accounts: Office of Inspector General and Hazardous

Substance Superfund.

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends a total appro- priation of $45,886,000 for the Office of Inspector General, an increase of $292,000 above last year’s funding level and the same as the budget request. Of the amount provided, $11,867,000 shall be

derived by transfer from the Hazardous Substance Superfund account.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $25,318,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 23,931,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 25,318,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +1,387,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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 $25,318,000, the budget request, for Buildings and Facilities. This funding level represents an

increase of $1,387,000 above the fiscal year 2001 funding level.

This recommendation provides for necessary maintenance and repair costs at Agency facilities and the ongoing renovation of EPA’s

new headquarters.

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $1,270,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 1,270,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,268,135,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. 0

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +1,865,000

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

64

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 2002, $1,270,000,000 has been recommended by

the Committee, the same as last year’s funding level, and an in- crease of $1,865,000 above the budget request. Bill language has been included which transfers $11,867,000

from this account to the Office of Inspector General and

$36,891,000 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:

$915,995,000 for Superfund response/cleanup actions.

The Committee proposal includes $94,997,400, the budget request, for continued Brownfields activities. $133,078,000 for enforcement activities.

$133,344,000 for management and support.

$11,867,000 to the Office of Inspector General. Bill language is

included which provides for this transfer. $36,891,000 for research and development activities, to be transferred to Science and Technology as proposed in the budget request. $28,150,000 for the Department of Justice.

$10,675,000 for all other necessary, reimbursable interagency activities.

Funds provided prior to fiscal year 2001 through this account for

the ATSDR and NIEHS programs have been provided through separate accounts created in fiscal year 2001 for these two programs

of the Department of Health and Human Services. Both programs

have been funded at the 2002 budget request—increases above the

2001 funding levels—including $78,235,000 for ATSDR and

$70,228,000 for NIEHS.

In providing over $900,000,000 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. Moreover, an expanded focus to

Brownfield communities—identified as the growing number of contaminated or potentially contaminated vacant or abandoned industrial sites—is critical in order to actively engage and train the

under-served populations that are the focus of this effort. While the

65

number of National Priorities List sites is remaining fairly static,

there is a growing need for continued assessment activities at

Brownfield sites across the country.

The Committee commends the Agency’s budget request for the

hazardous substance research centers and the SITE program, both

of which remain at the fiscal year 2001 level, and directs that no

reductions be taken in these programs.

For fiscal years 1999 through 2001, the Congress included specific direction to EPA regarding the Agency’s ordering of dredging

or other invasive sediment remediation technologies pending the

National Academy of Sciences’ completion of a study intended to

address dredging, capping, source control, natural recovery, and

disposal of contaminated sediments, and comparing the risks of

each technology. The Committee notes that this study has been

completed and published, and, to the greatest extent practicable,

expects the Agency to adopt as part of its own sediment remediation strategy those guidelines as presented in the Academy report.

The Committee remains concerned that any reversal of the longstanding policy of the EPA to defer to the NRC for cleanup of NRC

licensed sites is 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—has created stakeholder concerns regarding the authority and finally of

NRC licensing decisions, the duration and costs of site cleanup, and

the potential future liability of parties associated with affected

sites. However, the Committee recognizes that there may be circumstances at specific NRC licensed sites where the Agency’s expertise may be of critical use of the NRC. In the interest of ensuring that sites do not face dual regulations, the Committee has previously encouraged both agencies to enter into an MOU which

clarifies the circumstances for EPA’s involvement at NRC sites

when requested by the NRC. To date, such an MOU has not been

concluded. As this area is of interest to the Committee, to other

agencies, and State governments, the Committee directs the Administrator undertake a review of EPA action on this matter with

the intent of concluding an MOU with NRC as soon as practical.

The EPA and NRC are directed to provide a report to the Committee on the status of the MOU no later than November 30, 2001,

and every three months thereafter until an MOU is adopted.

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $72,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 72,096,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 71,937,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥96,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +63,000

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 onetenth of a cent per gallon, which generates approximately

66

$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. Per the budget request again this year, the Office of Inspector General will receive no funding by transfer from the trust fund through this appropriation.

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided $72,000,000, a

decrease of $96,000 below last year’s appropriated level and an increase of $63,000 above 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 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $15,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 15,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 14,967,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. 0

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +33,000

This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act and amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, provides

funds to prepare for and prevent releases of oil and other petroleum products in navigable waterways. 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. 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. Pursuant to law, the Trust Fund is

managed by the United States Coast Guard.

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, the

same as that provided last fiscal year and an increase of $33,000

above the budget request.

67

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $3,433,899,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 3,641,341,386

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 3,288,725,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥207,442,386

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +145,174,000

The State and Tribal Assistance Grant account provides grant

funds for programs operated primarily by the states. The account

includes Clean Water State Revolving Fund grants, which 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; Drinking Water State Revolving Fund grants intended to improve municipal drinking water supply infrastructure and facilities; grants for

other infrastructure projects; and miscellaneous categorical grant

programs.

The largest portion of the STAG account is the State Revolving

Funds (SRF). The Clean Water SRF funds water infrastructure

grants, which for more than a decade have been made to municipal, inter-municipal, state, interstate agencies, and tribal governments to assist in financing the planning, design, and construction

of wastewater facilities. This account also funds the Safe Drinking

Water SRF as well as various grant programs to improve both air

and water quality. Among these are non-point source grants under

Section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public

Water System Supervision grants, Section 106 water quality

grants, Clean Air Act Section 105 and 103 air grants, two new programs targeted to enforcement and environmental information, and

other grants utilized by the states, tribes, and others to meet Federal environmental statutory and regulatory requirements.

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends a total of

$3,433,899,000, a decrease of $207,442,386 below the current fiscal

year spending level, and $145,174,000 above the level proposed in

the budget request.

The Committee’s recommendation includes the following program

level:

$1,200,000,000 for Clean Water State Revolving Funds;

$850,000,000 for Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds;

$1,078,899,000 for state and tribal program/categorical grants;

$75,000,000 for high priority U.S./Mexico border projects;

$30,000,000 for Alaska rural and Native Villages; and

$200,000,000 for a targeted grant program to address community

wastewater, drinking water and ground water infrastructure concerns.

The Committee has provided an increase of $23,117,000 above

the budget request for state and tribal program assistance/categorical grants. The Committee’s recommendation includes an allocation different than that proposed in the budget submission for four

specific programs, including:

(1) $216,540,100 for air resource assistance to State and local

governments including an increase of $8,000,000 for section

103 and 105 Clean Air Act grants;

(2) $11,044,500 for air resource assistance grants to Tribal

governments;

(3) $8,139,900 for radon grants;

68

(4) $192,476,700 for water pollution control agency resource

supplementation under section 106 of FWPCA, an increase of

$22,593,400 above the budget request; (5) $225,000,000 for section 319 of FWPCA non-point source

pollution grants, including programs formerly eligible under

the section 314 Clean Lakes program, a decrease of

$12,476,800 below the budget request; (6) $14,967,000 for wetlands program development grants;

(7) $18,958,200 for water quality cooperative agreements

under section 104(b)(3) of FWPCA;

(8) $7,000,000 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;

(9) $93,100,200 for public water system supervision grants;

(10) $10,950,900 for underground injection control grants;

(11) $106,363,600 for RCRA financial assistance grants;

(12) $11,918,400 for underground storage tank grants;

(13) $13,085,500 for pesticides program implementation

grants; (14) $13,682,000 for lead risk reduction grants;

(15) $5,138,900 for toxic substances enforcement grants;

(16) $19,867,800 for pesticides enforcement grants;

(17) $25,000,000 for the new information exchange network

program; (18) $25,000,000 for the new State multimedia enforcement

grant program; (19) $5,986,300 for pollution prevention incentive grants;

(20) $2,209,300 for sector and multimedia enforcement and

compliance grants; and (21) $52,469,700 for Indians general assistance grants.

Section 106 pollution control grants have been provided $192,476,700, an increase of $22,593,400 above the budget request

and $20,593,400 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 $225,000,000, a

slight decrease from the 2001 funding level and the budget request

but an increase of $25,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level.

State and local air pollution control agencies have been facing a

significant budget shortfall for many years. Accordingly, the Committee has increased grants to state and local air quality agencies

under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act by $8,000,000 over

the Administration’s request for fiscal 2002.

In the Committee report accompanying the FY 2001 appropriations legislation, concern was expressed regarding certain spending

practices of EPA pertaining to section 105 grants, and direction

was given to the Agency to address and resolve the situation. It is

the Committee’s understanding that EPA has been working with

state and local agencies, through their national associations—the

State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the

Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/

69

ALAPCO)—to discuss the disposition of state and local air grants

and to obtain concurrence of the states prior to withholding any

funds. The Committee is pleased that EPA has responded to these

concerns and expects the Agency to continue to work with

STAPPA/ALAPCO this year and in the future to ensure that any

decisions to withhold state and local grant funds for expenditure

directly by EPA are made only after obtaining such concurrence.

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 nonpoint 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

nonpoint-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 nonpoint 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, the Committee strongly urges

EPA to, within 60 days of enactment of this Act, establish a working group of representatives from the State/EPA SRF Work Group,

the Environmental Council Of the States, Environmental Finance

Centers, and centralized and decentralized wastewater and

nonpoint-source stakeholder groups 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 should be among those 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 expects to be kept apprised of the development

of this new working group and further expects that the group will

70

prepare and submit to the Congress by May 15, 2002 a report addressing the aforementioned questions and other related issues it

deems relevant.

The Committee remains aware of problems with the close-down

of the title II Clean Water Act construction grant program, particularly in the final resolution of audits and grantee requests for review or waiver. In the interest of minimizing the need for additional administrative appeals, judicial review, and further legislative remedies, EPA is once again directed to resolve, equitably and

as expeditiously as its resources will allow, grantee requests for review or waiver, audit resolutions, and appeals in accordance with

the following guidelines:

1. Once a grantee has made a prima facie case establishing

its entitlement to grant funding, the burden of proof should be

on EPA to deny such entitlement;

2. A prior affirmative determination favoring a grantee made

by the Corps of Engineers, a State agency, or the EPA, should

be accepted unless it is manifestly contrary to applicable law.

Upon request of a grantee, any prior negative determination

should be reviewed de novo;

3. All project costs should be reviewed, without regard to

whether such costs were previously claimed, and shall be

deemed eligible if based upon statute, regulation, EPA or state

program guidance, prior decisions, or practice of EPA or a state

agency or is otherwise established according to law, when the

provision or practice relied upon by the grantee is reasonably

clear or adequately established;

4. The Agency should not assess interest against, nor seek

payment from, a grantee until final resolution of all administrative or judicial reviews or requests for waiver, and should

assess interest only if justified under the principles set forth in

Baltimore v. Browner; and

5. EPA should take all necessary actions to preserve the

availability of funds previously appropriated under title II of

the Clean Water Act, including section 206, in an amount adequate to compensate grantees for their grant funding entitlements upon final administrative or judicial resolution of grantee requests for review or grant entitlements as otherwise determined by a state agency, the EPA, or the Congress.

The Committee has not included language proposed in the budget submission which set aside $450,000,000 for a new combined

sewer overflow (CSO) grant program. While the Committee recognizes the severe CSO problems faced by communities in several

states, the proposal would have greatly reduced funds available to

the Clean Water SRF program and would have provided grant

funds to states which have priorities other than CSO problems. The

Committee notes that funds available through the Clean Water

SRF loan program can be used for CSO-related problems, and will

further make available, through the targeted grant program, funding for specific communities with CSO concerns.

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.

71

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 continues maintenance fee collections

totaling $17,000,000 until September 30, 2002. The program is otherwise set to expire on September 30, 2001.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $5,267,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 5,201,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 5,267,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +66,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request ....................................... 0

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 $5,267,000 for

fiscal year 2002, an increase of $66,000 above the fiscal year 2001

appropriation and the same amount included in the budget request.

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $2,974,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 2,900,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 2,974,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +74,000

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 2002, the Committee has recommended the budget request of $2,974,000 for the CEQ and OEQ, an increase of

$74,000 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.

72

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.

