66–640 cc

Calendar No. 801

106TH CONGRESS REPORT

2d Session " ! SENATE 106–410

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001

SEPTEMBER 13, 2000.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. BOND, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 4635]

The Committee on Appropriations to which was referred the bill

(H.R. 4635) 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, 2001, and for other

purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an amendment and

recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

Amount of new budget (obligational) authority

Amount of bill as recommended in House ..............$101,269,836,000

Amount of bill as reported to Senate ...................... 107,507,953,000

Amount of appropriations to date, 2000 ................. 99,190,610,000

Amount of budget estimates, 2001 .......................... 109,781,099,000

Under estimates for 2001 ................................. 2,273,146,000

Above appropriations for 2000 ......................... 8,317,343,000
(2)

CONTENTS

Page

DIVISION A—VA, HUD AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL

YEAR 2001

Title I—Department of Veterans Affairs ............................................................... 5

Title II—Department of Housing and Urban Development ................................. 31

Title III—Independent agencies:

American Battle Monuments Commission ..................................................... 68

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board ........................................ 68

Department of the Treasury: Community development financial institutions ................................................................................................................ 69

Consumer Product Safety Commission ........................................................... 71

Corporation for National and Community Service ........................................ 71

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims .................................................... 75

Department of Defense—Civil: Cemeterial expenses, Army ......................... 76

Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................... 76

Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and Technology

Policy .............................................................................................................. 102

Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality ... 104

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector General .......... 104

Federal Emergency Management Agency ...................................................... 104

General Services Administration: Consumer Information Center ............... 112

National Aeronautics and Space Administration .......................................... 113

National Credit Union Administration ........................................................... 127

National Science Foundation ........................................................................... 128

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ....................................................... 136

Selective Service System .................................................................................. 137

Title IV—General provisions .................................................................................. 139

DIVISION B—THE HOUSING NEEDS ACT OF 2000

Title I—Production of new housing for low and very low-income families ......... 140

Title II—Section 8 success program ....................................................................... 140

Title III—Preservation of low-income housing ...................................................... 140

Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate .. 142

Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 143

Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 143
(3)

DIVISION A

INTRODUCTION

The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban

Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 provides a total of $107,507,953,000 in budget authority, including approximately $24,581,866,000 in mandatory

spending. The Committee did its best to meet all important priorities within the bill, with the highest priority given to veterans programs and section 8 contract renewals. Other priorities included

maintaining environmental programs at or above current year levels, ensuring adequate funds for our Nation’s space and scientific

research programs, and providing adequate funding for emergency

management and disaster relief.

As recommended by the Committee, this bill attempts to provide

a fair and balanced approach to the many competing programs and

activities under the VA–HUD subcommittee’s jurisdiction.

The Committee recommendation provides $22,379,717,000 in discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, an increase of $1,521,178,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level

and $17,178,000 above the budget request. The Committee has

made veterans programs the highest priority in the bill. Increases

in VA programs above the budget request are recommended for

medical research and the State home program.

For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Committee recommendation totals $30,633,726,000, an increase of

$4,754,778,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Committee has provided significant funding for all HUD programs

while also providing the needed funding for all expiring section 8

contracts. The Committee believes a balanced approach to the

funding of housing programs is key to meeting the housing needs

of low-income families.

For the Environmental Protection Agency, the Committee recommendation totals $7,534,190,000, a decrease of $28,621,000

below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and an increase of

$257,591,000 above the budget request. Major changes from the

President’s request include an increase of $550,000,000 for clean

water State revolving funds.

The Committee recommendation includes $3,515,977,000 for the

Federal Emergency Management Agency, including $2,609,220,000

in emergency contingency funds for disaster relief.

The Committee recommendation for the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration totals $13,844,000,000, an increase of

$243,181,000 above the fiscal year 2000 level.

For the National Science Foundation, the Committee recommendation totals $4,297,184,000, an increase of $400,000,000

above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Committee views NSF
4

as a key investment in the future and this funding is intended to

reaffirm the strong and longstanding leadership of this Committee

in support of scientific research and education.

REPROGRAMMING AND INITIATION OF NEW PROGRAMS

The Committee continues to have a particular interest in being

informed of reprogrammings which, although they may not change

either the total amount available in an account or any of the purposes for which the appropriation is legally available, represent a

significant departure from budget plans presented to the Committee in an agency’s budget justifications.

Consequently, the Committee directs the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and the agencies funded through this bill, to notify the chairman of the Committee prior to each reprogramming of funds in excess of $250,000

between programs, activities, or elements unless an alternate

amount for the agency or department in question is specified elsewhere in this report. The Committee desires to be notified of reprogramming actions which involve less than the above-mentioned

amounts if such actions would have the effect of changing an agency’s funding requirements in future years or if programs or projects

specifically cited in the Committee’s reports are affected. Finally,

the Committee wishes to be consulted regarding reorganizations of

offices, programs, and activities prior to the planned implementation of such reorganizations.

The Committee also expects the Departments of Veterans Affairs

and Housing and Urban Development, as well as the Corporation

for National and Community Service, the Environmental Protection

Agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to submit

operating plans, signed by the respective secretary, administrator,

or agency head, for the Committee’s approval within 30 days of the

bill’s enactment. Other agencies within the bill should continue to

submit operating plans consistent with prior year policy.
(5)

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Appropriations, 2000 ......................................................................... $44,255,165,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ...................................................................... 46,918,665,000

House allowance ................................................................................ 46,909,667,000

Committee recommendation ............................................................. 46,965,583,000

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Veterans Administration was established as an independent

agency by Executive Order 5398 of July 21, 1930, in accordance

with the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 1016). This act authorized

the President to consolidate and coordinate Federal agencies especially created for or concerned with the administration of laws providing benefits to veterans, including the Veterans’ Bureau, the Bureau of Pensions, and the National Home for Disabled Volunteer

Soldiers. On March 15, 1989, VA was elevated to Cabinet-level status as the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The VA’s mission is to serve America’s veterans and their families as their principal advocate in ensuring that they receive the

care, support, and recognition they have earned in service to the

Nation. The VA’s operating units include the Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Benefits Administration, National Cemetery

Administration, and staff offices.

The Veterans Health Administration develops, maintains, and

operates a national health care delivery system for eligible veterans; carries out a program of education and training of health

care personnel; carries out a program of medical research and development; and furnishes health services to members of the Armed

Forces during periods of war or national emergency. A system of

172 medical centers, 829 outpatient clinics, 134 nursing homes, and

40 domiciliaries is maintained to meet the VA’s medical mission.

The Veterans Benefits Administration provides an integrated

program of nonmedical veteran benefits. This Administration administers a broad range of benefits to veterans and other eligible

beneficiaries through 58 regional offices and the records processing

center in St. Louis, MO. The benefits provided include: compensation for service-connected disabilities; pensions for wartime, needy,

and totally disabled veterans; vocational rehabilitation assistance;

educational and training assistance; home buying assistance; estate

protection services for veterans under legal disability; information

and assistance through personalized contacts; and six life insurance programs.

The National Cemetery Administration provides for the interment of the remains of eligible deceased servicepersons and discharged veterans in any national cemetery with available grave

space; permanently maintains these graves; marks graves of eligible persons in national and private cemeteries; and administers the

grant program for aid to States in establishing, expanding, or im-
6

proving State veterans’ cemeteries. The National Cemetery Administration includes 153 cemeterial installations and activities.

Other VA offices, including the general counsel, inspector general, Boards of Contract Appeals and Veterans Appeals, and the

general administration, support the Secretary, Deputy Secretary,

Under Secretary for Health, Under Secretary for Benefits, and the

Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $46,965,583,000 for the Department

of Veterans Affairs, including $24,586,126,000 in mandatory spending and $22,379,717,000 in discretionary spending. The amount

provided for discretionary activities represents an increase of

$17,178,000 above the budget request and $1,521,178,000 above

the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Committee has given VA

programs the highest priority in the bill. Increases above the President’s request are recommended for medical research and State

home construction grants. The appropriation for VA will ensure the

highest quality care and services to our Nation’s veterans, and

honor and dignity to those who are deceased.

VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION

COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2000 ......................................................................... $21,568,364,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ...................................................................... 22,766,276,000

House allowance ................................................................................ 22,766,276,000

Committee recommendation ............................................................. 22,766,276,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Compensation is payable to living veterans who have suffered

impairment of earning power from service-connected disabilities.

The amount of compensation is based upon the impact of disabilities on earning capacity. Death compensation or dependency and

indemnity compensation is payable to the surviving spouses and

dependents of veterans whose deaths occur while on active duty or

result from service-connected disabilities. A clothing allowance may

also be provided for service-connected veterans who use a prosthetic or orthopedic device.

Pensions are an income security benefit payable to needy wartime veterans who are precluded from gainful employment due to

non-service-connected disabilities which render them permanently

and totally disabled. Under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1990, veterans 65 years of age or older are no longer considered

permanently and totally disabled by law and are thus subject to a

medical evaluation. Death pensions are payable to needy surviving

spouses and children of deceased wartime veterans. The rate payable for both disability and death pensions is determined on the

basis of the annual income of the veteran or his survivors.

This account also funds burial benefits and miscellaneous assistance.
7

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $22,766,276,000 for compensation

and pensions. This is an increase of $1,197,912,000 above the fiscal

year 2000 enacted level and the same as the budget estimate.

The estimated caseload and cost by program follows:

COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS

2000 2001 Difference

Caseload:

Compensation:

Veterans ........................................... 2,290,710 2,285,075 ¥5,635

Survivors .......................................... 302,575 300,872 ¥1,703

Children ........................................... 864 864 ............................

(Clothing allowance) ....................... (75,785) (75,598) ¥187

Pensions:

Veterans .................................................... 372,635 363,060 ¥9,575

Survivors ................................................... 266,101 252,898 ¥13,203

Minimum income for widows (non-add) .. (594) (562) ¥32

Vocational training (non-add) .................. (7) (5) ¥2

Burial allowances ..................................... 95,180 94,050 ¥1,130

Funds:

Compensation:

Veterans ........................................... $15,421,550,000 $16,010,051,000 ∂$588,501,000

Survivors .......................................... 3,522,325,000 3,600,000,000 ∂77,675,000

Children .................................................... 9,499,000 9,734,000 ∂235,000

Clothing allowance ................................... 40,049,000 39,949,000 ¥100,000

Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101–508

and 102–568) ...................................... 1,388,000 1,266,000 ¥122,000

Medical exams pilot program (Public Law

104–275) ............................................. 26,324,000 28,390,000 ∂2,066,000

Pensions:

Veterans ........................................... 2,342,253,000 2,366,889,000 ∂24,636,000

Survivors .......................................... 707,003,000 683,070,000 ¥23,933,000

Minimum income for widows .......... 3,697,000 3,581,000 ¥116,000

Vocational training ................................... 20,000 15,000 ¥5,000

Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101–508,

102–568, and 103–446) ..................... 9,343,000 8,521,000 ¥822,000

Payment to Medical Care (Public Laws

101–508 and 102–568) ...................... 5,018,000 7,632,000 ∂2,614,000

Payment to Medical Facilities (nonadd) ...................................................... (2,879,000) (3,027,000) ∂148,000

Burial benefits .......................................... 126,293,000 129,681,000 ∂3,388,000

Other assistance ...................................... 3,406,000 3,413,000 ∂7,000

Contingency .............................................. ............................. ............................. ............................

Unobligated balance and transfers ......... ¥649,804,000 ¥125,916,000 ∂523,888,000

Total appropriation .............................. 21,568,364,000 22,766,276,000 ∂1,197,912,000

The appropriation includes $17,419,000 in payments to the ‘‘General operating expenses’’ and ‘‘Medical care’’ accounts for expenses

related to implementing provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, the Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1992, the Veterans’ Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, and the Veterans’ Benefits Improvements Act of 1996. The amount also includes funds for
8

a projected fiscal year 2001 cost-of-living increase of 2.5 percent for

pension recipients.

The bill includes language permitting this appropriation to reimburse such sums as may be earned, estimated at $3,027,000, to the

medical facilities revolving fund to help defray the operating expenses of individual medical facilities for nursing home care provided to pensioners, should authorizing legislation be enacted.

The Committee has not included language proposed by the administration that would provide indefinite fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations after June 30, 2001 for compensation and

pensions. The Committee has also rejected proposed bill language

to split this account into three separate appropriation accounts.

The Committee is aware that the current Veterans Burial Plot

Interment Allowance is $150 per burial, and has not been increased for decades. While the Veterans Burial Plot Interment Allowance was not intended to cover the full cost of burial expenses,

it appears that the current allowance does not reflect the increasing costs of burials for veterans. Therefore, the Committee directs

the VA to study the current allowance to determine: (1) if it is adequate to meet burial expenses for veterans; (2) whether an increase

in the allowance is warranted; and (3) what increase would be necessary to keep pace with the rising cost of burials, and to report

back to the Congress by March 1, 2001.

READJUSTMENT BENEFITS

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $1,469,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 1,634,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,664,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,634,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The readjustment benefits appropriation finances the education

and training of veterans and servicepersons whose initial entry on

active duty took place on or after July 1, 1985. These benefits are

included in the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program (Montgomery GI bill) authorized under 38 U.S.C. 30. Eligibility to receive this assistance began in 1987. Basic benefits are

funded through appropriations made to the readjustment benefits

appropriation and transfers from the Department of Defense. Supplemental benefits are also provided to certain veterans and this

funding is available from transfers from the Department of Defense. This account also finances vocational rehabilitation, specially

adapted housing grants, automobile grants with the associated approved adaptive equipment for certain disabled veterans, and finances educational assistance allowances for eligible dependents of

those veterans who died from service-connected causes or have a

total permanent service-connected disability as well as dependents

of servicepersons who were captured or missing in action.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has recommended the budget estimate of

$1,634,000,000 for readjustment benefits. The amount rec-
9

ommended is an increase of $165,000,000 above the fiscal year

2000 enacted level.

The estimated caseload and cost for this account follows:

READJUSTMENT BENEFITS

2000 2001 Difference

Number of trainees:

Education and training: dependents ........... 46,420 48,530 ∂2,110

All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:

Veterans and servicepersons .............. 279,100 309,300 ∂30,200

Reservists ............................................ 71,300 70,900 ¥400

Vocational rehabilitation .............................. 51,630 50,985 ¥645

Total ......................................................... 448,450 479,715 ∂31,265

Funds:

Education and training: Dependents ........... $141,806,000 $148,148,000 ∂$6,342,000

All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:

Veterans and servicepersons .............. 890,736,000 1,118,903,000 ∂228,167,000

Reservists ............................................ 100,860,000 105,875,000 ∂5,015,000

Vocational rehabilitation .............................. 416,718,000 391,887,000 ¥24,831,000

Housing grants ............................................. 21,065,000 21,065,000 ............................

Automobiles and other conveyances ............ 7,589,000 7,589,000 ............................

Adaptive equipment ..................................... 23,700,000 23,600,000 ¥100,000

Work-study .................................................... 33,400,000 35,100,000 ∂1,700,000

Payment to States ........................................ 13,000,000 13,000,000 ............................

Reporting fees .............................................. 3,530,000 3,771,000 ∂241,000

Unobligated balance and other adjustments ....................................................... ¥183,404,000 ¥234,938,000 ¥51,534,000

Total appropriation .............................. 1,469,000,000 1,634,000,000 ∂165,000,000

The Committee has included bill language as proposed by the administration, which ensures that all administrative services are

charged to the general operating expenses appropriation.

VETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $28,670,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 19,850,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 19,850,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 19,850,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The veterans insurance and indemnities appropriation is made

up of the former appropriations for military and naval insurance,

applicable to World War I veterans; National Service Life Insurance, applicable to certain World War II veterans; Servicemen’s indemnities, applicable to Korean conflict veterans; and veterans

mortgage life insurance to individuals who have received a grant

for specially adapted housing.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $19,850,000 for veterans insurance

and indemnities, as requested by the administration. This is a decrease of $8,820,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The
10

Department estimates there will be 4,353,921 policies in force in

fiscal year 2001 with a value of nearly $447,000,000,000.

VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account Administrative

expenses

Appropriations, 2000 .................................................................................. $282,342,000 $156,958,000

Budget estimate, 2001 .............................................................................. 165,740,000 166,484,000

House allowance ........................................................................................ 165,740,000 161,484,000

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 165,740,000 162,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides for all costs, with the exception of

the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program, of VA’s direct and guaranteed loans, as well as the administrative expenses

to carry out these programs, which may be transferred to and

merged with the general operating expenses appropriation.

VA loan guaranties are made to service members, veterans, reservists and unremarried surviving spouses for the purchase of

homes, condominiums, manufactured homes and for refinancing

loans. VA guarantees part of the total loan, permitting the purchaser to obtain a mortgage with a competitive interest rate, even

without a downpayment if the lender agrees. VA requires that a

downpayment be made for a manufactured home. With a VA guaranty, the lender is protected against loss up to the amount of the

guaranty if the borrower fails to repay the loan.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends such sums as may be necessary for funding subsidy payments, estimated to total $165,740,000, and

$162,000,000 for administrative expenses. The administrative expenses may be transferred to the ‘‘General operating expenses’’ account. Bill language limits gross obligations for direct loans for specially adapted housing to $300,000. The reduction of $4,484,000 below the budget request is to be

taken from lower priority electronic initiatives.

EDUCATION LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program

account

Administrative

expenses

Appropriations, 2000 ...................................................................................... $1,000 $214,000

Budget estimate, 2001 .................................................................................. 1,000 220,000

House allowance ............................................................................................ 1,000 220,000

Committee recommendation .......................................................................... 1,000 220,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation covers the cost of direct loans for eligible dependents and, in addition, it includes administrative expenses nec-
11

essary to carry out the direct loan program. The administrative

funds may be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for

the general operating expenses to cover the common overhead expenses.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill includes $1,000 for funding subsidy program costs and

$220,000 for administrative expenses. The administrative expenses

may be transferred to and merged with the ‘‘General operating expenses’’ account. Bill language is included limiting program direct

loans to $3,400.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program

account

Administrative

expenses

Appropriations, 2000 ...................................................................................... $57,000 415,000

Budget estimate, 2001 .................................................................................. 52,000 432,000

House allowance ............................................................................................ 52,000 432,000

Committee recommendation .......................................................................... 52,000 432,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation covers the funding subsidy cost of direct loans

for vocational rehabilitation of eligible veterans and, in addition, it

includes administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct

loan program. Loans of up to $841 (based on indexed chapter 31

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

provided under 38 U.S.C. chapter 31 when the veteran is temporarily in need of additional assistance. Repayment is made in 10

monthly installments, without interest, through deductions from

future payments of compensation, pension, subsistence allowance,

educational assistance allowance, or retirement pay.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill includes the requested $52,000 for program costs and

$432,000 for administrative expenses for the Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program account. The administrative expenses may be

transferred to and merged with the ‘‘General operating expenses’’

account. Bill language is included limiting program direct loans to

$2,726,000. It is estimated that VA will make 4,700 loans in fiscal

year 2001, with an average amount of $580.

NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Administrative

expenses

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $520,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 532,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 532,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 532,000
12

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program will test the feasibility of enabling VA to make direct home loans to native American veterans who live on U.S. trust

lands. It is a pilot program that began in 1993 and expires on December 31, 2001. Subsidy amounts necessary to support this program were appropriated in fiscal year 1993.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill includes the budget estimate of $532,000 for administrative expenses associated with this program in fiscal year 2001.

These funds may be transferred to the ‘‘General operating expenses’’ account.

GUARANTEED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOANS FOR HOMELESS

VETERANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program was established by Public Law 105–368, the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998. The program is a pilot

project designed to expand the supply of transitional housing for

homeless veterans and to guarantee up to 15 loans with a maximum aggregate value of $100,000,000. Not more than five loans

may be guaranteed in the first 3 years of the program. The project

must enforce sobriety standards and provide a wide range of supportive services such as counseling for substance abuse and job

readiness skills. Residents will be required to pay a reasonable fee.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

All funds authorized for this program have been appropriated.

Therefore, additional appropriations are not required. Administrative expenses of the program, estimated at $750,000 for fiscal year

2001, will be borne by the ‘‘Medical care’’ and ‘‘General operating

expenses’’ appropriations.

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

MEDICAL CARE

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $18,926,481,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 20,281,587,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 20,281,587,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,281,587,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] operates the largest

Federal medical care delivery system in the country, with 172 medical centers, 40 domiciliaries, 134 nursing homes, and 829 outpatient clinics which includes independent, satellite, communitybased, and rural outreach clinics.

This appropriation provides for medical care and treatment of eligible beneficiaries in VA hospitals, nursing homes, domiciliaries,

and outpatient clinic facilities; contract hospitals; State home facilities on a grant basis; contract community nursing homes; and
13

through the hometown outpatient program, on a fee basis. Hospital

and outpatient care also are provided for certain dependents and

survivors of veterans under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the VA [CHAMPVA]. The medical care appropriation also

provides for training of medical residents and interns and other

professional paramedical and administrative personnel in health

science fields to support the Department’s and the Nation’s health

manpower demands.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $20,281,587,000 for VA medical

care, an increase of $1,355,106,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. In addition, VA has authority to retain co-payments

and third-party collections, estimated by the Congressional Budget

Office to total $639,000,000 in fiscal year 2001. Therefore, the Committee’s recommendation represents total resources for medical

care of $20,920,587,000.

The Committee continues to be highly supportive of efforts within the Veterans Health Administration to improve the access, quality and availability of medical services to veterans, and increase

the numbers of patients served. The Committee is concerned, however, about the lack of accountability within VA for its budget.

While the Congress increased VA medical care by $1,700,000,000

in fiscal year 2000 over the prior year and over the President’s request, VA is spending far less in a variety of areas than originally

projected. These include hepatitis C, substance abuse, and posttraumatic stress disorder to name a few. Data system deficiencies

and the lack of standardization are major contributing factors. As

a result, the Committee has been left with insufficient information

to analyze whether VA is utilizing its funds appropriately and consistent with congressional intent. The Committee will be considering how to address this concern in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation, including whether a new and more prescriptive account structure is appropriate. In the meantime, the Committee has requested

VA to report on a quarterly basis on spending in key program

areas, including explanations for variances from original projections. In addition, VA is to report within 60 days of enactment on

its efforts to improve comprehensively its data systems’ reliability,

accuracy, and consistency. The Committee also expects the fiscal

year 2002 budget justification to include estimates for all national

programs, projects and initiatives totaling $5,000,000 or more.

The Committee has a number of specific concerns with VA’s

budget and related issues detailed below.

Hepatitis C.—The Committee is concerned that the Department

may be giving insufficient attention to hepatitis C, an epidemic deserving special consideration in the veteran population, particularly

among Vietnam-era veterans. For fiscal year 2000, VA medical facilities are spending less than original projections. It is unclear

whether this is due to fewer patients being suitable for new treatment therapies, or whether hospitals are not aggressively screening

for hepatitis C and prescribing medications owing to cost concerns.

The Committee expects VA will do more to ensure that its medical

facilities consistently make testing for hepatitis C broadly available

to veterans, and use all available therapies in the most clinically
14

appropriate and cost-effective manner. In addition, the Committee

expects VA to report within 60 days of enactment of this Act on

final fiscal year 2000 expenditures including a full accounting for

the discrepancy between this amount and original estimates of

$250,000,000. VA estimates it will spend $340,000,000 in fiscal

year 2001; should VA’s expenditures deviate significantly from this

estimate the Committee expects a detailed explanation. Finally, the

Committee expects VA to establish expeditiously performance goals

for the hepatitis C initiative, to be included in the fiscal year 2002

budget request.

Management efficiencies/best practices.—The Committee notes

there continue to be many opportunities for VHA to redirect dollars

from inefficient practices to medical services for veterans, such as

centralizing food production. The Committee is concerned VA may

not be doing enough to ensure that ‘‘best practices’’ are institutionalized throughout the VA system. VA is to report concurrent

with the submission of the operating plan for fiscal year 2001 on

its efforts to implement additional management efficiencies, including instituting on a national basis best practices.

Improving access.—In some areas of the country veterans have

waited as long as 6 months to see a primary care doctor; this is

unacceptable. In addition, the Committee is concerned about reports from women veterans that women are experiencing longer

waiting times than male veterans. VA has given special attention

to improving access in its fiscal year 2001 budget proposal and the

Committee supports VA’s efforts, including reducing waiting times

for appointments and providing care to veterans closer to their

homes. The Committee is concerned, however, that without accurate and reliable waiting time data, VA does not have an adequate

picture of the waiting time problem, it will be unable to determine

how best to allocate funds to reduce waiting times, and it will be

unable to assess its success without baseline data. The Committee

expects VA will implement appropriate reporting systems so VA facility performance can be baselined and progress measured. VA is

to report by April 1, 2001, on how it will collect accurate and reliable data on waiting times, and its efforts to reduce waiting times

with special attention to areas which have had particularly egregious problems with waiting times.

The Committee is aware that veterans living in rural communities on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska must travel as much as

8 hours round-trip along an avalanche-prone road to receive VA

medical care. The Committee directs VA to report by March 30,

2001, on its progress in establishing a community-based outpatient

clinic (CBOC) on the Kenai Peninsula, and expects the CBOC to be

operational in fiscal year 2001. In the meantime, VA should enable

veterans living in areas further than a 50-mile radius of Anchorage

to use contract care from local physicians.

The Committee is pleased VA has recognized the need for community-based outpatient clinics in Beaufort, Sumter, and Orangeburg, SC to improve services to over 100,000 veterans in 12 counties. The Committee encourages VA to operationalize these clinics

expeditiously.

The Committee is aware of needs for CBOC’s in the North-central Virginia area which includes the counties of Caroline, Stafford,
15

Spotsylvania, Culpeper, King George and the City of

Fredricksburg, and encourages VA to meet these needs expeditiously.

The Committee urges VA to partner with Northeast Mississippi

Health Care, Incorporated, the existing HHS–funded Community

Health Center in Byhalia, MS, for a demonstration project to provide cost-effective outpatient primary and preventative health care

services for area veterans in their home community.

Patient Safety.—The Committee supports VA’s efforts to improve patient safety, for which VA has budgeted $137,000,000. VA has

developed some promising patient safety initiatives, such as a

barcoding system for blood and medications. However, far more

needs to be done to ensure patient safety. The Committee expects

VA to make a priority of patient safety not only within its own facilities, but also with its health-care contractors. The lack of medical error reporting by VA contractors makes it difficult to evaluate

the care provided and compare the care to that provided in VA facilities. VA is to report within 90 days of enactment of this Act on

its progress in patient safety, including a description of how it will

ensure appropriate patient safety measures are implemented by facilities it contracts with for medical care.

Homeless veterans.—It is estimated there are 250,000 homeless

veterans nationwide on any given night, and more than one-third

of the homeless population are veterans. The Committee believes

meeting the needs of homeless veterans should be a high priority

within VA, yet the level of attention this problem is given varies

widely from one hospital to the next. The Committee directs VA to

submit a report within 120 days of enactment of this Act, describing by each medical center its staffing and funding levels for homeless programs, the services provided, and plans to ensure the needs

of homeless veterans in their catchment area are met.

Collections.—The Committee continues to be concerned that VA’s

collections efforts fall short of the mark. In November 1999, VA reported that ‘‘the Office of Revenue has determined that it is appropriate and timely to consider contracting-out some or all of its

‘‘third-party/first-party’’ revenue-generating processes to improve

collections and make the process as efficient as possible.’’ An

outsourcing business plan was developed which involves centralizing certain processes at the VISN level and pilot-testing contract

and franchising options for central revenue units. The Committee

believes these steps are long overdue and urges the Department to

move forward expeditiously to implement the outsourcing business

plan. VA is to provide a report within 90 days of enactment of this

Act on its progress.

Nurse Pay.—VA has included $63,500,000 in its budget for nurse

pay increases, and the Committee expects VA to allocate such

funds to ensure all nurses receive pay raises in fiscal year 2001 in

the absence of legislative changes to the Nurse Pay Act. The Committee believes it is unacceptable that in certain locations, there

have been no pay increases for nurses for several consecutive years.

VA is currently assessing the issues and difficulties involved in administering locality pay; the Committee looks forward to receiving

VA’s report to Congress in early 2001 on its findings and recommendations.
16

Physician Assistants.—The Committee recognizes the contributions of Physician Assistants to the veterans health care system

and is aware that no formal representation for Physician Assistants exists within VHA. VHA is urged to establish the position of

Advisor on Physician Assistants, to be occupied by a certified practicing Physician Assistant.

VERA.—The Committee supports the core principles underlying

the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system—that

VA health care funds should be allocated fairly according to the

number of veterans having the highest priority for health care, and

aligning resources according to the best practices in health care. At

the same time, however, the Committee believes that when any

VISN experiences an operating shortfall that would threaten its

ability to serve eligible veterans, and VHA has determined that the

VISN has implemented all appropriate economies and efficiencies,

VHA should consider strongly supplemental allocations to that

VISN. To that end, the Committee urges VA to ensure that it reserves sufficient funds to meet the operating need of those VISNs

that may require supplemental funding during the year.

VERA Study.—Questions have been raised as to whether VERA

may lead to a distribution of funds that does not adequately cover

the special needs of some veterans. To investigate the progress of

this funding allocation method, the Committee directs the Department to enter into a contract with a federally-funded research and

development center to carry out a study of the VERA formula no

later than 60 days after enactment of this bill. This study should

include the following: (1) an assessment of the impact of the allocation of funds under the VERA formula, particularly in Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) and subregions receiving reduced funding under the formula, on the maintenance of olderthan-average medical facilities and medical infrastructure, including facilities designated as historic landmarks; VISNs with populations of enrolled veterans who are older and more disabled than

the average population of enrolled veterans; VISNs undergoing

major consolidation with significant attendant costs; backlogs and

waiting periods for appointments for veterans health care in rural

and urban subregions; (2) an assessment of issues associated with

the maintenance of direct affiliations between Department of Veterans Affairs medical center and university teaching and research

hospitals, including the costs and other requirements associated

with maintaining such affiliations; whether the VERA formula

takes such affiliations into account in allocating funds; and the role

of state-of-the-art equipment in maintaining such affiliations including the necessity of such equipment for such affiliations and

the need for training associated with such equipment; (3) an assessment of whether the VERA formula accounts for differences in

weather conditions when calculating costs of construction and

maintenance of health care facilities and whether VISNs which experience harsh weather require more resources for the delivery of

health care than regions which experience less harsh weather. VA

should consider and incorporate any existing studies which have

been conducted to date on these issues. The VA shall report to the

Committee on the results of this study no later than May 1, 2001.
17

Mentally ill veterans.—The Committee expects VA to maintain

adequate capacity for mentally ill veterans, including substance

abuse treatment services. In addition, the Committee directs VA to

produce a report within 180 days of enactment of this Act regarding the number of medical errors and adverse events involving people with a mental illness for each VA facility and CBOC. The report should include the number of veterans who commit suicide

within 30 days of being under any type of VHA care, and a comparison with private sector statistics.

Alcohol and mental health care in Alaska.—The Committee has

learned there is only one staff member in the Anchorage Veterans

Center to handle all alcohol and mental health cases in the entire

State of Alaska. The Committee considers this inadequate to handle the caseload in a State which has the highest incidence of alcoholism in the entire country and is one-fifth the size of the Continental United States. Therefore, the Committee expects VA will

provide additional staff to the Anchorage center for alcohol and

mental health treatment. In addition, the Committee encourages

VA to establish an alcohol detoxification and treatment facility in

Anchorage so that Alaska veterans are not forced to travel to

Washington State for such services.

Contractor overpayments.—In last year’s bill, the Committee provided VA the authority to use a contractor to collect overpayments

made to non-VA medical facilities for care provided to veterans.

Under this new authority VA could keep the money collected, less

a percentage paid to the contractor, and use it in the VISN in

which it was collected to enhance health care programs. The Committee understands VA is nearly ready to release a nationwide solicitation for these services. During this past year a program has

been implemented in several sites to test the idea and it appears

this program could be very successful in recapturing overpayments.

However, there are a few challenges that need to be overcome in

order for VA to maximize recoveries. The contractor does not have

access to complete medical records or claims payment history. This

lack of data impacts the ability to optimize collections. Therefore,

the Committee directs VA to provide that access in a timely way

as a part of any local or nationwide recovery audit program. Giving

the contractor direct access to information in the Austin Automation Center will facilitate this process for claims payment.

Fee-Basis Cost Containment Pilot.—In last year’s report, the

Committee directed VA to conduct a pilot program of managed care

services, using credentialed providers, in up to four VISNs, for patients receiving care outside of VA medical facilities (fee-basis

care). The Committee urges the VA to implement immediately this

program in four VISNs. Considering the significant need to conserve scarce resources, ensure patient quality care and recapture

workload appropriately, the Committee is interested in comparing

the results of this pilot to the way VA currently runs the various

Fee and Contract Care programs. The Committee requests that the

VA provide the Committee their plans for moving ahead with this

program before the end of the calendar year for Committee review

and comment.

Drug costs.—The Committee notes recent GAO testimony identified additional opportunities for VA to reduce pharmaceutical costs
18

through joint national contracts with the Department of Defense.

The Committee directs VA to report, within 60 days of enactment

of this Act, on its efforts and long-term strategy to reduce further

its pharmaceutical costs and increase wherever possible joint national contracts with DOD.

Tripler Joint Venture Demonstration.—The recent colocation of

VA and DOD healthcare facilities at Tripler Army Medical Center

offers significant opportunities to provide high quality care to Federal beneficiaries residing in Hawaii and vast Pacific region

through the creation of a truly integrated and seamless healthcare

delivery system. To accomplish this, the Committee urges VA and

DOD to establish formally a joint venture demonstration project at

Tripler. Moreover, adequate resources should be provided by VA to

VAMROC Honolulu to support reinvention projects and to allow

continued and expanded VA participation of the recently established Hawaii Federal Healthcare Partnership. The Committee requests a plan and progress report for the joint venture demonstration project by March 1, 2002.

Web-enabled technology.—The Committee is aware of the potential for web-enabled technology to improve coordination and delivery of medical care, while also reducing transaction costs associated

with traditional care delivery mechanisms, and encourages VA to

conduct evaluations of e-health tools.

Veterans Health Care Buying Cooperative Pilot.—The Committee

encourages VA to establish a pilot health care demonstration program in New Hampshire involving the development of a VHA–

sponsored preferred provider network in rural and semi-rural

areas. The pilot would seek to improve access to care for veterans,

achieve cost savings, and stimulate the sharing of health care resources between VHA and non-VHA providers in rural settings.

Joslin Vision Network.—The Committee supports the expansion

of the Joslin Vision Network to additional pilot sites in fiscal year

2001. This program will benefit diabetic patients by offering improved quality of care through increased access to the highest quality medical expertise and education, and will reduce costs. Estimated costs for fiscal year 2001 are $5,000,000.

Advanced digital retinal imaging.—The Committee notes that

the use of advanced digital retinal imaging by primary care physicians in the evaluation of persons with diabetes to improve early

detection of diabetic retinopathy appears promising. This technology is currently being demonstrated at the Oklahoma City

VAMC. After evaluating the efficacy, safety, value and compatibility of this technology with existing systems in use, VA is encouraged to consider expanding the demonstration of this technology to additional VA medical centers.

Health Promotion Centers.—The Committee supports VA’s efforts

to collaborate with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

in the area of population-based health promotion and disease prevention.

Clarksburg/Ruby Memorial demonstration.—The Committee

supports continuation at current levels ($2,000,000) of the Clarksburg VAMC/Ruby Memorial hospital demonstration project.

Pacific Telemedicine Project.—The Committee continues to support the development and feasibility analysis of a VA Pacific Tele-
19

medicine Project at the Hawaii VAMROC, which will enhance and

improve the availability and access to health care for veterans in

Hawaii. The Committee directs VA to report within 90 days of enactment of this Act on its plans to proceed with this project.

Post-doctoral training program.—The Committee continues to

support the VHA’s efforts to strengthen their psychology post-doctoral training program. The Committee awaits the progress report

that will include the number of training slots for psychologists and

their location. The Committee also has an interest in the progress

being made in interdisciplinary training programs.

Distance learning project for nurses.—The Committee is pleased

with the success of the VA/DOD distance learning program. The

Committee strongly recommends that the VA and DOD continue

the distance learning project designed to transition clinical nurse

specialists into roles as adult nurse practitioners.

Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence.—Approximately 22,000

veterans nationwide have multiple sclerosis. While multiple sclerosis care in VHA is not well-coordinated, there is a strong community of clinicians with specialized knowledge and expertise in the

treatment of MS. To coordinate the application of this rich resource, the Committee urges VA to establish two Centers of Excellence in research, education and clinical treatment of multiple sclerosis.

Motorized wheelchair demonstration.—The Committee urges VA

to conduct a demonstration project to assess the impact on vocational rehabilitation and the ability of veterans with physical disabilities to return to work, of a newly developed technology that enables persons with mobility impairments to traverse virtually all

terrain and climb stairs and curbs without assistance. The Research and Development Office’s Rehabilitation Research and Cooperative Studies Services should be involved in such an effort.

Rural Veterans Health Care Initiative.—The Committee expects

continuation at the current level of the Rural Veterans Health Care

Initiative at White River Junction, VT VAMC.

Other Issues.—The Committee urges VA to support a clinical

guidelines demonstration project, which could improve the quality

of patient care.

The Committee notes that the National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is an internationally recognized leader in PTSD research. Given the similarities between PTSD and

various types of trauma suffered by women and children, the Committee encourages the National Center to expand its research into

the effects of PTSD on women and children, particularly the families of veterans and the victims of violence.

The Committee urges the VA to study the feasibility of utilizing

remote telemedicine-video/audio technologies in conjunction with

data capture, data analysis and embedded algorithm-driven decision support for VA patients in intensive care units.

The Committee has included bill language transferring not to exceed $27,907,000 to the general operating expenses account for expenses of the Office of Resolution Management and Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication. The Committee

directs that funds for this activity be included in the general operating expenses budget request for fiscal year 2001.
20

The Committee has included bill language delaying the availability until August 1, 2001, of $900,000,000 in the equipment,

lands, and structures object classifications.

The Committee has included bill language to make available

through September 30, 2002, up to $500,000,000 of the medical

care appropriation. This provides flexibility to the Department as

it continues to implement significant program changes. The Committee notes VA expects to carry over $79,000,000 from fiscal year

2000 2-year funds.

MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $321,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 321,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 351,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 331,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The ‘‘Medical and prosthetic research’’ account provides funds for

medical, rehabilitative, and health services research. Medical research supports basic and clinical studies that advance knowledge

leading to improvements in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases and disabilities. Rehabilitation research focuses

on rehabilitation engineering problems in the fields of prosthetics,

orthotics, adaptive equipment for vehicles, sensory aids and related

areas. Health services research focuses on improving the effectiveness and economy of delivery of health services.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $331,000,000 for medical and prosthetic research, an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget request and the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Committee remains highly supportive of this program, and recognizes its importance both in improving health care services to veterans and recruiting and retaining high-quality medical professionals in the

Veterans Health Administration.

Amid reports that some VA medical centers continue to discourage investigators from pursuing research and career development

grants, the Committee urges VA to extend at least through fiscal

year 2001 the expiration date of new policy designed to ensure that

VERA research funds are used to maximize medical center support

for the research program. The Committee believes more time is

needed to evaluate whether this policy will provide physician-investigators with designated time sufficient to conduct research and appropriate infrastructure support.

The Committee directs VHA to explore the feasibility of establishing a Nursing Research Program that would enable nurses to

conduct research that focuses on the specific health care needs of

aging veterans. Such a program would enhance nursing practice

and target specific health promotion, disease prevention, and disease management efforts to this community.

The Committee urges VA to provide adequate funding for Hepatitis C research, in such critical areas as the role of combat exposure in transmission of Hepatitis C.
21

Recent research has documented the link between neurofibromatosis (NF) and cancer, brain tumors, and heart disease. In

view this link, which suggests that research on NF could benefit

a vast segment of the veteran population, the Committee encourages VA to increase its NF research portfolio, in addition to continuing to collaborate with other Federal agencies. In addition, the

Committee requests that VA be prepared to describe its efforts toward this end at its fiscal year 2002 appropriations hearing.

The Committee encourages VHA to expand its research portfolio

on lymphoid malignancies. Recent studies prove that veterans exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War have an increased

risk of contracting lymphoid malignancies. The Institute of Medicine’s review committee on Agent Orange has also found an association between Agent Orange and the development of lymphoid

malignancies.

MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING

EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $59,703,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 64,884,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 62,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 62,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides funds for central office executive direction (Under Secretary for Health and staff), administration and

supervision of all VA medical and construction programs, including

development and implementation of policies, plans, and program

objectives.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $62,000,000 for medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses, an increase of

$2,297,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The decrease

of $2,884,000 is a general reduction, to be taken subject to normally reprogramming guidelines. The amount recommended should

be sufficient to maintain on-board staff.

Last year a reimbursement process between VHA, NCA, and

VBA for project technical and consulting services to be provided by

the Facilities Management Service Delivery Office was established.

The estimated level of reimbursement to the MAMOE account in

fiscal year 2001 for facilities management support is $7,200,000.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $912,594,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 1,061,854,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,006,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,050,000,000
22

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides for the administration of nonmedical

veterans benefits through the Veterans Benefits Administration

[VBA], the executive direction of the Department, several top level

supporting offices, of the Board of Contract Appeals, and the Board

of Veterans’ Appeals.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,050,000,000 for general operating expenses, an increase of $137,406,000 above the fiscal year 2000

enacted level. The amount provided includes $826,488,000 for the

Veterans Benefits Administration and $223,512,000 for general administration. In addition to this appropriation, resources are made

available for general operating expenses through reimbursements

totaling $296,717,000 for fiscal year 2001, with total estimated obligations of approximately $1,346,717,000.

Bill language is recommended, as proposed by the administra- tion, reflecting a one-time adjustment of $30,000,000 from the ‘‘Readjustment benefits’’ account to GOE. This will allow all administrative vocational rehabilitation services, including contractual

services, to be funded out of GOE.

Bill language is included making available $45,000,000 of the

GOE appropriation for 2 years. The reduction of $3,000,000 below the budget request within general administration is to be taken from offices slated for significant

personnel increases under the budget request. Within VBA, the decrease of $8,854,000 below the President’s request is to be taken

from lower priority initiatives other than staffing. VBA’s budget

proposal includes a total of $60,288,000 in non-payroll initiatives,

compared to fiscal year 2000 VBA nonpayroll initiatives budget of

$34,030,000.

The Committee remains very troubled by the lack of progress

within the Veterans Benefits Administration in improving the

timeliness and quality of processing for disability compensation

claims. In fiscal year 1999, the time it took to process an original

disability claim worsened from the year before, growing from 168

days in 1998 to 205 days in 1999 with only marginal improvements

in the quality of decision-making. The number of rating cases pending over 180 days increased from about 27 percent of the total

‘‘backlog’’ in July 1999 to 32 percent in March 2000.

Recently the General Accounting Office found that ‘‘VBA has not

systematically evaluated regional office practices to identify best

practices that hold the most promise for improving the claims-processing performance of regional offices across the nation. VBA took

steps in 1997 to identify potentially promising practices; however

it has neither followed up on this effort nor developed a system for

evaluating promising practices and disseminating the results to regional offices.’’ The Committee expects VBA to follow expeditiously

GAO’s recommendation outlined in its report (GAO/HEHS–00–65)

to establish timeframes for developing and implementing a formal

plan for evaluating and disseminating information on practices

that hold promise for improving the abysmal performance of VBA

regional offices.
23

Numerous recommendations made in prior years for improving

the claims processing system by organizations such as the National

Academy of Public Administration have not been fully implemented. Regional offices, while having been grouped into service

delivery networks, continue to operate generally as 58 fairly autonomous regional offices, not closely aligned to headquarters. The

Committee believes one step in improving performance and accountability would be to ensure that headquarters exercises line

authority over the field.

The Committee directs VBA to report on (1) its efforts to evaluate and disseminate best management practices; (2) how it is establishing better accountability between headquarters and the field including giving headquarters line authority over the field; (3) an

evaluation of the progress being made on each electronic initiative;

and (4) the progress each regional office is making in improving the

timeliness and quality in disability claims processing. The report is

due concurrent with VA’s submission of the fiscal year 2001 operating plan.

The Committee encourages VBA to explore new technologies, especially medical couplers, which could improve the efficiency and

accuracy of the process.

The Committee is aware of the hardship encountered by Alaska

veterans who need the services of a Decision Review Officer, and

must travel 5,000 or more miles round trip to Seattle to obtain

these services. The Committee believes VA should establish a Decision Review Officer in Anchorage.

The Committee is aware of reports of discrimination within the

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology

and the Washington Regional Office of the Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA). The Committee is extremely troubled by the serious

nature of these allegations. The Committee is aware that VA’s Office of Resolution Management is currently investigating the allegations raised. The Committee is further aware that a Task Force

has been established to investigate discrimination complaints within the VA departments in question. The Committee strongly supports these steps, and directs the Department to provide all necessary resources to resolve the outstanding allegations. The Committee directs the Secretary to report back to the Committee with

its findings and recommendations no later than December 15, 2000.

The Committee notes that between September 15, 1981 and September 23, 1996 certain veterans who received separation pay and

later repaid it so they could receive veterans disability compensation may have been unfairly penalized because of their inability to

recover the Federal income taxes on the separation pay that was

returned to the Federal Government. In view of this, the Committee directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary

of Defense to report to Congress by September 30, 2001 on remedies which may correct this penalty, and which might include the

return of tax paid on separation pay that was returned to the Government. The report shall include the following: (1) the number of

veterans who received separation pay during the period September

15, 1981, and ending September 23, 1996, paid taxes on the pay,

but were never able to recover the Federal taxes paid on the separation pay after the pay was returned; (2) the aggregate amount of
24

income tax paid by veterans during this period on the separation

pay; (3) the aggregate amount of separation recouped by the Federal Government during this period; (4) a description and assessment of various remedies available for compensating the veterans

during this period, including joint remedies of the Secretaries as to

the most appropriate remedy; and (5) if the recommendation of the

Secretaries is the repayment to such veterans of the income taxes

paid by veterans on separation pay, an estimate of the aggregate

amount that would be repayable as a result of implementation of

the recommendation.

The Committee recommends the current level of $25,000 for official reception and representation expenses.

NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $97,256,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 109,889,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 106,889,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 109,889,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Cemetery Administration was established in accordance with the National Cemeteries Act of 1973. It has a fourfold mission: to provide for the interment in any national cemetery

the remains of eligible deceased servicepersons and discharged veterans, together with their spouses and certain dependents, and permanently to maintain their graves; to mark graves of eligible persons in national and private cemeteries; to administer the grant

program for aid to States in establishing, expanding, or improving

State veterans’ cemeteries; and to administer the Presidential Memorial Certificate Program.

There are a total of 153 cemeterial installations in 39 States, the

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The Committee’s recommendation for the National Cemetery Administration provides

funds for all of these cemeterial installations, including the

Tahoma National Cemetery.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $109,889,000 for the National Cemetery Administration. This is an increase of $12,633,000 over the

fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same as the budget request.

The increase above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level will fund

47 additional FTE, for a total of 1,453. This will allow for growth

in cemeterial interment workloads, an increased level of contracting to address deferred maintenance needs, and additional

supplies and equipment to maintain increased gravesites.

The Committee has included bill language transferring not to exceed $117,000 to the ‘‘General operating expenses’’ account for expenses of the Office of Resolution Management and Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication. The Committee

directs that funds for this activity be included in the general operating expenses budget request for fiscal year 2001.
25

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $43,200,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 46,464,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 46,464,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 46,464,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Inspector General was established by the Inspector

General Act of 1978 and is responsible for the audit and investigation and inspections of all Department of Veterans Affairs programs and operations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $46,464,000

for the inspector general. This is an increase of $3,264,000 above

the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.

The Committee has included bill language transferring not to exceed $30,000 to the ‘‘General operating expenses’’ account for expenses of the Office of Resolution Management and Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication. The Committee

directs that funds for this activity be included in the general operating expenses budget request for fiscal year 2001.

CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $65,140,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 62,140,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 62,140,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 48,540,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The construction, major projects appropriation provides for constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the facilities

under the jurisdiction or for the use of VA, including planning, architectural and engineering services, and site acquisition where the

estimated cost of a project is $4,000,000 or more.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $48,540,000 for

construction, major projects, a decrease of $13,600,000 below the

budget request and the House allowance.

The following table compares the Committee recommendation

with the budget request.

CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS

[In thousands of dollars]

Location and description Available

through 2000 2001 Request Houseallowance

Committee

recommendation

Medical Program:

Seismic corrections: Palo Alto, CA .............. .................... 26,600 26,600 ....................

Beckley, WV nursing home care unit .......... .................... .................... .................... 1,000

Advance planning fund: Various stations ... .................... 14,500 14,500 14,500
26

CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Location and description Available

through 2000 2001 Request Houseallowance

Committee

recommendation

Asbestos abatement: Various stations ........ .................... 2,025 2,025 2,025

Less: Design fund ........................................ .................... ¥1,330 ¥1,330 ....................

Less: Working reserve .................................. .................... .................... .................... ¥1,735

Subtotal ................................................... .................... 41,795 41,795 15,790

Veterans Benefits Administration: Advance planning fund ......................................................... .................... 250 250 250

National Cemetery Administration:

Fort Logan National Cemetery gravesite development ................................................ .................... 16,100 16,100 16,100

Oklahoma National Cemetery ...................... 1,400 .................... .................... 12,000

Pittsburgh National Cemetery ..................... 125 .................... .................... 1,000

Advance planning fund: Various stations ... .................... 2,500 2,500 2,500

Design fund ................................................. .................... 1,600 1,600 1,600

Less: Design fund ........................................ .................... ¥805 ¥805 ¥1,400

Subtotal ................................................... .................... 19,395 19,395 31,800

Claims Analyses: Various stations ....................... .................... 700 700 700

Total construction, major projects .......... .................... 62,140 62,140 48,540

The Committee has included $12,000,000 for the construction of

the Oklahoma national cemetery, and $1,000,000 for additional

planning and design activities for a new national cemetery in Pittsburgh, PA. Initial funding for the Pittsburgh project was provided

in fiscal year 2000. The recommendation includes $10,000,000 in advance planning

funds for VA implementation of the Capital Asset Realignment for

Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative. GAO has estimated that VA

spends $1,000,000 a day to maintain excess capacity. Therefore, it

is critical that VA begin the process of assessing its infrastructure

needs in each of its ‘‘markets’’ and take steps necessary to sell,

transfer or exchange underutilized properties. This will enable VA

to maximize VA medical care funds for health care services for veterans, rather than maintaining unused buildings. The Committee

is concerned VA did not act expeditiously in developing the CARES

protocol and awarding the funding provided in fiscal year 2000 for

CARES. The Committee expects VA to give this program top priority, assess the contractor-developed options for each market

based on absolute and discriminating criteria as recommended by

GAO, and award the funds recommended herein expeditiously for

additional market studies.

The Committee has not recommended funds for the Palo Alto

nursing home care unit, or other major construction medical project

funding, as the Committee supports all such projects proceeding

only upon CARES validation. The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the design of a nursing home care unit at the Beckley, WV VAMC. The Committee ex-
27

pects that the project will be reviewed as part of the CARES process for VISN 6. Construction funds will be recommended upon VA’s

confirmation that the project is consistent with the VISN strategic

plan which emerges from the CARES process.

The Committee supports VA’s efforts to explore new uses for the

Miles City, MT VA facility, which has extensive excess capacity,

and expects VA to keep it apprised of its activities in this area.

The Committee notes that funding of $2,000,000 is included for

the master planning and design development activities for the development of national cemeteries in Atlanta, GA; Detroit, MI;

Miami, FL; and Sacramento, CA.

CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $160,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 162,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 100,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 162,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The construction, minor projects appropriation provides for constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the facilities

under the jurisdiction or for the use of VA, including planning, architectural and engineering services, and site acquisition, where

the estimated cost of a project is less than $4,000,000.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $162,000,000 for minor construction, the same as the budget request and $2,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.

The Committee expects that VA will review and approve all

minor construction projects in a manner that is consistent with the

process applied by the Capital Investment Board which reviews

major projects, and consistent with the Capital Asset Realignment

for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative. A central office work

group, consisting of both VHA and other department officials, is to

review all minor projects using criteria consistent with those developed for CARES. If total costs of projects being initiated at any facility exceeds $4,000,000, the recommendations of the work group

must be approved by the Deputy Secretary.

In that vein, the Committee has no objection to VHA proceeding

with the design of a series of projects at the West Roxbury and

Boston, MA VA facilities which will facilitate the integration of

services at the VA Boston Healthcare System. However, until a

CARES contractor reviews the projects to evaluate whether they

are consistent with the future mission of the VISN envisioned by

the CARES evaluation, no construction funds are to be awarded.

The Committee directs the Department to expend expeditiously

remaining funds previously appropriated in Public Law 103–211 to

repair the earthquake-damaged gymnasium on the VAMC campus

in Sepulveda, California.
28

PARKING REVOLVING FUND

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The revolving fund provides funds for the construction, alteration, and acquisition (by purchase or lease) of parking garages at

VA medical facilities authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8109.

The Secretary is required under certain circumstances to establish and collect fees for the use of such garages and parking facilities. Receipts from the parking fees are to be deposited in the revolving fund and would be used to fund future parking garage initiatives.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

No new budget authority is requested by the administration or

provided for fiscal year 2001.

GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $90,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 60,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 90,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 100,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account is used to provide grants to assist States in acquiring or constructing State home facilities for furnishing domiciliary

or nursing home care to veterans, and to expand, remodel or alter

existing buildings for furnishing domiciliary, nursing home, or hospital care to veterans in State homes. The grant may not exceed

65 percent of the total cost of the project, and grants to any one

State may not exceed one-third of the amount appropriated in any

fiscal year.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for grants for the construction of State extended care facilities, an increase of

$10,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, and an increase of $40,000,000 above the budget request. This program costeffectively meets long-term health care needs of veterans. The

Committee notes the need for State home beds is expected to double by the year 2010, and there is a backlog of $150,000,000 in priority one projects.

The Committee is aware that Alaska has one of the nation’s largest veteran populations per capita but is one of only three States

without a State veterans home. VA should work with the Alaska

State Department of Military and Veterans Affairs to assess the

most cost-effective means of providing a State veterans home, including leasing existing facilities; contracting with existing nursing

home providers; repair, upgrade or rehabilitation of existing facilities; and new construction. VA, together with the State of Alaska

should report back to the Committee on its joint recommendation

including possible costs no later than March 1, 2001.
29

GRANTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS’ CEMETERIES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $25,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 25,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 25,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Public Law 105–368, amended title 38 U.S.C. 2408, which established authority to provide aid to States for establishment, expansion, and improvement of State veterans’ cemeteries which are operated and permanently maintained by the States. This amendment increased the maximum Federal Share from 50 percent to

100 percent in order to fund construction costs and the initial

equipment expenses when the cemetery is established. The States

remain responsible for providing the land and for paying all costs

related to the operation and maintenance of the State cemeteries,

including the costs for subsequent equipment purchases.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for grants for construction of State veterans’ cemeteries in fiscal year 2001, the same as

the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the budget request. This

amount is estimated to be sufficient to meet all fiscal year 2001

State cemetery grant applications.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee has included eight administrative provisions carried in earlier bills. Included is a provision enabling VA to use surplus earnings from the national service life insurance, U.S. Government life insurance, and veterans special life insurance programs

to administer these programs. This provision was included for the

first time in fiscal year 1996 appropriations legislation. The Department estimates that $36,520,000 will be reimbursed to the

‘‘General operating expenses’’ account as a result of this provision.

The Committee has not included bill language requested by the

administration authorizing the reimbursement of the Office of Resolution Management and the Office of Employment Discrimination

Complaint Adjudication for services provided, from funds in any

appropriation for salaries and other administrative expenses. Instead, transfer authority totaling up to $28,054,000 from the medical care, national cemetery administration, and OIG appropriations has been provided. In the future, resources for this activity

are to be included in the GOE budget request. In addition,

$2,022,000 is assumed in ‘‘General operating expenses’’ for these

activities.

A new administrative provision is included which requires receipts collected under the Millennium Act to be maintained in the

collections funds subject to appropriations.

The Committee has included a provision authorizing the transfer

of up to $1,200,000 from the ‘‘Medical care’’ account to general operating expenses to fund contracts and services in support of VBA’s

Benefits Delivery Center, Systems Development Center, and Finance Center located on the Hines VAMC campus. Future budget
30

requests for these activities should be included in general operating

expenses.

In view of a recent General Counsel opinion which found that the

Parking Revolving Fund is the exclusive funding source for surface

parking lot projects, a provision has been included authorizing the

transfer of funds from the ‘‘Construction, minor projects’’ and ‘‘Medical care’’ accounts. In its budget request, the Department included

funds in these accounts totaling $6,500,000 for surface parking lot

projects.
(31)

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $25,860,183,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 32,458,550,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 29,980,030,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,633,726,000

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] was

established by the Housing and Urban Development Act (Public

Law 89–174), effective November 9, 1965. This Department is the

principal Federal agency responsible for programs concerned with

the Nation’s housing needs, fair housing opportunities, and improving and developing the Nation’s communities.

In carrying out the mission of serving the needs and interests of

the Nation’s communities and of the people who live and work in

them, HUD administers mortgage and loan insurance programs

that help families become homeowners and facilitate the construction of rental housing; rental and homeownership subsidy programs

for low-income families who otherwise could not afford decent housing; programs to combat discrimination in housing and affirmatively further fair housing opportunity; programs aimed at ensuring an adequate supply of mortgage credit; and programs that aid

neighborhood rehabilitation, community development, and the preservation of our urban centers from blight and decay.

HUD administers programs to protect the homebuyer in the marketplace and fosters programs and research that stimulate and

guide the housing industry to provide not only housing, but better

communities and living environments.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends for fiscal year 2001 an appropriation of $30,633,726,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban

Development. This is an increase of $4,754,778,000 above the fiscal

year 2000 enacted level.

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2000 .............................................................................1 $11,304,420,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 2 14,127,824,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 2 13,275,388,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2 13,171,400,000

1 Includes an advance appropriation of $4,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.

2 Includes an advance appropriation of $4,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
32

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the section 8 programs, including vouchers, certificates, and project-based assistance. Section 8

assistance is the principal appropriation for Federal housing assistance, with almost 3 million families assisted under section 8.

Under these programs, eligible low-income families pay 30 percent

of their adjusted income for rent, and the Federal Government is

responsible for the remainder of the rent, up to the fair market

rent or some other payment standard.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,171,400,000,

of which $13,131,400,000 shall be used to fund expiring section 8

contracts including the costs of sticky or enhanced vouchers for

families that choose to continue to live in multifamily housing in

which a mortgage is refinanced and the housing was previously eligible for the Preservation Program, as well as in certain circumstances where owners of assisted multifamily housing opt-out

of the section 8 program. In addition, this account includes the Administration’s recommendation for an advance appropriation of

$4,200,000,000 for the remainder costs of contracts renewed in fiscal year 2001 for the months requiring section 8 assistance during

fiscal year 2002. An additional $1,300,000,000 in recaptures, carryover from fiscal year 2000 also is expected to be available for section 8 contract renewals.

Other activities eligible for funding under this account include

the conversion of section 23 projects to assistance under section 8,

the family unification program, and the relocation of witnesses in

connection with efforts to fight crime in public and assisted housing

pursuant to a law enforcement or prosecution agency.

In addition, the Committee believes that section 8 tenant-based

assistance provides a needed opportunity for disabled families to

have a more diverse housing choice with an opportunity to mainstream into a community of their choice. In cases where elderly

public housing and assisted housing projects are designated as elderly-only, it is expected that up to $40,000,000, be used to provide

needed section 8 tenant-based housing assistance for disabled families that would otherwise be served by public and assisted housing.

The Committee also reiterates its continuing concern over HUD’s

accounting practices for identifying excess section 8 contract reserves as well as excess project-based section 8 assistance. The Department has made strides in overhauling its section 8 accounting

systems. Nevertheless, there remains significant concerns over the

accuracy of its section 8 accounting. The Committee reminds HUD

that an accurate fiscal forecast of the funding in all HUD programs

is critical to HUD’s credibility and is a requirement for a sound relationship with this Committee.

The Committee also directs HUD to identify in its fiscal year

2002 budget justification the renewal costs associated with each

project-based section 8 program, such as the section 8 moderate rehabilitation program and the section 515 program.

The Committee has not included any additional funds for incremental section 8 assistance as requested by the Administration.
33

While the Committee understands there is demand for additional

section 8 assistance, the Administration’s budget projections and

recommendations have created such uncertainty over the ability or

desire of the Administration to meet its financial commitment to

preserve and renew existing section 8 contracts in future budgets

that it would be very ill-advised to add additional section 8 incremental assistance at this time.

Moreover, the Congress and the Administration need to address

increasing concerns that section 8 (tenant-based) vouchers do not

always provide real rental choice for assisted families. Instead, because of market distortions in how section 8 rents are calculated,

families with vouchers often have little choice in their rental decisions, leaving them often in low-income and very low-income neighborhoods and living in substandard housing. In a number of cases,

families with vouchers are unable to use their vouchers to obtain

affordable housing.

As a result, the Committee is concerned that incremental housing vouchers remain the cornerstone of the Administration’s strategy to address the housing needs of low-income Americans. As

noted, there is significant evidence in a number of recent utilization studies that many families are having a difficult time in using

vouchers to find housing, especially in tight and low vacancy housing marketplaces. A recent survey of public housing agencies by the

Council of Large Public Housing Authorities found that as many as

one in five families with a voucher are unable to find housing in

their communities. Finally, HUD has failed to make incremental

vouchers available on a timely basis to low-income families. For

each of the last 2 years, it has taken most of the fiscal year to allocate and make the incremental vouchers available to families.

The Committee requires HUD to fund a new housing production

block grant program from ‘‘excess’’ section 8 funds; with this program effective for fiscal year 2001 only. The Committee believes

that this nation needs to begin to face front and recognize the

growing housing needs of very low-income families, especially the

elderly and disabled.

The Committee has adopted the Administration’s recommendation to defer $4,200,000,000 in section 8 funds tied to fiscal year

2001 contracts with great reluctance. As with fiscal year 2000, this

hard choice had to be made since the Committee had to compensate for other shortfalls generated by the Administration’s fiscal

year 2001 budget.

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $2,900,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 2,955,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,800,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,955,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for modernization and capital

needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing authorities), including management improvements, resident relocation and

homeownership activities.
34

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,955,000,000

for the public housing capital fund, the same as the budget request

and $55,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. HUD

is prohibited from using any funds under this account as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States Housing Act

of 1937, but is provided $75,000,000 for emergency capital needs.

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $3,138,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 3,192,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,139,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,192,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for the payment of operating subsidies to some 3,050 public housing authorities (except Indian housing authorities) with a total of over 1.2 million units under management in order to augment rent payments by residents in order

to provide sufficient revenues to meet reasonable operating costs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,192,000,000

for the public housing operating fund, an increase of $54,000,000

over the fiscal year 2000 level and the same as the budget request.

The Committee remains concerned about the cost and accuracy of

public housing operating subsidies as allocated under the performance funding system (PFS). The PFS is an outdated formula that

no longer provides an accurate measure of public housing costs and

the Department is late in developing a new and more accurate

funding formula. The Committee continues to be concerned that

the Department has not collected adequate data from PHAs on operating costs to ensure that the new formula will provide an appropriate level of funding for PHAs. HUD also is prohibited from using

any funds under this account as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States Housing Act of 1937.

The Committee remains concerned with HUD’s inability to develop a fair and cost-effective system to assess the financial and

physical condition of the Nation’s public housing stock. Despite the

recent efforts of the Department to revise its new ‘‘Public Housing

Assessment System’’ or ‘‘PHAS’’, a number of significant programmatic and operational problems with the system exists. Both

the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the National Academy of

Public Administration (NAPA) have recently identified numerous

problems with PHAS. In its July 25, 2000 report (GAO/RCED–00–

168), GAO found that despite the results of the first round of physical inspections performed under PHAS which indicated that most

of HUD’s public and multifamily housing was in satisfactory condition, HUD’s quality assurance reviews ‘‘found that a number of

these inspections were not carried out consistently’’ with HUD’s requirements. GAO also found that HUD’s (1) processes for overseeing its inspection contractors have problems and (2) response to

develop and implement formal processes for requesting changes in
35

inspection scores has been slow. NAPA’s preliminary report concluded that ‘‘HUD’s current system exhibits significant deficiencies’’

and validated the housing industry’s concern that ‘‘these deficiencies result from the rapidity with which the system has been

developed and deployed, and the inadequacy of consultations during the process.’’ The Committee has also found that HUD’s technological capacity continues to fall short of being able to handle the

data it is designed to collect.

The Committee is very troubled by these findings. Accordingly,

the Committee directs HUD to delay the implementation of PHAS

until it (1) has complied fully with the recommendations in GAO’s

July 25, 2000 report and (2) has demonstrated clearly to Congress

that it can administer its reporting requirements so that housing

authorities can carry out their responsibilities smoothly, during

normal working hours and without undue delay. Last, the Committee is aware that HUD has established a PHAS Advisory Board.

The Committee believes that HUD should carry out its stated intention to convene this board officially under the Federal Advisory

Committee Act and industry representation on the board should

consist of industry group representatives as well as public housing

authority directors. This board should examine the issue of inspection reliability. HUD should use the PHAS Advisory Board to help

answer the questions of what makes up an acceptable inspection

and what an acceptable, overall inspection failure rate is.

The Committee is aware of the important role that HUD plays

in providing housing for elderly and disabled Americans. However,

the Committee understands that elderly and disabled Americans

also face critical health care needs. Therefore, the Committee directs HUD to work with the Secretary of the Department of Health

and Human Services (HHS) to develop strategies to expand housing-based health care for elderly and disabled people living in Public Housing and HUD-assisted multifamily housing. The Committee

directs HUD and HHS to report to the Committee on its findings

and recommendations, including how HUD and HHS as well as

State and local health care providers can address these needs. Nevertheless, it is expected that HHS will be the lead in the provision

of any health care assistance.

DRUG ELIMINATION GRANTS FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $310,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 345,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 300,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 310,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Drug elimination grants are provided to public and Indian housing agencies to combat drug-related crime in and around public

housing developments.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $310,000,000 for

drug elimination grants for low-income housing, of which

$4,500,000 shall be awarded for technical assistance grants,

$10,000,000 shall be appropriated to fund Operation Safe House
36

which is administered by the HUD inspector general, $10,000,000

for administrative costs of the HUD inspector general associated

with Operation Safe House, and $20,000,000 for competitive grants

under the New Approach Anti-Drug Program.

The Committee remains concerned about HUD interfering with

local decisonmaking on the use of drug elimination grants and believes that the proposed Community Gun Safety and Violence Reduction Initiative is both unneeded and inappropriate. HUD has no

legal authority to direct local PHAs to conduct gun buy-back programs. Instead, PHAs have broad authority on the use of these

funds and the Committee believes that PHAs are in the best position to use these funds to meet local needs in their efforts to maximize anti-drug and anti-crime efforts. The Committee directs HUD

to identify in the fiscal year 2002 budget justifications the goals of

the program and the actual performance of the grantees in meeting

the goals.

REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING

[HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $575,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 625,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 565,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 575,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The ‘‘Revitalization of severely distressed public housing’’ account

is intended to make awards to public housing authorities on a competitive basis to demolish obsolete or failed developments or to revitalize, where appropriate, sites upon which these developments

exist. This is a focused effort to eliminate public housing which

was, in many cases, poorly located, ill-designed, and not well constructed. Such unsuitable housing has been very expensive to operate, and not possible to manage in a reasonable manner due to

multiple deficiencies.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $575,000,000 for

the ‘‘HOPE VI’’ account, $50,000,000 less than the budget request

and the same as the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Committee

urges the Department to continue funding innovative projects that

work both as public and mixed-income housing as well as building

blocks to revitalizing neighborhoods.

The Committee remains concerned about the future of this program once the Department meets its goal of demolishing 100,000

public housing units by the end of 2003. The Department is directed to advise the Committee on what form this program should

take after 2003. The Committee remains concerned about the wide

swing in the per unit cost of HOPE VI projects throughout the

country as well as data that indicates a high cost for planning and

professional services. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that

the HOPE VI program is one of the better managed and administered programs within the Department and wishes to work with

HUD in developing program reforms to control these costs.
37

HUD also is directed to report to the Committee by May 1, 2001

on the physical condition of elderly public housing units and any

special approaches employed by HUD in meeting the physical

needs of elderly public housing.

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $620,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 650,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 620,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 650,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds the native American housing block grants

program, as authorized under title I of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA).

This program provides an allocation of funds on a formula basis to

Indian tribes and their tribally designated housing entities to help

them address the housing needs within their communities. Under

this block grant, Indian tribes will use performance measures and

benchmarks that are consistent with the national goals of the program, but can base these measures on the needs and priorities established in their own Indian housing plan.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $650,000,000 for the native American housing block grant, of which $6,000,000 is set aside for a

credit subsidy for a demonstration of the section 601 Loan Guarantee Program. The Committee recommendation is the same as the

budget request.

The Committee remains concerned about the implementation by

the administration of the native American housing block grant and

the potential risk of problems within such a new and complex program. The Committee reminds HUD that it is required to report

on the implementation of this program to the Committee on a semiannual basis, including recommendations to ensure that the native

American housing block grant program meets the needs of this population.

The Committee believes that training and technical assistance in

support of NAHASDA should be shared, with $4,000,000 to be administered by the National American Indian Housing Council

(NAIHC) and $2,000,000 by HUD in support of the inspection of Indian housing units, contract expertise, training and technical assistance in the training, oversight, and management of Indian

housing and tenant-based assistance. The Committee is very concerned by reports that HUD has not released any funds to NAIHC

for fiscal year 2000. This is unacceptable, and HUD is prohibited

from using any technical assistance until all funds have been allocated to NAIHC for both fiscal year 2000 and 2001.

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $6,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 6,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 6,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,000,000
38

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program provides access to private financing for Indian families, Indian tribes and their tribally designated housing entities

who otherwise could not acquire housing financing because of the

unique status of Indian trust land. As required by the Federal

Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account includes the subsidy costs

associated with the loan guarantees authorized under this program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 in program subsidies to

support a loan guarantee level of $71,956,000. This is the same as

the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the fiscal year 2001 budget

request. The Committee requests HUD to provide a status report

on the program by June 1, 2001, assessing the success of the program in providing homeownership opportunities for native Americans, a breakdown on the use of the program by State and tribal

area, and recommendations for program improvement.

OFFICE OF RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $25,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 27,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 20,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 27,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development was established to ensure that the Department has a comprehensive approach to rural housing and rural economic development issues.

The account includes funding for technical assistance and capacity

building in rural, underserved areas, and grants for Indian tribes,

State housing finance agencies, State economic development agencies, rural nonprofits and rural community development corporations to pursue strategies designed to meet rural housing and economic development needs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $27,000,000 for the Office of Rural

Housing and Economic Development for fiscal year 2001 to support

housing and economic development in rural communities as defined

by USDA and HUD. This funding level is $2,000,000 more than the

fiscal year 2000 level and the same as the budget request. HUD is

directed to administer this program according to existing regulatory requirements. It is expected that any changes to the program shall be made subject to notice and comment rulemaking.

The Committee is aware of an audit (Rpt. 00–DE–156–0001)

dated March 31, 2000 conducted by the Office of Inspector General

that concluded that the Office of Native American Programs inappropriately awarded $6,000,000 of the funding available for the

1998 Rural Housing and Economic Development Grants program.

The Committee believes that the funding of the award for Alaska

was appropriate as the funds were explicitly targeted in the legislation for the rural housing and economic development needs of Na-
39

tive Alaskans. However, the $2,000,000 grant award made to Sioux

Ogala Tribe, located in Pine Ridge, South Dakota was made inappropriately by HUD. The legislation required these funds to be

awarded on a competitive basis and the award of these funds is a

clear violation of the law. The Committee understands that the

Sioux Ogala Tribe has substantial housing and community development needs and cannot afford to pay back these funds. Instead, the

Committee expects the Secretary to refund these amounts out of

the overall funding of the Native American Housing Block Grants

program. The Committee also believes that the funding of the HUD

Colonias Initiative under the Rural Housing and Economic Development Grants program is inappropriate. Carving out a portion of

these funds for colonias resulted in limiting the ability of a number

of other deserving and eligible entities to compete for these funds.

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $4,781,235,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 4,900,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,505,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,800,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of

1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award block

grants to units of general local government and States for the funding of local community development programs. A wide range of

physical, economic, and social development activities are eligible

with spending priorities determined at the local level, but the law

enumerates general objectives which the block grants are designed

to fulfill, including adequate housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunities, principally for persons

of low and moderate income. Grant recipients are required to use

at least 70 percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons.

Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective formulas, one

of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age of housing

stock. Seventy percent of appropriated funds are distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting designated amounts for special

purpose grants and Indian tribes. Pursuant to the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Indian tribes are eligible to

receive 1 percent of the total CDBG appropriation, on a competitive

basis.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,800,000,000

for the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] program in

fiscal year 2001. This is a reduction of $100,000,000 below the

budget request for fiscal year 2001, but $19,235,000 above the fiscal year 2000 level.
40

Set-asides under CDBG include $71,000,000 for native Americans; $3,000,000 for the Housing Assistance Council; $2,200,000 for

the National American Indian Housing Council; $3,000,000 to support Alaska Native-Serving Institutions and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions; $3,000,000 for competitive grants awarded to Tribal Colleges and Universities to build, expand, renovate, and equip

their facilities; $25,000,000 for the National Community Development Initiative and $19,500,000 for section 107 grants, including

$3,000,000 for community development work study, $10,000,000 for

historically black colleges and universities, $7,000,000 for insular

areas and $6,500,000 for Hispanic-serving institutions.

In addition, this legislation includes a set-aside of $130,000,000

within the CDBG program for the Economic Development Initiative

(EDI) to finance efforts that promote economic and social revitalization.

At a minimum, the Secretary is directed to fund the following

grants as part of the economic development initiative:

$500,000 for The Palace Theater for its renovation in Manchester, NH;

$300,000 for the Manchester Historic Association for the restoration of the Millyard Museum in Manchester, NH;

$500,000 for Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon

for construction and program activities at Bicentennial Hall in

Portland, Oregon;

$500,000 for the Portland Oregon Visitors Association for the

Pioneer Courthouse Square Lobby Renovation project in Portland, Oregon;

$1,000,000 for the Community Action Agency of Southern

New Mexico, Inc., for construction of a regional food bank and

supporting offices; and

$500,000 for the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, to construct

a permanent site for the Santa Fe Area Farmers Market at the

historic Santa Fe rail yard.

$250,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Las Cruces, new

Mexico to upgrade existing facilities;

$500,000 for Tatum, New Mexico to replace its community

center;

$150,000 for the Bataan Death March Memorial for renovations in Las Cruces, New Mexico;

$1,000,000 for University of Idaho for the construction of the

Center for Science and Technology in Idaho Falls, Idaho;

$1,000,000 for the City of Salmon, Idaho for land acquisition,

construction, and alteration for the Sacajawea Interpretive,

Cultural, and Education Center;

$500,000 for the Clearwater Economic Development Association in Northern Idaho, for implementation of the Lewis and

Clark Bicentennial Plan;

$500,000 for Lewis-Clark State College for start-up activities

associated with the Idaho Virtual Incubator;

$1,200,000 for MSU-Billings for the acquisition of a College

of Business facility to house economic development activities;

$1,000,000 for Billings, Montana for the completion of the

Billings depot project;
41

$500,000 for the Jefferson County Local Development Corporation in Whitehall, Montana for economic development activities;

$350,000 for the Human Resources Development council in

Bozeman, Montana for the restoration of a historic property for

community services offices; $300,000 for the City of Columbia falls for the restructuring

of the Old Main Veterans Facility; $1,500,000 for the City of Memphis for the construction of

the Stax Museum of American Soul Music in Memphis, Tenn; $1,000,000 for the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries for the

purchase and renovation of a former Detroit YMCA facility; $500,000 for Northern Initiatives to capitalize an Upper Peninsula Michigan Equity Fund to assist in the development of

small businesses;

$500,000 for the University of Utah for the planning and design of the Museum of Science and Nature; $700,000 for the Covenant House Michigan for the construction costs of a permanent Rights of Passage facility; $500,000 for the City of Provo, Utah for the redevelopment

of the Ironton area;

$1,000,000 for West Valley City, Utah for the construction of

the West Valley City Multi-Cultural Community Center. $500,000 for the Hart Mountain Wyoming foundation for an

interactive learning center in Powell, Wyoming; $500,000 for the Vermont Rural protection Task force for the

purchase of equipment; $500,000 for the Southern Vermont Recreation Center foundation in Springfield, VT; $500,000 for the Vermont Housing and conservation Board

for the development of affordable housing in Northern

Vermont;

$500,000 for Marlboro College for a technology incubator facility in downtown Brattleboro, VT;

$500,000 for the Vermont Housing and conservation Board

for the development of affordable housing in Williston, VT;

$500,000 for the Town of Hartford, VT for the development

of the Railroad Row Historic District in downtown White River

Junction, VT;

$500,000 for Vermont Technical College for economic development in Randolph, VT;

$250,000 for the Town of Fairfield, VT for the development

of the President Chester A. Arthur visitor facility;

$600,000 for the City of Montrose, Colorado for the development of affordable low-income housing;

$900,000 for the Trinity Repertory Company in providence,

RI for the conversion of an abandoned banking building;

$300,000 for Upper Darby Township, PA to assist residents

with homes that are sinking due to soil subsidence;

$150,000 for the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, PA for economic development on Pittsburgh’s North

Shore;

$100,000 for the City of Hazleton, PA for economic development and revitalization activities;
42

$750,000 for the City of Johnstown, PA for downtown economic development; $300,000 for the City of Philadelphia, PA to assist in the relocation of families in the Logan neighborhood whose homes

were built on an improperly filled creek bed; $500,000 for Ford City, PA for brownfield revitalization;

$300,000 for the City of Chester, PA for the redevelopment

of DeShong Park; $250,000 for Erie, PA for the Discovery Square museum expansion; $500,000 for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia, PA

for relocation costs;

$200,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Allentown, PA for

the Northern Lehigh Community Center; $400,000 for Allegheny County, PA for the redevelopment of

the Braddock-Swissvale-Rankin industrial site;

$500,000 for the National Museum for American Jewish History in Philadelphia, PA for expansion efforts; $500,000 for the Reading Berks Emergency Shelter in Reading, PA for the construction of a transitional housing facility

for the homeless;

$250,000 for the City of Lancaster, PA for the development

of the Lancaster Square project; $100,000 for Clarion County, PA for continued development

of Liberty Towers Senior Activities Facility; $250,000 for the Nueva Esperanza Community Development

Corporation in Philadelphia, PA for economic revitalization of

commercial and industrial facilities;

$200,000 for Light of Life Ministries in Allegheny County,

PA for infrastructure improvements at the Serenity Village

homeless program; $250,000 for Universal Community Homes for economic development activities in Philadelphia, PA;

$250,000 for the City of Philadelphia to address the safety

concerns related to abandoned and structurally impaired

homes

$600,000 for the City of East Providence, RI to develop recreational facilities at Crescent Park;

$300,000 for the City of State Line, Mississippi for downtown

infrastructure and economic revitalization;

$1,000,000 for the City of Madison, Mississippi for the renovation of the historic downtown of Madison, Mississippi;

$500,000 for Mississippi State University for the renovation

and expansion of facilities for the Stoneville, Mississippi Research and Education Complex;

$500,000 for the City of Canton for the establishment of a

State film complex;

$2,000,000 for the rehabilitation and restoration of Cain Hall

on the campus of Hinds Community College in Raymond, Mississippi;

$1,200,000 for the City of Bangor, Maine for the installation

of steel bulkheading on the Penobscot River;

$550,000 for Vinalhaven Elder Care Services, Inc. for the development of an elder care facility;
43

$500,000 for the City of Dayton, Ohio for the restoration of

the Main Street historic district;

$500,000 for the City of Cincinnati for the expansion of Findlay Market; $500,000 for Cleveland Tomorrow in Cleveland, Ohio for the

restoration of the Euclid Beach Carousel;

$700,000 for the Cleveland Botanical garden for the development of a glass house conservatory; $500,000 for Skagit County for the preservation of farmland

in Skagit County, Washington; $1,000,000 for the Pacific Science Center in Seattle, Washington to complete the Mercer Island Slough Environmental

Education Center;

$500,000 for the Seattle Art Museum in Seattle, Washington

for site development; $500,000 for the City of Takoma, Washington for the Downtown Revitalization and Shelter Improvements program; $1,000,000 for the City of Lincoln, Nebraska for the construction of the Northbridge Center for Children and Youth; $500,000 for the Southwest Border Region Partnership for

an assessment of the border region’s future economic health; $250,000 for the Centro de Salud familiar La Fe in El Paso,

Texas for community outreach activities to assist low-income

families;

$1,000,000 for the City of Houston for redevelopment activities within Freedman’s Town;

$250,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Brownsville, Texas

for building repairs and community services; $250,000 for the George Gervin Youth center in San Antonio

for the construction of a youth center; $500,000 for the City of Beaumont, Texas to revitalize the

Charlton-Pollard neighborhood; $500,000 for the Lubbock Science Spectrum Museum to establish a Brazos River exhibit;

$500,000 for the Bayfront Arts and Science Park in Corpus

Cristi, Texas for the expansion of the park;

$250,000 for West Texas A&M University to develop an integrated services center in Amarillo, Texas;

$250,000 for Sam Houston State University for the redevelopment of the Sam Houston Memorial Museum;

$3,500,000 for the University of Louisville for the expansion

of the university’s main library;

$1,000,000 for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for the Oklahoma

City Murrah Revitalization project;

$1,000,000 for the National Council on Agricultural Life and

Labor in Dover, Delaware for a variety of housing assistance

programs;

$1,000,000 for the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa Alabama for the Gorgas House Renovation Project;

$100,000 for the Hammoundville Armory in the Town of Valley Head, Valley Head, Alabama for the renovation of historic

facility to enhance economic development and tourist activity;

$500,000 for Monroeville, Alabama for the Monroe County

Courthouse Restoration Project;
44

$1,000,000 for the Mobile Public Library, Mobile, Alabama

for the renovation of facilities as part of neighborhood redevelopment project;

$500,000 for the City of LaFayette, (Chambers County) Alabama for the Chambers County Courthouse Restoration

Project;

$100,000 for Union Springs, AL for the rehabilitation of facilities for downtown restoration/revitalization;

$250,000 for the Mobile Historic Development Commission

for the Oakleigh District Revitalization Project;

$250,000 for the National Community College for the Deaf

and Blind in Talladega Alabama for the renovation of facilities

for development of economic education program;

$500,000 for Tuscaloosa, Alabama for the Tuscaloosa Alberta

City Project;

$500,000 for the City of Brundidge, Alabama for the completion of Pike County Covered Arena;

$500,000 for the City of Mobile, Alabama for the Battlehouse

Restoration Project;

$500,000 for Tennessee Valley Family Services Youth Home

in Guntersville, Alabama for the renovation of facilities for

neighborhood economic development;

$700,000 for Kansas State Historical Society for the restoration of the home of William Allen White;

$1,000,000 for the development of the Life Center at Franklin Pierce College in Ridge, NH.