For fiscal year 1999, the Congress increased funding for the

Council on Environmental Quality and directed that not less than

$100,000 of the appropriated amount be used by CEQ for work on

the NEPA Reinvention project. The Congress specifically noted that

these funds were to support efforts to establish a memorandum of

understanding between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

and other appropriate Federal Departments and agencies to expedite review of natural gas pipeline projects. In the report accompanying the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, the Committee restated

and reaffirmed its direction that CEQ take action on an MOU to

improve the NEPA process for such new natural gas pipeline

projects. CEQ unfortunately never called a meeting of such an

interagency task force to act on this matter prior to the end of the

previous Administration.

The Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group

issued in May 2001, recommends that ‘‘the President direct agencies to continue their interagency efforts to . . . expedite pipeline

permitting . . .’’ The President’s Executive Order of May 18, 2001,

regarding expediting energy-related projects, calls for CEQ to set

up an interagency task force ‘‘to monitor and assist the agencies in

their efforts to expedite their review of permits or similar actions,

as necessary, to accelerate the completion of energy-related projects

. . . and improve transmission of energy.’’ As the demand for natural gas is increasing, causing the need to build additional infrastructure, this Committee continues to expect that CEQ will quickly convene an interagency task force to, among other things, prepare a memorandum of understanding to coordinate and expedite

the NEPA review and permitting process for natural gas pipelines.

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $33,660,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 33,660,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 33,660,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. 0

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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 $33,660,000 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 2002.

73

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $2,257,352,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 2,439,800,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 2,212,945,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥182,448,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +44,407,000

Fiscal year 2002 contingent emergency appropriation .................... 1,300,000,000

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 2002, the Committee recommends $2,257,352,000

which represents a decrease of $182,448,000 from the fiscal year

2001 appropriation and an increase of +44,407,000 from the 2002

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.

DISASTER RELIEF

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $1,369,399,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 1,600,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,369,399,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥230,601,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... 0

Fiscal year 2002 contingent emergency appropriation .................... 1,300,000,000

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has responsibility

for administering disaster assistance programs and coordinating

the Federal response in Presidentially declared disasters. 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 2002, the Committee recommends $1,369,399,000

in regular appropriations for disaster relief, the same as the budget

request and a decrease of $230,601,000 compared to the fiscal year

2001 level. The Committee recognizes the amount of damage

caused by Tropical Storm Allison that took lives and destroyed

vital resources. As FEMA is still assessing the extent of the damage, the Committee also recommends a contingent emergency appropriation of $1,300,000,000 for disaster relief.

The budget request included reference to two ‘‘cost savings’’ proposals associated with this account. First, the budget proposed a

50/50 cost share for section 404 post-disaster mitigation grants inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
74

stead of the 75% federal/25% local cost share structure currently

being used. The Committee does not agree with the proposed

change. The FEMA and federal government’s cost associated with

the section 404 post-disaster mitigation grant program is set by

statute at 15% of the cost of a Presidentially declared disaster.

Therefore, the overall Federal contribution does not change based

upon the cost-share formula and no savings to the Federal budget

are achieved through such a change. In addition, it is a widely held

belief, substantiated by facts, that increasing the state and local

share of costs for mitigation projects will result in fewer mitigation

projects being accomplished. The net result would be an increase

in the cost of disasters in the long run since mitigation measures

will not be accomplished.

The second cost savings, a requirement for state, local, and private non-profit entities to carry building insurance, is also of dubious merit. The Committee remains concerned that requiring insurance as a condition of receiving public assistance exceeds the direction provided to FEMA under the Stafford Act, discourages attempts to mitigate damage before it occurs, assumes an unproven

premise regarding the insurance market’s treatment of disasters

and the availability, affordability and adequacy of coverage for such

insurance. The Committee strongly believes that imposing additional disaster cost burdens on states, municipalities, and private

non-profit hospitals and universities is ill-conceived.

The Committee reminds FEMA that denying disaster assistance

to underinsured or uninsured entities that suffer catastrophic

losses as a result of a disaster could result in significant consequential losses of public services, medical care, and education.

Furthermore, the Committee remains concerned that FEMA has

not conducted a thorough cost-benefit analysis or conducted extensive outreach with potentially affected entities, particularly those

entities that are susceptible to catastrophic earthquakes. The Committee directs FEMA not to initiate a rulemaking process until a

comprehensive analysis has been conducted which concludes that

insurance is available and affordable for all types of perils.

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 and a provision allowing the use of up to $15,000,000 for

flood map modernization activities following a disaster declaration,

both of which were carried in the fiscal year 2001 bill. 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.

DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

STATE SHARE LOAN

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $405,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 1,678,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 405,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. ¥1,273,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... 0

75

LIMITATION ON DIRECT LOANS

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................... ($25,000,000) $543,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................... (25,000,000) 427,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................ (25,000,000) 543,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ................................................................... (0) +116,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request ....... (0) 0

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 2002, the Committee recommends $405,000 for

the cost of State Share Loans, a decrease of $1,273,000 from the

fiscal year 2001 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 $543,000 for administrative expenses of the program.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $227,900,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 215,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 233,801,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +12,900,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... ¥5,901,000

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 $227,900,000 for salaries and expenses, a decrease of $5,901,000 from the budget request, including a reduction

of $1,500,000 from Preparedness, Training, and Exercises, and an

increase of $12,900,000 when compared to the fiscal year 2001 appropriation.

The amount provided is sufficient to cover all pay raise requirements and consequence management associated with the 2002

Olympics and Paralympics. The fiscal year 2001 appropriation included funding for one-time costs associated with relocation of the

FEMA headquarters, and while that relocation has been somewhat

delayed causing some costs to shift into fiscal year 2002, it does not

appear that FEMA has properly accounted for the reduction in

those one-time costs as part of the current budget request. FEMA

is directed to provide a full accounting of the costs associated with

the relocation of its headquarters as part of the fiscal year 2002

initial operating plan.

76

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $10,303,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 10,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 10,303,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +303,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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 2002, the Committee recommends an appropria- tion of $10,303,000 for the Office of Inspector General, an increase

of $303,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation and the same

as the President’s budget request.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $404,623,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 369,652,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 354,623,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +34,971,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +50,000,000

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. Funding is also included in

this account to carry out the Federal Fire Prevention and Control

Act of 1974, as amended by Public Law 106–398.

The Committee recommends a fiscal year 2002 appropriation of

$404,623,000, an increase of $34,971,000 to the fiscal year 2001

level and an increase of $50,000,000 to the fiscal year 2002 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.

The Committee’s recommendation includes the budget request of

$100,000,000 for grants under the Firefighters Assistance Act.

The budget request for fiscal year 2002 recommends termination

of the Project Impact program which was funded at $25,000,000 in

fiscal year 2001. The Committee recommendation does not include

funding for Project Impact, but the Committee remains committed

to the concept that many mitigation projects can be accomplished

prior to the onset of a disaster and result in significant cost avoidance. FEMA is directed to develop and fund such a pre-disaster

mitigation program as part of the fiscal year 2003 budget submission.

77

Whenever an earthquake or hurricane disaster strikes a part of

the United States there is generally wide-spread knowledge of the

disaster. And even in the case of major floods most of the country

is aware of it through extensive press coverage. What is not so

well-known is the fact that in the past 10 years the cost of flooding,

much of it the result of isolated major rain storms, has exceeded

the cost of any other category of natural disaster. Much of this cost

could be avoided if individuals, businesses, and local government

knew the risks they faced. The first step in the process of educating

everyone about the risk is generating reliable and accurate information in the form of up-to-date flood maps. While the atrocious

state of the FEMA flood map data base is well-known, there has

been little success in dealing with the problem over the last three

years. Proposals to create a funding mechanism to finance the process of updating flood maps have been met with criticism from affected parties or lack of action by the appropriate Congressional

committees of jurisdiction. The Congress can no longer shirk its responsibility to address the problem. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes an increase of $50,000,000, as a downpayment toward an estimated $700,000,000 requirement, to begin the

process of updating flood maps. FEMA is directed to work with

other federal departments and agencies, academia, and private industry to develop innovative technologies to ensure that all flood

maps will be updated in the most cost effective manner. Due to

their extensive experience in similar areas, FEMA is also encouraged to work with multi-jurisdictional regional planning and development organizations that serve general units of local government.

The amount provided is in addition to funding made available

through the Disaster Relief account. 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.

The Committee is aware of the extraordinary success the military services have achieved in recent years by utilizing pulse technology in vehicles and equipment. This technology has contributed

to significant cost savings in battery management programs and

has enhanced the ability of the military services to increase the effectiveness of their environmental responsibilities through the extension of the service life of its batteries. The Committee directs

the Federal Emergency Management Agency to closely examine the

opportunities for cost savings and associated environmental benefits of using pulse technology for its battery management program.

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

2002.

78

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $140,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 140,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 139,692,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. 0

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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

Stewart B. McKinney 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 $140,000,000 for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, an increase of $308,000 when

compared to the budget request and the same as the fiscal year

2001 appropriation.

Once again this year, bill language is included which limits administrative costs to 3.5% for fiscal year 2002.

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 $28,798,000, and for mitigation activities, not to exceed

$76,381,000. 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 2002 does not currently exist. The ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
79

mittee has included bill language which extends this authority

through December 31 of 2002 to ensure the seamless operation of

the program.

NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $20,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 20,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 20,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriations ........................... 0

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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 2002, to be derived by transfer from the National Flood Insurance Program. Of the amount provided,

$2,500,000 is to be used for the acquisition of flood-prone properties

in the City of Austin, Minnesota.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL CONSUMER INFORMATION CENTER FUND

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $7,276,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 7,122,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 7,276,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +154,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request ....................................... 0

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, the FIC uses contractual services 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 (FCIC). 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. The FCIC is a one-stop source

for citizens to get information about government programs and everyday consumer issues.

In fiscal year 2002, the FCIC program expects to respond to

2,700,000 phone calls, distribute approximately 5,900,000 publications, and receive 18,000,000 web accesses. This represents delivery

of a total of 26,600,000 information products to the public.

Public Law 98–63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a revolving

fund for the FCIC. Under this fund, FCIC activities are financed

80

from the following: annual appropriations from the general revenues 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 Committee recommends $7,276,000 for the Federal Consumer Information Center. This reflects an increase of $154,000

from the fiscal year 2001 appropriation and is the same amount included in the budget request. The Committee applauds the FCIC

for developing quality information services that prove to be userfriendly and creative. The Committee expects the FCIC to continue

to provide outstanding services to citizens through its national tollfree call center, award-winning website, printed materials, and by

exploring new ways to better inform the public.

Again this year, the bill includes a limitation of $12,000,000 on

the availability of the revolving fund. Any revenues accruing to this

fund during fiscal year 2002 in excess of this amount shall remain

in the fund and are not available for expenditure except as authorized in appropriations Acts.

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 2002 will total approximately $10,569,000.

Language has been included in the bill which provides that the

Committee approve changes to the function or administrative location of the Federal Consumer Information Center to ensure that

the FCIC continues to provide outstanding services to the public.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $14,951,400,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $14,285,300,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 14,511,400,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +666,100,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request ....................................... +440,000,000

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

$14,951,400,000 in fiscal year 2002, which is a increase of

$440,000,000 from the budget request and an increase of

$666,100,000 compared to the fiscal year 2001 enacted appropriation.

The Committee notes the oversight of routine infrastructure revitalization for the Marshall Space Flight Center in the budget request. Therefore, to correct this oversight, the Committee directs

NASA to accomplish the Fire Alarm System and Sprinkler Repairs

in building 4711 at the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the Utility Control System Upgrade Phase 2 at the Marshall Space Flight

Center.

81

HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $7,322,400,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation 1 ....................................................... $7,184,652,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 7,296,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +137,748,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request ....................................... +26,400,000

1 Includes $1,721,752,000 for expenses and activities which were appropriated in the Mission Support account in fiscal year 2001.

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 $7,322,400,000 for the

human space flight account in fiscal year 2002. The recommendation includes a decrease of $283,600,000 for station research which

has been moved to the Science, Aeronautics and Technology account per the request of the administration, an increase of

$275,000,000 for development of a crew return vehicle, and an increase of $35,000,000 for rehabilitation of the VAB at the Kennedy

Space Center.

SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM

The Committee recommends an increase of $35,000,000 to the

budget request for the Space Shuttle. The increase is to be combined with $30,000,000 funding from the cancellation of the Electric Auxiliary Power Unit (EAPU) upgrade program and shall be

used for refurbishment of the Vehicle Assembly Building at the

Kennedy Space Center. The remaining $20,000,000 in the EAPU

program is to be used to continue development of critical technologies needed for an EAPU through a focused technology risk reduction program. The Committee is concerned that NASA has not

been able to adequately address urgent infrastructure needs and

directs NASA to identify the most urgent upgrades necessary to

provide for the continued safe operation of the shuttle program.

The Committee included language in the fiscal year 2000 conference report asking for a comprehensive plan for shuttle safety

upgrades, taking into consideration the time that the shuttle would

continue as the only vehicle for human space flight. NASA responded in March of 2000 with such a plan, which had a total projected cost of $1,900,000,000 and was to be accomplished over a five

year period. The Committee responded favorably to the plan and

endorsed the budget request for fiscal year 2001 which represented

the first significant funding increment. Now, little more than one

year later, the Committee has been informed that one of the major

upgrades included in the plan, the Electric Auxiliary Power Unit

(EAPU), has been deleted from the plan because of development

and cost problems. The Committee was of the understanding that

NASA would be able to execute the upgrade plan that was provided

to the Congress within the cost constraints of the budget. The canVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
82

cellation of the EAPU raises the concern that other upgrades in the

plan may fall into the same category and calls into question the validity of the plan provided to the Congress. The Committee looks

forward to receiving assurances from NASA that its upgrade plan

is based upon technology which is or will be available in time to

accomplish the upgrades within the cost constraints of the budget.

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

The Committee recommendation includes $1,831,300,000 for the

International Space Station. The amount provided is the budget request, reduced as proposed by the Office of Management and Budget and NASA by shifting funds for the research component of the

station program from the Human Space Flight account to the

Science, Aeronautics and Technology account. In addition, the Committee recommendation includes an increase of $275,000,000 for

development of the Crew Return Vehicle.

The Committee shares the concerns expressed in the budget request with regard to the cost increases in the International Space

Station program. The cost increases which have come to light in

the past few months are disturbing and suggest an underlying

problem with the management and execution of the program. Many

questions have been answered as NASA and the administration

have investigated the problems associated with this program, but

many more answers are not yet known. The Committee is trying

to find the answers to many basic questions, such as the exact size

of the cost increase, what caused the increases, what lapses in

oversight occurred and what actions are necessary to ensure they

will not recur, and to what extent previously noted concerns were

not addressed. In an attempt to fully understand the nature of the

problem, the Committee has initiated an investigation which will

serve to answer many of these questions and provide the Committee and the Congress with the information it needs to make the

best possible decisions regarding the future of the program. The

Committee has taken this approach because changes to the ISS

program proposed as part of the budget request, if endorsed without question, would lead the program down a path which would

significantly alter the goals and accomplishments of the ISS.

The Committee believes that the key problem with the proposed

budget is that it deletes the capability of the ISS to support a permanent crew of six or seven persons and causes a scaled-down research program. This result comes from the recommendation in the

budget request to delete development of the seven-person crew return vehicle which would replace the three-person Soyuz capsule,

and the deletion of the habitation module. In addition, the budget

proposal included a significant reduction of funding for the research segment of the ISS program which would further undermine

the basic reason for building the station, the achievement of worldclass science. The Committee is not able or prepared to reverse all

the actions proposed in the budget request, nor is the Committee

prepared to endorse the actions proposed in the budget at this

time. Instead, the Committee has included in its recommendations

a series of actions which will elicit more complete information and

retain options which will allow the Congress to make an informed

decision as part of the fiscal year 2003 authorization and appropriations process.

83

Crew Return Vehicle.—The Committee recommendation includes

$275,000,000 for the development of a crew return vehicle, with capacity for no less than 6 persons, for use with the international

space station. In providing these funds, the Committee is concerned

about the possibility that any future federal funds needed to complete the development not come at the expense of other elements

of the International Space Station and encourages the Administration to work with the other partners in the space station program

to minimize the cost to NASA. Specifically, the Committee does not

anticipate providing additional funds for this purpose unless it is

made clear that the Administration and the international partners

are committed to the International Space Station as a research facility. For this reason, the language included in the bill would rescind the $275,000,000 unless the Administration requests at least

$200,000,000 for the crew return vehicle in the fiscal year 2003

NASA budget request. In addition, the recommendation fences the

availability of the $275,000,000 provided until August 1, 2002. By

March 1, 2002, the President shall submit to the Committees on

Appropriations of the House and Senate a comprehensive plan that

meets the following terms and conditions:

First, a clear and unambiguous statement on the role of research

in the International Space Station program.

Second, a detailed outline of the efforts being pursued to provide

habitation facilities for a full-time crew of no less than six persons,

including a clear accounting of the full costs, both direct and indirect, to the U.S. taxpayer of any barter arrangements with international partners.

Third, the anticipated costs of the crew return vehicle program

by fiscal year, including the expected U.S. and international partners’ shares of this cost.

Fourth, the relative priority of the crew return vehicle development program in the context of the International Space Station.

The Committee does not intend to provide any additional funds or approve the release of any of the $275,000,000 provided in this

bill, until all conditions are fully satisfied.

Research.—The Congress has always supported the International

Space Station because of the promised world-class research the station was expected to generate. The Committee is concerned that

the proposed answer for the cost increases in the station would

place that research goal in jeopardy by undermining the development of a cadre of ground-based research efforts leading to eventual flight and by scaling back the facilities on-board the station.

The Committee recommendation includes moving the research program out of the Human Space Flight account in order to insulate

it more effectively from the ramifications of future cost growth in

the hardware segments of the station. The amount of funding

moved is $283,600,000 which is the amount remaining after the reductions mandated by the most recent cost increase in the station

program. The Committee is concerned that this amount may not be

adequate and as a short-term measure has added $35,000,000

which is to be used to augment the Fluids and Combustion Facility

Integrated Rack. The Committee directs NASA to withhold any

final determination of the research program which will be achieved

on the ISS until the Congress has made a final determination on

the permanent crew size of the station. Until that time, NASA is

84

directed to develop an interim research plan which protects the option to return to the research program envisioned as part of the

ISS prior to the latest cost increases.

SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND TECHNOLOGY

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $7,605,300,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation 1 ....................................................... 7,077,648,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 7,191,700,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +527,652,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request ....................................... +413,600,000

1 Includes $866,948,000 for expenses and activities which were appropriated to the Mission Support appropriations account in fiscal year 2001.

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 $7,605,300,000 for Science, Aeronautics and Technology in fiscal year 2002. The amount recommended is an increase of $413,600,000 to the budget request.

The Committee remains deeply troubled by NASA’s unwillingness to significantly reverse the downward spiral of investment in

aeronautics research and technology. Earlier this year, senior

NASA officials admitted that the program’s aeronautics efforts

have declined from approximately $1,000,000,000 annually in 1994

to just under $400,000,000 today. This decline has occurred as foreign competition has reached virtual parity with the U.S. aeronautics industry in annual commercial sales and the Europeans in

particular have established a formal ‘‘2020 Vision’’ with a goal to

dominate global aeronautics and aviation services. In addition, by

merging the budgets for aeronautics and space technology into a

single ‘‘aerospace technology’’ program element several years ago,

NASA has made it virtually impossible to account for the current

investment in aeronautics. While the Agency has announced that

they are preparing an ‘‘aeronautics blueprint strategy’’ for release

later this year, the Committee is concerned that there is little

meaningful formal input from industry or affiliated aeronautics organizations to shape the content of that document. For this reason,

the Committee directs NASA to reestablish a consolidated aeronautics line in the fiscal year 2002 operating plan that comprehensively covers all research base, focused and advanced technology

programs, and related test facilities and civil service costs. In addition, the Agency shall notify the Committee within 30 days on how

it intends to obtain formal aeronautics industry and related organization’s input into the proposed aeronautics blueprint.

The Committee understands that NASA is planning to centralize

management of all Centers for Commercial Development of Space

within a single office at NASA headquarters. The Committee supports this change, but feels it is essential that the funding for these

Centers not be diminished or eliminated through this consolidation

85

process. Therefore, the Committee directs that not less than

$4,000,000 be transferred from Code R to Code U for the administration of the four infrastructure centers associated with this management change.

As mentioned in the conference report accompanying in the fiscal

year 2001 appropriations bill, Public Law 105–261 transferred responsibility for satellite technology export licensing from the Department of Commerce to the Department of State to be regulated

under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). While

scientific satellites are still covered by the fundamental research

exclusion provided by National Security Directive 189, the unfortunate and unintended consequence of the jurisdictional move has

been that university-based fundamental science and engineering

research, widely disseminated and unclassified, has become subject

to overly restrictive and inconsistent ITAR direction.

The conferees last year directed Office of Science and Technology

Policy (OSTP) to work jointly with the National Security Council,

in consultation with the NASA Administrator and the Secretary of

State, to expeditiously issue clarification of ITAR that ensures that

university collaborations and personnel exchanges, which are vital

to continued success of federally-funded research, are allowed to

continue as they had under the long-standing fundamental research exception in the Export Administration Regulations.

The Committee understands that, while OSTP and NASA have

proposed language to the State Department, no clarification has yet

been issued. In the meantime, vital research has been delayed, and

in some instances, universities have had to turn down contract due

to the potential for substantial penalties for violation and uncertainty in the application of ITAR. The Committee, therefore, requests an immediate report that clarifies ITAR in a way that allows the highly productive scientific collaborations to continue

under guidelines in place prior to 1999. Upon the issuance of guidance, NASA shall ensure that university principal investigators are

fully aware of their responsibilities.

The Committee continues to closely follow NASA’s efforts with

regard to the Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) Facility. NASA has developed a plan to integrate the use of software

assurance and IV&V throughout the agency, and the Committee

expects NASA to continue to implement that plan. Further, NASA

should ensure that all projects undertake an assessment of whether IV&V is appropriate based on the project cost, size, complexity,

life span, risk and consequences of failure. The Aerospace Safety

Advisory Panel noted two IV&V concerns in its Annual Report for

2000, and made corresponding recommendations. First, the Panel

noted that IV&V technology is not well understood by the project

managers and recommended that NASA develop an appropriate

user-centered course and require software assurance training for

all levels of management. Second, the Panel recommended that

NASA ensure a strong, focused effort on researching and developing new methods to perform IV&V for emerging technologies.

The Committee urges NASA to assimilate the recommendations of

the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel into the functions of the IV&V

Facility.

86

SPACE SCIENCE

Within the Space Science portion of this account, the Committee recommends $2,759,363,000, a net reduction of $27,000,000 from

the budget request. The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget request: 1. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Center for Space Sciences at

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas. 2. An increase of $8,000,000 for space solar power.

3. An increase of $1,500,000 for the University of North Carolina,

Chapel Hill, Morehead Planetarium and Science Discovery Outreach Center.

4. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Mid-American Geospatial Information Center based at the University of Texas at Austin, Center for Space Research. 5. The Committee directs $13,000,000 be used to continue the

construction of the Propulsion Research Laboratory at the Marshall

Space Flight Center, to be financed using $13,000,000 from the Office of Space Science in-space propulsion augmentation. 6. A reduction of $20,000,000 from the budget request for the

Next Generation Space Telescope. The remaining funding of

$72,100,000 represents an increase of 60 percent when compared to

the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. 7. A reduction of $10,000,000 from the New Millennium program.

8. A reduction of $10,000,000 from the STEREO program.

BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL RESEARCH

Within the Biological and Physical Research portion of this ac- count, the Committee recommends $710,920,000, a net increase of

$350,000,000 to the budget request. The Committee is aware of efforts being undertaken at Florida Atlantic University and Virginia

Commonwealth University in the area of telemedicine and distance

enabling technologies and encourages NASA to work with those institutions to develop innovative programs for NASA’s use. The

Committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget

request: 1. An increase of $343,600,000 for space station research con- sisting of a transfer of $283,600,000 from Human Space Flight, and

an increase of $60,000,000 for the Fluids and Combustion Facility

and other priority space station research. 2. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Space Radiation program at

Loma Linda University Hospital. 3. An increase of $2,000,000 for Earth University to research

Chagas disease.

4. An increase of $1,000,000 for the development of machine/biointerface devices to provide advanced diagnosis and countermeasures.