$100,000 for the Housing Partnership in Portsmouth, NH to

provide below market rents and to rehabilitate deteriorated

buildings;

$400,000 for the Northern Forest Heritage Park in Berlin,

NH to develop facilities;

$3,000,000 for the City of Meridian, Mississippi for the rehabilitation of the opera house;

$500,000 for Rowan Oak for the restoration of the home of

William Faulkner in Oxford, Mississippi;

$500,000 for the George Ohr museum for the development of

an African-American art center;

$500,000 for Ocean Springs, MS for the restoration of the old

high school administration building;

$500,000 for Mississippi State University School of Architecture in Starkville, MS for rural revitalization;

$2,500,000 for the University of Alaska for a pilot training

simulator;

$450,000 for Bird TLC for the construction of Potter’s Marsh

Conservation Center;

$2,000,000 for Catholic Community Services for the reconstruction of a homeless shelter and to acquire new housing

stock for battered women;

$270,000 for the Fairbanks Hospitality House for the purchase and renovation of an emergency shelter;

$500,000 for Kids are People, Inc for a transitional living

program for homeless youth and an emergency shelter in

Wasilla, Alaska;
45

$3,000,000 for the Alaska Pacific University for the restoration of an historic property in Anchorage, Alaska; $250,000 for downtown redevelopment activities in

Marceline, Missouri;

$500,000 to the Ozark Action, Inc. of Missouri for low-income

rural housing; $400,000 to Sedalia, Missouri for the Katy Depot Restoration

Project; $200,000 for the Bond Family Housing Center in St. Louis,

Missouri for the Transitional Housing Program; $2,000,000 for the Community Development Corporation of

Kansas City and Health Midwest Partners for Change for the

revitalization initiative on the northwest corner of 63rd Street

and Prospect Avenue; $2,000,000 for the Missouri Botanical Gardens for development and revitalization activities associated with McRee Town;

$1,000,000 for Arkansas State University at Mountain

Home, Arkansas for the construction of a multipurpose auditorium;

$1,000,000 for the construction of the sexually Transmitted

Disease and HIV Prevention and Research Center in Marion

County, Indiana. $670,000 to the City of Spartanburg, South Carolina for

Arkwright/Forest Park revitalization; $670,000 to the South Carolina Association of Community

Development Corporations in Charleston, SC for job creation,

small business development and quality of life improvements

within the State of South Carolina;

$660,000 to the University of South Carolina in Columbia,

South Carolina to enlarge the main building at the University

of South Carolina School of Public Health;

$500,000 to Helping Hands Hawaii in Honolulu, Hawaii for

community based activities including the delivery of goods and

services to Hawaii’s needy;

$750,000 to Waipahu Community Association in Waipahu,

Hawaii for renovations and the establishment of a Waipahu

festival market fair;

$500,000 to the Kauai Economic Development Board in

Lihue, Hawaii for site acquisition, design, construction and

equipment for the West Kauai Technology Center;

$250,000 to the Maui Academy of Performing Arts in

Puunene, Hawaii for the acquisition and renovation of the facility;

$250,000 to the Homestake Opera House in Lead, South Dakota for renovation of the interior of the Homestake Opera

House;

$250,000 to Cedar Youth Services in Lincoln, Nebraska to

complete construction of the Northbridge Center for Children

and Youth;

$500,000 for the Lowell Cultural and Performing Arts Downtown Initiative in Lowell, Massachusetts for development of

the site for the Lowell Performing Arts Center;

$500,000 to the City of Boston, Massachusetts for its Main

Streets Program;
46

$325,000 to the City of Racine, Wisconsin for construction of

the Racine Root River Pathway;

$300,000 to the City of Beloit, Wisconsin for the Beloit urban

renewal project;

$300,000 to the Historic Third Ward Association in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to establish a public market;

$250,000 to Jentry-McDonald Corporation in Baltimore,

Maryland for capital improvements to the Jentry-McDonald

House;

$250,000 to the City of Takoma Park, Maryland for the construction of the Takoma Park Computer Center;

$250,000 to Montgomery County, Maryland for costs associated with the Wheaton Small Business Technology Center;

$250,000 for the Central Montana Foundation to upgrade,

install technology, and facilitate occupancy of One Stop Center

in Lewistown, MT;

$250,000 to the City of Indianapolis, Indiana for infrastructure needs in the King Park homeownership zone;

$1,000,000 to the City of Belen, New Mexico for construction

of a community center;

$350,000 for Rio Arriba County, NM for an environmental

impact statement;

$150,000 for Cochita Pueblo, NM for the construction of a

community center;

$450,000 to the City of San Francisco, California for preservation and restoration of the Old Mint;

$500,000 to Booker T. Washington Outreach, Inc. in Monroe,

Louisiana for construction of an Elderly Living Center;

$2,400,000 to Wheeling Jesuit University in Wheeling, West

Virginia for construction of a science/computer center;

$1,800,000 to the city of Hinton, West Virginia for construction of a High Technology office building and small business incubator;

$250,000 to the Tubman African American Museum in

Macon, Georgia for construction of the Tubman African American Museum;

$250,000 to the Lemmon Area Charitable and Economic Development Corporation in Lemmon, South Dakota for economic

development activities;

$750,000 to the City of Fresno, California for the development of the Fresno Community Health Center Regional Medical Center;

$250,000 to the City of Inglewood, California for the Market

Street Senior Center;

$100,000 to the Mathilda Geppert Childcare Center in

Vermillion, South Dakota for development of a child day care

center;

$75,000 to the City of Clark, South Dakota for construction

of a community childcare facility;

$300,000 to the City of Brandon, South Dakota to construct

a community library;

$1,500,000 to the City of Aberdeen, South Dakota for construction of a community center;
47

$500,000 to the Sioux Falls Empire Fair Association in Sioux

Falls, South Dakota for infrastructure improvements to the

W.H. Lyons Fairgrounds; $250,000 to the City of Redfield, South Dakota for infrastructure improvement at its industrial park; $250,000 to Fairfield University in Fairfield, Connecticut for

continued construction of an Information Technology Center; $250,000 to Prince George’s County, Maryland for the Prince

George’s County Technology Commercialization Center; $100,000 to the American Visionary Arts Museum in Baltimore, Maryland for expansion of the museum; $1,500,000 to the Discovery Center in Williston, North Dakota for construction of a visitor center and reconstruction of

former barracks at Fort Buford State Historic Site;

$250,000 to the Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones in

North Dakota;

$250,000 to North Dakota State University in Fargo, North

Dakota for development of a campus-based technology park; $500,000 to the City of Taylorsville, Illinois for an emergency

services center;

$1,000,000 to Loyola University in Chicago, Illinois for development of a life sciences center; $200,000 to the Merit Music Program in Chicago, Illinois to

expand Project BEGIN; $400,000 to the City of Freeport, Illinois for Brownfields

cleanup; $100,000 to the City of Benton, Illinois for streetscape and

beautification of downtown Benton;

$250,000 to the City of Charlotte, North Carolina for economic development activities within Charlotte’s Wilkinson

Boulevard Corridor;

$250,000 to the Museum of Latin American Art in Long

Beach, California to expand and upgrade existing facilities;

$250,000 to FAME Renaissance in Los Angeles, California to

continue work on a small business incubator;

$250,000 to the City of San Francisco, CA for a homeless

housing initiative;

$250,000 to West River Foundation in South Dakota;

$100,000 to the South Dakota Housing Development Authority in Pierre, South Dakota for housing development;

$250,000 to Barry University in Miami Shores, Florida for

an Intercultural Community Center;

$500,000 to the City of Waterloo, Iowa for the redevelopment

of blighted portions of the downtown area;

$1,800,000 to Comprehensive Housing Assistance, Inc., in

Baltimore, Maryland for renovations to the Concord Apartments;

$250,000 to Patterson Park Development Corporation for the

purchase and rehabilitation of homes in the Patterson Park

neighborhood;

$500,000 to the City of Davenport, Iowa for development of

Friendly House;

$500,000 to the City of Council Bluffs, Iowa for land purchase and construction of an elderly community center;
48

$500,000 to the City of Des Moines, Iowa for planning of the

redevelopment of the Riverpoint area;

$1,190,000 to City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin for revitalization

of Menomonee Valley industrial area;

$10,000 to LaCrosse County, Wisconsin for economic development information centers;

$450,000 to Biomedical Research Foundation of Northwest

Louisiana, Shreveport, Louisiana for infrastructure improvements to InterTech Park and construction of a Cleanroom Biotechnology Incubator;

$1,000,000 to University Heights Science Park, Newark,

New Jersey for University Heights Science Park’s Newark Digital Century Center;

$500,000 to City of Woodbury, New Jersey for downtown economic development activities;

$500,000 to Bayshore Economic Development Corporation for

development of the Henry Hudson Trail;

$400,000 for Sheperd College in Sheperdstown, West Virginia for renovation of Scarborough Library;

$400,000 for Bethany College in Bethany, West Virginia for

continued work on a health and wellness center;

$250,000 to Town of Millville, New Jersey for development

of the Glasstown Center project;

$400,000 to City of Burlington, Vermont for Firehouse Center;

$400,000 to City of Montpelier, Vermont for Pyralisk Arts

Center;

$200,000 to Vermont Youth Orchestra Association,

Colchester, Vermont for rehabilitation of the Fort Ethan Allen

Riding Hall;

$250,000 to Kellogg-Hubbard Library, Montpelier, Vermont

for restoration of historic library and addition to the children’s

library;

$750,000 to Vermont Housing and Conservation Board in

Brattleboro, Vermont for rehabilitation of the Westgate apartments;

$250,000 to City of Detroit, Michigan for development of a

pedestrian friendly Promenade along the Detroit River;

$250,000 to Bushnell Theatre, Hartford, Connecticut for final

completion of renovation;

$225,000 to Boys and Girls Club of Drew County, Arkansas

for construction of general purpose facility;

$225,000 to the Boys and Girls Club of McGhee, AR for the

construction of a facility;

$250,000 to the City of Santa Ana, California for the IDEA

high-tech education center;

$250,000 to the Tri-States River heritage Foundation in

Kennewick, Washington for an analysis of the new economic

development opportunities related to the Hanford Reach National Monument;

$250,000 to Frank Lloyd Wright Darwin Martin House, Buffalo, New York for restoration work;
49

$1,750,000 to Washington State Department of Community

Development to address farmworker housing issues in the

State;

$250,000 to Trinity Repertory Pell-Chafee Theatre, Providence, Rhode Island for theater expansion and operations; $1,250,000 to City of Henderson, Nevada for downtown redevelopment and infrastructure upgrade; $250,000 to Opportunity Village Foundation, Las Vegas, Nevada for start-up funding for downpayment assistance program

to disabled;

$500,000 to Boys and Girls Club of Las Vegas, Nevada for

the renovation and expansion of existing facilities; $750,000 to Henry and Martinsville Counties, Virginia for

economic development activities; $250,000 to Bayview Citizens for Social Justice and the

Northampton-Accomack Planning District Commission to support economic development projects on the Eastern Shore of

Virginia; $250,000 to Monroe Community College, Rochester, New

York to establish a Virtual Campus Center; $1,000,000 City of Wildwood, New Jersey for revitalization of

the Pacific Avenue Business District;

$250,000 for the West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine in Lewisburg, West Virginia for expansion of the ambulatory care facility; $250,000 to Northeast Ventures Corporation, Duluth, Minnesota to provide capital support for micro enterprise in Northeast Minnesota;

$250,000 to City of Portland, Oregon for the Portland-Vancouver Regional Housing Affordability Pilot Program; $400,000 to Prince George’s County, Maryland for architecture, design and engineering work for redevelopment of

McGuire House;

$250,000 to Howard County, Maryland for renovations to

Route 1.

For each of the aforementioned EDI grants, HUD shall conduct

a close-out review of each grant within 5 years to ensure the funds

are used for the purpose specified. Any grants not obligated within

5 years shall be rescinded and reallocated within the next round

of CDBG funds.

In addition, HUD is required to report on all projects funded

under any EDI grants awarded independently by HUD, identifying

the purpose of the project, the funding structure of the project, the

economic impact and social utility of the project, and the lessons

learned from the project that can be applied as a model throughout

the country.

The Committee includes $60,000,000 for the Youthbuild program,

of which $10,000,000 is for capacity building and new programs in

underserved and rural areas. In addition, $4,000,000 is set-aside

for capacity building by Youthbuild USA.

The Committee has included up to $55,000,000 for supportive

service contracts, a critical activity.

In addition, $29,000,000 is provided for the cost of guaranteed

loans, as authorized under section 108 of the Housing and Commu-
50

nity Development Act of 1974, to subsidize a total loan principal

not to exceed $1,261,000,000.

HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $1,600,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 1,650,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,585,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,600,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This program provides assistance to States and units of local government

for the purpose of expanding the supply and affordability of housing. Eligible activities include tenant-based rental assistance, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership

housing and, also, construction of housing. To participate in the

HOME Program, State and local governments must develop a comprehensive housing affordability strategy [CHAS]. There is a 25-

percent matching requirement for participating jurisdictions which

can be reduced or eliminated if they are experiencing fiscal distress.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,600,000,000

for the HOME Investment Partnership Program. This amount is

the same as the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $50,000,000 less

than the budget request. The Committee includes $20,000,000 for

housing counseling.

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $1,020,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 1,200,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,020,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,020,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The ‘‘Homeless Assistance Grants Program’’ account is intended

to fund the emergency shelter grants program, the supportive

housing program, the section 8 moderate rehabilitation single-room

occupancy program, and the shelter plus care program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,020,000,000 for homeless assistance grants. The amount recommended is the same as the fiscal

year 2000 enacted level and $180,000,000 below the budget request

for fiscal year 2001. This funding level rejects the Administration’s

request for $105,000,000 for section 8 homeless assistance. In addition, $105,000,000 is funded in a separate account for Shelter Plus

Care. The Committee remains concerned about the funding structure of the McKinney homeless assistance grants programs and the

overall direction of HUD’s administration of the program. The
51

Committee believes that there is a need for a strong continuum of

care approach which results in permanent and stable housing, not

a revolving door. There is a particular need to stabilize homeless

persons with mental disabilities to avoid this revolving door syndrome as well as the destabilizing impact this population can have

on the effectiveness of local continuum of care strategies. Therefore,

the Committee is including again this year a requirement that a

minimum of 30 percent of funds be allocated to permanent housing.

In addition, there is a 25-percent match requirement for services

to maintain a balance between homeless services and the development of transitional and permanent housing.

The Committee continues to be very concerned over HUD’s administration of the McKinney homeless assistance programs

through formula funding to local continuums of care. With the exception of the Emergency Shelter Grants program, the legislation

for the Supportive Housing program, Shelter Plus Care and the

Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation SRO program requires a national competition by grantees, not a formula allocation. This is especially troubling since HUD uses a modified allocation formula

pursuant to the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)

program to award funding to local continuums of care. The CDBG

formula has no real nexus to homeless needs and the use of the

CDBG formula also means that local continuums of care are assured of receiving a minimum amount of funds where a grant application meets certain minimum requirements regardless of the

actual homeless assistance needs of the jurisdiction. Additional

funds are then allocated to the local continuums of care where

there is a reallocation of funds in cases where local continuums of

care fail to meet the basic requirements.

In addition, HUD has failed to establish the necessary oversight

requirements that are needed to ensure the appropriate use of

McKinney homeless assistance funds. In effect, the continuum of

care process has become a self-certifying process that presumes the

appropriate use of funds at the local level. While the Committee believes that many, if not most, homeless assistance providers manage their homeless assistance programs and activities very well,

there is inadequate information to ensure the funds are used well

or even appropriately.

The Committee believes that HUD must collect data on the extent of homelessness in America as well as the effectiveness of the

McKinney homeless assistance programs in addressing this condition. These programs have been in existence for some 15 years and

there has never been an overall review or comprehensive analysis

on the extent of homelessness or how to address it. The Committee

believes that it is essential to develop an unduplicated count of

homeless people, and an analysis of their patterns of use of assistance (HUD McKinney homeless assistance as well as other assistance both targeted and not targeted to homeless people), including

how they enter and exit the homeless assistance system and the effectiveness of assistance. The Committee recognizes that this is a

long term effort involving many partners. However, HUD is directed to take the lead in approaching this goal by requiring client

level reporting at a jurisdictional level within 3 years.
52

To improve the capacity of local providers and jurisdictions to

collect data, the bill includes language that makes implementation

of management information systems (MIS), as well as collection

and analysis of MIS data, an eligible use of Supportive Housing

Program funds. Further, the bill includes language allowing HUD

to use 1 percent of homeless assistance grant funds for technical

assistance, for management information systems, and to further its

efforts to develop an automated, client-level APR system. Of this

amount, at least $1,500,000 should be used to continue on an annual basis to provide a report on a nationally representative sample of jurisdictions whose local MIS data can be aggregated yearly

to document the change in demographics of homelessness, demand

for homeless assistance, to identify patterns in utilization of assistance, and to demonstrate the effectiveness of assistance. The Committee also expects HUD to use technical assistance funds to assist

in the development of an unduplicated count. The Committee instructs HUD to use these funds to contract with experienced academic institutions to analyze data and report to the agency, jurisdictions, providers and the Committee on findings.

HUD is directed to convene a group of experts including academics, practitioners, national organization representatives, local

and State government officials, and Federal officials to make recommendations to Congress by June 1, 2001 on alternatives to the

formula by which ‘‘pro rata shares’’ are determined for local and

State jurisdictions in its homeless assistance grants program.

While this Committee supports the concept of a homeless assistance block grant for allocating funds, the current formula allocation

and ‘‘pro rata shares’’ approach appears to be in violation of current

statutory authority. The Committee, therefore, expects HUD to

submit its program administration to the Department of Justice for

a legal review of its implementation. The Committee also support

the efforts of the Senate and House Banking Committees to develop a block grant program to address homeless needs. This would

provide for State and local oversight on the use of homeless assistance funds as well as facilitate the access of other programs for

homeless assistance. In addition, contrary to some concerns, this

approach would not further institutionalize homeless assistance

since a homeless block grant could be merged into the HOME program after 5 years. This approach would allow homeless concerns

to be addressed through comprehensive strategies to address overall housing and community development needs for States and jurisdictions.

The Committee expects that HUD field staff will oversee the implementation of homelessness programs funded under this title.

This oversight should include annual site visits and desk and field

audits of a representative sample of programs in each jurisdiction.

Using this information, it should analyze Annual Performance Reports and forward an annual plan for addressing problem areas.

The Committee is concerned that a small percentage of homeless

people are chronically homeless and chronically ill, have no reasonable residential alternative beyond shelter and the streets, and are

disproportionately using public resources. It is the intention of this

Committee that HUD and local providers increase the supply of

permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless, chronically
53

ill people over time until the need is met (estimated 150,000 units).

This includes preserving the current supply of such housing and

providing new housing. Accordingly, the Committee requires HUD

to use not less than 30 percent of the funds appropriated for homelessness programs for permanent supportive housing including

those who are chronically homeless and chronically ill people. In

addition, the Committee has funded the shelter plus care program

as a separate program at $105,000,000.

The Committee also recognizes that homelessness cannot be

ended by homeless assistance providers alone—it requires the involvement of a full range of Federal programs. Accordingly, the

Committee has included $500,000 for staffing for the Interagency

Council on the Homeless. It instructs the Council specifically to require HUD, HHS, Labor, and VA to quantify the number of their

program participants who become homeless, to address ways in

which mainstream programs can prevent homelessness among

those they serve, and to describe specifically how they provide assistance to people who are homeless. The Committee directs that

the Council will be under the authority of the Assistant to the

President for Domestic Policy within the Executive Office of the

President. Members of the council shall be Cabinet Secretaries, and

the Chairmanship of the Council shall rotate among the Secretaries

of the following agencies: HUD, HHS, Labor, and VA. The members

of the Council shall meet at least annually.

To the extent that State and local jurisdictions receive homeless

assistance, HUD is directed to ensure that these jurisdictions pass

on at least 50 percent of all administrative funds to the nonprofits

administering the homeless assistance programs.

In addition, each year, the Committee faces requests for additional funds for the renewal of Shelter Plus Care and Supportive

Housing contracts. The Committee supports maintaining existing

programs and infrastructure for homeless assistance where appropriate. However, these requests for funding are very troubling since

the local continuum of cares in which this housing is located explicitly rejected the funding of these expiring contracts. Moreover, the

Committee has rejected the idea of funding these expiring contracts, especially the Shelter Plus Care expiring contracts, under

the Housing Certificate Fund. These contracts are part of the continuum of care and to move these funding requirements to the

Housing Certificate Fund would institutionalize these contracts

and minimize the concept of the continuum of care as a comprehensive approach to homeless assistance needs. The Committee further

directs HUD to report to the Congress by May 15, 2001 on (1) the

method by which HUD will control quality in supportive housing

and shelter plus care projects; (2) the criteria by which HUD will

judge the need to renew supportive housing and shelter plus care

projects; and (3) how supportive housing and shelter plus care

projects fit into the continuum of care.

The Committee also funds the Shelter Plus Care program as a

separate account at $105,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. The Committee rejects the Administration’s request to fund contract renewals of $37,000,000 for the Shelter Plus Care program under the

Housing Certificate Fund since this action would divorce the program from accountability requirements that are needed to ensure
54

the financial integrity of projects as well as any review to ensure

the project is meeting the needs of the homeless.

SHELTER PLUS CARE

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... ...........................

House allowance .................................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $105,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Shelter Plus Care program provides rental housing assistance for homeless persons with disabilities, including tenant-based

rental assistance, sponsor-based rental assistance, project-based

rental assistance, or SRO assistance. Funding for supportive services is provided from other sources.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $105,000,000 for

the Shelter Plus Care program for fiscal year 2001. This program

was previously funded under the Homeless Assistance Grants account with the Administration recommending that the funding for

Shelter Plus Care contract renewals of some $37,000,000 be funded

through the Housing Certificate Fund in fiscal year 2001. The

Committee rejects this recommendation since there would be no

oversight or accountability for renewals to ensure the financial integrity of the project or to ensure the project is meeting the needs

of the homeless within the overall structure and review process of

the local continuum of care. The Committee is concerned that the

continuum of care process does not meet the statutory requirements of the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, and is especially

concerned that HUD’s use of a modified formula allocation pursuant to the formula requirements of the Community Development

Block Grants program does not meet the nationwide needs of the

homeless or provide for the necessary oversight procedures to ensure the funds are being well used. The Committee also believes

that the Shelter Plus Care program is a critical program designed

to meet the needs of homeless persons with disabilities and that

converting this funding to a nationwide competition will help ensure that these funds are targeted to those persons and localities

with the greatest needs. Shelter Plus Care programs must still be

coordinated with local continua of care.

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $232,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 260,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 250,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 232,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [HOPWA]

Program is designed to provide States and localities with resources

and incentives to devise long-term comprehensive strategies for

meeting the housing needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS and

their families.
55

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $232,000,000 for

this program, the same as the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and

$28,000,000 less than the budget request. This Committee remains

concerned about HUD’s management of this program as well as the

increased costs of this program. Of particular note, the budget for

HOPWA currently exceeds the annual budget request of

$210,000,000 for the section 811 Housing for Persons with Disabilities program, a program designed to provide housing assistance for

all people with disabilities, including those with AIDS.

The Committee also requires HUD to allocate these funds in a

manner designed to preserve existing HOPWA programs to the extent those programs are determined to be meeting the needs of persons with AIDS in a manner consistent with the requirements of

the HOPWA program.

HOUSING PROGRAMS

HOUSING FOR SPECIAL POPULATIONS

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $911,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 989,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 911,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 996,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account consolidates the housing for the elderly under section 202; housing for the disabled under section 811; and public

housing for Indian families. Under these programs, the Department provides capital grants to eligible entities for the acquisition,

rehabilitation, or construction of housing. Twenty-five percent of

the funding provided for housing for the disabled is available for

tenant-based assistance under section 8.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $996,000,000 for

development of additional new subsidized housing. Included in this

recommendation is $783,000,000 for capital advances for housing

for the elderly (section 202 housing) and $213,000,000 for capital

advances for housing for the disabled (section 811 housing). This is

an increase of $7,000,000 above the administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2001 and provide an increase of $73,000,000

for section 202 and $12,000,000 for section 811 over the fiscal year

2000 levels. Up to 25 percent of the funding allocated for housing

for the disabled can be used to fund section 8 assistance for the disabled.

The section 202 funds include up to $50,000,000 for the conversion of section 202 housing to assisted living facilities, up to

$50,000,000 for grants for the new construction or substantial rehabilitation of assisted living facilities, and up to $50,000,000 for

service coordinators.
56

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

FHA—MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation on

direct loans

Limitation on

guaranteed loans

Administrative

expenses

Appropriations, 2000 ................................. $100,000,000 $140,000,000,000 $330,888,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ............................. 250,000,000 160,000,000,000 330,888,000

House allowance ........................................ 100,000,000 160,000,000,000 330,888,000

Committee recommendation ...................... 250,000,000 160,000,000,000 330,888,000

FHA—GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation on direct

loans

Limitation on

guaranteed loans

Administrative

expenses Program costs

Appropriations, 2000 ................ $50,000,000 $18,100,000,000 $211,000,000 $153,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ............. 50,000,000 21,000,000,000 211,455,000 101,000,000

House allowance ....................... 50,000,000 21,000,000,000 211,455,000 101,000,000

Committee recommendation ..... 50,000,000 21,000,000,000 211,455,000 101,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the

mortgage and loan insurance activity of about 40 HUD mortgage/

loan insurance programs which are grouped into the mutual mortgage insurance [MMI] fund, cooperative management housing insurance [CMHI] fund, general insurance fund [GI] fund, and the

special risk insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and accounting

control purposes, these are divided into two sets of accounts based

on shared characteristics. The unsubsidized insurance programs of

the mutual mortgage insurance fund and the cooperative management housing insurance fund constitute one set; and the general

risk insurance and special risk insurance funds, which are partially

composed of subsidized programs, make up the other.

The amounts for administrative expenses are to be transferred

from the FHA program accounts to the HUD ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ accounts.

Language is proposed to provide a commitment limitation amounting to $160,000,000,000 in the ‘‘MMI/CMHI’’ account and

$21,000,000,000 in the ‘‘GI/SRI’’ account.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has included the requested amounts for the ‘‘Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program’’ account: a limitation on guaranteed loans of $160,000,000,000, a limitation on direct loans of

$250,000,000, and an appropriation of $330,888,000 for administrative expenses. For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends

$21,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans, a limitation

on direct loans of $50,000,000, and $211,455,000 for administrative

expenses. The administrative expenses appropriation will be transferred and merged with the sums in the Department’s ‘‘Salaries
57

and expenses’’ account and the ‘‘Office of the Inspector General’’ account.

In addition, the Committee directs HUD to continue direct loan

programs in 2001 for multifamily bridge loans and single family

purchase money mortgages to finance the sale of certain properties

owned by the Department. Temporary financing would be provided

for the acquisition and rehabilitation of multifamily projects by

purchasers who have obtained commitments for permanent financing from another lender. Purchase money mortgages would enable

governmental and nonprofit intermediaries to acquire properties

for resale to owner-occupants in areas undergoing revitalization.

The Committee is troubled that HUD has ignored the guidance

it provided when it amended Section 204 of the National Housing

Act (12 U.S.C. 1710) to create the ‘‘Asset Control Areas’’ (ACA) program. By partnering with qualified nonprofit organizations and

local governments, the ACA program was intended to address the

growing number of FHA-owned, foreclosed homes in distressed

communities across the country and promote homeownership as a

tool to stabilize these neighborhoods under siege because of HUD’s

negligence.

Unfortunately, many participants in the ACA pilot programs are

finding that most properties are so dilapidated that the cost of

needed rehabilitation or demolition (of the worst properties in the

inventory) far exceeds the market value for these homes, making

homeownership virtually impossible for the low-income families

Congress intended to serve. Pilot participants are finding that

HUD’s current ACA pricing structure appears to be adequate only

in strong real estate markets, where homeownership rates and income levels are high. For seriously distressed properties, or those

located in weak real estate markets with higher concentrations of

low-income residents, however, the discount structure is grossly inadequate. Furthermore, appraisers often do not understand local

code requirements and many times have no understanding of repair estimates or rehab costs. These problems have resulted in inflated and imprecise appraisals that, even after HUD’s discount,

leave the homes overpriced for the local market, creating huge subsidy gaps.

In passing the enabling legislation 2 years ago in the VA, HUD

Appropriations Act, Congress gave HUD maximum flexibility and

‘‘sole discretion’’ in determining a pricing structure for the ACA

program that would support the effective redevelopment of FHA’s

foreclosed inventory of homes in selected target areas and in

crafting a program that promotes neighborhood revitalization

through homeownership opportunities. As such, the Committee directs HUD to amend its pricing structure in order to meet the

needs and conditions of local communities and sell these assets to

‘‘preferred purchasers’’ (nonprofits or local governments) at enough

of a discount to enable the purchasers to rehabilitate them and sell

them at prices affordable to low-income residents. Repair estimates

should be based on local code and certificate of occupancy standards and should be provided to appraisers prior to the appraisal.

Likewise, local certified appraisers who are familiar with local

code, rehabilitation standards and costs for repairs should perform

the appraisals from which the discount will be applied. In cases
58

where homes are severely dilapidated and demolition is the only

feasible solution, HUD should pay for the demolition costs at whatever expense necessary based on the condition of the inventory, in

order to meet local community standards.

Further, HUD should sell homes at prices that, after ‘‘adequate

rehabilitation’’ (defined by the Conferees as ‘‘homes that are in

good, safe and habitable condition, where major systems are dependable and in good repair, and where the properties are marketable to owner occupants given the standards and preferences of the

local community’’), will assure that the homes are affordable to

families at or below 60 percent of area median income, paying no

more than 30 percent of their income for their housing (mortgage

principle and interest, taxes and insurance).

HUD is directed to report to the Committee by May 15, 2001 on

the current status of the FHA single family property disposition

program, enacted as part of the VA/HUD fiscal year 1999 Appropriations bill, including the status of the program and an analysis

of all savings achieved to date and anticipated to be achieved over

the next 5 years. Moreover, the Committee is aware of the large

number of single-family homes currently in the Federal Housing

Administration (FHA) inventory. The Committee believes FHA can

be a positive force in reducing this inventory while helping neighborhoods and communities redevelop their housing stock. Therefore, the Committee directs FHA to use available funds in the

MMIF to repair and/or rehabilitate single-family homes in its inventory. The Committee directs FHA to give priority to local governments and non-profit institutions who have established neighborhood redevelopment plans. FHA should use its financial resources to repair and renovate homes where there are established

redevelopment plans. FHA should be in the business of rebuilding

and stabilizing neighborhoods to help prevent property flipping and

predatory lending, which have devastated many communities

across the country.

The Committee is aware of the reforms announced by the FHA

on May 19, 2000 to combat problems associated with property flipping and predatory lending. The Committee commends the Department for announcing these important reforms. The Committee supports the reforms announced, and urges the Department to move

forward expeditiously in implementing the reforms. The Committee

directs HUD to report back to the Committee on Appropriations no

later than December 15, 2000 on: (1) How the FHA reforms are

being implemented; (2) The current status of the implementation

of the reforms; (3) FHA’s long-term plan for institutionalizing the

reforms; (4) How FHA plans to monitor compliance with the reforms; and (5) What resources will be devoted to monitoring compliance.
59

GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2000:

Limitation on guaranteed loans ................................................ $200,000,000,000

Administrative expenses ........................................................... 9,383,000

Budget estimate, 2001:

Limitation on guaranteed loans ................................................ 200,000,000,000

Administrative expenses ........................................................... 9,383,000

Administrative (contract) expenses .......................................... 40,000,000

House allowance, 2001:

Limitation on guaranteed loans ................................................ 200,000,000,000

Administrative expenses ........................................................... 9,383,000

Administrative (contract) expenses .......................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation:

Limitation on guaranteed loans ................................................ 200,000,000,000

Administrative expenses ........................................................... 9,383,000

Administrative (contract) expenses .......................................... ...........................

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA],

through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. GNMA is a

wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed generally by title III

of the National Housing Act, as amended. GNMA is authorized by

section 306(g) of the act to guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that are based on and backed by a

trust, or pool, composed of mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the Federal Housing Administration, the Farmers Home

Administration, or the Department of Veterans Affairs. GNMA’s

guarantee of mortgage-backed securities is backed by the full faith

and credit of the United States.

In accord with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990

[OBRA] requirements for direct and guaranteed loan programs, the

administration is requesting $9,383,000 for administrative expenses in the mortgage-backed securities program. Amounts to

fund this direct appropriation to the ‘‘MBS program’’ account are

to be derived from offsetting receipts transferred from the ‘‘Mortgage-backed securities financing’’ account to a Treasury receipt account.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments of

mortgage-backed securities of $200,000,000,000. This amount is the

same level as proposed by the budget request. The Committee also

has included $9,383,000 for administrative expenses, the same as

the budget request. The Committee does not include an additional

$40,000,000 for administrative ‘‘contract’’ expenses, as requested by

the Administration.
60

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $45,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 62,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 40,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 45,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as

amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing and

Urban Development to undertake programs of research, studies,

and reports relating to the Department’s mission and programs.

These functions are carried out internally and through grants and

contracts with industry, nonprofit research organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements with State and local

governments and other Federal agencies. The research programs

focus on ways to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and equity

of HUD programs and to identify methods to achieve cost reductions. Additionally, this appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation and monitoring activities and to conduct housing surveys.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $45,000,000 for research and technology activities in fiscal year 2001. This amount is the same as

the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $17,000,000 less than the

budget request. Of this funding, $10,000,000 is allocated to the

Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing (PATH) program. The Committee expects the PATH program to continue its

cold climate housing research with the Cold Climate Housing Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska. In addition, because HUD in

the past has used this office’s broad authority to administer new

and unauthorized programs, this office is denied demonstration authority except where approval is provided by Congress in response

to a reprogramming request.

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $44,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 50,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 44,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 44,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding for

both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the Fair

Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP].

The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local

agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as

amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage services. The

major objective of the program is to assure prompt and effective
61

processing of title VIII complaints with appropriate remedies for

complaints by State and local fair housing agencies.

The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by section

561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, as

amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair housing opportunities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $44,000,000, of which

$22,000,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP] and

no more than $22,000,000 is for the fair housing initiatives program [FHIP]. The funding for the FHIP program includes

$7,500,000 to fund the final year of a three-year audit-based enforcement initiative. This appropriation does not include $2,500,000

for the Project for Accessibility Training and Technical Assistance,

$1,000,000 for a HUD training academy, or $3,500,000 for the Fair

Housing Partnership.

The Committee emphasizes that State and local agencies under

FHAP should have the primary responsibility for identifying and

addressing discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage services. It is critical that

consistent fair housing policies be identified and implemented to insure continuity and fairness, and that States and localities continue to increase their understanding, expertise, and implementation of the law.

The Committee remains concerned that the HUD Office of Fair

Housing and Equal Opportunity continues to pursue regulatory authority over the property insurance industry through the Fair

Housing Act. This activity is not within the ambit of the law. Moreover, while HUD has indicated that it does not intend to focus its

regulatory authority over the property insurance requirements, the

Committee reminds the Department that the McCarran-Ferguson

Act of 1945 explicitly states that, ‘‘unless a Federal law specifically

relates to the business of insurance, that law shall not apply where

it would interfere with State insurance regulation.’’ Any HUD assertion of authority regarding property insurance regulation contradicts this statutory mandate.

Moreover, HUD’s insurance-related activities duplicate State regulation of insurance. Every State and the District of Columbia have

laws and regulations addressing unfair discrimination in property

insurance and are actively investigating and addressing discrimination where it is found to occur. HUD’s activities in this area create an unwarranted and unnecessary layer of Federal bureaucracy.

OFFICE OF LEAD HAZARD CONTROL

LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $80,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 120,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 80,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 100,000,000
62

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992

established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction

Act under which HUD is authorized to make grants to States, localities and native American tribes to conduct lead-based paint

hazard reduction and abatement activities in private low-income

housing. This has become a significant health hazard, especially for

children. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], some 890,000 children have elevated blood levels, down

from 1.7 million in the late 1980s. Despite this improvement, lead

poisoning remains a serious childhood environmental condition,

with some 4.4 percent of all children aged 1 to 5 years having elevated blood lead levels. This percentage is much higher for low-income children living in older housing.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for lead-based paint

hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2001. This

is $20,000,000 less than the President’s budget request for fiscal

year 2001 and $20,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 appropriation level. Of this amount, HUD may use up to $10,000,000 for

the Healthy Homes Initiative under which HUD conducts a number of activities designed to identify and address housing-related

illnesses. The Committee continues to be concerned that HUD does

not have a coherent and comprehensive police for addressing the

risks of lead-based paint hazards in housing. The Department is

expected to develop a policy that links Federal education outreach

and remediation efforts with State, local, nonprofit and private

funding efforts towards the abatement of lead-based paint hazards.

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriation

FHA

funds by

transfer

GNMA

funds by

transfer

CGDB

funds by

transfer

Title VI

transfer

Indian

housing Total

Appropriations, 2000 ....................... 477,000 518,000 9,383 ................ 150 200 1,005,733

Budget estimate, 2001 .................... 565,000 518,000 9,383 ................ 150 200 1,094,722

House allowance .............................. 474,647 518,000 9,383 1,000 150 200 1,003,380

Committee recommendation ............ 477,000 518,000 9,383 ................ 150 200 1,005,733

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The recommendation includes a single ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’

account to finance all salaries and related expenses associated with

administering the programs of the Department of Housing and

Urban Development. These include the following activities:

Housing and mortgage credit programs.—This activity includes

staff salaries and related expenses associated with administering

housing programs, the implementation of consumer protection ac-
63

tivities in the areas of interstate land sales, mobile home construction and safety, and real estate settlement procedures.

Community planning and development programs.—Funds in this

activity are for staff salaries and expenses necessary to administer

community planning and development programs.

Equal opportunity and research programs.—This activity includes salaries and related expenses associated with implementing

equal opportunity programs in housing and employment as required by law and Executive orders and the administration of research programs and demonstrations.