5. An increase of $400,000 for the Center for Research and Training in gravitational biology at North Carolina State.

EARTH SCIENCES

Within the Earth Sciences portion of this account, the Committee

recommends $1,516,728,000, a net increase of $1,750,000 to the

budget request. The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget request:

87

1. An increase of $1,000,000 for the New Jersey NASA Specialized Center of Research and Training. The Committee commends

the work of this organization and its application not only to longduration 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 in New

Jersey focusing on life support issues in closed environments. 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 $450,000 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 $1,500,000 for NASA’s Regional Application

Center for the Northeast.

5. An increase of $855,000 for operations of the applications center for remote sensing at Fulton-Montgomery Community College,

Johnston, New York.

6. An increase of $15,000,000 for the Institute of Software Research for development and construction of research facilities. 7. An increase of $750,000 for on-going activities at the Goddard

Institute for Systems, Software, and Technology Research, including UAV and remote sensing technology research. 8. An increase of $750,000 for the Clustering and Advanced Visual Environments initiative.

9. An increase of $5,000,000 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. 10. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Triana Science Team to continue its work in preparation for future launch. The Committee encourages the earliest possible launch of Triana. 11. An increase of $750,000 for next generation sensing equipment, at Ben Gurion University to be used to correlate measurements taken by aircraft and satellites. 12. An increase of $3,000,000 to be transferred to the Air Force

Research Laboratory (PE 602204F Aerospace Sensors) to develop

dual-use lightweight space radar technology.

13. 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.

14. A decrease of $30,000,000 for the budget request for the EOS

follow-on program. After this reduction the program is funded at

$99,622,000, an increase of $44,600,000 compared to the fiscal year

2001 appropriation.

15. A decrease of $1,805,000 from the budget request for information systems for the Earth Science Program Sciences.

AERO-SPACE TECHNOLOGY

Within the Aero-Space Technology portion of this account, the

Committee recommends $2,430,789,000, a net increase of

$60,045,000 to the budget request. Recognizing the importance to

88

NASA and our Nation of dramatically improving the affordability

and reliability of access to space, the Committee has recommended

the full budget request for the Space Launch Initiative. The Committee is encouraged by the testing of peroxygen-based fuels, including hydrogen peroxide, as a fuel source in the SLI and notes

the fuel’s potential energy density, storability and environmental

benefits. Therefore, the Committee urges the continued testing of

hydrogen peroxide as a fuel source and expects NASA to secure hydrogen peroxide from domestic suppliers consistent with the Buy

America provisions of this Act. The Committee recommends that

NASA take all necessary steps to keep hardware related to the X– 34 program until the end of June, 2002 or such time as the Air

Force makes a determination to either proceed or not proceed with

the X–34 program. The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget request: 1. An increase of $7,500,000 for the Ultra Efficient Engine Tech- nology for a total budget of $47,500,000 in fiscal year 2002. 2. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Earth Alert project at the

Goddard Space Flight Center. 3. An increase of $2,500,000 for the NASA-Illinois Technology

Commercialization Center at DuPage County Research Park. 4. An increase of $200,000 for the Rural Technology Transfer and

Commercialization Center of Durant, Oklahoma.

5. An increase of $2,000,000 for the University of New Orleans

Composites Research Center for Excellence at Michoud, Louisiana. 6. An increase of $550,000 for the aircraft fractional ownership

test program. 7. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Glennan Microsystem Initiative.

8. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Polymer Energy Rechargeable System. 9. An increase of $500,000 for continued development of nickel

metal hydride battery technology. 10. An increase of $2,000,000 for Wayne State University for the

Smart Sensor Initiative.

11. An increase of $1,000,000 for the University of Alabama,

Huntsville, Aviation Safety Laboratory.

12. An increase of $1,000,000 to be used for continued development of an electric/diesel hybrid engine at Bowling Green University.

13. The following programs are to be funded within the Aviation

System Capacity program; $4,200,000 for the HITS multilateration

sensor and surveillance server for Airport Surface Detection and

Management System, $1,200,000 for the development of the Dynamic Runway Occupancy Measurement System, $1,400,000 for development of a Runway Taxi Route Detection and Conformance

Monitoring System, and $5,000,000 for Project SOCRATES.

14. An increase of $3,000,000 to expand the Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program, including NASA business incubators, in

Florida and New York.

15. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Advanced Interactive Discovery Environment engineering research program at Syracuse

University.

16. An increase of $8,000,000 for the National Center of Excellence in Photonics and Microsystems in New York.

89

17. An increase of $2,500,000 for the Virtual Collaboration Center at the North Carolina GigaPop. 18. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Garrett Morgan Commercialization Initiative in Ohio.

19. An increase of $3,500,000 is provided to the Institute for Soft- ware Research for the following activities; $750,000 for on-going research at Marshall Space Flight Center in the areas of advanced

and breakthrough solutions for interstellar propulsion, $1,750,000

for on-going activities in support of Dryden Flight Research Center’s Intelligent Flight Control System research project, and $1,000,000 for the development of advanced composite materials for

a super lightweight prototype structure and a generic carrier for

the space shuttle orbiter. 20. An increase of $9,000,000 for hydrogen research being conducted by the Florida State University System. 21. An increase of $5,000,000 for space biotechnology research

and commercial applications to be conducted at the University of

Florida.

22. An increase of $2,000,000 to be transferred to the Air Force

Research Laboratory (PE 602204F Aerospace Sensors) to install a

baseline Silent Sentry System at Kennedy Space Center and for

AFRL to conduct an evaluation of the ability for Silent Sentry to

replace current range safety infrastructure. 23. A reduction of $6,200,000 to the budget request for the Aviation Systems Capacity program, leaving a funding level of

$94,400,000 and an increase of $24,951,000 compared to the fiscal

year 2001 appropriation.

24. The Committee directs NASA to fund the National Technology Transfer Center at no less than $7,500,000 in fiscal year

2002.

25. An increase of $500,000 for aerospace projects being accomplished by the Montana Aerospace Development Authority.

ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

Within the Academic Programs portion of this account, the Com- mittee recommends $188,500,000, a net increase of $34,800,000 to

the budget request. The Committee urges the full inclusion and

participation of Lincoln and Cheney Universities in Pennsylvania

in NASA’s Minority University Research and Education Program.

The Committee believes that it is important for NASA to provide

long-term support for the NASA-sponsored Center for Excellence in

Immersive and High Definition Science Education Technologies

and expects to receive such a request as an integral component of

the fiscal year 2003 budget submission. The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget request:

1. An increase of $500,000 for the Richland School District One

Aeronautics Education Laboratory, located in Columbia, South

Carolina.

2. An increase of $500,000 for the NASA Educator Resource Center at South East Missouri State University.

3. An increase of $1,000,000 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.

90

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 for the Sci-Port Discovery Center at

Shreveport, Louisiana.

7. An increase of $2,000,000 for the NASA Glenn ‘‘Gateway to

the Future: Ohio Pilot’’ project.

8. An increase of $500,000 for the Challenger Learning Center of

Kansas.

9. An increase of $500,000 for Challenger Learning Centers in Illinois.

10. An increase of $500,000 for the Challenger Learning Center

at Wheeling Jesuit University.

11. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Alan B. Shepard Discovery

Center in New Hampshire.

12. An increase of $2,000,000 to the U.S. Space and Rocket Center for an Educational Training Center.

13. An increase of $600,000 for academic and infrastructure

needs at St. Thomas University in Miami, Florida.

14. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Ohio View Consortium.

15. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Von Braun Scholarship program.

16. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Alabama Math, Science,

and Technology initiative.

17. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Sci-Quest Hands-on Science

Center.

18. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Alabama Supercomputer

Educational

Outreach program.

19. An increase of $2,000,000 to the Educational Advancement

Alliance to support the Alliance’s math, science, and technology enrichment program.

20. An increase of $5,000,000 for the National Space Grant College and Fellowship program.

21. An increase of $500,000 for Science, Engineering, Math and

Aerospace Academy programs at Central Arizona College.

22. An increase of $200,000 to enhance K–12 science education

through a program of the Middle Tennessee State University.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $23,700,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 23,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 23,700,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +700,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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 $23,700,000 for the Office of the Inspector General in fiscal year 2002, an increase of $700,000 to the

amount provided in fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget

for fiscal year 2001.

91

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

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation on direct

loans

Limitation on administrative expenses

Revolving loan program

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ................................................. $1,500,000,000 $309,000 $1,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation ...................................................... 1,500,000,000 296,303 1,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ................................................... 1,500,000,000 309,000 1,000,000

Comparison with 2001 appropriation ............................................. 0 +12,697 0

Comparison with 2002 request ...................................................... 0 0 0

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 2001 and

the same as the budget request.

The Committee recommends the budget request of $309,000 for

administrative expenses, an increase of $12,697 above the fiscal

year 2001 appropriation. Additionally the Committee recommends

that $1,000,000 be transferred to the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund (the Fund) for loans to community development

credit unions.

Hereafter, the National Credit Union Administration is directed

to provide the Committees on Appropriations a detailed budget justification for activities of the Fund in conjunction with the budget

submission for the Central Liquidity Facility.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $4,840,160,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 4,426,122,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 4,472,520,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +414,038,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request ....................................... +367,640,000

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

92

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 $4,840,160,000 for fiscal

year 2002. This recommendation is an increase of $414,038,000

above last year’s appropriation and an increase of $367,640,000

above the President’s budget request.

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 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $3,642,340,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 3,350,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 3,326,981,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +292,340,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request ....................................... +315,359,000

The appropriation for Research and Related Activities covers all

programs in the Foundation except Education and Human Resources, Salaries and Expenses, NSF Headquarters Relocation,

Major Research Equipment, 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 $3,642,340,000 for Research and Related Activities in fiscal year 2002, an increase of

$292,340,000 above last year’s funding level and an increase of

$315,359,000 above the budget request. The Committee’s recommendation includes the following program levels: (1) Biological

Sciences, $528,980,000; (2) Computer and Information Science and

Engineering, $520,800,000; (3) Engineering, $469,510,000; (4) Geosciences, $612,650,000; (5) Mathematical and Physical Sciences,

$927,190,000; (6) Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences,

$178,900,000; (7) U.S. Polar Research Programs, $229,730,000; (8)

U.S. Antarctic Logistical Support Activities, $68,070,000; and (9)

Integrative Activities, $106,510,000.

Except as specifically noted herein, in the distribution of funds

within each directorate, the Foundation is directed to provide each

program, project, and activity the same percentage as that proposed in the budget request. 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.

93

Within the additional funds made available for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, up to $10,000,000 may be used

by NSF for ongoing operational support of the two funded terascale

computing systems.

Funds provided under this heading in the budget request to

maintain ongoing activities of the Atacama Large Millimeter Array

have been provided as a new appropriation within the Major Research Facilities Construction and Equipment account. Within the

additional funds thus available for astronomical sciences, not less

than $2,000,000 shall be used for the Telescope Systems Instrumentation Program (TSIP). In addition, the Foundation is expected

to aggressively continue its program, begun last year, of upgrading

on a priority basis its astronomical facilities and equipment.

The Committee intends that within the funds provided to the Integrative Activities Directorate, $4,000,000 is for the Science and

Technology Policy Institute, $26,610,000 is for Science and Technology Centers, and $75,900,000 is for Major Research Instrumentation.

The Committee is aware of and shares concerns raised in testimony of the NSF’s Inspector General before the Senate Appropriations Committee regarding specific management issues within the

Foundation. The Committee requests that in the fiscal 2002 operating plan submission the Director address each of the issues

raised and outline specifically what steps have been taken to make

appropriate improvements.

Because understanding our children’s development and behavior

is vital to America’s future, the Committee again this year urges

the Foundation to provide up to $5,000,000 to fund the Children’s

Research Initiative (CRI). In doing so, NSF should use as a guide

the 1997 National Science and Technology Council’s report, ‘‘Investing in Our Future: A National Research Initiative for America’s

Children in the 21st Century.’’ Further, the NSF should employ its

normal peer review process for determining grants to the CRI.

The CRI should encompass all aspects of research on children,

excluding medical, and should be open to scientists from a diverse

set of institutions. Among other issues, the Foundation should consider pursuing theory-informed, hypothesis driven research on development processes in children, understanding a child’s development over the long term, and the influence of families and communities on that development.

The Committee commends the NSF leadership for their recognition of the needs of the mathematical sciences, and their efforts to

provide the support that is required to meet those needs.

Within the general Nanotechnology Science and Engineering program area, the Committee urges NSF to consider a stronger emphasis on research that explores biological mechanisms at the molecular force level and then translates these findings up through

hierarchical scales of structure and organization to provide unique

designs for engineered devices. The primary technological impact of

such research will be the development of enabling technologies to

create new ‘‘adaptive/smart’’ sensing and actuation devices with applications that will directly impact technological advancement and

the economy, including bio-inspired propulsion, locomotion, and actuation for robotics in the aeronautics, marine, defense, and space

94

industries; and miniature and functionally complete mechanical

systems for integration with silicon electronics.

The Committee is aware that the Foundation has plans to retire

certain national facilities in radio astronomy despite considerable

community interest and research need, until construction of the

Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) is completed. The Committee strongly urges the Foundation to consider innovative proposals to privatize these facilities operations as a cost-effective way

to maintain critical community access to them while lowering the

overall financial resources needed to do so.

MAJOR RESEARCH FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $135,300,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 121,600,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 96,332,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +13,700,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request ....................................... +38,968,000

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 $135,300,000 for the major

research construction and equipment account for fiscal year 2002.

This appropriation reflects the budget request levels of $16,900,000

for the Large Hadron Collider, and $24,400,000 for the Network for

Earthquake Engineering Simulation. In addition, the Committee has provided $35,000,000 for Terrascale Computing Systems, $35,000,000 for continued development of the High-Performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for

Environmental Research (HIAPER), $15,000,000 for initiation of

the IceCube Neutrino Detector project, and $9,000,000 to maintain

ongoing development activities for the Atacama Large Millimeter

Array.

With regard to HIAPER, the Committee’s recommendation is expected to provide for the purchase of the appropriate airframe as

well as preliminary planning, development and/or acquisition of

necessary modifications of the airframe for research purposes, instrumentation, data systems, and engineering activities.

The Committee has also included $15,000,000 to initiate the

IceCube Neutrino Detector physics/astronomy project recently approved by the National Science Board. 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 2002 will support development and

acquisition of new generation technology, including new polar drilling equipment, and other steps necessary to begin construction of

IceCube as soon as possible.

The Committee recognizes that the statutory language utilized to

make appropriations for both the Research and Related Activities

account and the Major Research Construction and Equipment account has provided significant flexibility for the Foundation to provide adequate resources to ongoing projects and programs. The

Committee also recognizes that certain aspects of such projects or

95

programs can reasonably be considered appropriately funded from

either of these two accounts. Nevertheless, the Committee believes

that for the Foundation to maintain clear and distinct records of

spending activities related to each aforementioned account, it is

necessary to provide definitive guidance throughout the Foundation

as to which specific activities are to be accounted for within each

account. Therefore, the Committee directs the Foundation to develop such guidance, which shall be submitted to the Committees

on Appropriations for review no later than October 31, 2001. In

this regard and to better define the activities within this account,

the Committee has recommended that the Major Research Equipment account be retitled Major Research Facilities Construction

and Equipment.

EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $885,720,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 787,352,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 872,407,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +98,368,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request ....................................... +13,313,000

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 2002, the Committee recommends $885,720,000,

an increase of $98,368,000 above last year’s appropriated level and

$13,313,00 above the budget request.

The Committee’s recommendation includes program levels of

$75,000,000 for the EPSCoR program, $27,000,000 for the Louis

Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation program, and

$17,000,000 for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities—

Undergradute Program, all of which are increases above the budget

request.

The Committee remains impressed with the continued success of

the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Development Grant program. The Committee recognizes that further expansion of the program may be warranted given the unmistakable

contributions HBCUs have made and realizes that some assessment of these contributions is needed first. The Committee therefore recommends that up to $1,000,000 be used by NSF for an independent, thorough analysis of the economic impact of HBCUs in

their surrounding communities, which will serve as a starting point

for future enhancement of the HBCU Development Grant Program.

In addition to providing the budget request of $200,000,000 for

the new Math and Science Partnerships Program, the Committee’s

recommendation includes $5,000,000 for Teacher Research Scholarships and $5,000,000 for Noyce Scholarships, both of which are intended to be provided in a manner consistent with and as described

in ‘‘The Mathematics and Science Partnerships Act,’’ H.R. 1858.

96

The Committee recognizes the important role that community

colleges play in providing accessible, quality educational opportunities to the public, promoting community and economic development, and enhancing the quality of life for our Nation. The Committee recognizes previous efforts at the National Science Foundation to improve its partnership with community colleges. However,

the Committee encourages the National Science Foundation to further strengthen its outreach to community colleges and to strive to

better emphasize the involvement of community colleges in its activities. The Committee expects that the expenditure of National

Science Foundation resources will better reflect the expanding role

of community colleges in helping the National Science Foundation

achieve its goals.

The Committee acknowledges the importance of the ATE program and encourages the Foundation to consider it among the priorities when allocating additional funds provided by the Congress.

Similarly, the Foundation may, through a competitive, meritbased process, provide to a consortium composed of community colleges a grant for the purpose of carrying out a pilot project to provide support to encourage women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to enter and complete programs in science, engineering,

and technology.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $170,040,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 160,890,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 170,040,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +9,150,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request ....................................... 0

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 $170,040,000 for

salaries and expenses, the same as the President’s budget request

and an increase of $9,150,000 above last year’s appropriated level.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $6,760,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 6,280,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 6,760,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +480,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 request ....................................... 0

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 2002, the Committee has recommended

$6,760,000 for the Office of Inspector General. This amount is

$480,000 above last year’s funding level and is the same as the

budget request.

97

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $105,000,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 90,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 95,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. 15,000,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 budget request ........................... +10,000,000

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, an increase of $10,000,000 to the budget request

and an increase of $15,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level.

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 lowincome families to attain the goal of homeownership.

Neighborhood Reinvestment and the NeighborWorks network

have been industry pioneers at devising an innovative mechanism

to use HUD’s Section 8 homeownership option and at using their

experience and early lessons learned to develop training, which is

delivered through the national Neighborhood Reinvestment Training Institute. By April 2001, four NeighborWorks organizations had

assisted 34 low-income families to become homeowners by using

Section 8 vouchers as a partial payment for a mortgage. Over the

next three years, these four organizations alone expect to assist

over 260 additional families.

In FY 2000, Neighborhood Reinvestment received $5 million appropriation to encourage additional partnerships between Public

Housing Authorities and NeighborWorks organizations to implement a Section 8 homeownership option. Neighborhood Reinvestment used this funding to make grants to 21 of its members to capitalize local revolving funds and provide intensive pre- and postpurchase counseling. Through the Neighborhood Reinvestment

Training Institute, the Corporation will serve the nation as a whole

by disseminating what it and the network has learned about using

the homeownership option.

This Committee is supportive of Neighborhood Reinvestment and

its network in these activities and wants to encourage the development of additional local partnerships, research, and training, which

will not only assist low-income families to become homeowners, but

will continue to utilize the NeighborWorks network as an effective

laboratory in which innovative revitalization strategies can be tested and evaluated.

98

The Committee has also included an increase of $10,000,000 for

the core programs of the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... $25,003,000

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... 24,480,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 25,003,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2001 appropriation ............................. +523,000

Comparison with fiscal year 2002 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 2002, the bill includes the budget request of

$25,003,000 for the Selective Service System, $523,000 above the

fiscal year 2001 funding level.

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Committee recommends inclusion of twenty-six general provisions, twenty-three of which were requested in the fiscal year

2002 budget and twenty-four were carried in the fiscal year 2001

Appropriations Act (Public Law 106–377). The Committee has included a general provision regarding the collection of pesticide registration fees and a provision on pesticide tolerance fees, the latter

of which was proposed for deletion but was included in the fiscal

year 2001 Appropriations Act. The Committee has included a new

general provision which changes the reporting dates associated

with the Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act.

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.

99

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 $17,940,000 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 ($164,497,000), the education

loan fund program account ($64,000), the vocational rehabilitation

loans program account ($274,000) and the Native American veteran

housing loan program account ($544,000). 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 recommends providing authority under administrative provisions for the Department of Veterans Affairs for any

funds appropriated in 2002 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 2001 and

all collections made during fiscal year 2002 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

100

risk insurance program accounts ($530,457,000); GNMA guarantees

of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account

($9,383,000); community development loan guarantees program account ($1,000,000); Indian housing loan guarantee fund program

account ($200,000); and Native American housing block grants account ($150,000).

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 ($11,000,000); public

housing capital fund ($43,000,000); community development fund

($15,000,000); home investment partnership program account

($17,000,000); homeless assistance grants account ($14,200,000);

housing for special populations account ($1,000,000); FHA mutual

mortgage insurance program account ($96,500,000); FHA general

and special risk insurance program account ($33,500,000); and native American housing block grants account ($2,000,000).

The Committee has included language under the Department of

Housing and Urban Development transferring $10,000,000 from

the public housing operating fund account to the Office of Inspector

General for Operation Safe Home.

The Committee has included language under the Department of

Housing and Urban Development transferring $22,343,000 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 $23,000,000 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 ($11,867,000) to the Office of Inspector General. In addition, $36,891,000 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 $33,660,000 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.

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 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.

101

The Committee has included language under National Credit Union Administration transferring $1,000,000 to the Community

Development Revolving Loan Fund.

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 ............................................................................................ ¥886,000,000

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Management and

Administration, Consolidated Fee Fund .......................................... ¥6,700,000

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.

* * * * * * *

ø1729B. Health Services Improvement Fund.¿

* * * * * * *

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

Veterans

* * * * * * *

§ 1722A. Copayment for medications

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Amounts collected øunder subsection (a)¿ under this section

shall be deposited in the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical

Care Collections Fund. øAmounts collected through use of the auVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
102

thority under subsection (b) shall be deposited in the Department

of Veterans Affairs Health Services Improvement Fund.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 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) * * *

* * * * * * *

(7) Section 8165(a) of this title.

(8) Section 113 of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and

Benefits Act (Public Law 106–117; 38 U.S.C. 8111 note).

ø(7)¿ (9) 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.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 1729B. Health Services Improvement Fund

ø(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.

ø(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:

ø(1) Section 1713A of this title.

ø(2) Section 1722A(b) of this title.

ø(3) Section 8165(a) of this title.

ø(4) Section 113 of the Veterans Millennium Health Care

and Benefits Act.

ø(c) Amounts in the fund are hereby available, without fiscal

year limitation, to the Secretary for the purposes stated in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 1729A(c)(1) of this title.

ø(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

* * * * * * *

103

Subchapter V—Enhanced—Use Leases of Real Property

§ 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 øDepartment 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 øDepartment 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, 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 is located in New Jersey.