Departmental management, legal, and audit services.—This activity includes a variety of general functions required for the Department’s overall administration and management. These include the

Office of the Secretary, Office of General Counsel, Office of Chief

Financial Officer, as well as administrative support in such areas

as accounting, personnel management, contracting and procurement, and office services.

Field direction and administration.—This activity includes salaries and expenses for the regional administrators, area office managers, and their staff who are responsible for the direction, supervision, and performance of the Department’s field offices, as well as

administration support in areas such as accounting, personnel

management, contracting and procurement, and office services.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,002,233,000

for salaries and expenses. This amount is the same as the fiscal

year 2000 enacted level and the budget request. The appropriation

includes the requested amount of $518,000,000 transferred from

various funds from the Federal Housing Administration, $9,383,000

transferred from the Government National Mortgage Association,

$1,000,000 from the community development block grant funds,

$150,000 from title VI, and $200,000 from the native American

housing block grant.

In addition, the Department is prohibited from employing more

than 77 schedule C and 20 noncareer senior executive service employees.

The Department also is prohibited from employing more than

9,100 FTEs, including all OMHAR employees and any contract employees working on-site in a position which would normally be occupied by an FTE. HUD also is prohibited from employing more

than 14 FTEs in the Office of Public Affairs.

The Committee is concerned that HUD’s request for salaries and

expenses does not reflect the Secretary’s implementation of the

HUD 2020 management reform plan. The Committee directs HUD

to submit to the Committee as part of its operating plan, an analysis of the HUD budget request for salaries and expenses for fiscal

year 2001, including all projected savings from the Secretary’s reform efforts. The report should include a breakdown of all salaries

and expenses and staff by program, office, and grade, including all

staffing costs in the field. All expenses, other than staffing costs,

such as travel costs and public relations costs, within this account

also should be clearly identified.
64

The Committee is concerned that the Department has not met its

obligation to dismantle the Community Builders program, and instead has taken the program in house. The VA/HUD fiscal year

2000 Appropriations Act was clear that the Community Builders

program was to terminate as of September 1, 2000, and HUD was

directed not to recreate the positions within HUD. The Committee

also is concerned that HUD has overhired, outside its own budget

request. Even more troubling is the fact that the average cost of

FTEs continues to climb each year, with costs exceeding inflation.

In fact, the average cost of FTEs for HUD grew from $58,000 in

fiscal year 1995 to $72,000 in fiscal year 1999 to an estimated

$78,000 in fiscal year 2000. To control the out of control cost of

HUD FTEs, the legislation caps the average cost per FTE at

$78,000.

In addition, HUD has failed to provide an adequate staffing analysis to the Congress despite repeated requests to match program

needs with staffing expertise. As a result, the Committee requests

HUD to submit a report by January 31, 2001 to the Committee on

Appropriations that identifies how the Department has matched

staffing expertise with program needs, including an analysis of future staffing needs and cost.

The Committee recognizes that HUD’s Office of Multifamily

Housing Assistance Restructuring (OMHAR) is authorized to terminate on September 30, 2001. The original intent of this office was

to ensure that the ‘‘mark-to-market’’ program was implemented

without political influence from HUD and to ensure that qualified

staff with the necessary expertise could be hired to oversee the program’s implementation. When the program was enacted into law,

both the administration and the Congress anticipated significant

savings for section 8 renewals since above market contract rents

were to be lowered to real market rent levels. However, the program has been fraught with delays due to unnecessary and prolonged negotiation tactics by OMHAR, an overly prescriptive operating program guide, and the inability to utilize fully State housing

finance agencies that were intended by the Congress to administer

most of the restructuring activities. And due to these delays, no full

restructuring deals had been completed until last month.

Due to OMHAR’s failure to implement effectively the program,

the Committee prohibits the Department and OMHAR in providing

any salary bonuses or increases, or staff promotions until it has

been able to complete 100 full restructuring deals by June 29,

2001. The Committee hopes that OMHAR will streamline the restructuring process and provide the flexibility necessary for the

State housing finance agencies to administer the program as intended by the Congress.

The Committee believes that OMHAR’s authorization should not

be continued and instead, its functions should be transferred to

HUD beginning in fiscal year 2001. The Committee directs HUD in

consultation with OMHAR to develop a transition plan that will detail how the mark-to-market program functions will be transferred

from OMHAR to FHA’s Office of Multifamily Housing. A preliminary transition plan should be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations by December 15, 2000 with a final transition plan included as part of the Department’s fiscal year 2001 Operating Plan.
65

The transition should be completed no later than September 30,

2001. The transition plan must include a workload analysis on the

appropriate level of staffing needed at FHA to oversee the program

and a process for hiring or terminating current OMHAR employees

and officers. Further, the Committee directs HUD to be in charge

of making any staffing changes (e.g., hiring, terminations, extensions) during fiscal year 2001.

The Committee has been concerned for some time as to whether

funds appropriated for information technology are being well spent

and are helping to improve the performance of the Department. To

help ensure that HUD’s investments in information technology are

managed wisely, the Committee directs HUD to provide data on its

information technology projects. HUD is reportedly managing its

information technology investment portfolio and therefore providing this information to the Committee would not impose any additional burden. The report to the Committee should be submitted

on a quarterly basis and contain: (1) information technology investments (including new projects or initiatives, ongoing projects or initiatives, and steady State operations (such as the day-to-day operations and maintenance of computer and communications facilities

and existing systems) that HUD is planning to fund during the fiscal year and the estimated costs, any changes to those investment

plans, the importance of the investments to HUD, funding spent to

date, and planned spending for the remainder of the fiscal year; (2)

information on whether the investments are meeting the cost,

schedule, and results targets set for them, and any oversight or

corrective actions being taken; and (3) other metrics or performance

indicators that HUD is using to monitor project health and risks,

and reassess the progress or continued worth of its investments.

In particular, HUD is directed to report by March 1, 2001 on all

funding spent over the last 4 years to develop all accounting systems within the Department, including the current status and any

changes that have been made to the contracts for these accounting

requirements. This report should identify the overall costs of these

systems, current status and the benchmarks for completion. Funding for these requirements are to be included in the Department’s

operating plan and any changes in funding shall be subject to reprogramming requirements.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation FHA funds by

transfer

Drug elimination

grants transfer Total

Appropriations, 2000 ............................ $50,657,000 $22,343,000 $10,000,000 $83,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ......................... 52,000,000 22,343,000 10,000,000 84,000,000

House allowance ................................... 50,657,000 22,343,000 10,000,000 83,000,000

Committee recommendation ................. 55,500,000 22,343,000 10,000,000 87,843,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation would finance all salaries and related expenses associated with the operation of the Office of the Inspector

General [OIG].
66

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a funding level of $87,843,000 for

the Office of Inspector General (OIG). This amount is $4,843,000

above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $3,500,000 above the

budget request. This funding level includes $22,343,000 by transfer

from various FHA funds and $10,000,000 from drug elimination

grants, the same level as proposed in the budget request. The Committee commends OIG for its commitment and its efforts in reducing waste, fraud and abuse in HUD programs.

OFFICE OF FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE OVERSIGHT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $19,493,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 25,800,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 22,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation funds the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight [OFHEO], which was established in 1992 to regulate the financial safety and soundness of the two housing Government sponsored enterprises [GSE’s], the Federal National Mortgage

Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. The

Office was authorized in the Federal Housing Enterprise Safety

and Soundness Act of 1992, which also instituted a three-part capital standard for the GSE’s, and gave the regulator enhanced authority to enforce those standards.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for the Office of Federal

Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is $3,800,000 less than the

budget request and $2,507,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 level.

The Committee directs OFHEO to submit to the Congress a staffing and resource plan that identifies staffing needs with oversight

responsibilities.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee recommends 18 administrative provisions. A

brief description follows.

SEC. 201. Financing Adjustment Factor. Promotes the refinancing

of bonds.

SEC. 202. Fair Housing and Free Speech. Provides free speech

protections.

SEC. 203. HOPWA. Technical correction for allocations.

SEC. 204. Due Process for Homeless Assistance. Requires HUD to

establish due process requirements for removing convenors/administrators in the McKinney Homeless Assistance programs.

SEC. 205. HUD Reform Act Compliance. Requires HUD to award

assistance on a competitive basis.
67

SEC. 206. NEPA Review. Delegates NEPA review under the

McKinney homeless assistance programs.

SEC. 207. Technical Corrections to National Housing Act. Technical corrections to FHA.

SEC. 208. Defines Law Enforcement Families under NAHASDA.

Allows housing assistance for law enforcement officers.

SEC. 209. Prohibition of Federal Funds in Support of the Sale of

Tobacco Products. Prohibits HUD from funding any facility that

predominantly sells cigarettes or tobacco products.

SEC. 210. Prohibition of Implementation of Puerto Rico PHA Settlement Agreement. Prohibits the implementation of the PRPHA

settlement agreement without adequate evidence of meeting goals

to address mismanagement, fraud and abuse.

SEC. 211. HOPE VI Grant for Hollander Ridge. Reprograms

HOPE VI funding.

SEC. 212. Reduced FHA Downpayments for Teachers and Police.

Allows reduced downpayment requirements for teachers and police.

SEC. 213. Computer Access for Public Housing Residents. Allows

development of computer infrastructure as an eligible expense of

public housing capital account and HOPE VI.

SEC. 214. Mark-to-Market Reform. Makes properties in Independence, Missouri eligible for mark-to-market.

SEC. 215. Section 236 Excess Income. Extends section 236 excess

income eligibility through 2001.

SEC. 216. CDBG Eligibility. Grandfathers program eligibility for

existing CDBG grantees.

SEC. 217. Low-Income Multifamily Risk-Sharing Mortgage Insurance. Establishes a new multifamily insurance program that targets at least 25 percent of insured units to very low-income families.

SEC. 218. Exemption for Alaska and Mississippi from requirement

of resident on board of PHA. Exempts Alaska and Mississippi from

the requirement of having a PHA tenant on the board of a PHA

for fiscal year 2001.
(68)

TITLE III—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $28,359,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 26,196,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 28,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 26,196,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The American Battle Monuments Commission [ABMC] is responsible for the maintenance and construction of U.S. monuments and

memorials commemorating the achievements in battle of our

Armed Forces where they have served since April 1917; for controlling the erection of monuments and markers by U.S. citizens and

organizations in foreign countries; and for the design, construction,

and maintenance of permanent military cemetery memorials in foreign countries. The Commission maintains 24 military memorial

cemeteries and 31 monuments, memorials, markers, and offices in

15 countries around the world. In addition, the Commission administers three large memorials on U.S. soil. It is presently charged

with erecting a World War II Memorial in the Washington, DC,

area.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $26,196,000

for the American Battle Monuments Commission, which is

$2,163,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $8,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 8,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 8,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board was authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to investigate

accidental releases of certain chemical substances resulting in serious injury, death, or substantial property damage. It became operational in fiscal year 1998.
69

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the Chemical Safety

and Hazard Investigation Board, a decrease of $1,000,000 below

the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the budget request.

The Committee is extremely troubled by the lack of accomplishments and the fractionalized, unproductive environment that has

characterized this agency for most of the last year. While the new

management structure seems to be yielding some positive results,

the Committee will be monitoring closely the agency’s activities

and productivity.

The Committee notes that three of the Board members recently

petitioned the President to remove the former chairman from his

position as a board member. The Committee urges the President to

act on this request expeditiously to address very serious allegations

of malfeasance in office, neglect of duty, and inefficiency. Failure

of the White House to Act will make it very difficult for the agency

to move beyond the divisive and unproductive environment and

meet its objectives.

The Committee has included bill language authorizing the Inspector General of FEMA to act as the Inspector General of the

Chemical Safety Board. Funds have been included to accomplish

this requirement in the FEMA OIG appropriation.

Not later than March 1, 2002, and each year thereafter, the

Chief Operating Officer of the Board shall prepare a financial

statement for the preceding fiscal year, covering all accounts and

associated activities of the Board. Each financial statement of the

Board will be prepared according to the form and content of the financial statements prescribed by the Office of Management and

Budget for executive agencies required to prepare financial statements under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as amended

by the Government Management Reform Act of 1994. Each financial statement prepared under 31 USC 3515 by the Board shall be

audited according to applicable generally accepted government auditing standards by the Inspector General of the Board or an independent external auditor, as determined by the Inspector General.

The IG shall submit to the Chief Operating Officer of the Board a

report on the audit not later than June 30 following the fiscal year

for which a statement was prepared.

The Committee has again included bill language limiting the

number of career senior executive service positions to three.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $95,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 125,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 105,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 95,000,000
70

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FOR CDFI FUND

The community Development Financial Institutions Fund primarily provides grants, loans, equity investments, deposits, and

technical assistance to new and existing community development

financial institutions. These include community development

banks, credit unions, and venture capital funds; revolving loan

funds; and microloan funds. Recipient institutions engage in lending and investment for affordable housing, small business and community development within underserved communities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $95,000,000 for CDFI, the same

level as appropriated in fiscal year 2000 and $30,000,000 below the

administration’s request. While the CDFI Fund has made a greater

effort to measure its performance, its track record is still unclear

and some of its activities clearly overlap with those of other Federal programs designed to revitalize distressed communities. The

Committee believes that it is not only important to understand

whether the Fund’s activities are achieving its mandated purposes,

but just as importantly, how cost-effective and efficient its activities are in comparison to other similar Federal efforts. Accordingly,

the Committee directs CDFI to include in its fiscal year 2002 Congressional Justifications, a comparison of its activities with other

similar Federal efforts, including those of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and National Credit Union Administration. This comparison should include measurable performance

outcomes including the number of affordable rental housing units

developed.

The Committee also recommends a set-aside of $5,000,000 for

grants, loans, and technical assistance and training programs to

benefit Native American, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiian

communities in the coordination of development strategies, increased access to equity investments, and loans for development activities. Development activities include investment in business opportunities, mortgage lending, human development, and other activities that support long-term economic growth in Indian communities. The Committee, however, is concerned about the Fund’s capacity to administer this program due to its lack of expertise in Native American issues and therefore, directs the Fund to use qualifying entities that have expertise in and familiarity with Native

American lending and community development activities.

The Committee remains concerned about CDFI’s lending activities in rural areas, especially the Fund’s use of its Bank Enterprise

Award (BEA) program. The administration notes that changes to

the BEA authorizing language is needed to remove its impediment

to serve rural areas. The Committee urges the administration to

work with the Banking Committees to resolve this problem.
71

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $48,814,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 52,500,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 51,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 52,500,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Commission is an independent regulatory agency that was

established on May 14, 1973, and is responsible for protecting the

public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products; assisting consumers to evaluate the comparative safety of consumer products; developing uniform safety standards for consumer

products and minimizing conflicting State and local regulations;

and promoting research and investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries.

In carrying out its mandate, the Commission establishes mandatory product safety standards, where appropriate, to reduce the unreasonable risk of injury to consumers from consumer products;

helps industry develop voluntary safety standards; bans unsafe

products if it finds that a safety standard is not feasible; monitors

recalls of defective products; informs and educates consumers about

product hazards; conducts research and develops test methods; collects and publishes injury and hazard data, and promotes uniform

product regulations by governmental units.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $52,500,000 for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the same as the budget estimate and an increase of $3,686,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS

OPERATING EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER AND RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $433,153,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 533,700,000

House allowance .................................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 433,500,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Corporation for National and Community Service, a Corporation owned by the Federal Government, was established by the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 (Public Law 103–

82) to enhance opportunities for national and community service

and provide national service 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- and part-time na-
72

tional and community service programs. National service participants may receive education awards which may be used for fulltime or part-time higher education, vocational education, job training, or school-to-work programs.

The Corporation is governed by a Board of Directors and headed

by the Chief Executive Officer. Board members and the Chief Executive Officer are appointed by the President of the United States

and confirmed by the Senate.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $433,500,000 for

the Corporation for National and Community Service. Of this

amount, $75,000,000 is for education awards; $207,500,000 is for

grants under the National Service Trust, including the AmeriCorps

program; $10,000,000 is for the Points of Light Foundation;

$18,000,000 is for the Civilian Community Corps; $43,000,000 is

available for school-based and community-based service-learning

programs; $29,000,000 is for administrative expenses; $5,000,000 is

for audits and other evaluations; $7,500,000 is for America’s Promise; $2,500,000 is for the Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc.;

$2,500,000 is for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America; and

$5,000,000 is for Communities In Schools. The total amount is

$347,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and

$100,200,000 below the budget request.

For the second consecutive year, the Corporation received an unqualified opinion on its Statement of Financial Position and in general, the Corporation had made significant progress in correcting

some of its long-standing financial management problems. However, the independent auditors were again unable to render an

opinion on the Corporation’s Statement of Operations and Changes

in Net Position, and the Statement of Cash Flows. More importantly, the Corporation continues to be hampered by material

weaknesses in five major management areas.

One of the most critical material weaknesses is in the area of

grants management. The Inspector General (IG) has found numerous problems in the grants management area including instances

of waste, fraud, and abuse by State commissions and national nonprofit grantees. In the administration’s request, the Corporation

has requested the legal authority to provide additional administrative funds to troubled State grantees. Currently, each State commission must provide a 50 percent match for any administrative

funds received from the Corporation. Nevertheless, the Corporation

seeks to waive this matching requirement for troubled grantees.

The Committee is extremely troubled by the administration’s

proposal to provide additional funds to troubled grantees and to

waive the current matching requirement. The Committee believes

that the administration’s proposal sends the wrong signal that the

Federal Government awards poor performers. Accordingly, the

Committee rejects these proposals and the administration’s request

for an additional $3,600,000 in program administration funds for

troubled grantees. Instead, the Committee directs the Corporation

to develop a ‘‘resolution plan’’ for each troubled grantee identified

by either the Corporation or the IG that would lay out the steps

necessary to correct the grantee’s problems. The resolution plan
73

should (1) evaluate the use of a ‘‘receiver’’ that would temporarily

take over the grantee’s administrative and operational duties until

the problems were fully corrected, (2) include a workload analysis

to determine the level of program responsibilities that the grantee

can adequately perform, and (3) establish a timeline with identifiable and reasonable milestones to correct fully the problems with

the grantee. Further, the Corporation should seriously consider the

use of administrative sanctions it currently has available and propose to the Committee by December 15, 2000 any additional legislative recommendations on strengthening or increasing administrative sanctions.

The Committee remains troubled by the Corporation’s inability to

provide information to the Congress or American taxpayer on what

they are getting in return for the funds provided to the Corporation. Currently, the Corporation is only able to provide anecdotal

examples and data on a budgeted basis for its programs. The IG

has repeatedly stressed the importance of a cost accounting system

that would be able to track and provide information on how the

programs are actually performing. The Committee was disappointed to learn that the Corporation has been slow in responding to these concerns. Accordingly, the Committee has included bill

language to direct the Corporation to use $2,000,000 out its allocation for program administration for the acquisition of a cost accounting system for the Corporation’s financial management system, an integrated grants management system that provides comprehensive financial management information for all Corporation

grants and cooperative agreements, and the establishment, operation and maintenance of a central archives serving as the repository for all grant, cooperative agreement, and related documents.

The Corporation is directed to ensure that the cost accounting system and the grants management system conform to Federal requirements, including those established for such systems by the

Joint Financial Management Improvement Program. The Corporation is also directed to provide a report that describes its progress

to date for each of these areas, expenditures for the period by category (e.g. contract or salaries), purpose, and amount, as well as

cumulative expenditures to the Committee on a quarterly basis.

Further, the Corporation is prohibited from providing any salary

increases (with the exception of locality adjustments and other appropriate adjustments provided to all government employees) or bonuses to its employees graded at management levels or above until

the Corporation has certified with the IG’s concurrence that an

adequate cost accounting and grants management system has been

acquired, implemented, and conforms to all Federal requirements.

As identified by the IG and independent auditors in last year’s

financial statements audit, the National Service Trust account continues to maintain a significant surplus of funds to meet its existing liabilities. The Committee remains concerned that the administration may be requesting more funds than is necessary to meet its

existing liabilities for the AmeriCorps program; thus, bill language

is included to rescind $50,000,000 in surplus funds. The Committee

directs the Corporation to maintain an enrolled level of AmeriCorps

participation that it can fully support with its existing Trust account level, minus the rescission. The Committee also directs the
74

Corporation to provide quarterly reports to the Committee on the

assets and liabilities of the National Service Trust fund, including

information on interest earned and interested received.

The Committee continues its strong support for the Corporation’s

literacy and mentoring efforts and activities to support homeless

families and individuals, especially the homeless veterans of this

nation. The Committee directs the Corporation to expand its support in these areas and provides $40,000,000 for the ‘‘America

Reads’’ literacy and mentoring program.

The Committee commends and supports the efforts that

AmeriCorps has made under its E-Corps program in bringing technology to America’s neediest communities. E-Corps volunteers

bring technology skills to people who have been left out or left behind in the digital economy by training and mentoring children,

teachers, and non-profit and community center staff on how to use

computers and information technology. Many E-Corps members are

engaged in training students and community members directly.

The Committee recommends that, in addition to these activities, ECorps members focus on training community center staff, teachers

and others who will remain as trainers within the community, in

order to build stability, continuity, and institutional memory. To

boost the E-Corps program, the Committee directs the Corporation

to provide $25,000,000 for E-Corps activities. The Committee has provided $2,500,000 in direct funds to the

Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc. (PAT). PAT is an early

childhood parent education and family support program that provides parents information on child development. PAT has more

than 2,100 sites in 49 States, the District of Columbia, and six

other countries. The Committee supports and expects PAT to continue its efforts to empower parents as their children’s first teachers and to provide early literacy experiences for children. The Committee has provided $2,500,000 in direct funds to the

Boys and Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) to establish an innovative

outreach program designed to meet the special needs of youth in

public and Native American housing communities. These funds are

expected to be matched by the private sector and will be provided

to selected communities for the direct start-up and continuation of

BGCA clubs that serve youth in federally assisted public and Indian housing. The Committee expects BGCA to work cooperatively

with America’s Promise to minimize duplicative activities in addressing the needs of at-risk youth.

The Committee has provided $5,000,000 to Communities In

School, Inc. (CIS). CIS is the Nation’s largest non-profit organization dedicated to school dropout prevention and has been able to

leverage significant private resources with Federal resources. The

Committee expects CIS to continue its partnerships with other organizations such as America’s Promise in helping our Nation’s

youth.

The Committee has also provided $7,500,000 in direct funds to

the America’s Promise—the Alliance for Youth organization. The

Committee fully supports this effort and applauds America’s Promise for addressing problems with at-risk youth in this nation by

using and assisting current national and local efforts. The Committee also supports America’s Promise’s current activities and
75

plans to work with local businesses, charities, and other public entities to minimize duplicative activities and leverage private resources. America’s Promise is also encouraged to continue the development of measurable outcome goals on a national basis and for

each of its ‘‘Communities of Promise’’ to ensure adequate oversight

and accountability.

Lastly, the Committee has included bill language to correct a

technical problem with funds appropriated last year for the Girl

Scouts of America, Inc. The Committee continues its strong support

for the Girl Scouts’ anti-violence efforts initiated in fiscal year

2000.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $3,985,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 5,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Inspector General within the Corporation for National and Community Service is authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The goals of the Office are to increase organizational efficiency and effectiveness and to prevent

fraud, waste, and abuse. The Office of Inspector General within the

Corporation for National and Community Service was transferred

to the Corporation from the former ACTION agency when ACTION

was abolished and merged into the Corporation in April 1994.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General (OIG). This is a $1,015,000 increase

over the amount appropriated for this Office in fiscal year 2000 and

is equal to the administration’s request level.

The additional funds for the OIG should be used for the purpose

of its continuing efforts to review and audit the State commissions

of the Corporation. The OIG has identified numerous problems

with State commissions and the Committee supports fully the

OIG’s work in this area.

Bill language has also been included to provide the OIG with

more flexibility on the expenditure of funds.

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $11,450,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 12,500,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 12,500,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,445,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was established by the

Veterans’ Judicial Review Act. The court has exclusive jurisdiction

to review decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. It has the

authority to decide all relevant questions of law; interpret constitu-
76

tional, statutory, and regulatory provisions; and determine the

meaning or applicability of the terms of an action by the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is authorized to compel action by the

Department unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. It is authorized to hold unlawful and set-aside decisions, findings, conclusions, rules and regulations issued or adopted by the Department

of Veterans Affairs or the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $12,455,000 for the Court of Appeals for Veterans claims, an increase of $1,995,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The decrease of $55,000 below the

budget request reflects a revised estimate for the pro bono program, for which $895,000 is included.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

CEMETERIAL EXPENSES, ARMY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $12,426,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 15,949,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 17,949,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,949,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Responsibility for the operation of Arlington National Cemetery

and Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery is vested in

the Secretary of the Army. As of September 30, 1999, Arlington

and Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemeteries contained

the remains of 277,932 persons and comprised a total of approximately 628 acres. There were 3,604 interments and 2,152 inurnments in fiscal year 1999; 3,700 interments and 2,200 inurnments

are estimated for the current fiscal year; and 3,700 interments and

2,300 inurnments are estimated for fiscal year 2001.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $15,949,000

for the Army’s cemeterial expenses. This amount is $3,523,000

above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same as the fiscal

year 2001 budget request.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $7,562,811,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 7,276,599,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 1 7,143,888,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,534,190,000

1Does not include $60,000,000 for NIEHS or $70,000,000 for ATSDR.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] was created

through Executive Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 designed to

consolidate certain Federal Government environmental activities
77

into a single agency. The plan was submitted by the President to

the Congress on July 8, 1970, and the Agency was established as

an independent agency in the executive branch on December 2,

1970, by consolidating 15 components from 5 departments and

independent agencies.

A description of EPA’s pollution control programs by media

follows:

Air.—The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 authorize a national program of air pollution research, regulation, prevention,

and enforcement activities.

Water quality.—The Clean Water Act, as amended in 1977, 1981,

and 1987, provides the framework for protection of the Nation’s

surface waters. The law recognizes that it is the primary responsibility of the States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate water pollution. The States determine the desired uses for their waters, set

standards, identify current uses and, where uses are being impaired or threatened, develop plans for the protection or restoration

of the designated use. They implement the plans through control

programs such as permitting and enforcement, construction of municipal waste water treatment works, and nonpoint source control

practices. The CWA also regulates discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.

Drinking water.—The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as

amended in 1996, charges EPA with the responsibility of implementing a program to assure that the Nation’s public drinking

water supplies are free of contamination that may pose a human

health risk, and to protect and prevent the endangerment of

ground water resources which serve as drinking water supplies.

Hazardous waste.—The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

of 1976 mandated EPA to develop a regulatory program to protect

human health and the environment from improper hazardous

waste disposal practices. The RCRA Program manages hazardous

wastes from generation through disposal.

EPA’s responsibilities and authorities to manage hazardous

waste were greatly expanded under the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments of 1984. Not only did the regulated universe

of wastes and facilities dealing with hazardous waste increase significantly, but past mismanagement practices, in particular prior

releases at inactive hazardous and solid waste management units,

were to be identified and corrective action taken. The 1984 amendments also authorized a regulatory and implementation program

directed to owners and operators of underground storage tanks.

Pesticides.—The objective of the Pesticide Program is to protect

the public health and the environment from unreasonable risks

while permitting the use of necessary pest control approaches. This

objective is pursued by EPA under the Food Quality Protection Act,

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act through three principal

means: (1) review of existing and new pesticide products; (2) enforcement of pesticide use rules; and (3) research and development

to reinforce the ability to evaluate the risks and benefits of pesticides.

Radiation.—The radiation program’s major emphasis is to minimize the exposure of persons to ionizing radiation, whether from
78

naturally occurring sources, from medical or industrial applications, nuclear power sources, or weapons development.

Toxic substances.—The Toxic Substances Control Act establishes

a program to stimulate the development of adequate data on the

effects of chemical substances on health and the environment, and

institute control action for those chemicals which present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. The act’s coverage affects more than 60,000 chemicals currently in commerce,

and all new chemicals.

Multimedia.—Multimedia activities are designed to support programs where the problems, tools, and results are cross media and

must be integrated to effect results. This integrated program encompasses the Agency’s research, enforcement, and abatement activities.

Superfund.—The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 established a national program

to protect public health and the environment from the threats

posed by inactive hazardous waste sites and uncontrolled spills of

hazardous substances. The original statute was amended by the

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. Under

these authorities, EPA manages a hazardous waste site cleanup

program including emergency response and long-term remediation.

Leaking underground storage tanks.—The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 established the leaking underground storage tank [LUST] trust fund to conduct corrective actions for releases from leaking underground storage tanks that contain petroleum or other hazardous substances. EPA implements

the LUST response program primarily through cooperative agreements with the States.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total of $7,534,190,000 for EPA.

This is an increase of $257,591,000 above the budget request and

a decrease of $28,621,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.

The Committee believes EPA’s state revolving funds represent a

critical investment in our nation’s water quality. With the significant unmet need in water infrastructure financing, the Committee

has made the state revolving fund programs a high priority and

has restored the President’s reduction of $550,000,000 to the clean

water SRF.

The agency is directed to notify the Committee prior to each reprogramming in excess of $500,000 between objectives, when those

reprogrammings are for different purposes. The exceptions to this

limitation are as follows: (1) for the ‘‘Environmental programs and

management’’ account, Committee approval is required only above

$1,000,000; and (2) for the ‘‘State and tribal assistance grants’’ account, reprogramming of performance partnership grant funds is

exempt from this limitation.
79

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $642,303,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 674,348,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 650,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 670,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

EPA’s ‘‘Science and technology’’ account provides funding for the

scientific knowledge and tools necessary to support decisions on

preventing, regulating, and abating environmental pollution and to

advance the base of understanding on environmental sciences.

These efforts are conducted through contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with universities, industries, other private commercial firms, nonprofit organizations, State and local government,

and Federal agencies, as well as through work performed at EPA’s

laboratories and various field stations and field offices. Trust Fund

resources are transferred to this account directly from the Hazardous Substance Superfund.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $670,000,000 for science and technology, a decrease of $4,348,000 below the budget request and an

increase of $27,697,000 above the enacted level. In addition, the

Committee recommends the transfer of $38,000,000 from the

Superfund account, for a total of $708,000,000 for science and technology.

The Committee has made the following changes to the budget request:

∂$1,500,000 for the National Jewish Medical and Research Center for research on the relationship between indoor and outdoor

pollution and the development of respiratory diseases.

∂$1,900,000 for the National Environmental Respiratory Center

at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute. The research

should be coordinated with EPA’s overall particulate matter research program and consistent with the recommendations set

forth by the National Academy of Sciences report on PM research.

∂$1,000,000 for the Environmental Technology Commercialization Center to increase the transfer of federally-developed environmental technology.

∂$1,250,000 for the Center for Air Toxics Metals at the Energy

and Environmental Research Center.

∂$1,500,000 for the Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics

Research Center.

∂$250,000 for acid rain research at the University of Vermont.

∂$1,500,000 for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research

Center.

∂$250,000 for the Institute for Environmental and Industrial

Science at Southwest Texas State University.

∂$750,000 for the Integrated Public/Private Energy and Environmental Consortium [IPEC] to develop cost-effective environ-
80

mental technology, improved business practices, and technology transfer for the domestic petroleum industry.

∂$1,000,000 for the University of South Alabama, Center for Estuarine Research.

∂$3,902,000 for the Mine Waste Technology Program and the

Heavy Metal Water Program at the National Environmental

Waste Technology, Testing, and Evaluation Center.

∂$3,625,000 for the Water Environment Research Foundation.

∂$3,625,000 for the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF).

∂$400,000 for Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research at Tarleton State University.

∂$500,000 for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research.

∂$750,000 for the Geothermal Heat Pump (GHP) Consortium.

GHP conserves energy, reduces harmful emissions into the atmosphere and decreases energy costs. Continued federal support is needed to ensure successful deployment of this new

technology.

∂$750,000 for the Kalamazoo River Watershed Initiative

through Western Michigan University’s Environmental Research Institute. ¥$800,000 from the EMPACT program.

¥$28,000,000 from the climate change technology initiative.

The Committee supports a funding level of $7,000,000 for the

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation [SITE] program,

funded from the transfer from Superfund to this account. The Committee supports efforts through the SITE program to identify costeffective, innovative technology solutions for contamination problems such as Brownfields, sediments and fuel oxygenates. Of the

amount provided for the SITE program, $500,000 is for a demonstration project at the Port of Ridgefield, WA, involving an innovative steam extraction technology. EPA is expected to work with

the State and the port to ensure that cleanup of the Ridgefield site

continues in an efficient and timely manner beyond the demonstration project under the SITE program.

The Committee also urges EPA through the SITE program to

give consideration to funding a demonstration of a prototype ceramic microfiltration technology for the treatment of acid mine

drainage.

The Committee supports funding at not less than current levels

for the hazardous substance research center program, to be funded

by funds transferred from Superfund, and the science and technology appropriation.

NAS study on health benefits associated with air pollution regulations.—There have been many concerns raised regarding the methodology used by EPA in calculating incremental health benefits

that have been associated with air pollution regulatory proposals.

The magnitude of health benefit estimates is highly dependent

upon the assumed concentrations threshold of a particular response

to a pollutant health effect. It is important EPA employ the most

scientifically defensible methodology in estimating health benefits.

The EPA is directed to engage the NAS, within 90 days of this authorization, to conduct a study of this issue and recommend to the

agency a common methodology to be followed in all future analyses.
81

A report of the study shall be forwarded to the Congress within 12

months after the NAS receives the EPA request.

Updated NAS study on ozone.—As authorized by Section 185B of

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the National Academy of

Sciences on behalf of EPA in 1991 conducted the study, ‘‘Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution.’’ The

Act ‘‘requires EPA to conduct a study in conjunction with the NAS

on the role of ozone precursors in tropospheric ozone formation and

control.’’ The issue of VOC versus NOX control was specifically addressed in the 1991 report and two key conclusions were made.

‘‘NOX reductions can have either a beneficial or detrimental effect

on ozone concentrations, depending upon the locations and emissions rates of VOC and NOX sources . . .’’ and ‘‘Some modeling and

field studies show that ozone concentrations can increase in the

near field in response to NOX reductions but decrease in the far

field.’’ Since the issuance of the NAS study almost a decade ago,

ambient ozone impacts have decreased dramatically. Ambient monitoring of ozone, VOC and NOX has greatly improved as well. These

data along with extensive urban and regional modeling activity

have closed many of the knowledge gaps cited in the NAS study.

In fact, there have been serious questions raised concerning the potential disbenefits of further NOX control in terms of achieving and

maintaining the current NAAQS for ozone. As a result of this large

body of new scientific evidence, EPA is directed to engage the NAS

within 90 days of this Act, for an update on the current ozone problem in urban and regional settings with specific emphasis on the

role of NOX control in meeting mandated air quality goals. A report

shall be submitted to Congress within eighteen months after the

NAS receives the EPA request.

NAS study of carbon monoxide episodes in meteorological and

topographical problem areas.—The Committee directs EPA to contract with the National Academy of Sciences for a study of carbon

monoxide episodes in meteorological and topographical problem

areas, addressing the public health significance and strategies for

managing these rare occurrences in national ambient air quality

standards non-attainment areas, due mostly to cold-weather inversions. One of the major case studies is to be Fairbanks, AK.

BEN Model.—The Committee understands EPA is considering

revisions to the economic model utilized by EPA to identify and calculate the economic benefit of regulatory noncompliance, the socalled ‘‘BEN Model.’’ In view of the significant ramifications associated with revisions to the BEN Model, it is imperative that an

independent peer review be undertaken. The Committee directs

EPA to undertake such a review prior to finalizing revisions to the

BEN Model or the formal adoption of its proposed new approach

to the recovery of economic benefit.

Bill language relative to the liquidation of obligations is included

as an administrative provision.

The Committee has not included proposed bill language relative

to the environmental services fund.
82

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $1,895,267,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 2,099,461,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 1,895,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,000,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Agency’s ‘‘Environmental programs and management’’ account includes the development of environmental standards; monitoring and surveillance of pollution conditions; direct Federal pollution control planning; technical assistance to pollution control agencies and organizations; preparation of environmental impact statements; enforcement and compliance assurance; and assistance to

Federal agencies in complying with environmental standards and

insuring that their activities have minimal environmental impact.

It provides personnel compensation, benefits, and travel and other

administrative expenses for all agency programs except hazardous

substance Superfund, LUST, Science and Technology, Oil Spill Response, and OIG.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,000,000,000 for environmental

programs and management, an increase of $104,733,000 above the

2000 level and a decrease of $99,461,000 below the budget request.

The Committee has made the following changes to the budget request:

∂$8,600,000 for the National Rural Water Association.

∂$2,300,000 for the Rural Community Assistance Program.

∂$550,000 for the Groundwater Protection Council.

∂$1,000,000 for the National Environmental Training Center at

West Virginia University.

∂$1,550,000 for the Small Flows Clearinghouse. The Committee

encourages EPA to support a pilot project through the Small

Flows Clearinghouse that would create an Internet site to help

small rural communities complete Federal, State and local loan

and grant applications.

∂$1,250,000 for the national onsite and community wastewater

treatment demonstration project through the Small Flows

Clearinghouse.

∂$2,500,000 for the Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy.

∂$4,000,000 for the Small Public Water System Technology Centers at Western Kentucky University; the University of New

Hampshire; the University of Alaska-Sitka; Pennsylvania State

University; the University of Missouri-Columbia; Montana

State University; the University of Illinois; and Mississippi

State University.

∂$500,000 for the final year of Federal funding to assist communities in Hawaii to meet successfully the water quality permitting requirements for rehabilitating native Hawaiian

fishponds.

∂$5,000,000 under section 104(b) of the Clean Water Act for

America’s Clean Water Foundation for implementation of
83

onfarm environmental assessments for livestock operations,

with the goal of improving surface and ground water quality.

∂$500,000 for the Ohio River Watershed Pollutant Reduction

Program, to be cost-shared.

∂$1,000,000 to continue the sediment decontamination technology demonstration in the New York-New Jersey Harbor.

∂$1,500,000 for the National Alternative Fuels Vehicle Training

Program.

∂$300,000 for the Coalition for Utah’s Future to continue the

Envision Utah project including the development of a sustainable plan for future growth and environmental stewardship in

the Wasatch Front.

∂$300,000 for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use

Management.

∂$750,000 for planning, coordination and development of a comprehensive watershed based implementation program for the

Santa Fe River.

∂$500,000 for the Brazos-Navasota watershed management

project.

∂$500,000 for the Kentucky Center for Wastewater Research to

establish training, education and database management for

wastewater research to identify the greatest threats to regional

watersheds.

∂$250,000 for the Maryland Bureau of Mines for an acid mine

drainage remediation project to reduce or eliminate the loss of

quality water from surface streams in the Kempton Mine complex.

∂$2,000,000 to the University of Missouri-Rolla for research and

development of technologies to mitigate the impacts of livestock operations on the environment.

∂$500,000 for marsh restoration activities at Acowmin Marsh

and Little River Marsh near North Hampton and Rye, NH.

∂$200,000 for the Tri-State Water Quality Council for development of voluntary nutrient reduction programs, establishing a

basinwide water quality monitoring program, and related activities.

∂$500,000 for the Global Environmental Management Education

Center within the College of Natural Resources at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point to provide training and outreach education for safeguarding the quality of surface and

groundwater resources.

∂$1,000,000 for the Frank Tejeda Center for Excellence in Environmental Operations to continue its efforts to demonstrate

new technology for water and wastewater treatment.

∂$1,250,000 for the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants

Program. The Committee expects that the funds provided for

the Chesapeake Bay small watersheds program, managed by

the Fish and Wildlife Foundation, shall be used for communitybased projects including those that design and implement onthe-ground and in-the-water environmental restoration or protection activities to help meet Chesapeake Bay Program goals

and objectives.

∂$1,000,000 for the Lake Champlain management plan.
84

∂$1,000,000 for the Long Island Sound Program Office, for a

total of $1,500,000.

∂$500,000 for the Environmentors project.

∂$200,000 for the Northeast Waste Management Officials Association to continue solid waste, hazardous waste, cleanup and

pollution prevention programs.

∂$2,000,000 for the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute’s Missouri watershed initiative project to link economic

and environmental data with ambient water quality.

∂$500,000 for the Small Business Pollution Prevention Center

at the University of Northern Iowa.

∂$750,000 for the painting and coating compliance enhancement

project through the Iowa Waste Reduction Center.

∂$1,890,000 for the Michigan Biotechnology Institute for development and demonstration of environmental cleanup technologies.

∂$200,000 for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the

University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture and

Human Resources to continue projects aimed at improving the

acceptability and efficacy of agriculturally-based environmental

restoration technologies.