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

* * * * * * *

104

TITLE II—MORTGAGE INSURANCE

INSURANCE OF MORTGAGES

SEC. 203. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c)(1) The Secretary is authorized to fix premium charge for the

insurance of mortgages under the separate sections of this title but

in the case of any mortgage such charge shall be not less than an

amount equivalent to one-fourth of 1 per centum per annum nor

more than an amount equivalent to 1 per centum per annum of the

amount of the principal obligation of the mortgage outstanding at

any time, without taking into account delinquent payments or prepayments: Provided, That premium charges fixed for insurance (1)

under section 245, 247, 251, 252, or 253, or any other financing

mechanism providing alternative methods for repayment of a mortgage that is determined by the Secretary to involve additional risk,

or (2) under subsections (n) øand¿ or (k) are not required to be the

same as the premium charges for mortgages insured under the

other provisions of this section, but in no case shall premium

charges under subsection (n) or (k) exceed 1 per centum per

annum: Provided, That any reduced premium charge so fixed and

computed may, in the discretion of the Secretary, also be made applicable in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe to each insured mortgage outstanding under the section or sections involved

at the time the reduced premium charge is fixed. Such premium

charges shall be payable by the mortgagee, either in cash, or in debentures issued by the Secretary under this title at par plus accrued interest, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Secretary: Provided, That debentures presented in payment of premium charges shall represent obligations of the particular insurance fund or account to which such premium charges are to be

credited: Provided further, that the Secretary may require the payment of one or more such premium charges at the time the mortgage is insured, at such discount rate as he may prescribe not in

excess of the interest rate specified in the mortgage. If the Secretary finds upon the presentation of a mortgage for insurance and

the tender of the initial premium charge or charges so required

that the mortgage complies with the provisions of this section, such

mortgage may be accepted for insurance by endorsement or otherwise as the Secretary may prescribe; but no mortgage shall be accepted for insurance under this section unless the Secretary finds

that the project with respect to which the mortgage is executed is

economically sound. In the event that the principal obligation of

any mortgage accepted for insurance under this title is paid in full

prior to the maturity date, the Secretary is further authorized in

his discretion to require the payment by the mortgagee of an adjusted premium charge in such amount as the Secretary determines to be equitable, but not in excess of the aggregate amount

of the premium charges that the mortgagee would otherwise have

been required to pay if the mortgage had continued to be insured

until such maturity date; and in the event that the principal obligation is paid in full as herein set forth, the Secretary is authorized

to refund to the mortgagee for the account of the mortgagor all, or

105

such portion as he shall determine to be equitable, of the current

unearned premium charges theretofore paid: Provided, that with

respect to mortgages (1) for which the Secretary requires, at the

time the mortgage is insured, the payment of a single premium

charge to cover the total premium obligation for the insurance of

the mortgage, and (2) on which the principal obligation is paid before the number of years on which the premium with respect to a

particular mortgage was based, or the property is sold subject to

the mortgage or is sold and the mortgage is assumed prior to such

time, the Secretary shall provide for refunds, where appropriate, of

a portion of the premium paid and shall provide for appropriate allocation of the premium cost among the mortgagors over the term

of the mortgage, in accordance with procedures established by the

Secretary which take into account sound financial and actuarial

considerations.

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, each

mortgage secured by a 1- to 4-family dwelling øand executed on or

after October 1, 1994,¿ that is an obligation of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund or of the General Insurance Fund pursuant

to subsection (v), and each mortgage that is insured under sub-section (k) or section 234(c), shall be subject to the following requirements:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

ADJUSTABLE RATE SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGES

SEC. 251. (a) * * *

(b) The Secretary shall øissue regulations requiring that the

mortgagee make available to the mortgagor, at the time of loan application, a written explanation of the features of the adjustable

rate mortgage, including a hypothetical payment schedule that displays the maximum potential increases in monthly payments to the

mortgagor over the first 5 years of the mortgage term.¿ require

that the mortgagee make available to the mortgagor, at the time of

loan application, a written explanation of the features of an adjustable rate mortgage consistent with the disclosure requirements applicable to variable rate mortgages secured by a principal dwelling

under the Truth in Lending Act.

* * * * * * *

(d)(1) The Secretary may insure under this subsection a mortgage

that meets the requirements of subsection (a), except that the effective rate of interest— (A) shall be fixed for a period of not less than the first 3 years

of the mortgage term;

(B) shall be adjusted by the mortgagee initially upon the expiration of such period and annually thereafter;

(C) in the case of the initial interest rate adjustment, is subject to the one percent limitation only if the interest rate remained fixed for five or fewer years.

(2) The disclosure required under subsection (b) shall be required

for a mortgage insured under this subsection.

* * * * * * *

106

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

ø$14,000,000¿ $17,000,000 in øeach¿ fiscal year 2002.

(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, ø2001¿ 2001.

(6) OTHER FEES.—During the period beginning on October

25, 1988, and ending on September 30, ø2001¿ 2002, the Administrator shall * * *

* * * * * * *

(k) * * *

(3) EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF SIMILAR APPLICATIONS.—

(A) The Administrator shall use for each of the fiscal

years 1997 through ø2001¿ 2002, not more than ø1⁄7¿ 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

107

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, ø2001¿ 2002, 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 øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31,

2002.

* * * * * * *

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 øSeptember 30, 2001¿ December 31, 2002, 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

* * * * * * *

108

APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 1376. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be

necessary through December 31, ø2001¿ 2002, for studies under

this title.

* * * * * * *

TITLE I—CERRO GRANDE FIRE

ASSISTANCE ACT

* * * * * * *

SEC. 104. COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CERRO GRANDE FIRE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—

* * * * * * *

(n) REPORT.—

* * * * * * *

(4) the Comptroller General shall conduct an annual audit on

the payment of all claims made under this title and shall report to the Congress on the results of this audit øbeginning not

later than the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the

date of the enactment of this Act.¿ within 120 days after the

Director issues the report required by subsection (n) in 2002

and 2003. This report shall include a review of all subrogation

claims for which insurance companies have been paid or are

seeking payment as subrogees under this title.

(o) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

* * * * * * *

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 421, and 423 through 425 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

109

on the use of funds in the bill and which might, under certain circumstances, be construed as changing the application of existing

law. A new section 422 has been added this year which limits the

use of funds to implement a pesticide registration fee. A new section 426 is included which changes the dates that reports are required pursuant to the Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act.

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.

Lanaguage is included under the Department of Veterans Affairs

establishing the facility rehabilitation fund which provides funding

for certain sections of H.R. 811, the Veterans Hospital Emergency

Repair Act, as passed by the House on March 27, 2001.

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, and

funding administrative expenses associated with VA life insurance

programs from excess program revenues. Seven provisions have

been carried in previous Appropriations Acts. Four new provisions

have been added.

Language is included under Department of Veterans Affairs, administrative provisions extending the Department’s authority to operate their Franchise Fund through October 1, 2002.

Language is included under Department of Veterans Affairs, administrative provisions allowing for the obligation of reimbursements from enhanced-use lease services during the fiscal year in

which the proceeds are received.

Language is included under Department of Veterans Affairs, administrative provisions allowing for the reimbursements of up to

110

$28,555,000 to the Office of Resolution Management and up to

$2,383,000 from the Office of Employment Discrimination Management for services rendered.

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban

Development, which designates funds for various programs and

specifies the uses of such funds.

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban

Development, housing certificate fund, which places a limitation on

certain fees.

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban

Development, public housing capital fund, which clarifies the effective date of certain requirements; 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; and prohibits funds from being used for certain activities.

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.

Language is included under Department of Housing and Urban

Development, home investment partnerships program, which limits

the availability of certain funds subject to enactment of subsequent

legislation.

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 permits waivers of certain program provisions; and allows funds to be used to

renew certain contracts.

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, salaries and expenses, which places limitations on

personnel; and requires submission of a staffing plan.

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 reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:11 Jul 26, 2001 Jkt 074031 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR159.XXX pfrm07 PsN: HR159
111

duces annual adjustment factors; prohibits funds to investigate or

prosecute certain lawful activities; revises allocations for housing

opportunities for persons with AIDS grant recipients; establishes a

hybrid adjustable rate mortgage program; and modifies certain premium structures related to certain single-family mortgage programs.

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 limits use of

funds, and expands the use of funds awarded for certain programs.

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, and which authorizes for one

year a pesticide maintenance fee.

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 Consumer 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.

112

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:

Agency/Program Last year of author- ization Authorization level Appropriation in last year of authorization Appropria

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Construction, Major: Miami, Florida project only ................................................................................................................................. .............................. .............................. .............................. Facility Rehabilitation Fund .................................................................................................................................................................. .............................. .............................. .............................. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Housing Certificate Fund:

Section 8 contract renewals ........................................................................................................................................................ 1994 $8,446,173 $5,458,106 Section 441 contracts .................................................................................................................................................................. 1994 109,410 150,000 Section 23 leased housing conversions ...................................................................................................................................... 1994 13,303 .............................. Section 8 preservation, protection, and family unification ........................................................................................................ 1994 759,259 541,000 Incremental Vouchers .................................................................................................................................................................. 1994 2,060,725 .............................. Contract Administrators ............................................................................................................................................................... .............................. .............................. .............................. Native American Housing Block Grant ........................................................................................................................................ 2001 Such sums 636,000 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS ............................................................................................................................. 1994 156,300 156,000 

Community Development Fund:

Community Development Block Grants ....................................................................................................................................... 1994 4,168,000 4,380,000 Housing Assistance Council ........................................................................................................................................................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 

Native American Indian Housing Council .................................................................................................................................... .............................. .............................. .............................. 

National Housing Development Corporation ................................................................................................................................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 

National Council on La Raza HOPE Fund ................................................................................................................................... .............................. .............................. .............................. Self-Help Housing Opportunity Program ...................................................................................................................................... 2000 Such sums 20,000 Capacity Building ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1994 25,000 20,000 Neighborhood Initiatives .............................................................................................................................................................. .............................. .............................. .............................. 

YouthBuild .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1994 41,680 28,000 HOME Investment partnerships ................................................................................................................................................... 1994 2,173,612 1,275,000 Homeless Assistance Grants ....................................................................................................................................................... 1994 465,774 599,000 

FHA General and Special Risk Program Account:

Limitation on guaranteed loans .................................................................................................................................................. 1995 Such sums (20,885,072) (2Limitation on direct loans ........................................................................................................................................................... 1995 Such sums (220,000) Credit Subsidy .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1995 Such sums 188,395 Administrative Expenses .............................................................................................................................................................. 1995 .............................. 197,470 

GNMA Mortgage-Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program Account:

Limitation on guaranteed loans .................................................................................................................................................. 1996 (110,000,000) (110,000,000) (20Administrative Expenses .............................................................................................................................................................. 1996 Such sums 9,101,000 Policy Development and Research ............................................................................................................................................... 1994 36,470 35,000 Fair Housing Activities, Fair Housing Initiatives Program .......................................................................................................... 1994 26,000 20,481 Lead Hazards Reduction Program ............................................................................................................................................... 1994 276,000 185,000 Salaries and Expenses ................................................................................................................................................................. 1994 1,029,496 916,963 Community Development Financial Institutions Fund ................................................................................................................. 1998 111,000 80,000 

Agency/Program Last year of author- ization Authorization level Appropriation in last year of authorization Appropria

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ..................................................................................................................................... 1994 30,714 32,000 Consumer Product Safety Commission ........................................................................................................................................ 1992 45,000 40,200 

Federal Consumer Information Center Fund:

Federal information Center .......................................................................................................................................................... 1980 7,000 4,492 Consumer Information Center Fund ............................................................................................................................................ 1970 Not applicable 0 

National Credit Union Administration, loan fund ................................................................................................................................ Not available 0 0 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Categorical Grants:

Clean Air Act ................................................................................................................................................................................ FY 1997 Such sums 167,230Radon Abatement Act .................................................................................................................................................................. FY 1991 10,000 9,000Clean Water Act (FWPCA) ............................................................................................................................................................ FY 1990–91 .............................. ..............................

BEACH Act .................................................................................................................................................................................... FY 2005 30,000 ..............................Safe Drinking Water Act .............................................................................................................................................................. FY 2003 115,000 ..............................Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA) ................................................................................................................................................ FY 1988 70,000 71,391Toxic Substances Control Act ...................................................................................................................................................... FY 1983 1,500 5,100Pollution Prevention Act ............................................................................................................................................................... FY 1993 8,000 6,800Indian Environmental General Assistance Program Act ............................................................................................................. FY 1998 Such sums 38,585Clean Water SRF .......................................................................................................................................................................... FY 1992 1,800,000 2,400,000Sewer 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 1,480,853LUST Trust Fund ................................................................................................................................................................................... FY 1988 10,000 14,400Oil Spills (FWPCA) ................................................................................................................................................................................. No expiration 35,000 15,000Science and Technology:

Clean Air Act ................................................................................................................................................................................ FY 1997 Such sums 177,150Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................................................................................... FY 1990 159,520 27,028FIFRA ............................................................................................................................................................................................ FY 1991 95,000 (part) 11,890Safe 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 va

of primarily media-specific statutes as shown in the following chart:

Section title Statute section Terms of authorization Expiratio

Federal Water Pollution Control Act

Res., Invest., Train., Tech. Asst., Info. Activ ........................................................................................................................ 104(U)(1) .............................. $22.77m, FY86–90 .............. 33,146.

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. Cont ............................................................................................................... 105(H) .................................. $75m, FY73–75, 10% for

105(E).

27,575.

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, FY87–90 .. 33,146.

Great Lakes Program ............................................................................................................................................................ 118(g) .................................. $11m, FY87–91 (30% to

NOAA).

9/30/91.

Assur. for Every State ........................................................................................................................................................... 205(E) .................................. $75m, FY79–90 ................... 9/30/90.

Reserve % for Admin. Specific Sections ............................................................................................................................. 205(G) .................................. Limit subject to formula ...... No exp. date.Set-Aside for Altern. Conv. Sewage Treat. Wrks .................................................................................................................. 205(H) .................................. Limit subject to formula ...... No exp. date.Altern. and Innovative Technologies-Fed. Share .................................................................................................................. 205(I) ................................... Limit subject to formula ...... 9/30/90.Reserve Con. Grants for WQ Mgt. Planning ......................................................................................................................... 205(J) ................................... Limit subject to formula ...... No exp. date.Nonpoint Source Resrv ......................................................................................................................................................... 205(J)(5) ............................... Limit subject to formula ...... No exp. date.

Sewage Covey. Cost NYC-NTWTON Treatment Plant ............................................................................................................ 205(K) .................................. Limit subject to formula ...... 9/30/82.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.

The statutory authority for appropriations in all eight of EPA’s accounts is provided to the Agency through a wide va

of primarily media-specific statutes as shown in the following chart:

Section title Statute section Terms of authorization Expiratio

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. Progs ................................................................................................................. 311 (K) ................................. $35m .................................... No exp. date.Clean Lakes Grants .............................................................................................................................................................. 314(C)(2) .............................. $30m, FY86–90 until expend 9/30/90.

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 expend 9/30/91.

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 beyond ...... No exp. date.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 beyond ..... No exp. date.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 Repayments ................................................................................................................ 4(A)/5(E) ............................... $25m, FY87–90 ................... No date spec.

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. Plang ............................................................................................................. 4008(F)(2) ............................ $8m, FY82–86 ..................... 9/30/86.

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 ................................................................................................................................................... 704(I) Title VII ...................... $7m, FY85–87 ..................... 1/11/87.

Safe Drinking Water Act

Health Risk Red. & Cost Analysis in Regulation Dev ......................................................................................................... 1412(b)(3)(C)(iv) .................. $35m, FY96–03 ................... 9/30/03.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 Grants .............................................................................................................. 1420(f)(6) ............................. $2m, FY97–99 ..................... 9/30/99.

$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. Areas ............................................................................................................. 1428(k) ................................. $30m, FY92–03 ................... 9/30/03.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.

The statutory authority for appropriations in all eight of EPA’s accounts is provided to the Agency through a wide va

of primarily media-specific statutes as shown in the following chart:

Section title Statute section Terms of authorization Expiratio

Emergency Assistance to States (1442(a)(2)(B)) ................................................................................................................ 1442(d) ................................ $8,050k, FY91 ...................... 9/30/91.Research, Tech. Assist., Info., Trng of Personnel ................................................................................................................ 1442(d) ................................ $38,020k, FY91 .................... 9/30/91.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. & Demo. Proj .................................................................................................... 42 U.S.C. (300j–3a(c)1) ...... $25m .................................... 9/30/78.Monitoring Program for Unregulated Contaminants ............................................................................................................ 1445(a)(2)(H) ....................... $10m, FY97–03 ................... 9/30/03.

Capitalization of Drinking Water SRFs ................................................................................................................................. 1452(m) ............................... $1b, FY95–03 ...................... 9/30/03.Grants to Sppt State Source WQ Prot. Partnership Prog ..................................................................................................... 1454(e) ................................. $5m, FY97–03 ..................... 9/30/03.

Drinking Water Assistance to Colonias ................................................................................................................................ 1456(e) ................................. $25m, FY97–99 ................... 9/30/99.Studies on Harmful Substances in Drinking Water ............................................................................................................. 1458(c)(3) ............................ $12.5m, FY97–03 ................ 9/30/03.

Waterborne Disease Occurrence Study ................................................................................................................................. 1458(d)(3) ............................ $3m, FY97–01 (with limitations). 9/30/01.

Grants to States for Remedying School Drinking Water ...................................................................................................... 1465(c) ................................. $30m, FY91 .......................... 9/30/91.General Drinking Water Research Authorization .................................................................................................................. 201 ....................................... Such sums (not to exc.

$26.593m).

9/30/03.

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 Prot. Progs. ..................................................................................................... 401(d) .................................. $25m, FY97–03 uncondit.

auth.

9/30/03.

$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, FY81Industrial 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 FY81Monitoring and Technical Support ....................................................................................................................................... .............................................. $1.008m FY81

......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 SWDA ................................ $26.446m FY81

Health and Ecological Effects .............................................................................................................................................. 2 PHSA ................................. $2.99m FY81Monitoring and Technical Support ....................................................................................................................................... .............................................. $191m FY81Health and Ecological Effects .............................................................................................................................................. 2 IA ...................................... $5.232m FY81Monitoring and Technical Support ....................................................................................................................................... .............................................. $2.868m FY81Anticipatory Research ........................................................................................................................................................... .............................................. $14.745m FY81Health and Ecological Effects .............................................................................................................................................. 2 FIFRA ................................. $5.97m FY81Industrial Processes ............................................................................................................................................................. .............................................. $2.9m FY81Monitoring and Technical Support ....................................................................................................................................... .............................................. $565k FY81Health and Ecological Effects .............................................................................................................................................. 2 TSCA ................................. $31.87m FY81Industrial Process ................................................................................................................................................................. .............................................. $1.77m FY81Monitoring and Technical Support ....................................................................................................................................... .............................................. $3.247m FY81Health and Ecological Effects .............................................................................................................................................. 2 EA ..................................... $50.096m FY81Energy Control ...................................................................................................................................................................... .............................................. $57.503m FY81Program Management .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 EPA ................................... $4.666m FY81

Inspector General Act

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

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, FY–

83.

9/30/83.

Radon Profic. Rating ............................................................................................................................................................ 305(E) .................................. $1.5m ................................... When expended.

Citizen Guide, Model Constr. Stds., Tech. Asst ................................................................................................................... 305(F) ................................... $3m, FY89–91 ..................... 9/30/91.

Radon St. Prog. Grants ........................................................................................................................................................ 306(J) ................................... $10m, FY89–91 ................... 9/30/91.

Radon Diag./Remedial in High-Risk Schools ....................................................................................................................... 307(B) .................................. $1m & 500k (diag. &

remed.).

When expended.

Region. Radon Trng. Ctrs ..................................................................................................................................................... 308(F) ................................... $1m, FY89–91 ..................... 9/30/91.

The statutory authority for appropriations in all eight of EPA’s accounts is provided to the Agency through a wide va

of primarily media-specific statutes as shown in the following chart:

Section title Statute section Terms of authorization Expiratio

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 Activ .......................................................................................................... 111(N)(2) .............................. $35m, FY91–94 ................... 9/30/94.Gulf Coast Haz. Sub. R&D, and Demo. Center .................................................................................................................... 118(i)(4) ............................... $5m, FY87 and thereafter ... No exp. date.Pacific Northwest Haz. Sub. R&D and Demo. Centr ............................................................................................................ 118(O)(5) .............................. $5m, FY87 and thereafter ... No exp. date.Emer. Trng. & Review of Emer. Systems—St. & Locl ......................................................................................................... 305(A)(2) .............................. $5m, FY87–90 ..................... 9/30/90.

Gen. Auth. T–111 Emer. Plan. Comm. Right to Knw .......................................................................................................... 330 ....................................... Such sums beginning FY87 No exp. date.

121

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 authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays

Discretionary ................................................................... $84,134 $88,037 $85,433 $88,037

Mandatory ....................................................................... 26.453 26,255 26,453 26,255

Note.—The amounts in this bill are technically in excess of the subcommittee section 302(b) suballocation. However, pursuant to section

314 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, increases to the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation are authorized for funding

in the reported bill for spending designated as emergency. After the bill is reported to the House, the Chairman of the Committee on the

Budget will provide an increased section 302(a) allocation consistent with the funding provided in the bill. That new allocation will eliminate

the technical difference prior to floor consideration.

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 .................................................................................. $111,317

Outlays:

2002 ........................................................................................................... 64,409

2003 ........................................................................................................... 25,908

2004 ........................................................................................................... 8,556

2005 ........................................................................................................... 4,361

2006 ........................................................................................................... 3,221

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 ............................................................................................. 30,830

Fiscal year 2002 outlays resulting therefrom ............................................... 5,808

BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT

During fiscal year 2002 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

2002 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

122

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

2002 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 2002

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.

123

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House

of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those

voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

ROLLCALL NO. 1

Date: July 17, 2001.

Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations

Bill, FY 2002.

Motion by: Mr. Obey.

Description of Motion: To increase funding by $1,000,000,000 for

five specific programs, including veterans medical care, HUDF’s

public housing capital fund and shelter plus care programs, EPA’s

federal enforcement program, and the Corporation for National

Service, and to increase the top income tax rate from 38.6 percent

to 39.1 percent.

Results: Rejected 24 yeas to 29 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla

Mr. Dicks Mr. Doolittle

Mr. Edwards Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Farr Mr. Goode

Mr. Fattah Mr. Hobson

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Istook

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Kingston

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Knollenberg

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Kolbe

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. LaHood

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Latham

Mrs. Meek Mr. Lewis

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Miller

Mr. Murtha Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Obey Mrs. Northup

Mr. Olver Mr. Peterson

Mr. Pastor Mr. Regula

Mr. Price Mr. Sherwood

Mr. Rothman Mr. Skeen

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Sununu

Mr. Sabo Mr. Sweeney

Mr. Serrano Mr. Taylor

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Vitter

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young

124

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House

of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those

voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

ROLLCALL NO. 2

Date: July 17, 2001.

Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations

Bill, FY 2002.

Motion by: Mr. Hinchey.

Description of Motion: To authorize a program within the Department of Housing and Urban Development to reduce home down

payment requirements for certain teachers and public safety officers.

Results: Rejected 26 yeas to 32 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla

Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Cunningham

Mr. Dicks Mr. DeLay

Mr. Farr Mr. Doolittle

Mr. Fattah Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Goode

Mr. Hoyer Ms. Granger

Mr. Jackson Mr. Hobson

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Istook

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Kingston

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Knollenberg

Mrs. Meek Mr. Kolbe

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Latham

Mr. Moran Mr. Lewis

Mr. Obey Mr. Miller

Mr. Olver Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Pastor Mrs. Northup

Ms. Pelosi Mr. Regula

Mr. Price Mr. Rogers

Mr. Rothman Mr. Sherwood

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Skeen

Mr. Sabo Mr. Sununu

Mr. Serrano Mr. Sweeney

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Taylor

Mr. Vitter

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young

125

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House

of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those

voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

ROLLCALL NO. 3

Date: July 17, 2001.

Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations

Bill, FY 2002.

Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.

Description of Motion: To increase funding by $25,000,000 for

HUD’s rural housing and economic development program, and to

reduce funding by $25,000,000 for the Downpayment Assistance

Initiative in the HOME investment partnership program.

Results: Rejected 25 yeas to 31 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla

Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan

Ms. DeLauro Mr. DeLay

Mr. Dicks Mr. Doolittle

Mr. Farr Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Fattah Mr. Goode

Mr. Hinchey Ms. Granger

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Hobson

Mr. Jackson Mr. Istook

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Kingston

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Knollenberg

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Kolbe

Mrs. Lowey Mr. LaHood

Mrs. Meek Mr. Latham

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Lewis

Mr. Moran Mr. Miller

Mr. Obey Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Olver Mrs. Northup

Mr. Pastor Mr. Regula

Mr. Rothman Mr. Sherwood

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Skeen

Mr. Sabo Mr. Sununu

Mr. Serrano Mr. Sweeney

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Taylor

Mr. Vitter

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young

126

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House

of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those

voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

ROLLCALL NO. 4

Date: July 17, 2001.

Measure: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations

Bill, FY 2002.

Motion by: Ms. Kaptur.

Description of Motion: To increase funding by $175,000,000 for

HUD’s drug elimination grant program, and to reduce funding by

$175,000,000 for the Downpayment Assistance Initiative in the

HOME investment partnership program.

Results: Rejected 27 yeas to 31 nays.