∂$1,000,000 for the Animal Waste Management Consortium

through the University of Missouri, acting with Iowa State

University, North Carolina State University, Michigan State

University, Oklahoma State University, and Purdue University

to supplement ongoing research, demonstration, and outreach

projects associated with animal waste management.

∂$1,000,000 to complete a cumulative impacts study by the National Academy of Sciences of North Slope oil and gas development.

∂$750,000 for an expansion of EPA’s efforts related to the Government purchase and use of environmentally preferable products focused on biobased products with an emphasis on soybased industrial oils, greases and hydraulic fluid. This includes

$200,000 to complete the soy smoke initiative through the University of Missouri-Rolla.

∂$975,000 for the Alabama Department of Environmental Management water and wastewater training programs. These

funds are strictly for training purposes.

∂$1,000,000 to continue the National Biosolids Partnership.

∂$250,000 for the Vermont Department of Agriculture to work

with the conservation districts along the Connecticut River in

Vermont to reduce nonpoint source pollution.

∂$600,000 for the Wetland Development project in Logan, UT.

∂$500,000 for the Economic Development Alliance of Hawaii to

accelerate commercialization of biotechnology to reduce pesticide use in tropical and subtropical agricultural production.

∂$100,000 for the Connecticut River Science Consortium to develop an interdisciplinary scientific monitoring and analysis

project in the Connecticut River Basin.

∂$1,000,000 to develop and demonstrate new tools for imaging

and monitoring the movement of fluids and contaminants in

the shallow subsurface using time-lapse geophysical imaging

and tomography techniques. This project will involve research-
85

ers from Boise State University, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, other Federal labs and industry.

∂$500,000 for Mississippi State University, the University of

Mississippi and the University of Georgia to conduct forestry

best management practice water quality effectiveness studies

in the States of Mississippi and Georgia.

∂$750,000 for the University of Idaho’s groundwater assessment

project for rural Idaho cities and towns.

∂$500,000 for a study by the City of Fairbanks using geographic

information system mapping to assess methods to comply with

NPDES requirements.

∂$150,000 to Colchester, VT to study nonpoint source influences

on water quality in Mallets Bay on Lake Champlain and to

plan for mitigation, with a focus on stormwater management

and on-site disposal systems.

∂$750,000 for the Resource and Agricultural Policy Systems

Project at Iowa State University.

∂$700,000 to continue the Urban Rivers Awareness Program at

the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia for its environmental science program.

∂$500,000 for the Kenai River Center for continued research on

watershed issues and related activities.

∂$750,000 for the New Hampshire Estuaries Project management plan implementation.

∂$100,000 to continue the Design for the Environment for Farmers Program to address the unique environmental concerns of

the American Pacific area through the adoption of sustainable

agricultural practices.

∂$5,000,000 to the Gas Research Institute for the development

of a biorefinery commercialization pilot project which will utilize thermal-depolymerization technology to break down waste

streams into usable products.

¥$98,000,000 from the climate change technology initiative

[CCTI]. GAO found that EPA provided no justification for the

requested increase for CCTI.

¥$600,000 from the environmental monitoring for public access

and community tracking [EMPACT] program. The amount provided is the same as the current level for this program.

¥$9,000,000 from the Montreal protocol fund.

¥$1,000,000 from environmental education.

¥$3,840,000 from the regional geographic program.

¥$4,841,000 from the innovative community partnership program.

¥$3,395,000 from urban environmental quality and human

health.

¥$4,000,000 from international environmental monitoring.

¥$9,000,000 from the information integration initiative. While

the Committee strongly supports efforts to improve the quality,

reliability and integration of environmental data and information systems, EPA has not developed a comprehensive plan for

the information exchange network or a detailed spending proposal to guide the allocation of resources under this proposed

new program. Moreover, EPA has not fully assessed its infor-
86

mation integration needs nor that of the States. Therefore, the

Committee has provided $5,000,000 for continued planning and

design of the exchange network. ¥$29,000,000 as a general reduction, subject to normal reprogramming guidelines.

The Committee directs that no reductions be taken below the

President’s request from pesticides registration or reregistration activities, the NPDES permit backlog, RCRA corrective action, High

Production Volume Chemical Challenge Program, endocrine

disruptor screening program, the National Estuary Program, the

Chesapeake Bay Program Office, and the water quality monitoring

program along the New Jersey-New York shoreline. The Committee

supports no less than fiscal year 2000 funding levels for the Great

Lakes National Program Office, compliance assistance activities

($25,000,000), and the regional environmental enforcement associations. Finally, the Committee supports the fiscal year 1999 level for

the 104(g) wastewater operator training program.

The Committee supports EPA’s New Source Review RACT/BACT/

LAER Clearinghouse, a partnership between EPA and states that

enables all stakeholders to access the latest information about air

pollution control technologies. This activity should be funded at not

less than $1,500,000 in fiscal year 2001.

TMDL Rules.—The Committee is very troubled with EPA’s

TMDL water quality rules addressing impaired waters under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The regulations are inconsistent with the Clean Water Act, inflexible and prescriptive, and

have enormous cost implications for the States and the private sector. Moreover, there are serious gaps in data, research, and monitoring to meet the requirements EPA has set forth. Therefore, the

Committee is very distressed with the administration’s decision to

thwart congressional intent in finalizing this flawed rule.

The Committee has provided large increases under the ‘‘State

and tribal assistance grants’’ for section 319 nonpoint source grants

and section 106 water quality grants to enable the States to continue planning and monitoring activities, and to increase efforts to

control nonpoint sources of water pollution. In addition, the Committee expects the following TMDL studies to be initiated promptly.

NAS Study of TMDLs.—The Committee directs EPA to contract

expeditiously with the National Academy of Sciences for a review

of the quality of science used to develop and implement TMDLs.

The study will evaluate the information required to identify sources

of pollutant loadings and their respective contributions to water

quality impairment; the information required to allocate reductions

in pollutant loadings among sources; whether such information is

available for use by States; whether such information, if available,

is reliable; and if such information is not available or is not reliable, what methodologies should be used to obtain such information. The final report shall include recommendations for improving

the methodologies evaluated under the study and shall be submitted to the Congress by June 1, 2001.

TMDLs Cost Assessment.—To obtain better cost information, the

Committee directs EPA to conduct a comprehensive assessment of

the potential State resources which will be required for the devel-
87

opment and implementation of TMDLs and present the results of

this study to Congress within 120 days of enactment of this Act.

At a minimum, the report should (1) identify any expected increase

in State personnel needed to develop and implement 40,000

TMDLs; (2) specify additional data collection activities to make listing decisions; (3) identify the cost of conducting the needed studies

to collect high quality data on the current loads from sources (point

and nonpoint sources) of a pollutant on 303(d) listed waters slated

for TMDL development; and (4) provide an estimate of the annual

costs to the private sector due to TMDL implementation and related costs.

TMDL Monitoring Data.—In addition, the Committee directs

EPA to prepare an analysis of the monitoring data needed for development and implementation of TMDLs. Such analysis shall address the data gaps identified in the March 2000 GAO report

‘‘Water Quality, Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data,’’ including gaps in data needed to assess all State water, identify waters that are impaired, identify pollution sources, develop TMDLs and develop plans to implement

TMDLs. The analysis shall include an estimate of the cost of collecting the monitoring data. In conducting the analysis, the Administrator shall solicit comments from each State regarding the Agency’s analysis and estimate.

TMDL Guidance.—The Committee is very concerned that some

EPA Regional offices, including Region IX, issued and implemented

TMDL guidance to impose stringent requirements in individual

permits prior to the TMDL rule being finalized. Region IX should

not be mandating these requirements, and it is unclear whether

this Region or any other Region has authority to do so.

Workforce Issues.—The Committee continues to be concerned

with EPA’s haphazard approach to allocating and justifying staffing levels in its program offices and regions. According to GAO,

EPA has no workforce planning strategy to determine the number

and types of people needed to carry out strategic goals and objectives, EPA has not assessed changes in its workload resulting from

factors such as productivity improvements and delegations of responsibilities to States, and EPA has not made much progress toward its stated goal of developing a process for continually monitoring and assessing its workforce in light of changes in its internal

and external environment such as the increased role of State environmental agencies. GAO found that recent workforce planning efforts ‘‘have not received the resources and senior management commitment needed to bring them to fruition, and they have fallen

short of their objectives.’’ GAO has been directed to undertake a

comprehensive assessment of EPA human capital management,

and the Committee will be following these efforts closely in order

to address these concerns directly in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation.

Financial Management Issues.—The Committee is troubled by

the fact that EPA did not receive a ‘‘clean’’ financial audit for fiscal

year 1999 by the Inspector General. EPA failed to provide complete, accurate and reliable information by the agreed upon dates

to the OIG. Moreover, none of the recommendations made by the

IG 1 year ago to improve financial management at EPA have been
88

fully addressed. A key concern is the need to replace EPA’s Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), which is outdated

and very costly to operate. The Committee expects EPA will take

all necessary steps recommended by the OIG to improve financial

management, including developing a plan to replace IFMS in a

timely way, which would involve forming an IFMS replacement

team to ensure sufficient staff expertise to undertake the replacement of IFMS, completing an options study for IFMS replacement,

and developing a budget for this project. The Committee expects to

be kept apprised of EPA’s efforts in this area.

Grants oversight.—The Committee is troubled that EPA’s Inspector General continues to raise serious concerns about EPA’s oversight of grants, which amount to more than half of EPA’s total

budget. This has been a material management control weakness

since 1996, when the IG found that EPA grantees too often did not

provide the products and services specified in the grant agreements, meet performance goals, or comply with procurement requirements. In the past year, the IG noted continuing concerns

about inadequate monitoring of grantees to ensure proper performance, noncompetitive grant awards, and grants being issued when

contracts were more appropriate. An IG audit found an EPA headquarters office and EPA regional office awarded grants with identical work plans to the same recipient, paying twice for the same

work while EPA did not receive the product it expected. Examples

of grantees who did not complete the work promised but received

all the funds have also been identified. The Committee directs EPA

to report quarterly on its efforts to address these critical management concerns, beginning with the submission of the fiscal year

2001 operating plan.

Compliance Assistance.—The Committee directs that compliance

assistance activities within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) be funded at no less than $25,000,000. The

Committee is disturbed by EPA’s continuing attempts to avoid the

intent of Congress in this regard. EPA’s delay in fully funding the

program in fiscal year 2000 until after Congressional oversight and

with only 2 months remaining in the fiscal year is inexcusable, not

to mention detrimental to improving compliance by the regulated

community. Furthermore, EPA’s diversion of compliance assistance

resources in the middle of fiscal year 2000 to the civil enforcement

office can only be seen as an attempt to avoid Congressionally directed spending levels. Therefore, the Committee directs that no

funds spent by the Office of Regulatory Enforcement or the Office

of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training count towards

the $25,000,000 compliance assistance floor. If OECA spends funds

in those offices on compliance assistance activities, it should consider moving those compliance assistance functions and personnel

to the Office of Compliance, as originally intended by the Administrator’s enforcement reorganization as approved by Congress. Likewise, the Agency should not attempt to divert compliance assistance funds to other activities such as compliance monitoring. The

lack of senior-level enforcement management commitment to funding compliance assistance activities troubles the Committee. Compliance assistance must remain an essential element of EPA regulatory policy.
89

Small Business Division.—The Committee directs EPA to fund

the Small Business Division in the Office of Policy, Economics and

Innovation at $3,000,000 and no less than 10 full time equivalents

(excluding Senior Environmental Employees). EPA efforts which

assist and promote small business compliance with existing and

new environmental regulations will only benefit the environment.

Recent EPA rulemakings, economic impact analysis and policy initiatives make it clear that EPA must do more to develop and incorporate the needs of small business into its activities. Stakeholder

comments gathered by the Agency during its revision of the EPA

Small Business Strategy reinforce this point. In allocating these resources to the Division, EPA should include a Division action plan

along with its Agency operating plan submission to Congress. The

plan should discuss how the Division will use its staff and funds

to increase delivery of compliance information and tools to small

business, increase development and delivery of information about

small business characteristics, impacts and needs to the Agency,

and increase the consideration of small business needs and issues

within the Agency during EPA’s rulemaking, enforcement and policy development activities.

Environmental Data Management.—The Committee is very disappointed in the lack of progress by the Office of Environmental Information in meeting critical commitments and addressing serious

concerns about the quality and reliability of EPA data. EPA still

does not have a long-term strategy that would address specifically

how it will address the myriad of information management issues

such as insuring the quality of EPA data and error correction processes, integrating EPA’s many information management system

and those of the States, how it will work with the States to achieve

this, addressing data gaps, and reducing reporting burdens. While

EPA has finally begun to address major computer security concerns

which were first raised at least 5 years ago, EPA has yet to demonstrate a strong commitment to establishing an effective longterm computer security testing and monitoring program. The Committee has also noted its concerns about EPA’s plans for an information integration initiative. While the Committee supports this

initiative in concept, very little progress has been made in the last

year in developing a detailed plan for how this will work, resource

requirements, and the specific role of the States in this effort.

National Environmental Performance Partnership System.—The

Committee is disappointed with the lack of progress at EPA in

using the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) to change fundamentally EPA’s relationship with the

States in implementing environmental protection programs. The

OIG recently found that the NEPPS program, including the Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) program, has not been well-integrated into EPA programs or accepted by EPA managers. The

OIG identified several factors for this, including the lack of leadership, training and guidance; and the lack of goals and performance

measures. The OIG stated, ‘‘For many EPA regional managers and

staff, NEPPS has not focused on environmental results or deferred

work that was not a priority. Instead, NEPPS has been added to

a long list of traditional work responsibilities. Further, some regional program managers and staff viewed NEPPS as only a paper-
90

work exercise to get a performance partnership agreement in

place.’’ The Committee expects EPA to implement expeditiously the

OIG recommendations to address these key shortcomings, and report to the Committee within 90 days of enactment of this Act on

its progress.

National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA).—The Committee notes

that EPA recently released the first phase (emission estimates and

ambient concentration data) of its National Air Toxics Assessment

(NATA). The Committee is aware of the potential value of this tool.

The Committee is also aware of recent concerns by States and

other stakeholders regarding errors in NATA’s inputs and models.

Therefore, the Committee requests that EPA conduct and publish

an uncertainty and variability analysis of NATA and its inputs and

models; and an analysis of how the uncertainties and variabilities

combine to affect the final risk estimates and characterizations.

Furthermore, the Committee requests that EPA form a working

group with State representatives and other stakeholders to help

identify and correct NATA deficiencies and improve future NATA

releases. The Committee also requests that EPA submit all components of NATA for full scientific peer-review.

3MRA Risk Assessment Model.—The Committee is concerned

that EPA has not peer-reviewed the 3MRA risk assessment model

which it plans to use to identify lower-risk wastes than can ‘‘exit’’

the RCRA system. The Committee directs EPA to submit the

3MRA risk model to an independent peer review, such as the National Academy of Sciences, and respond publicly to the findings of

the peer review prior to using it to establish regulatory determinations.

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).—The Committee understands that EPA is currently completing an assessment requested last year on the quality of the data included in the Agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. Given

that the Agency and many State regulatory agencies rely almost

exclusively on IRIS values in promulgating regulations, the Committee remains concerned over the potential for rules to rely on

outdated scientific information. As a result, the Committee requests that the Agency devote all necessary resources, including

continued collaboration with external entities where possible, to

meet its goal of issuing 21 new or revised toxicological assessments

in fiscal year 2001. In addition, the Committee requests that EPA

conduct needs assessments with public input to determine the need

for increasing this annual rate of updates to existing IRIS files during 2002–2005 as well as the need to add new IRIS files for chemicals not now included. Furthermore, the Committee also expects

the Agency to adhere consistently to its policy to accept and respond to new toxicity information during rulemakings, as articulated in EPA’s August 26, 1994 memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance

on the Use of Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Values,’’

as well as its December 21, 1993 memorandum entitled ‘‘Use of

IRIS Values in Superfund Risk Assessment.’’

Tribal Water Quality program.—The Committee continues to

value and support the Tribal Coordinated Water Quality program

and the work of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and

expects EPA to continue to fund these programs, including the
91

NWIFC coordination role. The Committee expects EPA to maintain

a base funding level amount for each tribe in this program of

$110,000 and to provide $160,000 to NWIFC for coordination. To

accomplish the overall program, EPA is to provide $700,000 in addition to the existing GAP funding presently received by the tribes

and the NWIFC.

New Source Review.—Numerous comments and questions have

been raised about the agency’s management of the 1980 New

Source Review (NSR) rule and related guidance and policies. Given

the importance of achieving clean air goals in fair and cost-effective

ways, the Committee directs EPA to enter into an agreement with

the National Academy of Public Administration, within 90 days of

enactment of this Act, to conduct an independent evaluation of the

NSR and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs,

and to publish a report of its findings and recommendations. The

report, which shall be completed within 1 year, shall examine: the

evolution of the agency’s NSR/PSD regulations, guidance and interpretation of those regulations, and implementation of NSR/PSD

programs; the respective roles of the States and EPA in implementing NSR/PSD; the evolution of EPA’s policies and strategies

on enforcement of NSR/PSD; and the impacts of the current NSR/

PSD program administration on industrial competitiveness, capital

investment, technological innovation, pollution prevention, and environmental quality. The Academy shall provide recommendations

to EPA and the Congress on how to manage better or reform the

program. The Committee has provided $500,000 for this study.

Hazardous Waste Initiative.—The Committee is aware that many

organizations, including the NAS-sponsored Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable, the National Institutes of

Health, and EPA, have recognized that allowing certain flexibility

within the academic laboratory research environment can potentially yield superior compliance while reducing regulatory burden.

The Committee is also aware of a new collaborative initiative involving environmental health professionals and academic research

scientists from 10 major academic research institutions and authorized State regulatory officials from each of the EPA regions to establish consensus best practices for laboratory waste management.

The Committee supports this approach and applauds the commitment to minimize the potential for harm to human health and the

environment and to promote excellence in environmental stewardship. The Committee encourages EPA to participate in this initiative and to provide the maximum flexibility permissible under the

regulatory provisions of RCRA, as appropriate, in support of the

initiative. Within 12 months, EPA is to submit a report to the Congress evaluating the consensus best practices developed through

the initiative and the need for regulatory changes, if any, to carry

out its recommendations. In addition, EPA should consider proposing regulatory changes based on the consensus approach to best

practices for academic research laboratory waste management developed under this initiative.

Lead-paint pre-renovation rule.—The Committee is concerned

that there remains significant confusion over compliance with

EPA’s lead-paint pre-renovation rule. Therefore, the Committee

urges the agency to extend the compliance assistance phase of en-
92

forcement through September 2001, and directs EPA to release additional guidance that will assist the multifamily housing industry

with compliance with the rule. The Committee believes that child

health is best-protected in well-maintained housing and is concerned that excessive notification requirements will impede routine

repairs and maintenance activities in multifamily properties. EPA

should continue to work with property owners and the regulated

community generally to develop a practical approach to implementing this rule as soon as possible.

Radon in drinking water standard.—The Committee is aware of

bipartisan efforts in Congress to introduce legislation which would

improve public health protection from the threat of radon. The

Committee encourages EPA to work closely with the Congress in

crafting this legislation, and postpone final promulgation of a

drinking water standard until such legislation can be fully considered.

Compendium of Methods for Characterizing Solid Waste.—The

Committee directs EPA to publish Update IVB to SW846 in the

Federal Register not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act.

Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell project.—The Committee notes that

funds remain available from prior year appropriations for the Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell demonstration project. These funds are to

be used in fiscal year 2001 for that purpose; however, EPA shall

not award remaining funds until it receives, not later than September 1, 2000, a written plan from the vendor which details the

vendor’s design plans and costs to complete the pilot project.

Mountain Cloud Water Chemistry and Deposition Program.—The

Committee urges EPA to reinstate under the CASTNet program

the Mountain Cloud Water Chemistry and Deposition Program to

resume long-term cloud chemistry monitoring and research.

Kyoto Protocol.—Bill language has been included, as in the current year, prohibiting EPA from spending funds to implement the

Kyoto Protocol. The Committee notes that this restriction on the

use of funds shall not apply to the conduct of education activities

and seminars by the agency.

The Committee notes that some EPA programs involve research

or other activities that are associated with climate change. To the

extent that the Committee has funded this work, it has done so

based on the program’s individual merits of contributing to issues

associated with energy efficiency and cost savings, related environmental assessments, and general emission improvements. The bill

language is intended to prohibit funds provided in this bill from

being used to implement actions solely under the Kyoto Protocol,

prior to its ratification.

The Byrd-Hagel resolution which passed in 1997 remains the

clearest statement of the will of the Senate with respect to the

Kyoto Protocol, and the Committee is committed to ensuring that

the administration not implement the Kyoto Protocol without Congressional consent. The Committee recognizes, however, that there

are also longstanding programs which have goals and objectives

that, if met, could have positive effects on energy use and the environment. The Committee does not intend to preclude these programs from proceeding, provided they have been funded and approved by Congress.
93

To the extent future funding requests may be submitted which

would increase funding for climate change activities prior to Senate

consideration of the Kyoto Protocol (whether under the auspices of

the Climate Change Technology Initiative or any other initiative),

the Administration must continue to explain the components of the

programs, their anticipated goals and objectives, the justification

for any funding increases, a discussion of how successes will be

measured, and a clear definition of how these programs are justified by goals and objectives independent of implementation of the

Kyoto Protocol. The conferees expect these items to be included as

part of the fiscal year 2002 budget submission for all affected agencies.

Ozone Protection Activities.—The Committee recognizes that voluntary efforts to use non-ozone depleting substances prior to the

Clean Air Act mandate provides benefits to stratospheric ozone recovery. The Committee 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 now employed by EPA. The Significant New Alternative Program (SNAP) must be the basis for all future refrigerant promotion supported by the agency. All new agency programs and promotion must be beneficial to all manufacturers

without advantaging any single manufacturer over another. The

EPA should also continue encouraging manufacturers to look for

ways to employ the most environmentally beneficial refrigerants in

their equipment designs.

Hydraulic fracturing.—The Committee understands that the Office of Water plans to undertake a study focused on the hydraulic

fracturing of coalbed methane wells shortly. In undertaking such a

study, the Committee is concerned that EPA not duplicate any research efforts or studies underway by States or other research bodies, such as the Groundwater Protection Council. In addition, such

a study should be conducted by a credible organization which is

widely-recognized for scientific and technical research studies to

ensure that it is properly designed and executed. Data collected for

the study as well as the study process should be transparent, and

after completion the study should be subjected to peer review.

The Committee has not included proposed bill language relative

to the environmental services fund.

Bill language relative to the liquidation of obligations is included

as an administrative provision.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $32,380,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 34,094,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 34,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 34,094,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Inspector General provides EPA audit and investigative functions to identify and recommend corrective actions of
94

management, program, and administrative deficiencies which create conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste,

and mismanagement.

Trust fund resources are transferred to this account directly from

the hazardous substance Superfund.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $34,094,000 for the Office of Inspector General, the same as the budget request. In addition,

$11,000,000 will be available by transfer from the Superfund account, for a total of $45,094,000. The trust fund resources will be

transferred to the inspector general ‘‘General fund’’ account with an

expenditure transfer.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $62,362,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 23,931,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 23,931,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 23,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The appropriation for buildings and facilities at EPA covers the

necessary major repairs and improvements to existing installations

which are used by the Agency. This appropriation also covers new

construction projects when appropriate.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $23,000,000 for buildings and facilities, a reduction of $931,000 below the budget request.

The reduction of $931,000 below the President’s request is a general reduction, subject to normal reprogramming guidelines.

The Committee is concerned that EPA’s region II laboratory facility may not be able to support adequately the workload for region

II, the environmental response team, and the Office of Research

and Development’s Urban Watershed Management research program. Therefore, the Committee directs EPA to report within 60

days of enactment of this Act on its plans to ensure that region II

laboratory needs will be met, as well as the agency’s plans and

timeline to replace or improve this facility.

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $1,400,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 1,450,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 1 1,270,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,400,000,000

1Does not include $60,000,000 for NIEHS and $70,000,000 for ATSDR.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

On October 17, 1986, Congress amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

[CERCLA] through the Superfund Amendments and Reauthoriza-
95

tion Act of 1986 [SARA]. SARA reauthorized and expanded the

hazardous substance Superfund to address the problems of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and spills. Specifically, the legislation

mandates that EPA: (1) provide emergency response to hazardous

waste spills; (2) take emergency action at hazardous waste sites

that pose an imminent hazard to public health or environmentally

sensitive ecosystems; (3) engage in long-term planning, remedial

design, and construction to clean up hazardous waste sites where

no financially viable responsible party can be found; (4) take enforcement actions to require responsible private and Federal parties to clean up hazardous waste sites; and (5) take enforcement actions to recover costs where the fund has been used for cleanup.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,400,000,000 for Superfund, a decrease of $50,000,000 below the budget request and the same as

the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The amount provided includes

$700,000,000 from general revenues, and the balance from the

trust fund.

The amount recommended includes the following:

$910,337,000 for the response program. This includes the

President’s full Superfund request for brownfields.

$140,000,000 for enforcement.

$38,000,000 for research and development.

$126,000,000 for management and support.

$75,000,000 for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry, including up to $6,000,000 for medical monitoring

and related activities in Libby, MT; up to $3,000,000 for the

Great Lakes fish consumption study; $500,000 for subsistence

and dietary studies of contaminants in the environment, subsistence resources and people in Alaska native populations;

and up to $1,500,000 to complete the Tom’s River cancer cluster. Not more than $1,000,000 should be expended on toxicological profiles.

$60,000,000 for the National Institute of Environmental

Health Sciences, including $23,000,000 for worker training

grants and $37,000,000 for research.

$28,663,000 for the Department of Justice.

$5,800,000 for the U.S. Coast Guard.

$5,200,000 for other Federal agencies.

$11,000,000 for the inspector general.

The Committee has included bill language delaying the availability of $100,000,000 until September 1, 2001.

The Committee expects to be notified of any non-ATSDR resources to be devoted to Libby, MT medical monitoring and related

activities.

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $69,760,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 72,096,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 79,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 72,096,000
96

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizations Act of 1986

[SARA] established the leaking underground storage tank [LUST]

trust fund to conduct corrective actions for releases from leaking

underground storage tanks containing petroleum and other hazardous substances. EPA implements the LUST program through

State cooperative agreement grants which enable States to conduct

corrective actions to protect human health and the environment,

and through non-State entities including Indian tribes under section 8001 of RCRA. The trust fund is also used to enforce responsible parties to finance corrective actions and to recover expended

funds used to clean up abandoned tanks.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $72,096,000

for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, an increase

of $2,336,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Committee directs that not less than 85 percent of these funds be provided to the States and tribal governments.

In light of widespread contamination of drinking water by the

gasoline additive MTBE from leading underground petroleum storage tanks, the Committee urges EPA in undertaking corrective actions and enforcement to give high priority to releases that pose

the greatest threat to human health and the environment.

OILSPILL RESPONSE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $14,974,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 15,712,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 15,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act of 1987 and amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,

provides funds for preventing and responding to releases of oil and

other petroleum products in navigable waterways. EPA is responsible for: directing all cleanup and removal activities posing a

threat to public health and the environment; conducting inspections, including compelling responsible parties to undertake cleanup actions; reviewing containment plans at facilities; reviewing

area contingency plans; pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed

cleanups; and conducting research of oil cleanup techniques. Funds

are provided through the oilspill liability trust fund established by

the Oil Pollution Act and managed by the Coast Guard.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the oilspill response

trust fund, the same as the fiscal year 2000 enacted level prior to

the 0.38 percent rescission and a decrease of $712,000 below the

budget request.
97

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $3,445,765,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 2,906,957,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,176,957,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,320,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The ‘‘State and tribal assistance grants’’ account funds grants to

support the State revolving fund programs; State, tribal, regional,

and local environmental programs; and special projects to address

critical water and waste water treatment needs.

This account funds the following infrastructure grant programs:

State revolving funds; United States-Mexico Border Program;

colonias projects; Alaska Native villages; and information integration initiative.

It also contains the following environmental grants, State/tribal

program grants, and assistance and capacity building grants: (1)

nonpoint source (sec. 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act); (2) water quality cooperative agreements (sec. 104(b)(3) of

FWPCA; (3) public water system supervision; (4) air resource assistance to State, local, and tribal governments (secs. 105 and 103

of the Clean Air Act); (5) radon State grants; (6) water pollution

control agency resource supplementation (sec. 106 of the FWPCA);

(7) wetlands State program development; (8) underground injection

control; (9) Pesticides Program implementation; (10) lead grants;

(11) hazardous waste financial assistance; (12) pesticides enforcement grants; (13) pollution prevention; (14) toxic substances compliance; (15) Indians general assistance grants; (16) underground

storage tanks; and, (17) enforcement and compliance assurance.

The funds provided in this account, exclusive of the funds for the

SRF and the special water and waste water treatment projects,

may be used by the Agency to enter into performance partnerships

with States and tribes rather than media-specific categorical program grants, if requested by the States and tribes. The performance partnership/categorical grants are exempt from the congressional reprogramming limitation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,320,000,000

for State and tribal assistance grants, an increase of $413,043,000

over the budget request and a decrease of $125,765,000 below the

fiscal year 2000 enacted level.

The Committee’s recommendation includes the following:

$955,000,000 for performance partnership/categorical grants

and associated program support. Increases above the fiscal

year 2000 enacted level are provided for air State and local

grants (∂$5,000,000), section 106 water quality grants

(∂$27,043,000), section 319 nonpoint source grants

(∂$20,000,000), hazardous waste financial assistance

(∂$8,000,000), and Indian general assistance program

(∂$9,957,000).

$820,000,000 for drinking water State revolving funds, the

same as the fiscal year 2000 level.
98

$1,350,000,000 for clean water State revolving funds, an in- crease of $550,000,000 above the budget request. $50,000,000 for water and wastewater projects on the United

States-Mexico border. The Committee directs that of the funds

provided for U.S./Mexico border projects, $3,500,000 shall be

for the El Paso-Las Cruces Sustainable Water Project,

$1,000,000 shall be for the Del Rio/San Felipe Springs Water

Treatment Plant, and $2,000,000 shall be for the Brownsville

water supply project. A provision has been included restricting

border infrastructure funds to local communities that have a

local ordnance or zoning rule regarding development. $35,000,000 for rural and Alaskan Native villages to address

the special water and wastewater treatment needs of thousands of households that lack basic sanitation, including

$2,000,000 for training and technical assistance. The State of

Alaska will provide a match of 25 percent. $110,000,000 for special needs infrastructure grants, as follows:

$400,000 for the Newmarket, NH outflow discharge pipe.

$500,000 for the Waimea Wastewater Treatment Plant Interim Expansion in the County of Kauai, HI. $2,200,000 for water and sewer improvements in Fairbanks,

AK through the North Star Borough. $1,100,000 for water and sewer improvements in Whittier,

AK.

$2,200,000 for water and sewer improvements in Sitka, AK.

$2,000,000 for Ogden, UT, water and sewer improvements.

$1,000,000 for Grand County, UT Water and Sewer Service

Agency for water infrastructure improvements. $3,000,000 for the Lockwood, MT wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment and disposal system. $2,000,000 for the City of Belgrade, MT wastewater collection, treatment and disposal system.

$1,000,000 for the West Valley, MT water and sewer development.

$2,000,000 for the City of Montrose, CO sewage treatment

upgrade.

$750,000 for the Pawtucket, RI water treatment plant construction.

$3,000,000 for the DeSoto County, MS comprehensive water

and wastewater management project.

$1,000,000 for the City of Pearl, MS wastewater collection

rehabilitation.

$1,000,000 for the Corinna, ME sewer upgrade.

$3,000,000 for the City of Bremerton, WA combined sewer

overflow correction.

$2,000,000 for the Coulee Dam, WA water infiltration system.

$500,000 for Hoodsport Water System, Mason County, WA

drinking water system improvements.

$2,000,000 for the Berlin, NH water works improvement

project.

$300,000 for Lebanon, NH combined sewer overflow elimination project.
99

$1,000,000 for the City of Abilene, TX water treatment facility.$2,500,000 for the City of Pownal, VT wastewater treatment

project. $1,000,000 for Montgomery, VT wastewater demonstration

project. $1,500,000 for the City of Elizabeth, NJ combined sewer

overflow abatement project. $1,500,000 for the City of Carteret, NJ combined sewer overflow improvements. $2,500,000 for the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of

Arizona (WIFA) for a loan to Pima County, AZ for wastewater

treatment facility improvements. WIFA may lend the funds directly to Pima County or use the funds to support bonds to

fund loans to Pima County and other Arizona communities on

Arizona’s SRF priority list. Pima County and other benefitting

communities, if any, shall repay loans to Arizona’s SRF. $3,000,000 for Jefferson County, MS water and sewer infrastructure needs.

$1,000,000 for West Rankin Metropolitan Sewer Authority to

develop alternative water and wastewater systems for Rankin

County, MS. $3,000,000 for Logan/Todd, KY Regional Water Commission

for water system improvements. $3,000,000 for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration

project, Allegheny County, PA. $1,000,000 for the Springettsbury, PA regional sewer project.

$900,000 for the Scottsboro, AL sewer project.

$3,000,000 for the Thomasville, AL water facility project.

$1,000,000 for the Jasper, AL sewer extension project.

$3,000,000 for Grand Forks, ND water treatment plant.

$4,000,000 for the City of Huron, SD to upgrade its water

treatment facility.

$3,000,000 for Rapid City, SD, to upgrade its water reclamation facility.

$500,000 for the City of Alcester, SD for a wastewater treatment facility.

$3,250,000 for Clinton, IA to separate storm and sewage systems.

$1,000,000 for the City of York, SC water treatment plant

upgrade.

$1,400,000 for Branchville, SC water distribution system.

$2,000,000 for St. Clair Shores, MI combined sewer overflow

correction project.

$1,000,000 for Bristol County, MA, wastewater projects.

$1,000,000 for Lawton-Verdi, NV sewer interceptor project.

$1,000,000 for Beloit, WI combined sewer overflow project.

$2,000,000 for Milwaukee, WI, Metropolitan Sewerage District for continued renovations and repairs to the sewer system.

$1,000,000 for the City of Vallejo, CA for a sanitary sewer

system and Mare Island.

$1,000,000 for the City of Sacramento, CA combined sewer

overflow project.
100

$1,500,000 for the McCall, ID water plant improvement

project. $2,300,000 for Granite Reeder, ID Water and Sewer District

sewer system construction. $1,000,000 for Burley, ID sewer system improvement project.

$1,000,000 for the Village of Johnsburg, IL wastewater treatment project. $3,000,000 for the Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation groundwater remediation project near the Kenai

River. The match requirement can be met with non-Federally

funded pre-award work by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

$750,000 for Clovis, NM wastewater treatment system repair. $4,600,000 for biological nutrient removal on the eastern shore of Maryland, including $2,000,000 to the City of

Crisfield; $1,800,000 for the City of Fruitland; and $800,000 for

the Somerset County Sanitary District for Princess Anne. $6,000,000 to be divided equally between St. Louis and Kansas City, MO for the Meramec River enhancement and wetlands protection project and the Central Industrial District

wastewater project. $900,000 for Nodaway County, Missouri wastewater needs,

including the communities of Pickering and Ravenwood. $100,000 for Allendale, MO wastewater infrastructure improvements. $830,000 for Los Lunas, NM wastewater system upgrade.

$990,000 for Corrales, NM centralized water and wastewater

treatment system. $3,180,000 for North and South Valley of the City of Albuquerque and the county of Bernalillo, NM regional water and

wastewater system improvements. $1,200,000 for the West Rehoboth Expansion of the Dewey

Beach Sanitary District, DE.

$650,000 for the Cowen Public Service District to provide

water and sewer to the proposed Cowen Industrial Park in

Webster County, WV.

EPA is to work with the grant recipients on appropriate costshare arrangements consistent with past practice.

The Committee is once again perplexed with the administration’s

decision to cut funding by 40 percent for the clean water State revolving fund. EPA has been developing new estimates of the need

for water and wastewater infrastructure funding, referred to as the

‘‘gap analysis.’’ Key findings from EPA’s analysis include: (1) the

identification of a ‘‘gap’’ between total annual spending for wastewater infrastructure nationally of $6,000,000,000 to cover the projected capital requirements of the new systems and replace existing

systems; (2) the current course will lead to an annual gap of

$12,000,000,000; (3) wastewater capital investment is declining but

needs to double. Moreover, other sources estimate an annual gap

of $23,000,000,000 between current investments in infrastructure

and the investments that will be needed annually over the next 20

years to replace aging and failing pipes and meet clean water and

safe drinking water mandates. The Committee believes the con-
101

tribution of the EPA State revolving funds are a critical component

to meeting these water infrastructure needs, and expects the fiscal

year 2002 budget request to reflect this.

Within the funds provided for 106 water quality grants, $2,000,000 is for grants to coastal States to establish monitoring

and notification programs for detecting pathogens in coastal recreation waters, upon enactment of authorizing legislation. Under the

319 program, EPA should give priority to projects that assist communities in restoring degraded water bodies listed as ‘‘impaired’’

under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. In addition, the Committee suggests that 5 percent of the section 319 funds be allocated

to clean lakes, and that EPA better integrate the Clean Lakes and

section 319 programs by incorporating the section 314 guidance

into the 319 guidance.

The Committee directs EPA to finalize Section 106 grant agreements and make funds fully available to States under the established allotment formula within 60 days of apportionment for all

Section 106 eligible uses using performance partnership agreements or other accepted grant mechanisms at the State option, so

long as the State maintains the fiscal year 2000 level of effort.

The Committee has not included bill language requested by the

administration authorizing a set-aside of up to 19 percent of State

revolving funds for nonpoint source grants. The Committee notes it

has recommended $220,000,000 in section 319 grants for nonpoint

source controls. In view of the need for wastewater infrastructure

financing, the Committee cannot support the administration’s proposal.

The Committee has provided no funds for the administration’s

proposals for a new $85,000,000 clean air partnership grant program or a new $50,000,000 Great Lakes grant program. These programs are not specifically authorized and cannot be supported in

view of the many higher priority agency activities.

The Committee has included bill language, which has been carried for several years, clarifying that drinking water health effects

research is to be funded out of the science and technology account

only.

Bill language has been included, as in fiscal year 2000, which allows States in fiscal year 2001 and hereafter to include as principal, amounts considered to be the cost of administering SRF loans

to eligible borrowers.

Bill language is included, as the administration requested, regarding section 319 grants to Indian tribes.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee has included an administrative provision requested by EPA regarding the liquidation of obligations in multiple-year appropriations accounts. Similar language was included

last year.

The Committee has also included a provision as proposed by the

administration, authorizing EPA to enter into cooperative agreements with Indian tribal governments to facilitate the administration of environmental programs on Indian reservations.

The Committee has included bill language reinstating the 12-

month grace period following designation for new nonattainment
102

areas for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards originally

contained in EPA conformity regulations.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $5,089,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 5,201,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,150,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,201,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Science and Technology Policy [OSTP] was created

by the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and

Priorities Act of 1976 (Public Law 94–238) and coordinates science

and technology policy for the White House. OSTP provides authoritative scientific and technological information, analysis, and advice

for the President, for the executive branch, and for Congress; participates in formulation, coordination, and implementation of national and international policies and programs that involve science

and technology; maintains and promotes the health and vitality of

the U.S. science and technology infrastructure; and coordinates research and development efforts of the Federal Government to maximize the return on the public’s investment in science and technology and to ensure Federal resources are used efficiently and appropriately.

OSTP provides support for the National Science and Technology

Council [NSTC].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,201,000 for

the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This amount is the

same as the budget request and $112,000 above the fiscal year

2000 enacted level.

The Committee recognizes the administration’s recent efforts to

combat the fear and hysteria being generated around the use of

biotechnology. The Committee is encouraged by the efforts of OSTP

and NSF to educate the public about biotechnology with scientific

facts and reason. The administration announced a plan on May 3,

2000 to strengthen science-based regulation and consumer access

to information about food and agricultural biotechnology activities.

The Committee plans to monitor the implementation of this new

plan and encourages OSTP and other Federal agencies such as

NSF, the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and EPA to provide a coherent and unified voice on the scientific facts behind biotechnology. The Committee believes that it

is critical that the administration ensures that the fear and

hysteria surrounding biotechnology is minimized, especially since

the Committee has concerns about recent tactics to misinform the

public about other important scientific endeavors such as

nanotechnology. Accordingly, the Committee directs OSTP to provide recommendations to the Committee by January 19, 2001 on

creating a new office within OSTP to coordinate the Federal Gov-
103

ernment’s activities and efforts in providing the public with scientifically-based information relating to biotechnology.