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla

Mr. Cramer Mr. Callahan

Mr. Cunningham Mr. DeLay

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Doolittle

Mr. Dicks Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. Farr Mr. Goode

Mr. Fattah Ms. Granger

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Hobson

Mr. Jackson Mr. Istook

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Knollenberg

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Kolbe

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. LaHood

Mr. Kingston Mr. Latham

Mrs. Meek Mr. Lewis

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Miller

Mr. Obey Mr. Nethercutt

Mr. Olver Mrs. Northup

Mr. Pastor Mr. Regula

Ms. Pelosi Mr. Rogers

Mr. Price Mr. Skeen

Mr. Rothman Mr. Sununu

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Sweeney

Mr. Sabo Mr. Taylor

Mr. Serrano Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Sherwood Mr. Vitter

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Wolf

Mr. Young

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

(143)

MINORITY VIEWS

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE PRETEND

The appropriations bill for the Departments of Veterans Affairs,

Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies reported by the Committee represents the efforts of a skilled and well

intentioned Chairman to fashion a good bill. He has worked cooperatively with Subcommittee Members on both sides of the aisle to

balance priorities based on need, program performance, and the interests of Members of the House. Unfortunately inadequate resources make it impossible to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

The result of his sincere effort is a bill which does much good, particularly in adding funds to the President’s anemic budget for

science, but is disappointing in areas such as veterans medical care

and public housing programs that serve this country’s most vulnerable citizens and families. Unfortunately, an inadequate overall allocation has also forced the Majority to rely on budgetary gimmicks

to stay within the Subcommittee’s budget ceiling. These gimmicks

include almost $1 billion of delayed obligations and ‘‘pretend’’ budget allocations such as the recommendation to eliminate funding for

the Corporation for National and Community Service—a recommendation which the Chairman announced prior to reporting

the bill that he intends to reverse in conference. These problems

will cause the VA–HUD bill to be the first of seven appropriations

bills reported by the Committee to not share broad bi-partisan support.

The Minority believes that the shortfalls of this bill are unnecessary. This country has the resources to care for its veterans and

to provide adequate housing for the poor, the elderly and the disabled. With a few exceptions, the funding problems are not the result of policy disagreements between the Majority and the Minority

on the Committee. They are the artifacts of a Republican President

and House Majority’s adoption of a budget policy which has focused

myopically on tax cuts for wealthy Americans, and financed these

by setting totally unrealistic spending limitations on discretionary

spending—ceilings which barely keep up with inflation let alone

provide new resources to meet emerging needs and opportunities.

During Committee consideration of this bill the Minority offered

an amendment that would have modestly scaled back the recent

tax cut in order to generate a small amount of additional revenue

to address some of the most urgent shortcomings in the bill. This

amendment would have reduced the tax cut for the wealthiest taxpayers by one-half of one percent. Under the amendment the top

tax rate of 39.6 percent, which applies to people with incomes in

excess of $330,000 per year, would still be reduced to 39.1 percent

but would not drop to 38.6 percent as provided under the Republican tax policy. The wealthiest Americans, those in the top one

144

percent economically are estimated to have had a 157%, $414,000

increase in inflation adjusted income during the last two decades.

The amendment which we offered would have generated $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2002 revenue and allocated $1 billion of this

amount to programs in the VA–HUD bill—$300 million for veterans medical care, $382 million for critical housing programs and

$311 million to partially restore the Corporation for National and

Community Service. Unfortunately the amendment failed on a

party line vote.

Science

As we indicated earlier, despite the shortage of funds, the Chairman has made scientific research a priority and has provided a

generous allocation for the science agencies, especially the $4,480

million in the bill for the National Science Foundation. The President’s budget requested a meager 1.2 percent increase for the NSF,

barely half the amount necessary to cover inflation. The Committee

has wisely added $368 million to the President’s request bringing

the 2002 increase to slightly over 9 percent, an amount which will

allow the agency to continue on-going research in basic physics,

chemistry, mathematics and engineering as well as take advantage

of the new opportunities which have previously been approved by

the National Science Board, but which would have been blocked by

the Bush budget.

The increases recommended by the Chairman and approved by

the Committee for NASA are also positive but more complex. The

bill as reported includes $14,926 million for NASA, an increase of

$415 million over the President’s budget. In addition to providing the budget request for the International Space Station, $275 million in funds are earmarked for the crew return vehicle (CRV),

which had been cancelled by the Administration. The bill also includes additional amounts for space station research and for infrastructure improvements at the Kennedy Space Center.

Given the budget constraints faced by the Committee, the Minority is pleased by the increases the Majority was able to provide to

NASA. However, while these additions represent important improvements in the agency’s budget, neither the President’s budget

nor this bill solve the underlying problems facing the International

Space Station project. Cost estimates for the space station have

risen from $8 billion in the mid-1980’s to close to $30 billion today

including the most recent revelation of a $4.8 billion new cost overrun. The station has become the ‘‘black hole’’ of the NASA budget

consuming other worthwhile projects at the same time it is being

downsized to a level that is inadequate to accomplish the science

mission for which it was originally designed. The Bush plan as currently proposed calls for a 3 person station crew, with 2.5 of these

devoted to operating the Station. This leaves only half of the time

of a single astronaut to conduct research, a situation that is impractical and irresponsible. While the Committee, in allocating initial funding for design and construction of a 6 person crew return

vehicle, has begun to address the problem, this is only a first step.

It is essential that NASA produce a realistic science and budget

plan for the space station. Further, it is absolutely critical that the

increasing and still undefined space station costs not impact the

145

earth and space science activities at NASA, which have contributed

to most of the success that NASA has enjoyed over the years. Failure to do so could leave the American people picking up the tab for

one of the greatest science follies of all time.

Veterans

As discussed earlier, the very solid funding levels for science programs are not matched in many other areas of the bill. Veterans

programs are an example of an area where, as a result of the Majority party’s tax-cut driven policy, constrained resources have

meant that the Chairman was not able to address critical needs.

He is to be praised for his recommendations to add $300 million

to the President’s request for much needed construction at VA facilities and for a significant increase for medical research. The

Chairman also allocated an increase of $300 million over the President’s budget to support the hospitals, clinics and nursing homes

which provide care to more than 4 million veterans. Unfortunately

this level of increase is inadequate—less than half the increase

needed to meet increased health care expenditures nationally. It is

$500 million less than recommended by the Republican Chairman

of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. At the levels recommended by

the Committee waiting times for medical appointments will continue to increase and new benefits recently authorized such as expanded long term care, mental health, pharmacy and emergency

services will be delayed. The major veterans service organizations,

in a letter to the Committee dated July 16, 2001, have stated that

the funding in the bill ‘‘. . . is simply inadequate to meet the needs

of sick and disabled veterans . . . at a time of skyrocketing health

care costs and rising demand from an aging veterans’ population.’’ We in the Minority agree and attempted, in the amendment which

we offered unsuccessfully at Committee, to add an additional $300

million for the medical care account.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Overall, the funds provided in the Committee bill for the Department of Housing and Urban Development are inadequate. The

Chairman has provided for the renewal of all section 8 housing

vouchers, and for some new, incremental housing vouchers, but

overall funding for critical housing programs serving our most vulnerable citizens is reduced by $560 million compared to fiscal year

2001. Many accounts within the Department are simply zeroed out.

The Public Housing Drug Elimination Grant program has been

eliminated; no funds have been provided for Empowerment Zones;

no funds have been provided for the Rural Housing and Economic

Development program, and no funds have been provided for the

Shelter Plus Care program.

Public housing is cut in two main areas. First, the Public Housing Capital Fund, which provides modernization funds for public

housing, is reduced by $445 million from last year’s level of $3 billion despite a growing affordable housing crisis in America. Public

housing is home to approximately 3.2 million low-income Americans—families, elderly, and disabled that could not afford housing

in the private market. The funding for public housing will result

in its residents living in less secure, less healthy, and increasingly

146

deteriorated housing. Our public housing inventory is valued at $90

billion, and has a maintenance backlog estimated at nearly $20 billion. It is shortsighted to let the taxpayer’s investment deteriorate.

Second, the Drug Elimination Grants for Low-Income Housing

program is completely eliminated. Instead, the majority has increased the Public Housing Operating Fund by $110 million over

the President’s request and indicated that housing authorities may

use these funds for drug elimination purposes. These operating

funds are to cover all operating expenses, as well as drug elimination grant activities. This means other activities, including higher utility costs, must be paid for out of this account, resulting in

a decrease in resources for drug elimination at those housing authorities that receive funding under this account. The Minority believes that funding for drug prevention programs will lead to lower

costs for property management and better security around public

housing. This priority program should be maintained.

The Shelter Plus Care program, which provides critical funding

designed to meet the needs of the homeless, is also zeroed out in

the bill. The Committee report states that the fiscal year 2001 appropriation included sufficient funding to fully support all renewal

costs for Shelter Plus Care contracts for fiscal year 2002. The Minority does not agree. Last year’s bill did not include an advance

appropriation for 2002. In this particular program, there is a fairly

long lag between an appropriation and the awarding of funds.

Thus, providing no new funds in this year’s bill creates a funding

gap. Grants that would normally be renewed in or around December 2002 will have to wait another year to be funded or these renewals will have to compete with the general funding round.

The Rural Housing and Economic Development program is another program that was terminated in this bill. This program addresses the problems facing residents of rural areas, including people living in Colonias, Native Americans, and migrant farm workers. But the problem is not limited to these populations. The shortage of adequate housing at reasonable prices in America’s rural

areas is a national problem and the Minority cannot support the

decision to terminate this small but important effort to help rural

families find decent housing.

It is clear that these shortfalls in funding for key HUD programs

must be addressed before this bill is acceptable to many Members

of Congress. The Minority strongly believes that restoring funding

for many of these activities should be a high priority as the bill

moves through the House and the Senate.

Environmental Protection Agency

Although this bill provides an increase above the President’s request for the Environmental Protection Agency, the $7,545 million

recommended is still almost $300 million below the FY 2001 level.

However, the largest issue of concern in the environmental area is

the strength of federal enforcement. Many members have expressed

concern about the cut to EPA enforcement personnel requested by

the President and approved by the Committee. This Committee

cuts funding for 270 federal enforcement FTE and, as a replacement, creates a $25 million grant program for state enforcement,

which will only award 25 to 35 grants—not enough to cover all

147

states. This change weakens enforcement of environmental laws

that protect human health and our environment—laws which protect children from neurological impairments from lead based paint,

which provide cleaner air to reduce asthma resulting from air pollution, and which provide the basis for cleaning up toxic industrial

contamination in our rivers. The Minority does not believe that federal efforts should be reduced, and does not consider awarding

roughly half the states grants to replace that abdication of federal

responsibility to be an adequate response to nationwide environmental problems.

Corporation for National and Community Service

As we noted in the beginning of these views, funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service has been eliminated

from the bill. While the Chairman has suggested that funding will

be restored in conference, that is a very dangerous strategy should

the Majority stick with its current limits on discretionary spending.

There is great doubt about where the money will come from to restore AmeriCorps and other service initiatives funded by the Corporation. Most members do not want to terminate funding for a

program that provides housing to homeless families, arranges for

tutors for low income students, rehabilitates community buildings

and helps build Habitat for Humanities homes for low income families.

Disaster assistance

This bill, in addition to providing for the normal operations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, contains $1.3 billion of

critical emergency funding for disaster assistance. This funding

will help victims of tropical storm Allison, in particular the people

of Texas who incurred heavy losses from torrential rains and the

subsequent flooding which followed this storm. It also replenishes

the fund for future disasters so that other American families and

businesses may be assisted when disaster hits their community.

While the Minority believes that it would have been wiser to provide this money in the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental, that action

was unfortunately blocked by the White House. In the view of the

Minority, the President and his advisers have failed to recognize

the needs of the people of Texas and many other states. While we

understand the desire of the President to limit the artificial use of

the emergency funding procedure, we believe that in this case the

White House and the OMB have so myopically focused on process

that they have failed to responsibly provide for the current situation—a true natural disaster which could not have been anticipated

in advance.

The Minority strongly supports the inclusion of these funds, and

the request from the Committee to the Rules Committee for a waiver allowing this emergency funding, which is supported by both the

Republican Leadership and by the Minority party.

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 the National Science Foundation and for

148

NASA. However, shortfalls in other areas make the bill in its current form an inadequate response to its many responsibilities to

the American people, and we will need to continue to work to improve it as the process moves forward.

ALAN MOLLOHAN.

DAVE OBEY.

Æ