The issues surrounding indirect costs remain a concern to the

Committee. Despite the Federal Government’s numerous efforts to

lower the indirect cost rates, the average indirect cost rates at universities was about 52.3 percent in fiscal year 1997—only 0.4 percent lower than the average rate in fiscal year 1991—according to

the Chronicle of Higher Education. This is confirmed by data available from the Office of Naval Research and Department of Health

and Human Services, which found that negotiated rates have remained stable for at least a decade. The 1998 National Science

Foundation Authorization Act (Public Law 105–207) required OSTP

to prepare a report to the Congress on indirect costs to analyze,

among other things, options to reduce or control the rate of growth

of the Federal indirect cost reimbursement rates. This report was

submitted to the Congress on July 21, 2000. While the OSTP report

concluded that Federal policy changes to further reduce indirect

costs would be detrimental to the research enterprise at our nation’s universities, it recommended that ‘‘thoughtful dialogues between the Federal Government and the universities on ways to increase administrative efficiency are the best way to assure a wise

and productive government investment.’’ The Committee agrees

with the OSTP recommendation and urges OSTP to review how

universities can improve the way they administer research grants

and activities.

The OSTP report also found that there is currently no systematic

method by which the Federal Government collects and maintains

data on indirect cost rates and actual costs. The Committee recommends that OSTP include in its fiscal year 2002 budget a cost

estimate on creating a central database of Federal research indirect

costs and rates.

For the past several years, the Committee has followed with interest the developing progress that has been made relative to research and development using high field nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) instrumentation and has requested OSTP to assess

the future needs in this field. At present, the greatest impediment

to federal initiatives in this area is the lack of a commerciallyavailable 900 MHz instrument. There is the view that new commercial instrumentation could be available in the very near future.

The Committee strongly encourages the OSTP to convene a working group to monitor developments and plan for interagency initiatives to allow U.S. scientists to take full advantage of these new

instruments through novel linkages and collaborations among leading academic institutions and national laboratories.

Lastly, the Committee is concerned about the participation of

those agencies involved in the information technology initiative.

While the Committee is encouraged by the research community’s

response to NSF’s information technology program, it is concerned

about those proposals which NSF has received that could be funded

from other agencies such as the National Institutes of Health. The

Committee urges OSTP to coordinate the activities of the IT participating agencies to ensure that funding proposals are considered

by the appropriate agency.
104

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $2,816,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 3,020,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,900,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,900,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Council on Environmental Quality/Office of Environmental

Quality was established by the National Environmental Policy Act

and the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970. The

Council serves as a source of environmental expertise and policy

analysis for the White House, Executive Office of the President

agencies, and other Federal agencies. CEQ promulgates regulations

binding on all Federal agencies to implement the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act and resolves interagency environmental disputes informally and through issuance of

findings and recommendations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $2,900,000 for the Council on Environmental Quality, an increase of $84,000 above the fiscal year

2000 enacted level.

Bill language relative to the use of detailees has been continued

again this year.

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. 33,666,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 33,660,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 33,661,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 33,660,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Prior to 1998, the FDIC inspector general’s budgets have been

approved by the FDIC’s Board of Directors from deposit insurance

funds as part of FDIC’s annual operating budget that is proposed

by the FDIC Chairman. A separate appropriation more effectively

ensures the independence of the OIG.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $33,660,000 for the FDIC inspector

general, which are to be derived by transfer from the bank insurance fund, the savings association insurance fund, and the FSLIC

resolution fund.

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $3,338,421,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 3,580,477,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 876,730,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,515,977,000
105

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

FEMA is responsible for coordinating Federal efforts to reduce

the loss of life and property through a comprehensive risk-based,

all hazards emergency management program of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,515,977,000 for the Federal

Emergency Management Agency. The amount provided includes

$2,909,220,000 in disaster relief expenditures (of which

$2,609,220,000 is contingency funding) and $906,757,000 for other

programs.

DISASTER RELIEF

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. 1 $2,768,009,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 2 2,909,220,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 300,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2 2,909,220,000

1 Includes $2,480,425,000 in contingency funds.

2 Includes $2,609,220,000 in contingency funds.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), FEMA provides a significant portion of the total Federal response to victims in Presidentially declared major disasters and emergencies. Major disasters are declared when a State requests Federal assistance and has

proven that a given disaster is beyond the State’s capacity to respond. Under the DRF, FEMA provides three main types of assistance: individual and family assistance; public assistance, which includes the repair and reconstruction of State, local and non-profit

infrastructure; and hazard mitigation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the President’s request of $300,000,000 for disaster relief, and an additional $2,609,220,000

in disaster relief contingency funds.

The Committee has included bill language making available up to $15,000,000 for map modernization activities in areas which receive Presidential disaster declarations. The Committee believes it

is critical that accurate maps are developed following disasters to

ensure reconstruction activities are carried out in accordance with

appropriate codes and standards. These funds are limited strictly

to mapping needs associated with post-disaster reconstruction activities only.

The Committee has not included the administration’s proposal

for up to $50,000,000 for buyouts of repetitive loss properties in

areas which receive Presidential disaster declarations as this issue

was addressed in the fiscal year 2000 emergency supplemental appropriation. The Committee is very disappointed in FEMA’s implementation of the buyout program. Despite clear Congressional directives to engage stakeholders in a serious dialogue on the establishment of a program, coordinate with other relevant agencies,

and issue timely regulations, the agency has failed to do so. FEMA
106

has not established clear guidelines and parameters, incentives for

the purchase of—and disincentives not to purchase—flood insurance, consistent procedures for estimating pre-flood fair market

value, and procedures to ensure an equitable distribution of funds

to the most appropriate buyout candidates. Rather than establishing a national program, FEMA has relied on the States to develop priorities and procedures, resulting in a haphazard, inconsistent, and inequitable approach. Almost 1 year after Hurricane

Floyd struck the east coast, there continues to be confusion

amongst States and flood victims as to what the buyout program

is intended to accomplish. The Committee directs in the strongest

manner possible that FEMA rectify these shortcomings immediately.

Under section 311 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act, an applicant must agree to obtain and

maintain insurance as a condition of receiving a public assistance

grant. The Committee continues to support FEMA’s efforts to

achieve a nationally consistent level of responsibility among public

and certain private nonprofit entities for natural disaster risks by

enhancing building insurance coverage requirements as a criterion

for eligibility for public assistance. Last spring FEMA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and expects to finalize a rule

prior to the end of the calendar year. The Committee urges FEMA

to act expeditiously on this important effort.

The Committee urges FEMA to work with the Quileute Tribe in

Washington State to develop necessary flood mapping for the

Bogachiel and Quillayute River.

The Committee supports FEMA’s efforts to streamline disaster

field operations, including developing three levels of operational responses to disasters; utilizing standardized staffing templates for

large, medium and small disasters; minimizing and/or eliminating

disaster field offices; and State management of small disasters. The

Committee expects FEMA to keep it informed of its streamlining

efforts, with a report within 90 days of enactment of this Act.

PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION FUND

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... $30,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ...........................

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under this initiative, FEMA provides funds for community-identified mitigation projects that reduce the exposure to disaster

losses. These funds are expected to leverage private sector resources.

COMMITTEE DESCRIPTION

The Committee recommends funds for this activity under the

‘‘Emergency management planning and assistance’’ account, in lieu

of a separate account as proposed by the administration.
107

DISASTER ASSISTANCE DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(LIMITATION ON DIRECT LOANS)

STATE SHARE LOAN

Program account Administrative

expenses

Appropriations, 2000 ...................................................................................... $1,295,000 $420,000

Budget estimate, 2001 .................................................................................. 1,678,000 427,000

House allowance ............................................................................................ 1,295,000 420,000

Committee recommendation .......................................................................... 1,678,000 427,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Disaster assistance loans authorized by the Robert T. Stafford

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 42 U.S.C. 5121 et

seq. are loans to States for the non-Federal portion of cost sharing

funds and community disaster loans to local governments incurring

substantial loss of tax and other revenues as a result of a major

disaster. The funds requested for this program include direct loans

and a subsidy based on criteria including loan amount and interest

charged.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For the State Share Loan Program, the Committee has provided

$25,000,000 in loan authority and $427,000 in administrative expenses. For the cost of subsidizing the appropriation, the bill includes $1,678,000.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $179,950,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 221,024,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 190,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 215,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides the necessary resources to administer the

Agency’s various programs at headquarters and in the regions; and

the general management and administration of the Agency in legal,

congressional, government, and media affairs, and financial and

personnel management, as well as the management of the Agency’s

national security program.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $215,000,000 for FEMA salaries and

expenses. This is a decrease of $6,024,000 below the request and

an increase of $35,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.

This is a general reduction subject to normal reprogramming requirements. The amount recommended is sufficient to move forward with the headquarters building project while potentially

needing to delay some procurements until fiscal year 2002. In addition, the amount provided allows for modest enhancements in terrorism-related programs as requested by the administration.
108

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $7,965,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 8,476,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 8,015,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and investigative

functions to identify and correct management and administrative

deficiencies, which create conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The audit function

provides internal audit, contract audit, and inspection services.

Contract audits provide professional advice to agency contracting

officials on accounting and financial matters relative to the negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts.

Internal audits review and evaluate all facets of agency operations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Office of the Inspector General, an increase of $2,035,000 above the fiscal year

2000 enacted level.

Bill language has been included which authorizes the FEMA Inspector General to serve also as the IG for the Chemical Safety and

Hazard Investigation Board. Additional funds are recommended to

enable the OIG to carry out these new responsibilities. It is estimated that up to 8 additional permanent full-time employees would

be necessary to fulfill this requirement. The Committee does not intend that this new responsibility will diminish in any way the

OIG’s FEMA oversight responsibilities.

To ensure the independence of the OIG, additional funds above

the President’s request are also recommended to enable the OIG to

support its own administrative functions rather than relying on

FEMA for support services such as budget and accounting, procurement, and personnel.

The Committee expects the OIG to prepare annual audited financial statements for the new Office of Cerro Grande Fire Claims.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $267,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 269,652,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 267,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 269,652,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The emergency management planning and assistance appropriation provides resources for the following activities: response and recovery; preparedness; training and exercises; information technology services; fire prevention and training; operations support;

policy and regional operations; mitigation programs; and executive

direction.
109

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget estimate of $269,652,000

for emergency management planning and assistance. This is an increase of $2,652,000 above the fiscal year 2000 level.

The Committee has included funds for the predisaster mitigation

program in this account, rather than in a separate account as proposed by the administration. The Committee has recommended the

fiscal year 2000 level of $25,000,000 for this program.

The Committee is concerned about recent findings of the Inspector General regarding Project Impact. In particular, the IG found

that reported partner contributions are not accurate and communities are not spending their Federal grant monies timely. The

Committee directs FEMA to submit a report within 90 days of enactment of this Act describing its plans to implement the recommendations of the IG.

The Committee has not included the administration’s proposal

for $25,000,000 for a new grant program for firefighters. There has

not been sufficient justification for this new program, particularly

in view of the extraordinary budget constraints imposed by the

subcommittee’s allocation. Funding for a new local grant program

would be possible only by imposing cuts in other critical areas,

such as other U.S. Fire Administration programs, anti-terrorism,

disaster training or exercises. The Committee cannot support such

cuts.

The Committee supports FEMA’s budget request of $3,825,000 to

prepare urban search and rescue task forces for incidents involving

weapons of mass destruction.

The Committee urges FEMA to work with the Engineering and

Geology Departments at the University of Mississippi and University of Missouri-Rolla on the development of a comprehensive

earthquake preparedness plan and safe, cost-effective hazard mitigation measures associated with the New Madrid Seismic Zone in

Mid-America.

The Committee urges the National Fire Academy to work with

West Texas A&M University to establish an on-line fire management administration program. This program would enable graduates to interact effectively with law enforcement and public works

personnel, city councils and mayors, and county government personnel, to coordinate and administer better their fire department’s

activities.

The Committee urges FEMA to continue the Chemical Health

and Environmental Management in Schools (CHEMIS) program.

This program provides valuable training to schools, health and

safety officials, and regulatory agencies on the proper method of

storing, handling, and disposing of dangerous chemicals. The PanEducational Institute (PEI) has been successful in providing this

unique training to 24 States.

The Committee has included full funding for the dam safety program.

RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND

The Radiological Emergency Preparedness [REP] Program assists State and local governments in the development of offsite ra-
110

diological emergency preparedness plans within the emergency

planning zones of commercial nuclear power facilities licensed by

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC].

The fund is financed from fees assessed and collected from the

NRC licensees to recover the amounts anticipated by FEMA to be

obliated in the next fiscal year for expenses related to REP program activities. Estimated collections for fiscal year 2001 are

$14,261,000.

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $110,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 140,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 110,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 110,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Emergency Food and Shelter Program originated as a onetime emergency appropriation to combat the effects of high unemployment in the emergency jobs bill (Public Law 98–8) which was

enacted in March 1983. It was authorized under title III of the

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, Public Law

100–177.

The program has been administered by a national board and the

majority of the funding has been spent for providing temporary

food and shelter for the homeless, participating organizations being

restricted by legislation from spending more than 3.5 percent of the

funding received for administrative costs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $110,000,000 for the Emergency

Food and Shelter Program, the same as the fiscal year 2000 level

and a reduction of $30,000,000 below the budget request.

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

(TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, authorizes the Federal Government to provide flood insurance on a national basis. Flood insurance may be sold or continued in force only

in communities which enact and enforce appropriate flood plain

management measures. Communities must participate in the program within 1 year of the time they are identified as flood-prone

in order to be eligible for flood insurance and some forms of Federal financial assistance for acquisition or construction purposes. In

2000, the budget assumes collection of all the administrative and

program costs associated with flood insurance activities from policyholders.

Under the Emergency Program, structures in identified floodprone areas are eligible for limited amounts of coverage at subsidized insurance rates. Under the regular program, studies must

be made of different flood risks in flood prone areas to establish actuarial premium rates. These rates are charged for insurance on
111

new construction. Coverage is available on virtually all types of

buildings and their contents in amounts up to $350,000 for residential and $1,000,000 for other types.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has included bill language, providing up to $25,736,000 for administrative costs from the Flood Insurance Program for salaries and expenses. The Committee has also included

bill language providing up to $77,307,000 for flood mitigation activities including up to $20,000,000 for expenses under section 1366

of the National Flood Insurance Act.

The Committee has included requested bill language which extends the authorization through fiscal year 2001 for borrowing from

the Treasury up to $1,500,000,000, and for flood mapping studies.

The Committee supports the recommendations contained in the

recent report by the Heinz Center ‘‘Evaluation of Erosion Risks’’

and directs FEMA to put together a plan to develop erosion hazard

maps that display the location and extent of coastal areas subject

to erosion, including a cost estimate and timeframe.

The Committee directs the GAO to undertake a comprehensive

review of the National Flood Insurance Program, including implementation of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, assessing lender compliance, examining participation rates, and make

recommendations to improve participation and the program generally. This review is to complement, not duplicate a recent review

by the FEMA OIG of compliance with homeowner flood insurance

purchase requirements.

The Committee notes that on March 9, 2000, the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers issued changes to the nationwide permits

(NWPs) under the wetlands permitting program under section 404

of the Clean Water Act. The Corps’ action will restrict access to

streamlined permitting of minimal impact projects under the

NWPs in 100-year floodplains. The new restrictions are predicated

on the use of flood insurance rate maps issued by FEMA. However,

FEMA acknowledges its maps are outdated and inaccurate. According to FEMA, flood data updates are needed for 17,500 panels of

the approximately 100,000 panel inventory; an additional 16,500

panels require map maintenance to update non-engineering reference features, such as roads and corporate limits; and the manual cartographic methods used to prepare most of the maps limit

the utility of the maps for users and FEMA’s ability to distribute

cost effectively and revise the maps, requiring converting to digital

format 74,500 map panels. These map modernization requirements

will cost an estimated $750,000,000. A funding source for the comprehensive map modernization effort has not been identified. Clearly it will take a significant commitment of time and resources to

modernize fully FEMA’s map inventory. In the meantime, effective

implementation of the Corps’ rule will be compromised at best.

The Committee directs FEMA to report within 120 days of enactment of this Act on (1) the availability to the public of flood insurance rate maps depicting the 100-year floodplains that differentiate

clearly between the ‘‘floodway’’ and the ‘‘flood fringe;’’ (2) the availability to the public of flood insurance rate maps that depict, on a

statewide basis, 100-year floodplains; (3) where such maps are not
112

available, a timetable for when such maps will be made available;

(4) an analysis of the accuracy of the flood insurance rate maps

that are currently available; and (5) how FEMA will implement its

new responsibilities under General Condition 26 of the nationwide

permit program, including the organization and process for implementing such responsibilities, and the cost, including the number

of personnel and work-hours involved, of implementing such responsibilities.

Finally, the Committee notes that FEMA is not and was never

intended to be a regulatory agency, and therefore the Committee

does not expect FEMA to assume a formal role in the NWP permitting process or spend any appropriated funds to approve, disapprove or condition applications for ‘‘individual’’ or ‘‘standard’’ permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Through fee-generated funds transferred from the National Flood

Insurance Fund, this fund would support activities to eliminate

pre-existing, at-risk structures that are repetitively flooded, and

provides flood mitigation assistance planning support to States.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Through fee-generated funds totaling $20,000,000 in fiscal year

2001 transferred from the National Flood Insurance Fund, the National Flood Mitigation Fund will provide a mechanism to reduce

the financial burden of pre-existing, at-risk structures that are repetitively flooded by removing or elevating these structures out of

flood hazard areas, as well as provide flood mitigation assistance

planning support to States and communities.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL CONSUMER INFORMATION CENTER

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $2,622,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 6,822,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 7,122,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,122,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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.

On January 28, 2000, the Consumer Information Center assumed responsibility for the operations of the Federal Information

Center [FIC] program with the resulting organization being officially named the Federal Consumer Information Center [FCIC].

The FIC program was established within the General Services Administration in 1966, and was formalized by Public Law 95–491 in

1980. The program’s purpose is to provide the public with direct information about all aspects of Federal programs, regulations, and
113

services. To accomplish this mission, the FIC uses contractual services to respond to public inquiries via a nationwide toll-free telephone call center. The FIC was previously funded by the Treasury

and General Government Appropriations Act.

The new 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.

Public Law 98–63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a revolving

fund for the CIC. Under this fund, FCIC activities are financed

from the following: annual appropriations from the general funds

of the Treasury, reimbursements from agencies for distribution of

publications, user fees collected from the public, and any other income incident to FCIC activities. All are available as authorized in

appropriation acts without regard to fiscal year limitations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,122,000 for the Federal Consumer Information Center. This reflects an increase of $300,000

from the fiscal year 2001 budget request and is necessary to bring

FCIC’s annual income more in balance with its administrative expenses and to shore up the FCIC Fund balance. Despite FCIC’s actions to reduce costs, fixed expenses have continued to increase

while the appropriation has remained stable and other funding

sources, such as users fees, have declined due to the reduction in

the public’s demand for printed publications. This has resulted in

a projected Fund balance of $291,000 at the end of fiscal year 2001,

an amount insufficient to offset administrative expenses in future

years.

The increase of $4,500,000 over the current level mainly is associated with the Agency’s new responsibility for the Federal Information Center.

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 2001 will total approximately $10,927,000.

In fiscal year 2001, the FCIC program expects to respond to

2,700,000 phone calls, distribute approximately 5,600,000 publications, and receive 13.5 million web accesses. This represents delivery of a total of 21.8 million information products to the public.

The Committee strongly supports GSA’s decision to allot to the

position of Director, Federal Consumer Information Center, one

Senior Executive Service slot in view of the level of responsibility

of this important agency.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2000 ......................................................................... $13,600,819,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ...................................................................... 14,035,300,000

House allowance ................................................................................ 13,658,600,000

Committee recommendation ............................................................. 13,844,000,000
114

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was

established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to

conduct space and aeronautical research, development, and flight

activities for peaceful purposes designed to maintain U.S. preeminence in aeronautics and space. These activities are designed to

continue the Nation’s premier program of space exploration and to

invest in the development of new technologies to improve the competitive position of the United States. The NASA program provides

for a vigorous national program ensuring leadership in world aviation and as the preeminent spacefaring nation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $13,844,000,000 for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2001, an increase of $243,181,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.

The Committee strongly supports NASA’s mission of promoting

civilian space flight, exploration, scientific advancement, and the

development of next-generation technologies. The current centerpiece of NASA’s mission is the construction of the International

Space Station that when complete in 2005–2006 will represent the

most sophisticated long-duration habitable microgravity research

laboratory in space. This research facility will significantly enhance

human understanding of the challenges facing humans in exploring

the universe and will serve as a stepping stone to the future exploration of space. It also will provide a unique science platform for

space-based research in cell and developmental biology, plant biology, human physiology and all branches of physics. The construction of this facility has continued with the successful integration of

the long delayed Russian Zvezda service module that will serve as

the initial crew habitation quarters early in fiscal year 2001.

Nevertheless, the Committee remains very concerned by cost

overruns and unrealistic budgeting by NASA, especially those associated with the development and construction of the International

Space Station. This concern was highlighted most significantly by

the independent cost assessment and validation [CAV] report

issued in 1998 by a review team headed by Jay Chabrow. The CAV

report estimated that the final cost of the space station will be

some $24,700,000,000, instead of the NASA estimate of

$17,400,000,000 and will take up to 38 months longer to build than

previous NASA estimates. In addition, many of these higher costs

were unfairly borne through budget reductions in other NASA programs and activities, most particularly programs and activities designed to increase our understanding of the space and earth

sciences. In addition, since that report, delays and cost overruns

continue to be a significant problem that NASA has not addressed

adequately.

The Committee continues to believe that NASA must articulate

a comprehensive agenda and strategy through a strategic plan for

each of NASA’s primary centers that links staffing, funding resources and mission activities in a manner that will ensure each

primary center will be vested with specific responsibilities and activities. Within each plan, NASA should identify where a center
115

has or is expected to develop the same or similar expertise and capacity as another center, including the justification for this need.

The plan should also include a specific 10-year profile of flight missions, identifying the time frames for core missions and core mission elements. This profile should identify the primary NASA center responsible for each flight’s mission management. The profile

also should articulate clearly the criteria that is used and/or will

be used to permit missions to be built intramurally, as well as the

strategy for using industry and leading academic laboratories for

mission development and execution. These plans should be updated

annually.

As part of the Committee’s efforts to understand NASA’s longterm budgeting, the Committee directs NASA by April 15, 2001, to

identify the varying cost structures among the NASA space centers.

The Committee is aware that NASA’s space centers have different

cost structures. Full-time equivalent costs and the built-in overhead costs seem to vary from center to center. As NASA moves to

full-cost accounting, the Committee needs to have a better understanding of NASA’s cost structures among the space centers. It also

is expected that the costs of personnel and equipment among the

centers reflect a comparable cost to NASA. The Committee expects

explicit information on full-time equivalent and overhead costs (including how overhead costs are calculated) at all of the space centers by each mission, program, and activity. As of now, NASA has

not provided adequate information on these matters.

The Committee also seeks a clearer picture about NASA’s budget

in the outyears. The Committee directs that NASA include the outyear budget impacts on all reprogramming requests and include

the outyear budget impact of all missions in the annual operating

plan. The operating plan and all resubmissions also should include

an accounting of all program/mission reserves. The Committee also

directs NASA to maintain its current account structure.

The Committee also expects NASA to continue to refine its implementation of the Government Performance and Reports Act

[GPRA]. NASA needs to tie its performance goals and the benchmarks to its annual budget submission.

The Committee remains sensitive to continuing risks regarding

the illegal transfer and theft of sensitive technologies that can be

used in the development of weapons by governments, entities and

persons who may be hostile to the United States. The Committee

commends both NASA and the NASA Inspector General (IG) for

their efforts to protect sensitive NASA-related technologies. Nevertheless, this will remain an area of great sensitivity and concern

as the development of technological advances likely will continue to

accelerate. The Committee directs NASA and the NASA IG to report annually on these issues, including an assessment of risk.

HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $5,487,900,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 5,499,900,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,472,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,400,000,000
116

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

NASA’s ‘‘Human Space Flight’’ account provides funding for

human space flight activities, including the development and assembly of the International Space Station and the operation of the

Space Shuttle. It also includes support of activities with Russia,

upgrades to the performance and safety of the Space Shuttle, and

other activities in support of the International Space Station and

Space Shuttle.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $5,400,000,000 for the Human

Space Flight account. This amount is $99,900,000 less than the

President’s request for these activities in fiscal year 2001 and

$72,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2000 level.

The Committee continues its strong support of the International

Space Station as a permanent space laboratory for the research of

space and earth science and for unique investigations for humans

living for long durations in a micro-gravity environment. The station will provide unparalled scientific research opportunities as

well as permanent crew habitability by international teams in an

advanced research facility located in the near zero-gravity environment of space. Nevertheless, a reduction of funding is appropriate

because of the program’s history of delays and overruns that mean

many activities and associated costs will be pushed into subsequent

fiscal years.

The Committee also supports the international character of the

Space Station as a symbol and tool for international cooperation

and partnership. Despite this support, the Committee continues to

have substantial concerns regarding the ability of Russia to meet

its financial commitment and partnership obligations to the Space

Station, but is sensitive to the difficult issues that face Russia as

it attempts to make the transition from communism to a more

democratic and commercial society.

The Committee is also troubled over NASA’s failure to provide

adequate information on the operational costs of the International

Space Station and believes that NASA must expand the development of related research efforts, activities and missions to broaden

commercial investment and partnerships throughout the country

through open competitive procedures. The Committee directs NASA

to develop no later than April 15, 2001 a working plan that establishes a 10-year plan for all research efforts, activities and missions

related to the ISS, including operational needs. This plan needs to

be a public document in which interested parties are provided an

opportunity to comment and participate in its development of the

plan and the use of the International Space Station. In addition,

in conjunction with the primary NASA centers, NASA needs to

compete the research efforts, missions and activities related to the

International Space Station based on objective criteria and requirements in the Federal Register. These requirements include the development of and investment in research facilities and major research equipment, including medical facilities and equipment.

In addition, the International Space Station program should be

national in scope as it is international in scope. There should be
117

a university-based center of excellence approach for universities

throughout the country that links the various science disciplines

that are the subject of research on the ISS. The Committee directs

NASA to develop a blueprint plan that identifies lead universities

as well as complimentary universities that will coordinate with

NASA for the individual science disciplines that will be the focus

of research after assembly is complete. In addition, universities

should be encouraged to coordinate with public and private research facilities. The Committee encourages NASA to look at the

Hubble Space Telescope (HST) as a model for the development of

a university-based consortium to manage the ISS science research.

The Committee also recognizes the value of software configuration management for the International Space Station and encourages NASA to continue evaluating its role in the ISS program.

Nine space shuttle flights have been planned for fiscal year 2001,

including seven flights for the assembly and servicing of the International Space Station, one for the service of the Hubble space telescope (Hubble), and a dedicated microgravity research flight. The

Committee remains concerned that NASA has focused primarily on

shuttle flights targeted to the assembly of the ISS. The Committee

also expects NASA to schedule an additional annual shuttle flight

for microgravity research as important in order to maintain the

continuity and quality of microgravity research, and directs NASA

to report to the Committee on a schedule for these flights by February 15, 2001.

The Committee supports the full budget request for shuttle upgrades, and remains supportive of all safety needs associated with

the space shuttle fleet in response to workforce staffing needs and

obsolescence concerns raised in the Annual Report for 1999 of the

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. This report echoes many of the

concerns highlighted by the National Research Council’s report,

Upgrading the Space Shuttle (1999) and the report of the Space

Shuttle Independent Assessment Team (March 7, 2000). It is critical that the shuttle fleet be maintained in peak condition, especially as shuttle crews work under extremely stressful conditions

that are a natural corollary to the construction and assembly of the

International Space Station. The commitment of adequate resources has become more important since the space shuttle fleet

will remain the primary vehicle for human space flight until a decision is made on a replacement vehicle such as a reusable launch

vehicle.

The Committee encourages NASA to continue to evaluate Lithium-Ion batteries as a power source for space tools used aboard the

Space Shuttle and the International Space Station.

SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $5,580,895,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 5,929,400,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,579,600,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,837,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

NASA’s ‘‘Science, aeronautics and technology’’ account provides

funding for science, research and development programs to extend
118

knowledge of the Earth, its space environment, and the universe;

to expand the practical applications of aerospace technology, launch

services, and advanced space transportation technology; to promote

and expand aeronautical research and technology; and to fund academic and education programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,837,000,000 for the Science, Aeronautics and Technology account, a reduction of $92,400,000 below

the President’s request and $256,105,000 above the fiscal year 2000

enacted level. NASA is directed to make adjustments within each

of the six identified enterprises within this account to accommodate

the stated funding priorities and submit these adjustments as part

of its fiscal year 2001 operating plan.

Space Science.—NASA’s Space Science program seeks to answer

fundamental questions concerning the galaxy and the universe; the

connection between the Sun, Earth, and heliosphere; the origin and

evolution of planetary systems; and the origin and distribution of

life in the universe. The Space Science program is comprised of a

base program of research and development activities, including research and flight mission activities and major flight missions which

provide major space-based facilities.

The Committee supports the Space Science program and recognizes the many contributions this mission has made to our understanding of the universe and the solar system. Nevertheless, the

loss of two consecutive Mars missions in the Mars Surveyor program raises serious concerns with regard to NASA’s philosophy of

‘‘faster, better, cheaper.’’ The Committee believes that these losses

should have been easily avoided. In particular, the $125,000,000

Mars Climate Orbiter was lost on September 23, 1999 because of

a failure by Lockheed Martin/JPL to convert English units into

metric units. Subsequently, the $165,000,000 Mars Polar Lander

likely was lost because of a coding failure that never should have

occurred. Both programs had histories of cost overruns and schedule delays. These failures follow last year’s losses of the Lewis and

Clark and the Wide-field Infrared Explorer (WIRE) missions. Since

1992, NASA has launched 16 robotic space exploration missions

under the ‘‘faster, better, cheaper’’ policy and seven of these missions have either failed or had serious problems post launch.

The Mars Program Independent Assessment Team Report, released on March 14, 2000, acknowledged the value of the Mars program as well as the viability of the ‘‘faster, better, cheaper’’ philosophy. The Committee also supports this philosophy but directs

NASA to take all necessary steps to ensure that the right lessons

are learned and applied. In particular, the report emphasized the

need to establish protocols that minimize risk, including the need

to provide experienced leadership, standards for risk assessment

and the development of realistic budgets and reserves for each mission which also tie decisionmaking to appropriate headquarter

oversight.

The Committee recognizes that the recommendations of the Mars

Program Independent Assessment Team may be applied throughout the Space Science enterprise in order to minimize the possibility of future mission failures. This likely will increase the costs
119

of space science missions in future years. The Committee, therefore, directs NASA to provide a 5-year profile of the additional costs

that would be associated with implementing the Mars Program recommendations as part of the fiscal year 2002 budget submission.

The Committee understands that NASA missions and activities

have inherent risk, and supports NASA’s efforts to push the envelope of human knowledge which requires some risk and must allow

for failure. The Committee also believes that any failure must be

smart failure, not stupid failure.

NASA’s fiscal year 2001 request for the Office of Space Science

also provides an important first step toward achieving a robust and

consolidated Sun-Earth Connection (SEC) program. This new initiative called ‘‘Living With A Star’’ and the intent to accelerate the

launch rate of Solar Terrestrial Probe (STP) missions will strengthen OSS’s overall program. Accordingly, the Committee has provided the full budget request, $20,000,000, for this initiative in

2001 and directs NASA to submit a detailed, long-term plan to create a resilient SEC program by February 15, 2001. The plan should

include a launch schedule, flight profile and creation of an Advanced Technology Development (ATD) program.

Based on the Committee’s direction to select competitively 75

percent of space science advanced technology funding, NASA recently released an open research announcement in the Cross Enterprise Technology Development Program (CETDP) that resulted in

an impressive response of over 1,200 proposals worth

$1,500,000,000. However, NASA has raised concerns that diverting

these funds to open solicitations is contributing to a possible loss

of needed ‘‘core competencies’’ at the NASA field centers. Therefore,

the Committee requests that the National Academy of Sciences report to the Committee by June 2001 whether NASA’s concern over

core competencies is adequately understood and the desired funding is justified, and whether the CETDP out-year budget for open

solicitations should be reduced in favor of funding key core competency activities. In the meantime, NASA should take no action

that undermines the 75 percent goal or the planned open research

solicitations. If NASA feels that additional funding is needed in fiscal year 2001 to address transitional core competency issues, then

the agency may propose for the Committee’s consideration a reprogramming of funds from within the Intelligent Synthesis Environment program.

The Committee fully supports NASA’s goal to develop new longterm partnerships, particularly with university laboratories

throughout the country. As a means of cost reduction and improving long-term vision, NASA must leverage existing infrastructures

and capabilities at university laboratories. This approach has the

added benefits of complementing NASA’s core capabilities at NASA

centers and improving technology transfer to the private sector.

NASA is encouraged to invest in future partnerships of this type

to enhance the fundamental value of its earth and space science

programs.

The Committee includes an additional $3,000,000 for the development of the STEP–AIRSEDS program, an electrodynamic and

momentum transfer space tether transportation program.
120

The Committee continues to note the significant scientific knowledge and discovery which Hubble Space Telescope generates now

nearly a decade past its initial launch. The Committee believes

that HST should continue to have the capabilities to generate significant scientific advancement throughout its currently planned

life on orbit. For this reason, the Committee believes that additional funds are necessary to cover costs to the program for servicing-related expenses caused by delays in launch due to the space

shuttle’s manifest schedule that have forced the program to deplete

critical program reserves. The Committee believes these costs

should be allocated to the Human Space Flight account absent a

reasonable justification from NASA. As the NASA budget picture

becomes clearer, the Committee anticipates providing additional

funds to cover these HST costs. At the same time, the Committee

believes that costs for the upcoming deployment of the Wide Field

Camera 3 (WF3) should be constrained in accordance with the program’s fiscal year 1998 baseline. For this reason, WF3 costs, exclusive of costs borne by the Office of Space Flight for shuttle integration and payload processing and related shuttle launch costs, is

capped at $75,500,000.

The Committee includes an increase of $2,500,000 for the Hubble

telescope project to initiate a Composites Technology Institute in

Bridgeport, WV. The Hubble telescope project has been one of the

exemplary programs at NASA that has educated and heightened

public knowledge and appreciation of the wonders of the universe.

To maximize public investment in this program, NASA is directed

to fund fully all upgrades.

Earth Science.—The objective of NASA’s Earth Science Program

is to understand the total Earth system and the effects of natural

and human-induced changes on the global environment. Earth

science has three broad goals: to expand scientific knowledge of the

Earth using NASA’s unique capabilities from the vantage points of

space, aircraft, and in other such platforms; to disseminate information about the Earth system; and to enable productive use of

Earth science and technology in the public and private sectors.

The Committee is concerned about the failure to implement Congressional directives in the release of specific funding designated by

the Appropriations Committees in the Fiscal Year 2000 VA–HUD

Appropriations Act. For this reason, the Committee is suspending

the ability of the Office of Earth Science to reprogram funds in fiscal year 2001 unless specifically authorized by the Committees on

Appropriations. The Committee will consider changes to this policy

where there are issues related to near-term launch readiness and

mission safety.

The Committee remains troubled by the lack of a follow-on strategy for the next generation of earth science satellites. While the

Committee is aware of the National Academy of Sciences plan for

follow-on missions, the Committee thus far has received no notice

of a definitive plan or any indication as to what the future missions

will be. The Committee, therefore, recommends a funding increase

of $2,500,000 for the National Academy of Sciences to initiate follow-on studies from the National Academy to identify mid- and

long-term follow-on flight profiles.
121

As part of the follow-on plan, the Office of Earth Science should

devise a flight program that allows for regular flight opportunities

similar to the space science effort in explorer, discovery and parallel class missions awarded through the announcement of opportunity process; $1,500,000 for studies initiating a Landsat-7 followon commercial data purchase; $2,000,000 for phase A/B studies and

preliminary advanced technology development (ATD) work to initiate the global precipitation mission, identified by the National

Academy as a high priority data requirement; $2,000,000 for phase

A/B studies and preliminary ATD work on the global earthquake

satellite; $5,000,000 for studies on the next generation earth

science data information system, the so called ‘‘new DIS.’’ The

Committee believes there should be an emphasis on the re-use of

the existing system in order to minimize future costs while allowing for the infusion of new technology; $50,000,000 for formulation

studies and ATD on the NPOESS preparatory project (NPP) mission, of which $5,000,000 shall be an additional amount allocated

to ECS only for the development of high speed data processing and

algorithm validation processes to minimize NPP flight risks.

The Committee also expects the Office of Earth Science to allocate management for each of the above follow-on directives, except

the National Academy studies, to the appropriate NASA centers to

integrate fully the Agency’s earth science capabilities into the future of the earth science program. The Committee provides an additional $40,000,000 above the request to ensure delivery of a full scale EOSDIS Core System (ECS)

only for a total program level of $115,000,000. Of these additional

funds, $25,000,000 should be used to provide optimized system

functionality, planning for future growth and adaptations due to instrument team changes, provision for additional processing, and archival capabilities needed at the DAAC’s. The remaining

$15,000,000 is needed to continue and expand the Synergy program

that was begun in fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2001, the Committee believes the Synergy program should focus on the following:

continued development of the current applications to make them

accessible to the general public; expansion of the number of

infomarts/data store fronts to broaden the application base and implementation of a unified access data server for local, State and

Federal agencies and the commercial marketplace. As part of this

effort, NASA is directed to integrate the regional earth science application centers into the Synergy program by the end of fiscal year

2001.

The Committee continues to support programs aimed at fostering

the development of a robust U.S. commercial remote sensing industry which is being carried out at the Stennis Space Center as

NASA’s lead center for commercial remote sensing. The Committee

strongly endorses the partnership programs developed by the Stennis Space Center that include sponsored research projects with private companies, universities, States and localities as well as other

governmental agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Committee also expects the management of the Synergy program to remain at the Goddard Space Flight Center. Moreover, the Committee provides an additional $20,000,000 to continue
122

commercial data purchases to meet NASA’s Earth Science and Application data needs. The Committee further directs NASA to report to the Committee by March 15, 2001 with a 10-year strategy

and funding profile for securing Earth Science and Application data

services from U.S. companies. NASA is directed to develop centers

of excellence at universities throughout the nation to develop this

industry and increase commercial applications, including applications such as those related to agriculture, flood mapping, forestry,

environmental protection, and urban planning.

In particular, the Committee supports NASA’s ongoing support

under its Commercial Remote Sensing program for academic partnerships, including renewal of its ongoing grant to support Mississippi State University’s remote sensing program and its center

of excellence for geospatial research, education and training. Within this program, the Committee also includes $3,000,000 to enhance the University of South Mississippi’s research capability in

the use of remotely sensed data for coastal zone management,

$1,000,000 for a carbon cycle remote sensing technology program

for the KARS Regional Earth Sciences Applications Center at the

University of Kansas and $1,500,000 for the University of North

Dakota to support the Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium.

The Committee is aware of NASA efforts to produce high resolution topographic maps of regions of the United States. These results can serve a wide range of users from commercial and military

aviation to environmental and property development planning. The

Committee endorses this program and has provided $1,500,000 for

topographic sensor measurement efforts in Alaska. The Committee

is aware of opportunities to use NASA aircraft and satellite sensors

to make detailed observations of the ocean currents, weather, and

possibly species migrations. These efforts can have a range of applications from aiding planning of fish harvests to assisting the

weather modeling in regions heavily influenced by ocean conditions. The Committee recommendation provides $2,000,000 for remote ocean sensing research and measurements in the areas of the

Bering Sea and the northernmost Pacific Ocean.

Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications.—The Life and

Microgravity Science Program uses the microgravity environment

of space to conduct basic and applied research to understand the

effect of gravity on living systems and to conduct research in the

areas of fluid physics, materials science, and biotechnology. The

Life and Microgravity Science Program will conduct research, and

provide the opportunity to refine the definition, design, and development of experimental hardware planned for the International

Space Station.

The Committee supports the Administration’s budget request for

the Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications mission since

much of the research associated with these activities are targeted

to the International Space Station.

The Committee recommendation has provided $3,500,000 for a

center on life in extreme thermal environments at Montana State

University in Bozeman. It is expected that NASA will include funding for this research as part of the fiscal year 2001 Budget.

Aero-Space Technology.—The objective of the Aero-Space Technology Mission is to pioneer long-term, high-risk, high-payoff tech-
123

nologies that are effectively transferred to industry and Government. The program’s technology goals are grouped into three areas

to reflect the national priorities for aeronautics and space: global

civil aviation; revolutionary technology leaps; and access to space.

The Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology Program includes: Aeronautics, that addresses critical aeronautical safety, environmental, airspace productivity, and aircraft performance needs

at national and global levels; space transportation technology, that

will develop technology for the next generation space transportation system, with a target of reducing vehicle development and

operational costs dramatically; and commercial technology, that

consists of conducting a continuous inventory of newly developed

NASA technologies, maintaining a searchable data base of this inventory, assessing the commercial value of each technology, disseminating knowledge of these NASA technology opportunities to

the private sector, and supporting an efficient system for licensing

NASA technologies to private companies. This program also includes the operation of the Small Business Innovation Research

Program which is designed to enhance NASA’s use of small business technology innovators. The Committee recommendation includes $9,000,000 for the

Small Air Transportation System (SATS). SATS is NASA’s only focused investment in advanced technology that is designed to improve the safety and efficiency of general aviation.

The Committee intends that the Ultra Efficient Engine Tech- nology program be funded at $10,000,000 above the President’s

budget. The Committee includes the President’s request of

$5,500,000 for the development of Polymer Energy Rechargeable

Systems.

The Committee recommendation supports the President’s budget

request for the independent verification and validation [IV&V] facility and $7,300,000 for the National Technology Transfer Center.

The Committee strongly supports NASA’s Space Launch Initiative (SLI), whose goals is for NASA to meet its future space flight

needs, including human access to space, using commercial launch

vehicles that will reduce cost and improve safety and reliability.

The Committee fully supports NASA’s request of $290,000,000.

NASA is commended for developing an integrated space transportation plan that links decision milestones between SLI, Space Shuttle upgrades, Space Station crew return vehicle development, and

third generation space transportation technology research.

The Committee directs NASA to maintain two key principles

throughout the life of SLI, namely: (1) any launch vehicles developed will be owned and operated by private industry and be capable of competing effectively in the commercial marketplace; and (2)

the program will rely on competition from existing and emerging

launch service providers to ensure innovation, openness, and resiliency. Therefore, NASA must:

—identify the minimum set of requirements that would enable

development of privately owned and operated launch vehicle(s)

that would compete effectively in the commercial marketplace,

and, with the benefit of NASA provided unique hardware,

would service the cargo and personnel needs of the International Space Station. Any requirements above this minimum
124

set should be clearly identified and separately costed for its impact;

—allocate at least 90 percent of SLI funding through full and

open competition;

—promptly name an independent external panel that will conduct regular reviews of SLI to ensure that NASA adheres to

the two principles cited above; has the organization and plan

in place to implement the program; has adequately assessed

the program requirements and identified possible alternatives

(particularly those that would enhance commercial viability);

and is on track to enable full-scale launch vehicle development

decisions. The panel should annually report its findings to the

Committee;

—assess crew return vehicle concepts that could serve as a cost

effective building block toward an eventual crew transfer vehicle. The independent panel should validate this effort and report to the Committee before NASA commits any funds for full

scale development of a crew return vehicle; and

—vigorously pursue commercial launch services from existing

and emerging launch service providers, including efforts targeted to the feasibility of reusable launch vehicles, for Alternative Access to Space Station and report to the Committee

whether joint procurements with the Department of Defense

for such launch vehicles are desirable. Although Alternative

Access promises to be an important feature of the initiative,

the Committee believes it is premature to add funding above

the $40,000,000 request. Furthermore, the Committee directs

NASA to consider launch sites other than Cape Canaveral/Kennedy Space Center as part of the Alternative Access to Space

Station initiative.

The Committee includes $10,000,000 for a Propulsion Research

Laboratory to be located at NASA’s Center of Excellence for Space

Propulsion at the Marshall Space Flight Center.

Mission Communications Services and Academic Programs.—The

Committee has included $2,000,000 for MSU in Bozeman, MT, to

carry out research into advanced hardware and software technologies for development of advanced optoelectronic materials. The

Committee expects NASA to include these research endeavors to be

included in the fiscal year 2001 budget.

The objective of NASA’s academic programs is to promote excellence in America’s education system through enhancing and expanding scientific and technological competence. Activities conducted within academic programs capture the interest of students

in science and technology, develop talented students at the undergraduate and graduate levels, provide research opportunities for

students and faculty members at NASA centers, and strengthen

and enhance the research capabilities of the Nation’s colleges and

universities. NASA’s education programs span from the elementary

through graduate levels, and are directed at students and faculty.

Academic programs includes the Minority University Research Program, which expands opportunities for talented students from

underrepresented groups who are pursuing degrees in science and

engineering, and to strengthen the research capabilities of minority

universities and colleges.
125

The Committee has included $19,100,000 for the National Space

Grant College and Fellowship Program. This funding is the same

as the fiscal year 2000 level and the President’s request for fiscal

year 2001. This program is a valuable tool in developing educational partnerships in support of science, mathematics, technology, engineering and geography. The Committee recommendation has included $12,000,000 for

the NASA EPSCoR Program, $5,400,000 above the budget request

and $2,000,000 over the fiscal year 2000 level. The Committee expects NASA EPSCoR to support a broad range of research areas in

each EPSCoR State, drawn from Earth science, space science, aeronautics and space transportation technology, and human exploration and development of space, and to distribute the awards,

competitively, to the largest number of eligible States possible. The Committee has provided $55,000,000 for NASA’s minority

university research and education activities. This amount is

$1,200,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and $9,100,000

above the President’s budget request. These funds should be allocated in the same proportion as last year’s funds were allocated in

order to strengthen graduate science, mathematics, engineering,

and technology education at historically black colleges and universities. African-Americans continue to be substantially underrepresented at the doctoral level in many sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology fields. The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for the

NASA International Earth Observing System [EOS] Natural Resource Training Center at the University of Montana, Missoula,

MT; $2,000,000 for the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to implement the Wisconsin Initiative for Math, Science, and Technology

initiative; $2,500,000 for the Jason Foundation for the development

of an education program for school children on the exploration of

space; $2,500,000 for the Bishop Museum/Mauna Kea Astronomy

Education Center; $1,000,000 for the implementation of the statewide learning program for the Challenger Learning Center in

Kenai, Alaska; $1,000,000 for the University of Akron for

nanotechnology research; $1,000,000 for a NASA Center of Excellence in Mathematics, Science and Technology at Texas College in

Tyler, Texas; $1,000,000 for the Pipelines Project at Iowa State

University/Southern University—Baton Rouge; $1,000,000 for ongoing aerospace projects at MSE Technology Applications in Butte,

Montana; $250,000 for the Oklahoma Aeronautics and Space Commission for sounding rockets for the Oklahoma Space and Technology Applied Research program; $1,000,000 for the Chabot Observatory and Science Center, Oakland, CA; $1,000,000 for Montana State University for the techlink program; $3,000,000 is provided to the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center’s Modern Genetic’s project to permit studies that simulate specialized weather

conditions, pathogen attacks, and development and characterization of genetically modified plants in controlled-environment chambers; an increase of $10,000,000 for the Green Bank Radio Astronomy Observatory including $3,000,000 for operations, $5,000,000

for deferred maintenance and $2,000,000 to complete an education

and visitor center; $2,000,000 for the National Center for Space Research and Technology, a partnership between the Marshall Space
126

Flight Center and the University of Alabama Huntsville (as a reduction from the Propulsion Research Laboratory at Marshall

Space Flight Center); $2,000,000 for equipment for the South Carolina State Museum’s Observatory, Planetarium and Theater;

$8,000,000 for the University of Hawaii for infrastructure needs of

the Mauna Kea Education Center; $15,000,000 for infrastructure

needs for the Life Sciences building at the University of MissouriColumbia; and $1,000,000 for the Field Museum for the development of the ‘‘SUE’’ exhibit, a showcase of a 67 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus Rex; and the full budget request of $2,000,000 for the

Classroom of the Future. NASA is directed to make appropriate adjustments within each of the six identified enterprises within this

account to accommodate the stated funding priorities in this paragraph and submit these adjustments as part of its fiscal year 2000

operating plan.

The Committee includes $2,000,000 for the Lewis and Clark Rediscovery Web Technology Project which will provide K–12 and university level teachers internet and interactive web teaching technologies through a partnership between the University of Idaho,

Wheeling Jesuit College and the University of Montana.

MISSION SUPPORT

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $2,512,024,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 2,584,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 2,584,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,584,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides for mission support including safety,

reliability, and mission assurance activities supporting agency programs; space communications services for NASA programs; salaries

and related expenses in support of research in NASA field installations; design, repair, rehabilitation and modification of institutional

facilities, and construction of new institutional facilities; and other

operations activities supporting conduct of agency programs.

Funds provided in the ‘‘Mission support’’ account pay for NASA

civil service salary and related expenses, travel, construction of facilities, and research operations support [ROS] contractors.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $2,584,000,000 for mission support

activities. This amount is the same as the President’s budget request for these activities and an increase of $71,976,000 above the

current level.

The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for E-Complex upgrades and relocation of Government equipment at the Stennis

Space Center to accommodate the growth in large, medium and

small-scale liquid propulsion testing as part of the Space Launch

Initiative. An additional $12,000,000 is included to cover a new

Propulsion Test Operations Building, and for upgrades to the East/

West access road.
127

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $20,000,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 22,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 23,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 23,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Inspector General was established by the Inspector

General Act of 1978. The Office is responsible for providing agencywide audit and investigative functions to identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies which create conditions for

existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $23,000,000 for fiscal year 2001,

$1,000,000 above the President’s budget request. The Committee

commends the NASA IG’s diligence to addressing issues of fraud

and abuse.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee recommendation includes a series of provisions,

proposed by the administration, which are largely technical in nature, concerning the availability of funds. These provisions have

been carried largely, in prior-year appropriation acts.

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FACILITY

Direct loan

limitation

Administrative

expenses

Revolving loan

program

Appropriations, 2000 ....................................... $18,600,000,000 $257,000 $996,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ................................... 20,700,000,000 296,000 ..............................

House allowance .............................................. 3,000,000,000 296,000 1,000,000

Committee recommendation ............................ 600,000,000 296,000 ..............................

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Credit Union Administration [NCUA] Central Liquidity Facility [CLF] was created by the National Credit Union

Central Liquidity Facility Act (Public Law 95–630) as a mixed-ownership Government corporation within the National Credit Union

Administration. It is managed by the National Credit Union Administration Board and is owned by its member credit unions.

The purpose of the facility is to improve the general financial stability of credit unions by meeting their seasonal and emergency liquidity needs and thereby encourage savings, support consumer

and mortgage lending, and provide basic financial resources to all

segments of the economy. To become eligible for facility services,

credit unions invest in the capital stock of the facility, and the facility uses the proceeds of such investments and the proceeds of

borrowed funds to meet the liquidity needs of credit unions. The
128

primary sources of funds for the facility are the stock subscriptions

from credit unions and borrowings.

The facility may borrow funds from any source, with the amount

of borrowing limited by Public Law 95–630 to 12 times the amount

of subscribed capital stock and surplus.

Loans are available to meet short-term requirements for funds

attributable to emergency outflows from managerial difficulties or

local economic downturns. Seasonal credit is also provided to accommodate fluctuations caused by cyclical changes in such areas as

agriculture, education, and retail business. Loans can also be made

to offset protracted credit problems caused by factors such as regional economic decline.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of limiting administrative expenses for the Central Liquidity Fund [CLF] to

$296,000 in fiscal year 2001. This legislation reinstates a limitation

of $600,000,000 for the principal amount of new direct loans to

member credit unions, and does not appropriate an additional

$1,000,000 to be used for loans to community development credit

unions as requested by the President.

In the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act the

Committee lifted the cap on loans to member credit unions in order

to address anticipated liquidity demands due to the Y2K date

change. It was the intent of the Committee in the 1999 Emergency

Supplemental to raise the cap for a possible liquidity shortage due

to Y2K only and it was not the intent of the Committee to permanently raise the cap. Additionally, the General Accounting Office

reports that although increasing the caps probably reduced fears,

the slight increase in loans to member credit unions to cover possible liquidity short falls due to Y2K probably could have been covered by corporate credit unions and from the Federal Reserve discount window. Therefore, the Committee recommends to reinstate

the cap at $600,000,000 and recommends that if NCUA wishes to

raise the cap that it work with the Committee on Banking and

Urban Affairs to amend the Central Liquidity Facility Act.

While the Committee is supportive of assisting low-income communities, it is concerned about the duplication of Federal programs. Accordingly, the Committee suggests NCUA coordinate its

program of issuing loans to community development credit unions

with the community development programs of the Department of

Housing and Urban Development and the Community Development

Financial Institutions Fund. The Committee would like to see the

results of this effort in NCUA’s 2002 budget justification.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $3,897,184,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 4,572,400,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 4,064,300,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,297,184,000

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The National Science Foundation was established as an independent agency by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950
129

(Public Law 81–507) and is authorized to support basic and applied

research, science and technology policy research, and science and

engineering education programs to promote the progress of science

and engineering in the United States.

The Foundation supports fundamental and applied research in

all major scientific and engineering disciplines, through grants,

contracts, and other forms of assistance, such as cooperative agreements, awarded to more than 2,000 colleges and universities, and

to nonprofit organizations and other research organizations in all

parts of the United States. The Foundation also supports major national and international programs and research facilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,297,184,000 for the National

Science Foundation for fiscal year 2001. This amount is

$400,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and

$275,216,000 below the budget request.

RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $2,958,462,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 3,540,680,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 3,135,690,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,245,562,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The research and related activities appropriation addresses

Foundation goals to enable the United States to uphold world leadership in all aspects of science and engineering, and to promote the

discovery, integration, dissemination, and employment of new

knowledge in service to society. Research activities will contribute

to the achievement of these goals through expansion of the knowledge base; integration of research and education; stimulation of

knowledge transfer among academia and the public and private

sectors; and bringing the perspectives of many disciplines to bear

on complex problems important to the Nation.

The Foundation’s discipline-oriented research programs are: biological sciences; computer and information science and engineering;

engineering; geosciences; mathematical and physical sciences; and

social, behavioral and economic sciences. Also included are U.S.

polar research programs, U.S. antarctic logistical support activities,

and the Science and Technology Policy Institute.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,245,562,000

for research and related activities. This amount is $287,100,000

above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $295,118,000 below

the budget request.

The Committee supports fully the Foundation’s efforts to push

the boundaries of science and technology issues, especially in the

areas of information technology, biotechnology, and the administration’s new focus on nanotechnology. The Committee also applauds

the Foundation’s efforts to address the problem of science and

mathematics education among K–12, undergraduate, and graduate

students. However, in order for the Foundation to reach success-
130

fully its research and education goals, it must reach out to individuals and schools that have not participated fully in NSF’s programs. Accordingly, the Committee remains concerned about the

administration’s request for programs designed to assist minorities,

women, and schools that have not received significant Federal support.

To improve planning and priority-setting for the Foundation and

improve the Committee’s efforts to understand NSF’s long-term

budgeting, the Committee directs NSF to provide multi-year budgets for all of its multi-disciplinary activities beginning in fiscal year

2002. While the Foundation has provided outyear budgets for

projects under its Major Research Equipment account, only 1 year

budgets have been generally provided for its activities under the

R&RA and Education and Human Resources accounts. The Committee recognizes that NSF has taken on more significant initiatives that often require multi-year funding to meet its research

goals. For example, NSF has initiated major efforts in the areas of

information technology, biocomplexity, and nanotechnology. Accordingly, the Committee directs NSF to include the outyear budget impacts and needs of all these major multi-disciplinary activities in

the annual operating plan.

To further NSF’s major initiatives, the Committee recommends an additional $125,000,000 in new funding to enhance its computer

and information science and engineering activities consistent with

the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee

(PITAC) recommendations in its February 1999 report. These additional funds would increase the level of support for the information

technology initiative to $215,000,000. As prescribed in the PITAC

report and the fiscal year 2000 conference report accompanying the

VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act (House

Report 106–379), the Committee expects NSF to provide an increased ratio of grants at higher funding levels and for longer duration than what is typically funded. Further, the Committee encourages NSF to continue its efforts under the Next Generation Internet program in providing high-speed networking access to remote

and hard to reach areas, especially in rural States.

The Committee recommends $75,000,000 for the Foundation’s

biocomplexity initiative, an increase of $25,000,000 over last year’s

level. The Committee supports this multi-disciplinary initiative.

This program should also complement the highly successful Plant

Genome Research Program.

The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for the Plant Genome

Research Program and supports the Foundation’s request to initiate the new ‘‘2010 Project’’ and supplement the program with

$20,000,000 from other basic research activities throughout the biological sciences directorate. The Committee expects the Foundation

to continue its support for structural and functional plant genomic

research on economically significant crops. The Committee recognizes the findings of the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on

Plant Genomes, which recommended spending at least

$320,000,000 over 5 years in new funds on plant genome research.

The ‘‘2010 Project’’ is expected to create needed genome-wide

tools that will lead to more rapid advances in functional genomics

research in valuable food crops. The Committee encourages NSF to
131

work with the IWG on Plant Genomes to develop recommendations

on how best to make use of the important tools that will be developed through the ‘‘2010 Project.’’ The Committee is also excited by

NSF’s supported research in nutritional genomics, which will lead

to the discovery in plants of key genes controlling metabolic pathways that lead to production of vitamins, essential amino acids,

antioxidants, and accumulation of minerals essential for human

nutrition. This research could substantially improve the nutritional

quality and health benefit of eating normal portions of fruits and

vegetables, which would greatly benefit people in developing countries. The Committee encourages NSF representatives to the IWG

on Plant Genomes to work with other IWG representatives in developing recommendations for the Committee concerning research

and training in nutritional genomics.

The Committee recommends $125,000,000 for the new multiagency nanotechnology initiative. The Committee believes that the

recommended level of funding will be adequate for the Foundation

to begin this initiative in a field that is still regarded to be in its

infancy. The recommended level is less than the $216,700,000 requested level due to concerns about the Foundation taking on another major interagency initiative when its administrative resources have remained relatively flat. The Committee expects the

Foundation to work with the Office of Science and Technology Policy in carefully crafting a detailed, rational long-term strategy with

performance outcome measurements for the nanotechnology initiative. Further, the Committee directs NSF to include in its budget

justifications for fiscal year 2002, a workload-analysis plan that

identifies the resources necessary for the Foundation to carry out

this initiative and other current and future program responsibilities.

The Committee recognizes the significant infrastructure needs of

our nation’s research institutions, especially for smaller research

institutions that have not traditionally benefitted from Federal programs. The Committee is especially concerned about the larger

schools receiving a disproportionate share of scarce Federal resources from indirect cost reimbursements to fund infrastructure

needs. As a result, the Committee recommends $75,000,000 to the

Foundation’s Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) account to address the infrastructure needs of research institutions. NSF is encouraged to target these funds in assisting smaller research institutions.

The Committee notes the recent 3 year, $15,000,000 cooperative

agreement between NSF and the International Arctic Research

Center (IARC). The Committee commends NSF for its commitment

to the international cooperative research opportunities made available through IARC.

The Committee notes that NSF is participating in a multi-agency

effort to determine the future needs of the U.S. research vessel

fleet. The Committee is aware that a replacement vessel for the R/

V Alpha Helix, an arctic research vessel, has a useful life of 2 to

3 years remaining. The Committee recommends that NSF begin

the design and model testing of a vessel to replace the R/V Alpha

Helix and provides $1,000,000 for this purpose.
132

The Committee is very concerned that NSF has not proposed to

maintain adequately its existing astronomy facilities. In last year’s

Senate report, the Committee expressed its support for enhanced

operations and maintenance and development of new instrumentation at the Very Large Array and the Very Long Baseline Array in

New Mexico and continued construction of the Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia. Now that the Green Bank Telescope is completed, these astronomy facilities need to be supported in their operations, and new instrumentation and upgrades must be provided

to keep them as world class facilities. Accordingly, the Committee

provides an additional $13,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 request levels for the astronomical sciences subactivity for these facilities.

The Committee is very supportive of the research and development activities being conducted at the National High Magnetic

Field Laboratory (NHMFL). Based at Florida State University with

the University of Florida and Los Alamos National Laboratory as

its partners, the laboratory has attracted world-class scientists and

engineers and has developed state-of-the-art facilities like no other

place in the world. The NHMFL has submitted its renewal proposal to the Foundation earlier this year and is being currently reviewed by NSF and the National Science Board for final funding

decisions this fall. The Committee supports strongly the laboratory

and the work it has accomplished and hopes that the Foundation

continues its support for this outstanding facility.

Lastly, the Committee recognizes the Foundation’s funded research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences (SBE) area.

The Committee is especially interested in SBE activities to raise

science literacy, which is a problem in this country that will impact

the economic health and competitiveness of the nation. The Committee also encourages the continued involvement of behavioral

and social science research in NSF’s multi-disciplinary initiatives,

including information technology and 21st Century Workforce. Further, the Committee encourages NSF to formulate a plan for increasing the number of young investigators in SBE and other research areas.

MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $93,500,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 138,540,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 76,600,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 109,100,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The major research equipment activity will support the acquisition, construction and procurement of unique national research

platforms, research resources and major research equipment.

Projects supported by this appropriation will push the boundaries

of technological design and will offer significant expansion of opportunities, often in new directions, for the science and engineering

community.
133

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $109,100,000 for

major research equipment. This amount is $15,600,000 more than

the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $29,440,000 below the budget request.

The Committee has provided $45,000,000 for a second Terascale

Computing System, $16,400,000 for the Large Hadron Collider, and

$6,000,000 for the Millimeter Array. The Committee has also provided $28,200,000 to continue the construction of the Network for

Earthquake Engineering Simulation, and $13,500,000 for the south

pole station modernization efforts. No funding is provided for the

new EarthScope or the National Ecological Observatory Network

projects as requested by the administration due to budgetary constraints.

EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $690,872,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 729,010,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 694,310,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 765,352,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Education and human resources activities provide a comprehensive set of programs across all levels of education in science, mathematics, and technology. At the precollege level, the appropriation

provides for new instructional material and techniques, and enrichment activities for teachers and students. Undergraduate initiatives support curriculum improvement, facility enhancement, and

advanced technological education. Graduate level support is directed primarily to research fellowships and traineeships. Emphasis is given to systemic reform through components that address

urban, rural, and statewide efforts in precollege education, and programs which seek to broaden the participation of States and regions in science and engineering.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $765,352,000 for

education and human resources (EHR). This amount is $74,480,000

more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $36,342,000 more

than the budget request. The Committee also notes that NSF expects to receive an additional $31,000,000 from the H–1B Visa account, which will further supplement its EHR activities.

The Committee is deeply disappointed by the administration’s

lack of support in its budget request for assisting smaller research

institutions and minorities. The Committee is particularly troubled

by the lack of support provided to the Office of Innovation Partnerships (OIP) and the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). The Office of Innovation Partnerships,

which was created last year at the Committee’s direction, was expected to raise the attention and focus of addressing the needs of

smaller research institutions and other underfunded entities. Regrettably, the administration requested no new funds for this important office. The Committee recommendation provides
134

$10,000,000 to OIP, an increase of $1,500,000 over last year’s level.

The Committee has also provided $65,000,000 to EPSCoR, an increase of $13,610,000 over last year’s enacted level and $16,590,000

over the budget request.

To address the importance of broadening science and technology

participation to minorities, the Committee recommendation includes $12,000,000 for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities—Undergraduate Program (HBCU–UP), an increase of

$3,620,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $3,000,000

more than the budget request. These funds are to be matched by

an additional $1,000,000 in funds from the research and related activities account for a total funding level of $13,000,000 in fiscal

year 2001. The Committee also supports the administration’s budget requests for the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation

program; the new Tribal Colleges program; the Minority Graduate

Education program; the Centers of Research Excellence in Science

and Technology program; and the Model Institutions for Excellence

program. The Committee commends the Foundation for creating a

new Tribal Colleges program to address the research and infrastructure needs of colleges serving Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiians.

The Committee notes that Alaska and Hawaii do not provide

higher education to Native students through the tribal college system. It expects the Foundation to include Alaska Native serving institutions and Native Hawaiian serving institutions as defined by

the Higher Education Act in its Tribal College program to ensure

that Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians are not excluded from

this innovative, new initiative.

The Committee also strongly supports the Foundation’s programs

to support women and persons with disabilities. Specifically, the

Committee recommends $16,500,000 for programs designated for

women and persons with disabilities.

The Committee supports the Foundation’s efforts to strengthen

the nation’s security of its information infrastructure. The Committee is providing $11,200,000 for the new Scholarships for Service program to build a cadre of individuals in the Federal sector

with the skills to protect the nation’s information systems.

The Committee also continues its strong support for the Informal

Science Education (ISE) program. The Committee especially values

the ISE program in raising interest among children and young

adults in science and technology and notes the success of certain

settings, such as the Sea Life Center in Seward, Alaska and the

National Aquarium in Baltimore, Maryland. The ISE has also

played a role in the development of science teachers. The Committee supports NSF’s fiscal year 2001 focus on building collaborations between informal and formal science institutions, opportunities for underrepresented groups, involvement of parents, and enhancement of public understanding of mathematics.

The Committee recognizes the importance of research in nuclear

science. NSF’s investment is primarily in basic nuclear science and

NSF–supported research has led to important applications seen in

medicine such as CAT scans, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging

(MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET scans). The Committee, however, is concerned by the declining Federal support in
135

nuclear engineering education. Accordingly, the Committee directs

the Foundation to review the academic interest in nuclear engineering education and to provide recommendations on how NSF

can support this area. The findings and recommendations should

be provided to the Committee by no later than March 15, 2001.

The Committee is also concerned by the funding levels proposed

by the Administration for the Foundation’s graduate research education programs. The Committee is concerned particularly with the

proposed reduction in funding for the highly successful and prestigious Graduate Research Fellowships (GRF) program. This highly

competitive program has produced 18 Nobel Prize winners since

1975. The Committee is very supportive of the GRF program and

provides $55,200,000 for fiscal year 2002. This will allow the Foundation to raise the annual stipend amount from its current level of

$16,200 to $18,000 per award. The Committee believes that the increased stipend will improve the Foundation’s ability to attract the

best and brightest students into the science, mathematics, engineering, and technology fields. The Committee also urges NSF to

increase the GRF program to 900 for the next competition. The

Committee also provides an increase of $7,500,000 to the Graduate

Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education program, raising the program

level to $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002. While this level is below

the President’s requested level of $28,000,000, the Committee believes that it is difficult to justify a substantial increase to a program that has only been in place for a year and whose performance

has not been assessed.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $148,900,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 157,890,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 152,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 170,890,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The salaries and expenses appropriation provides for the operation, management, and direction of all Foundation programs and

activities and includes necessary funds to develop and coordinate

NSF programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $170,890,000 for

salaries and expenses. The increase of $13,000,000 above the budget request is for travel expenses that the administration had proposed to fund out of its R&RA and EHR accounts instead of salaries and expenses. Accordingly, the Committee directs NSF to fund

travel only from this account and not to use other account funds

for travel purposes.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $5,450,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 6,280,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,700,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,280,000
136

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Inspector General appropriation provides audit and

investigation functions to identify and correct deficiencies which

could create potential instances of fraud, waste, or mismanagement.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,280,000 for

the Office of Inspector General. This amount is $830,000 more than

the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and equal to the budget request.

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $74,715,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 90,000,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 90,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 80,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by the

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public Law

95–557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment helps local

communities establish working partnerships between residents and

representatives of the public and private sectors. The partnershipbased organizations are independent, tax-exempt, nonprofit entities: often known as Neighborhood Housing Services [NHS] or mutual housing associations. Collectively, these organizations are

known as the NeighborWorks network.

Nationally, over 200 NeighborWorks organizations serve over

1,000 urban, suburban and rural communities in 48 States and the

District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Of the neighborhoods, 70

percent of the people served are in the very low and low-income

brackets.

The NeighborWorks network improves the quality of life in distressed neighborhoods for current residents, increases homeownership through targeted lending efforts, exerts a long-term, stabilizing influence on the neighborhood business environment, and reverses neighborhood decline. NeighborWorks organizations have

been positively impacting urban communities for over two decades,

and more recent experience is demonstrating the success of this approach in rural communities when adequate resources are available.

Neighborhood Reinvestment will continue to provide grants to

Neighborhood Housing Services of America [NHSA], the

NeighborWorks network’s national secondary market. The mission of NHSA is to utilize private sector support to replenish local

NeighborWorks organizations’ revolving loan funds. These loans

are used to back securities which are placed with private sector social investors.
137

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $80,000,000 for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, $10,000,000 less than the budget request and $5,285,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.

The Committee recognizes the important work of the Corporation

in assisting low-income families attain homeownership with the

support of public and private resources. The Committee is especially supportive of the efforts of the Corporation and the

NeighborWorks organization in providing homeownership counseling, participating in a pilot program to assist section 8 voucher

holders attain homeownership, and educating potential homebuyers on various lending products. Due to the Committee’s concerns about the growing problems of predatory lenders on low-income people and communities, the Committee encourages NRC and

its network organizations to expand its education and counseling

programs in impacted areas such as Baltimore, Maryland; Los Angeles, California; and Chicago, Illinois.

The Committee is also concerned about the shortage of available,

affordable rental housing across the nation. The Corporation has

been successfully using a mixed-income affordable rental housing

through the use of ‘‘mutual housing’’ models. As of June 30, 1999,

the Corporation through its mutual housing associations had created over 5,600 affordable rental units. The Committee encourages

NRC to increase the number of affordable housing units through

this model and to devise a 5-year strategy on expanding this model

across the Nation. This strategy should be included in the fiscal

year 2002 budget justifications for the Corporation.

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2000 ............................................................................. $23,909,000

Budget estimate, 2001 ........................................................................... 24,480,000

House allowance .................................................................................... 23,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 24,480,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Selective Service System [SSS] was reestablished by the Selective Service Act of 1948. The basic mission of the System is to

be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces adequate to

ensure the security of the United States during a time of national

emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have relied on volunteers

to fill military manpower requirements. However, the Selective

Service System remains the primary vehicle by which men will be

brought into the military if Congress and the President should authorize a return to the draft.

In December 1987, Selective Service was tasked by law (Public

Law 100–180, sec. 715) to develop plans for a postmobilization

health care personnel delivery system capable of providing the necessary critically skilled health care personnel to the Armed Forces

in time of emergency. An automated system capable of handling

mass registration and inductions is now complete, together with

necessary draft legislation, a draft Presidential proclamation, prototype forms and letters, et cetera. These products will be available
138

should the need arise. The development of supplemental standby

products, such as a compliance system for health care personnel,

continues using very limited existing resources.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,480,000 for

the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as the budget request for fiscal year 2001 and an increase of $571,000 over the

fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
(139)

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Committee recommends inclusion of 25 general provisions

previously enacted in the 2000 appropriations act. They are largely

standard limitations which have been carried in the VA, HUD, and

Independent Agencies appropriations bill in the past.
(140)

DIVISION B—THE HOUSING NEEDS ACT OF 2000

TITLE I—PRODUCTION OF NEW HOUSING FOR LOW AND

VERY LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

Establishes a $1,000,000,000 block grant program that would allocate funds to State housing finance agencies on a per capita basis

according to the population of the State.

Allows funds to be used for acquisition, new construction, reconstruction, or moderate or substantial rehabilitation of affordable

housing; permits funds to be used for rehabilitation needs and

preservation of existing assisted low-income housing (although no

more than 20 percent of the funds can be used for rehabilitation

and preservation); allows conversion of existing housing to housing

for the elderly or for persons with disabilities.

Requires States to meet a 75 percent matching requirement to

ensure accountability and to leverage additional funds.

Requires housing developed to be low- and mixed-income housing

with at least 30 percent of the units targeted to very low-income

families; sets rents in a manner modeled after the low-income tax

credit program only with deeper targeting where a unit rent would

be 20 percent of the adjusted income of a family whose income

equals 50 percent of the median income for an area. All assisted

units must be targeted to low-income families.

Establishes a new multifamily risk-sharing mortgage insurance

program to underwrite housing produced under this title.

TITLE II—SECTION 8 SUCCESS PROGRAM

Allows public housing authorities to increase their payment

standard for assisted rents under section 8 up to 150 percent of the

existing fair market rent or payment standard. Will ensure that

families can find housing using vouchers.

Applies to tight rental markets throughout the country, including

rural and urban areas, and any rent change would be subject to the

approval of a plan by HUD that includes proactive actions by PHAs

to help tenants with vouchers. This reform should be especially

helpful to tight rental markets, such as San Francisco, Cambridge,

MA and Philadelphia, PA.

Limits funds to those held by the PHA under the existing program; thus would not cost more but would allow flexibility to ensure that vouchers could be used to find housing.

TITLE III—PRESERVATION OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING

Raises the amount of section 8 project-based assistance that a

PHA can create from 15 percent to 25 percent of available section

8 assistance, with expedited procedures. This will allow more
141

project-based section 8 housing to help seniors and persons with

disabilities, in particular.

Requires HUD to maintain section 8 assistance on all HUD-held

and HUD foreclosed multifamily housing. Many elderly and persons with disabilities have been displaced by HUD since HUD provides vouchers to residents upon the disposition of a property. Thus

these people can stay in their homes.
(142)

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 7 of Rule XVI requires that Committee reports on

general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate

during that session.’’

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Fair housing activities: $44,000,000.

HOME Investment Partnerships Program: $1,600,000,000.

Homeless assistance grants: $1,020,000,000.

Community development block grants: $4,800,000,000.

Rural housing and economic development: $27,000,000.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund:

$95,000,000.

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Salaries and expenses: $52,500,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Environmental programs and management: $2,000,000,000.

Science and technology: $670,000,000.

State and tribal assistance grants: $3,320,000,000.

Superfund: $1,400,000,000.

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Salaries and expenses: $215,000,000.

Emergency management planning and assistance: $269,652,000.

Emergency food and shelter: $110,000,000.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Consumer Information Center: $7,122,000.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Human space flight: $5,400,000,000.

Science, aeronautics, and technology: $5,837,000,000.

Mission support: $2,584,000,000.
143

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee ordered

reported, H.R. 4635, the Departments of Veterans Affairs and

Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill, 2001 and subject to amendment and subject to its

budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 27–1, a quorum being

present. The vote was as follows:

Yeas Nays

Chairman Stevens Mr. Kyl

Mr. Cochran

Mr. Specter

Mr. Domenici

Mr. Bond

Mr. Gorton

Mr. McConnell

Mr. Burns

Mr. Shelby

Mr. Gregg

Mr. Bennett

Mr. Campbell

Mr. Craig

Mrs. Hutchison

Mr. Byrd

Mr. Inouye

Mr. Hollings

Mr. Leahy

Mr. Lautenberg

Mr. Harkin

Ms. Mikulski

Mr. Reid

Mr. Kohl

Mrs. Murray

Mr. Dorgan

Mrs. Feinstein

Mr. Durbin

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form

recommended by the committee.’’

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

* * * * * * *
144

CHAPTER 85—AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND

CONTROL

SUBCHAPTER I—PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

* * * * * * *

PART D—PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS

SUBPART 1—NONATTAINMENT AREAS IN GENERAL

* * * * * * *

§ 7506. Limitations on certain Federal assistance

(a) * * *

(c) Activities not conforming to approved or promulgated

plans

(1) * * *

(5) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) Notwithstanding paragraph 5, this subsection shall not

apply with respect to an area designated nonattainment under section 107(d)(1) until one year after that area is first designated nonattainment for a specific national ambient air quality standard.

This paragraph only applies with respect to the national ambient

air quality standard for which an area is newly designated nonattainment and does not affect the area’s requirements with respect

to all other national ambient air quality standards for which the

area is designated nonattainment or has been redesignated from

nonattainment to attainment with a maintenance plan pursuant to

section 175(A) (including any pre-existing national ambient air

quality standard for a pollutant for which a new or revised standard has been issued).

* * * * * * *

UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937

TITLE I—GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING

* * * * * * *

SEC. 9. PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL AND OPERATING FUNDS.

* * * * * * *

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(E) management improvements, including the establishment and initial operation of computer centers in and

around public housing through a Neighborhood Networks

initiative, for the purpose of enhancing the self-sufficiency,

employability, and economic self-reliance of public housing
145

residents by providing them with onsite computer access

and training resources;

* * * * * * *

(e) * *

(1) * * *

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(I) the costs of repaying, together with rent contributions, debt incurred to finance the rehabilitation and development of public housing units, which shall be subject to

such reasonable requirements as the Secretary may establish; øand¿

(J) the costs associated with the operation and management of mixed finance projects, to the extent

appropriateø.¿; and

(K) the costs of operating computer centers in public

housing through a Neighborhood Networks initiative described in subsection (d)(1)(E), and of activities related to

that initiative.

* * * * * * *

(h) * * *

(1) * * *

(6) training and technical assistance to assist in the oversight and management of public housing or tenant-based assistance; øand¿

(7) clearinghouse services in furtherance of the goals and

activities of this subsectionø.¿; and

(8) assistance in connection with the establishment and operation of computer centers in public housing through a Neighborhood Networks initiative described in subsection (d)(1)(E).

* * * * * * *

SEC. 24. DEMOLITION, SITE REVITALIZATION, REPLACEMENT HOUSING, AND TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR

PROJECTS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(G) economic development activities that promote the

economic self-sufficiency of residents under the revitalization program, including a Neighborhood Networks initiative for the establishment and operation of computer centers

in public housing for the purpose of enhancing the self-sufficiency, employability, an economic self-reliance of public

housing residents by providing them with onsite computer

access and training resources;

* * * * * * *

(m) * * *
146

(1) * * *

(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND PROGRAM OVERSIGHT.—Of

the amount appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, the Secretary may use up to 2 percent for technical

assistance or contract expertise, including assistance in connection with the establishment and operation of computer centers

in public housing through the Neighborhoods Networks initiative described in subsection (d)(1)(G). Such assistance or contract expertise may be provided directly or indirectly by grants,

contracts, or cooperative agreements, and shall include training, and the cost of necessary travel for participants in such

training, by or to officials of the Department of Housing and

Urban Development, of public housing agencies, and of residents.

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ACT OF 1968

TITLE XIII—NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER I—THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

* * * * * * *

FINANCING

SEC. 1309. (a) All authority which was vested in the Housing

and Home Finance Administrator by virtue of section 15(e) of the

Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1084) (pertaining to

the issue of notes or other obligations or the Secretary of the Treasury), as amended by subsections (a) and (b) of section 1303 of this

Act, shall be available to the Director for the purpose of carrying

out the flood insurance program under this title; except that the

total amount of notes and obligations which may be issued by the

Director pursuant to such authority (1) without the approval of the

President, may not exceed $500,000,000, and (2) with the approval

of the President, may not exceed $1,500,000,000 through September 30, ø2000¿ 2001, 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.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1376. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may

be necessary through øSeptember 30, 2000¿ September 30, 2001,

for studies under this title.

* * * * * * *
147

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958

* * * * * * *

TITLE III—MISCELLANEOUS

* * * * * * *

SEC. 311. * * *

* * * * * * *

SEC. 312. (a) Appropriations for the Administration for fiscal

year 2002 and thereafter shall be made in accounts, ‘‘Human space

flight’’, ‘‘International space station’’, ‘‘Science, aeronautics and technology’’, and an account for amounts appropriated for the necessary

expenses of the Office of Inspector General. Appropriations shall remain available for two fiscal years. Each account shall include the

planned full costs of the Administration’s related activities.

(b) The Administrator shall notify the Committees on Appropriations whenever any program or activity exceeds fifteen percent

of the annual or total budget of such program or activity.

* * * * * * *

AIDS HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ACT

SEC. 856. RESPONSIBILITIES OF GRANTEES.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.—For purposes of environmental

review, a grant under this subtitle shall be treated as assistance for

a special project that is subject to section 305(c) of the Multifamily

Housing Property Disposition Reform Act of 1994, and shall be subject to the regulations issued by the Secretary to implement such section.

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

* * * * * * *

TITLE I—HOUSING RENOVATION AND MODERNIZATION

* * * * * * *

TITLE II—MORTGAGE INSURANCE

* * * * * * *

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS

SEC. 202. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) MORTGAGEE REVIEW BOARD.—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established within the Federal Housing Administration the Mortgagee Review Board

(‘‘Board’’). The Board is empowered to initiate the issuance of

a letter of reprimand, the probation, suspension or withdrawal

of any mortgagee found to be engaging in activities in violation
148

of Federal Housing Administration requirements or the nondiscrimination requirements of the Equal Credit Opportunity

Act, the Fair Housing Act, or Executive Order 11063.

(2) COMPOSITION.—The Board shall consist of—

(A) the Assistant Secretary of Housing/Federal Housing Commissioner;

(B) the General Counsel of the Department;

(C) the President of the Government National Mortgage Association;

(D) the Assistant Secretary for Administration;

(E) the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing Enforcement (in cases involving violations of nondiscrimination requirements); øand¿

(F) the Chief Financial Officer of the Department;

øor their designees.¿ and

(G) the Director of the Enforcement Center; or their

designees.

* * * * * * *

INSURANCE OF MORTGAGES

SEC. 203. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) * * *

* * * * * * *

(10) * * *

(11) REDUCED DOWNPAYMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR TEACH- ERS AND UNIFORMED MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES— (A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the downpayment

requirements contained in paragraph (2), in the case of a

mortgage described in subparagraph (B)—

(i) the mortgage shall involve a principal obligation in an amount that does not exceed the sum of 99

percent of the appraised value of the property and the

total amount of initial service charges, appraisal, inspection, and other fees (as the Secretary shall approve)

paid in connection with the mortgage;

(ii) no other provision of this subsection limiting

the principal obligation of the mortgage based upon a

percentage of the appraised value of the property subject to the mortgage shall apply; and

(iii) the matter in paragraph (9) that precedes the

first proviso shall not apply and the mortgage shall be

executed by a mortgagor who shall have paid on account of the property at least 1 percent of the cost of acquisition (as determined by the Secretary) in cash or its

equivalent.

(B) MORTGAGES COVERED.—A mortgage described in

this subparagraph is a mortgage—

(i) under which the mortgagor is an individual

who—

(I) is employed on a full-time basis as: (aa) a

teacher or administrator in a public or private
149

school that provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law, except that

elementary education shall include pre-Kindergarten education, and except that secondary education shall not include any education beyond

grade 12; or (bb) a public safety officer (as such

term is defined in section 1204 of the Omnibus

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, except

that such term shall not include any officer serving

a public agency of the Federal Government); and

(II) has not, during the 12-month period ending upon the insurance of the mortgage, had any

present ownership interest in a principal residence

located in the jurisdiction described in clause (ii);

and

(ii) made for a property that is located within the

jurisdiction of—

(I) in the case of a mortgage of a mortgagor

described in clause (i)(I)(aa), the local educational

agency (as such term is defined in section 14101 of

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801)) for the school in which the

mortgagor is employed (or, in the case of a mortgagor employed in a private school, the local educational agency having jurisdiction for the area in

which the private school is located); or

(II) in the case of a mortgage of a mortgagor

described in clause (i)(I)(bb), the jurisdiction

served by the public law enforcement agency, firefighting agency, or rescue or ambulance agency

that employs the mortgagor.

(c)(1) * * *

(2) øNotwithstanding¿ Except as provided in paragraph (3) and

notwithstanding any other provision of this section, each mortgage

secured by a 1- to 4-family dwelling and 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),

shall be subject to the following requirements:

* * * * * * *

(3) DEFERRAL AND REDUCTION OF UP-FRONT PREMIUM.—In

the case of any mortgage described in subsection (b)(10)(B):

(A) Paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection (relating to collection of up-front premium payments) shall not apply.

(B) If, at any time during the 5-year period beginning

on the date of the insurance of the mortgage, the mortgagor

ceases to be employed as described in subsection

(b)(10)(B)(i)(I) or pays the principal obligation of the mortgage in full, the Secretary shall at such time collect a single

premium payment in an amount equal to the amount of the

single premium payment that, but for this paragraph,

would have been required under paragraph (2)(A) of this

subsection with respect to the mortgage, as reduced by 20

percent of such amount for each successive 12-month period
150

completed during such 5-year period before such cessation

or prepayment occurs.

* * * * * * *

ø(s)¿(t)(1) Each mortgagee (or servicer) with respect to a mortgage under this section shall provide each mortgagor of such mortgagee (or servicer) written notice, not less than annually, containing a statement of the amount outstanding for prepayment of

the principal amount of the mortgage and describing any requirements the mortgagor must fulfill to prevent the accrual of any interest on such principal amount after the date of any prepayment.

This paragraph shall apply to any insured mortgage outstanding

on or after the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the

date of effectiveness of final regulations implementing this paragraph.

(2) Each mortgagee (or servicer) with respect to a mortgage

under this section shall, at or before closing with respect to any

such mortgage, provide the mortgagor with written notice (in such

form as the Secretary shall prescribe, by regulation, before the expiration of the 90-day period beginning upon the date of the enactment of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act)

describing any requirements the mortgagor must fulfill upon prepayment of the principal amount of the mortgage to prevent the accrual of any interest on the principal amount after the date of such

prepayment. This paragraph shall apply to any mortgage executed

after the expiration of the period under paragraph (1).

ø(t)¿(u)(1) No mortgagee may make or hold mortgages insured

under this section if the customary lending practices of the mortgagee, as determined by the Secretary pursuant to section 539, provide for a variation in mortgage charge rates that exceeds 2 percent for insured mortgages made by the mortgagee on dwellings located within an area. The Secretary shall ensure that any permissible variations in the mortgage charge rates of any mortgagee are

based only on actual variations in fees or costs to the mortgagee

to make the loan.

(2) For purposes of this subsection—

(A) the term ‘‘area’’ shall have the meaning given the term

under subsection (b)(2);

(B) the term ‘‘mortgage charges’’ includes the interest rate,

discount points, loan origination fee, and any other amount

charged to a mortgagor with respect to an insured mortgage;

and

(C) the term ‘‘mortgage charge rate’’ means the amount of

mortgage charges for an insured mortgage expressed as a percentage of the initial principal amount of the mortgage.

(v) Notwithstanding section 202 of this title, the insurance of

a mortgage under this section in connection with the assistance

provided under section 8(y) of the United States Housing Act of

1937 shall be the obligation of the General Insurance Fund created

pursuant to section 519 of this title. The provisions of subsections

(a) through (h), (j), and (k) of section 204 shall apply to such mortgages, except that (1) all references in section 204 to the Mutual

Mortgage Insurance Fund or the Fund shall be construed to refer

to the General Insurance Fund, and (2) any excess amounts de-
151

scribed in section 204(f)(1) shall be retained by the Secretary and

credited to the General Insurance Fund.

ø(v)¿(w) ANNUAL REPORT.—The Secretary of Housing and

Urban Development shall submit to the Congress an annual report

on the single family mortgage insurance program under this section. Each report shall set forth—

* * * * * * *

(x) MANAGEMENT DEFICIENCIES REPORT.—

* * * * * * *

HOUSING FOR MODERATE INCOME AND DISPLACED FAMILIES

SEC. 221. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g) * * *

* * * * * * *

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4)(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C)(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

(viii) This subparagraph shall not apply after December

31, 2002, except that this subparagraph shall continue to apply

if the Secretary receives a mortgagee’s written notice of intent

to assign its mortgage to the Secretary on or before such date.

Not later than January 31 of each year (beginning in 1992),

the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report including

statements of the number of mortgages auctioned and sold and

their value, the amount of subsidies committed to the program

under this subparagraph, the ability of the Secretary to coordinate the program with the incentives provided under the

Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 or

subsequent Act, and the costs and benefits derived from the

program for the Federal Government.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 236. * * *

* * * * * * *

(g)(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) * * *

(A) during fiscal year ø2000¿ 2001, to all project owners collecting such excess charges; and

* * * * * * *

STEWART B. McKINNEY HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT

* * * * * * *
152

TITLE IV—HOUSING ASSISTANCE

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Programs

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 443. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

øThe provisions of, and regulations and procedures applicable

under, section 104(g) of the Housing and Community Development

Act of 1974 shall apply to assistance and projects under this title.¿

SEC. 443. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

For purposes of environmental review, assistance and projects

under this title shall be treated as assistance for special projects

that are subject to section 305(c) of the Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Reform Act of 1994, and shall be subject to the regulations issued by the Secretary to implement such section.

* * * * * * *

UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937

TITLE I—GENERAL PROGRAM OF ASSISTED HOUSING

* * * * * * *

LOWER INCOME HOUSING ASSISTANCE

SEC. 8. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(o) VOUCHER PROGRAM.— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(13) PHA PROJECT-BASED ASSISTANCE.— (A) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary enters into an annual contributions contract under this subsection with a

public housing agency pursuant to which the public housing agency will enter into a housing assistance payment

contract with respect to an existing structure under this

subsection—

(i) the housing assistance payment contract may

not be attached to the structure unless the owner

agrees to rehabilitate or newly construct the structure

other than with assistance under this Act, and otherwise complies with this section; and

(ii) the public housing agency may approve a

housing assistance payment contract for such existing

structures for not more than ø15 percent¿ 25 percent

of the funding available for tenant-based assistance

administered by the public housing agency under this

section.

(B) * * *

* * * * * * *

(D) ADJUSTED RENTS.—With respect to rents adjusted

under this paragraph—
153

(i) the adjusted rent for any unit shall be reasonable in comparison with rents charged for comparable

dwelling units in the private, unassisted, local market;

and

(ii) the provisions of subsection (c)(2)(C) shall not

apply.

(E) The Secretary shall establish expedited procedures

to allow public housing agencies to enter into housing assistance payment contracts with respect to existing structures.

* * * * * * *

(x) FAMILY UNIFICATION.—

(1) * * *

(2) USE OF FUNDS.—The amounts made available under

this subsection shall be used only in connection with tenantbased assistance under section 8 on behalf of øany family (A)

who is otherwise eligible for such assistance, and (B)¿ (A) any

family (i) who is otherwise eligible for such assistance, and (ii)

who the public child welfare agency for the jurisdiction has certified is a family for whom the lack of adequate housing is a

primary factor in the imminent placement of the family’s child

or children in out-of-home care or the delayed discharge of a

child or children to the family from out-of-home care, and (B)

for a period not to exceed 18 months, youths who have attained

at least 18 years of age and not more than 21 years of age and

who have left foster care at age 16 or older.

* * * * * * *

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974

TITLE I—COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

FINDINGS AND PURPOSE

* * * * * * *

SEC. 102. (a) * * *

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6)(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(E) * * *

* * * * * * *

(F) Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, any county that was classified as an urban county

pursuant to subparagraph (A) for fiscal year 1999, at the

option of the county, may hereafter remain classified as an

urban county for purposes of this Act.

* * * * * * *

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992

* * * * * * *
154

TITLE V—HUD MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REFORM

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE C—ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

SEC. 542. MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE CREDIT øDEMONSTRATIONS¿

PROGRAMS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Secretary’) shall carry out

programs through the Federal Housing Administration to ødemonstrate the effectiveness of providing¿ provide new forms of Federal credit enhancement for multifamily loans. In carrying out

ødemonstration¿ programs, the Secretary shall include an evaluation of the effectiveness of entering into partnerships or other contractual arrangements including reinsurance and risk-sharing

agreements with State or local housing finance agencies, the Federal Housing Finance Board, the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, qualified financial institutions, and other State or local mortgage insurance

companies or bank lending consortia.

(b) RISK-SHARING øPILOT¿ PROGRAM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out a øpilot¿

program through the Federal Housing Administration to ødetermine the effectiveness of¿ provide for risk sharing related to

mortgages on multifamily housing.

(2) AUTHORITY FOR REINSURANCE AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary may enter into reinsurance agreements (as such term is

defined in section 544) with the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, qualified financial institutions, qualified housing finance agencies,

and the Federal Housing Finance Board. The agreements may

provide for risk-sharing and other forms of credit enhancement

with respect to mortgage lending on multifamily housing, including reinsurance with respect to pools of loans on multifamily housing properties, that the Secretary determines to be

appropriate to carry out the purposes of this subsection. The

agreements shall be in a form and have such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to carry

out the purposes of this subsection.

(3) DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES.—The Secretary shall

develop and assess a variety of risk-sharing alternatives, including arrangements under which the Secretary assumes an

appropriate share of the risk related to long-term mortgage

loans on newly constructed or acquired multifamily rental

housing, mortgage refinancings, bridge financing for construction, and other forms of multifamily housing mortgage lending

that the Secretary deems appropriate to carry out the purposes

of this subsection. Such alternatives shall be designed—

(A) to ensure that other parties bear a share of the

risk, in percentage amount and in position of exposure,

that is sufficient to create strong, market-oriented incentives for other participating parties to maintain sound underwriting and loan management practices;
155

(B) to develop credit mechanisms, including sound underwriting criteria, processing methods, and credit enhancements, through which resources of the Federal Housing Administration can assist in increasing multifamily

housing lending as needed to meet the expected need in

the United States;

(C) to provide a more adequate supply of mortgage

credit for sound multifamily rental housing projects in underserved urban and rural markets;

(D) to encourage major financial institutions to expand

their participation in mortgage lending for sound multifamily housing, through means such as mitigating uncertainties regarding actions of the Federal Government (including the possible failure to renew short-term subsidy

contracts);

(E) to increase the efficiency, and lower the costs to

the Federal Government, of processing and servicing multifamily housing mortgage loans insured by the Federal

Housing Administration; and

(F) to improve the quality and expertise of Federal

Housing Administration staff and other resources, as required for sound management of reinsurance and other

market-oriented forms of credit enhancement.

(4) ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS.—The Secretary shall establish

and enforce standards for financial institutions and entities to

be eligible to enter into reinsurance agreements under this

subsection, as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

ø(5) FUNDING.—Using any authority provided in appropriation Acts to insure loans under the National Housing Act,

the Secretary may enter into commitments under this subsection for risk sharing with respect to mortgages on not more

than 15,000 units over fiscal years 1993 and 1994. The demonstration authorized under this subsection shall not be expanded until the reports required under subsection (d) are submitted to Congress.¿

(5) INSURANCE AUTHORITY.—Using any authority provided

in appropriation Acts to insure mortgages under the National

Housing Act, the Secretary may enter into commitments under

this subsection for risk-sharing units.

(6) FEES.—The Secretary shall establish and collect premiums and fees under this subsection as the Secretary determines appropriate to (A) achieve the purpose of this subsection, and (B) compensate the Federal Housing Administration for the risks assumed and related administrative costs.

(7) NON-FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.—The Secretary shall

carry out this subsection, to the maximum extent practicable,

with the participation of well-established residential mortgage

originators, financial institutions that invest in multifamily

housing mortgages, multifamily housing sponsors, and such

other private sector experts in multifamily housing finance as

the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

(8) TIMING.—The Secretary shall take any administrative

actions necessary to initiate the øpilot¿ program under this
156

subsection not later than the expiration of the 8-month period

beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY øPILOT¿ PROGRAM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out a specific

øpilot¿ program in conjunction with qualified housing finance

agencies to øtest the effectiveness of¿ provide Federal credit

enhancement for loans for affordable multifamily housing

through a system of risk-sharing agreements with such agencies.

(2) øPILOT¿ PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the øpilot¿ program

authorized under this subsection, the Secretary shall enter

into risk-sharing agreements with qualified housing finance agencies.

(B) MORTGAGE INSURANCE.—Agreements under subparagraph (A) shall provide for full mortgage insurance

through the Federal Housing Administration of the loans

for affordable multifamily housing originated by or

through qualified housing finance agencies and for reimbursement to the Secretary by such agencies for either all

or a portion of the losses incurred on the loans insured.

(C) RISK APPORTIONMENT.—Agreements entered into

under this subsection between the Secretary and a qualified housing finance agency shall specify the percentage of

loss that each of the parties to the agreement will assume

in the event of default of the insured multifamily mortgage. Such agreements shall specify that the qualified

housing finance agency and the Secretary shall share

equally the full amount of any loss on the insured mortgage.

(D) REIMBURSEMENT CAPACITY.—Agreements entered

into under this subsection between the Secretary and a

qualified housing finance agency shall provide evidence of

the capacity of such agency to fulfill any reimbursement

obligations made pursuant to this subsection. Evidence of

such capacity may include--

(i) a pledge of the full faith and credit of a qualified State or local agency to fulfill any obligations entered into by the qualified housing finance agency;

(ii) reserves pledged or otherwise restricted by the

qualified housing finance agency in an amount equal

to an agreed upon percentage of the loss assumed by

the housing finance agency under subparagraph (C);

(iii) funds pledged through a State or local guarantee fund; or

(iv) any other form of evidence mutually agreed

upon by the Secretary and the qualified housing finance agency.

(E) UNDERWRITING STANDARDS.—The Secretary shall

allow any qualified housing finance agency to use its own

underwriting standards and loan terms and conditions for

purposes of underwriting loans to be insured under this

subsection without further review by the Secretary, except

that the Secretary may impose additional underwriting cri-
157

teria and loan terms and conditions for contractual agreements where the Secretary retains more than 50 percent

of the risk of loss.

(3) MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUMS.—The Secretary shall

establish a schedule of insurance premium payments for mortgages insured under this subsection based on the percentage of

loss the Secretary may assume. Such schedule shall reflect

lower or nominal premiums for qualified housing finance agencies that assume a greater share of the risk apportioned according to paragraph (2)(C).

ø(4) LIMITATION ON INSURANCE AUTHORITY.—Using any authority provided by appropriations Acts to insure mortgages

under the National Housing Act, the Secretary may enter into

commitments under this subsection with respect to mortgages

on not to exceed 30,000 units over fiscal years 1993, 1994, and

1995. The demonstration authorized under this subsection

shall not be expanded until the reports required under subsection (d) are submitted to the Congress.¿

(4) INSURANCE AUTHORITY.—Using any authority provided

in appropriation Acts to insure mortgages under the National

Housing Act, the Secretary may enter into commitments under

this subsection for risk-sharing units.

(5) IDENTITY OF INTEREST.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of law, the Secretary shall not apply identity of interest provisions to agreements entered into with qualified State

housing finance agencies under this subsection.

(6) PROHIBITION ON GINNIE MAE SECURITIZATION.—The

Government National Mortgage Association shall not securitize

any multifamily loans insured under this subsection.

(7) QUALIFICATION AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.—Multifamily

housing securing loans insured under this subsection shall

qualify as affordable only if the housing is occupied by very

low-income families and bears rents not greater than the gross

rent for rent-restricted residential units as determined under

section 42(g)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

(8) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 90 days after the date

of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this subsection.

ø(d) INDEPENDENT STUDIES AND REPORTS.—

ø(1) FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION.—The

Federal National Mortgage Association, in consultation with

representatives of its seller-servicers and State housing finance

agencies, shall carry out an independent assessment of alternative methods for achieving the purposes of this section and

shall submit a report containing any findings and recommendations, including any recommendations for legislative

or administrative action, simultaneously to the Secretary and

the Congress not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

ø(2) FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION.—The

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, in consultation

with representatives of its seller-servicers and State housing finance agencies, shall carry out an independent assessment of

alternative methods for achieving the purposes of this section
158

and shall submit a report containing any findings and recommendations, including any recommendations for legislative

or administrative action, simultaneously to the Secretary and

the Congress not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

ø(3) SECRETARY.—The Secretary shall submit to the Congress, and publish, reports under this paragraph assessing the

activities carried out under each of the pilot programs. The

Secretary shall submit and publish a preliminary report under

this paragraph not later than 9 months after the date of the

implementation of each of the pilot programs, and a final report not later than 24 months after the date of implementation

on which the pilot program is initiated, which shall include

any recommendations by the Secretary for legislative changes

to achieve the purposes of this section.

ø(4) COMPTROLLER GENERAL.—The Comptroller General of

the United States shall carry out an evaluation of each of the

pilot programs under this section and shall submit to the Congress, not later than 30 months after the date of implementation for each of the pilot programs, a report regarding the evaluation, together with any recommendations for legislative

changes to achieve the purposes of this section. The Comptroller General shall also submit to the Congress a report containing a preliminary assessment of the pilot program not later

than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

ø(5) FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD.—The Federal

Housing Finance Board shall monitor and assess the activities

carried out under the pilot programs under this section. The

Federal Housing Finance Board shall submit a preliminary report containing any findings regarding such activities not later

than 9 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and

a final report containing such findings not later than 24

months after the date on which the pilot program is initiated,

which shall include any recommendations by the Board for legislative changes to achieve the purposes of this section.¿

* * * * * * *

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SELFDETERMINATION ACT OF 1996

* * * * * * *

TITLE I—BLOCK GRANTS AND GRANT REQUIREMENTS

* * * * * * *

TITLE II—AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES

* * * * * * *

SEC. 201. NATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND ELIGIBLE FAMILIES.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) ELIGIBLE FAMILIES.—
159

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) NON-INDIAN FAMILIES.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1),

a recipient may provide housing or housing assistance provided

through affordable housing activities assisted with grant

amounts under this Act for a non-Indian family on an Indian

reservation or other Indian area if the recipient determines

that the presence of the family on the Indian reservation or

other Indian area is essential to the well-being of Indian families and the need for housing for the family cannot reasonably

be met without such assistance.

(4) LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a recipient may provide housing or housing assistance provided through affordable housing activities assisted

with grant amounts under this Act to a law enforcement officer

on the reservation or other Indian area, who is employed fulltime by a Federal, state, county or tribal government, and in

implementing such full-time employment is sworn to uphold,

and make arrests for violations of Federal, state, county or tribal law, if the recipient determines that the presence of the law

enforcement officer on the Indian reservation or other Indian

area may deter crime.

ø(4)¿ (5) PREFERENCE FOR TRIBAL MEMBERS AND OTHER INDIAN FAMILIES.—The Indian housing plan for an Indian tribe

may require preference, for housing or housing assistance provided through affordable housing activities assisted with grant

amounts provided under this Act on behalf of such tribe, to be

given (to the extent practicable) to Indian families who are

members of such tribe, or to other Indian families. In any case

in which the applicable Indian housing plan for an Indian tribe

provides for preference under this paragraph, the recipient for

the tribe shall ensure that housing activities that are assisted

with grant amounts under this Act for such tribe are subject

to such preference.

ø(5)¿ (6) EXEMPTION.—Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 and title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 shall not

apply to actions by federally recognized tribes and the tribally

designated housing entities of those tribes under this Act.

* * * * * * *
160

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC.

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED

[In millions of dollars]

Budget authority Outlays

Committee

allocation

Amount

of bill

Committee

allocation

Amount

of bill

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to its subcommittees of

amounts in the First Concurrent Resolution

for 2001: Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and

Independent Agencies:

General purpose, defense discretionary ...... 135 135 132 1 132

General purpose, non-defense discretionary 79,983 79,978 85,975 85,971

Mandatory .................................................... 24,710 24,582 24,438 24,103

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:

2001 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 2 62,398

2002 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 22,879

2003 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 8,593

2004 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 4,511

2005 and future years ................................ .................... .................... .................... 4,558

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2001 ................................................ NA 28,705 NA 31,976

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2000 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation compa

(∂ or ¥)

2000

appropriation Budget estimate Ho

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Veterans Benefits Administration

Compensation and pensions .................................................................................. 21,568,364 22,766,276 22,766,276 22,766,276 ∂1,197,912 .......................... ....Readjustment benefits ........................................................................................... 1,469,000 1,634,000 1,664,000 1,634,000 ∂165,000 .......................... Veterans insurance and indemnities ..................................................................... 28,670 19,850 19,850 19,850 ¥8,820 .......................... ....Veterans housing benefit program fund program account (indefinite) ................ 282,342 165,740 165,740 165,740 ¥116,602 .......................... ....

(Limitation on direct loans) .......................................................................... (300) (300) (300) (300) .......................... .......................... ....Administrative expenses ............................................................................... 156,958 166,484 161,484 162,000 ∂5,042 ¥4,484 

Education loan fund program account .................................................................. 1 1 1 1 .......................... .......................... ....

(Limitation on direct loans) .......................................................................... (3) (3) (3) (3) .......................... .......................... ....Administrative expenses ............................................................................... 214 220 220 220 ∂6 .......................... ....

Vocational rehabilitation loans program account ................................................. 57 52 52 52 ¥5 .......................... ....

(Limitation on direct loans) .......................................................................... (2,531) (2,726) (2,726) (2,726) (∂195) .......................... ....Administrative expenses ............................................................................... 415 432 432 432 ∂17 .......................... ....

Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account ................................... 520 532 532 532 ∂12 .......................... ....Guaranteed Transitional Housing Loans for Homeless Veterans program account .................................................................................................................. 48,250 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥48,250 .......................... ....

(Limitation on direct loans) .......................................................................... (100,000) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥100,000) .......................... ....

Total, Veterans Benefits Administration .................................................. 23,554,791 24,753,587 24,778,587 24,749,103 ∂1,194,312 ¥4,484 

Veterans Health Administration

Medical care ........................................................................................................... 18,026,481 19,381,587 19,354,587 19,381,587 ∂1,355,106 .......................... 

Delayed equipment obligation ...................................................................... 900,000 900,000 927,000 900,000 .......................... .......................... (Transfer to general operating expenses) ..................................................... (¥27,907) .......................... (¥28,134) (¥27,907) .......................... (¥27,907) (Transfer to Parking revolving fund) ............................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥2,000) (¥2,000) (¥2,000) 
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2000 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation compa

(∂ or ¥)

2000

appropriation Budget estimate Ho

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 18,926,481 20,281,587 20,281,587 20,281,587 ∂1,355,106 .......................... ....

Medical care cost recovery collections:

Offsetting receipts ........................................................................................ ¥608,000 ¥639,000 ¥639,000 ¥639,000 ¥31,000 .......................... ....Appropriations (indefinite) ............................................................................ 608,000 639,000 639,000 639,000 ∂31,000 .......................... ....

Total available .......................................................................................... (608,000) (639,000) (639,000) (639,000) (∂31,000) .......................... ....

Medical and prosthetic research ........................................................................... 321,000 321,000 351,000 331,000 ∂10,000 ∂10,000 Medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses .......................... 59,703 64,884 62,000 62,000 ∂2,297 ¥2,884 ....General Post Fund, National Homes:

Loan program account (by transfer) ............................................................ (7) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥7) .......................... ....(Limitation on direct loans) .......................................................................... (70) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥70) .......................... ....Administrative expenses (by transfer) .......................................................... (54) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥54) .......................... ....

General post fund (transfer out) ........................................................................... (¥61) .......................... .......................... .......................... (∂61) .......................... ....

Total, Veterans Health Administration ..................................................... 19,307,184 20,667,471 20,694,587 20,674,587 ∂1,367,403 ∂7,116 

Departmental Administration

General operating expenses ................................................................................... 912,594 1,061,854 1,006,000 1,050,000 ∂137,406 ¥11,854 

Offsetting receipts ........................................................................................ (36,754) (36,520) (36,520) (36,520) (¥234) .......................... ....

Total, Program Level ................................................................................. (949,348) (1,098,374) (1,042,520) (1,086,520) (∂137,172) (¥11,854) 

(Transfer from medical care) ........................................................................ (27,907) .......................... (28,134) (27,907) .......................... (∂27,907) (Transfer from national cemetery) ................................................................ (117) .......................... (125) (117) .......................... (∂117) (Transfer from inspector general) ................................................................. (30) .......................... (28) (30) .......................... (∂30) 

National Cemetery Administration ......................................................................... 97,256 109,889 106,889 109,889 ∂12,633 .......................... 

(Transfer to general operating expenses) ..................................................... (¥117) .......................... (¥125) (¥117) .......................... (¥117) 

Office of Inspector General .................................................................................... 43,200 46,464 46,464 46,464 ∂3,264 .......................... ....

(Transfer to general operating expenses) ..................................................... (¥30) .......................... (¥28) (¥30) .......................... (¥30) 
163

Construction, major projects .................................................................................. 65,140 62,140 62,140 48,540 ¥16,600 ¥13,600 ¥13,600Construction, minor projects .................................................................................. 160,000 162,000 100,000 162,000 ∂2,000 .......................... ∂62,000

(Transfer to Parking Revolving Fund) ........................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥4,500) (¥4,500) (¥4,500) (¥4,500)

Grants for construction of State extended care facilities ..................................... 90,000 60,000 90,000 100,000 ∂10,000 ∂40,000 ∂10,000Grants for the construction of State veterans cemeteries .................................... 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

(Transfer to Parking Revolving Fund) ........................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... (6,500) (∂6,500) (∂6,500) (∂6,500)

Total, Departmental Administration ......................................................... 1,393,190 1,527,347 1,436,493 1,541,893 ∂148,703 ∂14,546 ∂105,400Total, title I, Department of Veterans Affairs .......................................... 44,255,165 46,948,405 46,909,667 46,965,583 ∂2,710,418 ∂17,178 ∂55,916

Appropriations ......................................................................... (44,255,165) (46,948,405) (46,909,667) (46,965,583) (∂2,710,418) (∂17,178) (∂55,916)Rescissions ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Contingent emergency appropriations .................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

(By transfer) .................................................................................... (61) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥61) .......................... ..........................(Limitation on direct loans) ............................................................ (102,904) (3,029) (3,029) (3,029) (¥99,875) .......................... ..........................Consisting of:

Mandatory ............................................................................... (23,396,626) (24,585,866) (24,615,866) (24,585,866) (∂1,189,240) .......................... (¥30,000)Discretionary ........................................................................... (20,858,539) (22,362,539) (22,293,801) (22,379,717) (∂1,521,178) (∂17,178) (∂85,916)

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Public and Indian Housing

Housing Certificate Fund ....................................................................................... 7,104,420 9,927,824 9,075,388 8,971,000 ∂1,866,580 ¥956,824 ¥104,388

(By transfer) .................................................................................................. (183,000) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥183,000) .......................... ..........................Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001/2002 ............................................ 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Total funding ............................................................................................ 11,304,420 14,127,824 13,275,388 13,171,000 ∂1,866,580 ¥956,824 ¥104,388

Housing set-asides:

Expiring section 8 contracts ......................................................................... (10,834,135) (13,221,824) (13,275,388) (13,131,000) (∂2,296,865) (¥90,824) (¥144,388)Section 8 relocation assistance .................................................................... (156,000) (79,000) .......................... .......................... (¥156,000) (¥79,000) ..........................Contract administration ................................................................................ .......................... (209,000) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥209,000) ..........................Incremental vouchers .................................................................................... (346,560) (527,000) .......................... .......................... (¥346,560) (¥527,000) ..........................Housing production program ........................................................................ .......................... (66,000) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥66,000) ..........................Voucher for disabled ..................................................................................... (40,000) (25,000) .......................... (40,000) .......................... (∂15,000) (∂40,000)

Subtotal .................................................................................................... (11,376,695) (14,127,824) (13,275,388) (13,171,000) (∂1,794,305) (¥956,824) (¥104,388)
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2000 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation compa

(∂ or ¥)

2000

appropriation Budget estimate Ho

Rescission of unobligated balances:

Section 8 recaptures (rescission) ................................................................. ¥1,300,000 .......................... ¥275,388 ¥275,000 ∂1,025,000 ¥275,000 Section 8 carryover and Tenant Protection (resc) ........................................ ¥943,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂943,000 .......................... ....

Subtotal .................................................................................................... ¥2,243,000 .......................... ¥275,388 ¥275,000 ∂1,968,000 ¥275,000 

Public housing capital fund .................................................................................. 2,900,000 2,955,000 2,800,000 2,955,000 ∂55,000 .......................... Public housing operating fund .............................................................................. 3,138,000 3,192,000 3,139,000 3,192,000 ∂54,000 .......................... 

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 6,038,000 6,147,000 5,939,000 6,147,000 ∂109,000 .......................... 

Drug elimination grants for low-income housing ................................................. 310,000 345,000 300,000 310,000 .......................... ¥35,000 Revitalization of severely distressed public housing (HOPE VI) ........................... 575,000 625,000 565,000 575,000 .......................... ¥50,000 Native American housing block grants ................................................................. 620,000 650,000 620,000 650,000 ∂30,000 .......................... Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account ........................................ 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 .......................... .......................... ....

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................................. (71,956) (71,956) (71,956) (71,956) .......................... .......................... ....

Total, Public and Indian Housing ............................................................ 16,610,420 21,900,824 20,430,000 20,584,000 ∂3,973,580 ¥1,316,824 

Community Planning and Development

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS ........................................................ 232,000 260,000 250,000 232,000 .......................... ¥28,000 Rural housing and economic development ........................................................... 25,000 27,000 20,000 27,000 ∂2,000 .......................... America’s private investment companies program:

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................................. (541,000) (1,000,000) .......................... .......................... (¥541,000) (¥1,000,000) ....Credit subsidy ............................................................................................... 20,000 37,000 .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 ¥37,000 ....

Urban empowerment zones .................................................................................... 55,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥55,000 .......................... ....Rural empowerment zones ..................................................................................... 15,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥15,000 .......................... ....

Subtotal .................................................................................................... 70,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥70,000 .......................... ....

Community development block grants .................................................................. 4,800,000 4,900,000 4,505,000 4,800,000 .......................... ¥100,000 
165

Section 108 loan guarantees:

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................................. (1,261,000) (1,217,000) (1,217,000) (1,261,000) .......................... (∂44,000) (∂44,000)Credit subsidy ............................................................................................... 29,000 28,000 28,000 29,000 .......................... ∂1,000 ∂1,000Administrative expenses ............................................................................... 1,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 .......................... ¥1,000 ..........................

Brownfields redevelopment .................................................................................... 25,000 50,000 20,000 25,000 .......................... ¥25,000 ∂5,000HOME investment partnerships program ............................................................... 1,600,000 1,650,000 1,585,000 1,600,000 .......................... ¥50,000 ∂15,000Homeless assistance grants .................................................................................. 1,020,000 1,200,000 1,020,000 1,020,000 .......................... ¥180,000 ..........................Shelter Plus Care ................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 105,000 ∂105,000 ∂105,000 ∂105,000Communities in schools community development program .................................. 5,000 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ¥5,000 ..........................

Total, Community planning and development ......................................... 7,827,000 8,159,000 7,429,000 7,839,000 ∂12,000 ¥320,000 ∂410,000

Housing Programs

Housing for special populations ............................................................................ 911,000 989,000 911,000 996,000 ∂85,000 ∂7,000 ∂85,000

Housing for the elderly ................................................................................. (710,000) (779,000) (710,000) (783,000) (∂73,000) (∂4,000) (∂73,000)Housing for the disabled .............................................................................. (201,000) (210,000) (201,000) (213,000) (∂12,000) (∂3,000) (∂12,000)

Federal Housing Administration

FHA—Mutual mortgage insurance program account:

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................................. (140,000,000) (160,000,000) (160,000,000) (160,000,000) (∂20,000,000) .......................... ..........................(Limitation on direct loans) .......................................................................... (100,000) (250,000) (100,000) (250,000) (∂150,000) .......................... (∂150,000)Administrative expenses ............................................................................... 330,888 330,888 330,888 330,888 .......................... .......................... ..........................Administrative contract expenses ................................................................. 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................Additional contract expenses ........................................................................ 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Reduced downpayments for teachers/police(Sec 219) ........................ .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥24,000 ¥24,000 ¥24,000 ¥24,000

FHA—General and special risk program account:

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................................. (18,100,000) (21,000,000) (21,000,000) (21,000,000) (∂2,900,000) .......................... ..........................(Limitation on direct loans) .......................................................................... (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) .......................... .......................... ..........................Administrative expenses ............................................................................... 64,000 211,455 211,455 211,455 ∂147,455 .......................... ..........................Administrative expenses (unobligated balances) ......................................... (147,000) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥147,000) .......................... ..........................Negative subsidy ........................................................................................... ¥75,000 ¥100,000 ¥100,000 ¥100,000 ¥25,000 .......................... ..........................Subsidy .......................................................................................................... .......................... 101,000 101,000 101,000 ∂101,000 .......................... ..........................Subsidy (unobligated balances) ................................................................... (153,000) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥153,000) .......................... ..........................Non-overhead administrative expenses ........................................................ 144,000 144,000 144,000 144,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................Additional contract expenses ........................................................................ 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 .......................... .......................... ..........................

Total, Federal Housing Administration ..................................................... 634,888 858,343 858,343 834,343 ∂199,455 ¥24,000 ¥24,000
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2000 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation compa

(∂ or ¥)

2000

appropriation Budget estimate Ho

Government National Mortgage Association

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account:

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................................. (200,000,000) (200,000,000) (200,000,000) (200,000,000) .......................... .......................... ....Administrative expenses ............................................................................... 9,383 9,383 9,383 9,383 .......................... .......................... ....Administrative contract expenses ................................................................. .......................... 40,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥40,000 ....Offsetting receipts ........................................................................................ ¥422,000 ¥347,000 ¥347,000 ¥347,000 ∂75,000 .......................... ....

Policy Development and Research

Research and technology ....................................................................................... 45,000 62,000 40,000 45,000 .......................... ¥17,000 

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Fair housing activities ........................................................................................... 44,000 50,000 44,000 44,000 .......................... ¥6,000 ....

Office of Lead Hazard Control

Lead hazard reduction ........................................................................................... 80,000 120,000 80,000 100,000 ∂20,000 ¥20,000 

Management and Administration

Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................... 477,000 565,000 474,647 473,500 ¥3,500 ¥91,500 

Transfer from:

Limitation on FHA corporate funds ...................................................... (518,000) (518,000) (518,000) (518,000) .......................... .......................... ....GNMA .................................................................................................... (9,383) (9,383) (9,383) (9,383) .......................... .......................... ....Community Planning and Development ............................................... (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) .......................... .......................... ....America’s Private Investment Companies Program ............................ .......................... (1,000) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥1,000) ....Title VI .................................................................................................. (150) (150) (150) (150) .......................... .......................... ....Indian Housing ..................................................................................... (200) (200) (200) (200) .......................... .......................... ....

Total, Salaries and expenses .......................................................... (1,005,733) (1,094,733) (1,003,380) (1,002,233) (¥3,500) (¥92,500) 

Office of Inspector General .................................................................................... 50,657 52,000 50,657 55,500 ∂4,843 ∂3,500 

(By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds) ......................................... (22,343) (22,343) (22,343) (22,343) .......................... .......................... ....
167

(By transfer from Drug Elimination Grants) ................................................. (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) .......................... .......................... ..........................

Total, Office of Inspector General ............................................................ (83,000) (84,343) (83,000) (87,843) (∂4,843) (∂3,500) (∂4,843)

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight .................................................... 19,493 25,800 22,000 22,000 ∂2,507 ¥3,800 ..........................

Offsetting receipts ........................................................................................ ¥19,493 ¥25,800 ¥22,000 ¥22,000 ¥2,507 ∂3,800 ..........................

Administrative Provisions

Sec. 208 FHA .......................................................................................................... ¥319,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂319,000 .......................... ..........................Annual contribution (transfer out) ......................................................................... (¥79,000) .......................... .......................... .......................... (∂79,000) .......................... ..........................Annual contributions (transfer out) ....................................................................... (¥104,000) .......................... .......................... .......................... (∂104,000) .......................... ..........................Sec. 212 Rescissions ............................................................................................. ¥74,400 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂74,400 .......................... ..........................Sec. 214 Moving to Work ....................................................................................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 .......................... ..........................Sec. 222 Excess Income ........................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Total, administrative provisions ............................................................... ¥00 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂388,400 .......................... ..........................Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Development (net) ..... 25,878,948 32,458,550 29,980,030 30,633,726 ∂4,754,778 ¥1,824,824 ∂653,696

Current year, fiscal year 2001 ........................................................ (21,678,948) (28,258,550) (25,780,030) (26,433,726) (∂4,754,778) (¥1,824,824) (∂653,696)

Appropriations ......................................................................... (23,996,348) (28,258,550) (26,055,418) (26,708,726) (∂2,712,378) (¥1,549,824) (∂653,308)Rescissions ............................................................................. (¥2,317,400) .......................... (¥275,388) (¥275,000) (∂2,042,400) (¥275,000) (∂388)

Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001/2002 ............................... (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) .......................... .......................... ..........................(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (359,902,000) (383,217,000) (382,217,000) (382,261,000) (∂22,359,000) (¥956,000) (∂44,000)(Limitation on corporate funds) ...................................................... (561,076) (562,076) (561,076) (561,076) .......................... (¥1,000) ..........................

TITLE III

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

American Battle Monuments Commission

Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................... 28,359 26,196 28,000 26,196 ¥2,163 .......................... ¥1,804

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................... 7,970 8,000 8,000 7,000 ¥970 ¥1,000 ¥1,000

Department of the Treasury

Community Development Financial Institutions

Community development financial institutions fund program account ............... 95,000 125,000 105,000 95,000 .......................... ¥30,000 ¥10,000
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2000 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation compa

(∂ or ¥)

2000

appropriation Budget estimate Ho

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................... 48,814 52,500 51,000 52,500 ∂3,686 .......................... 

Corporation for National and Community Service

National and community service programs operating expenses .......................... 433,153 533,700 .......................... 433,500 ∂347 ¥100,200 

Rescission ..................................................................................................... ¥80,000 .......................... .......................... ¥50,000 ∂30,000 ¥50,000 

Office of Inspector General .................................................................................... 3,985 5,000 5,000 5,000 ∂1,015 .......................... ....

Total .......................................................................................................... 357,138 538,700 5,000 388,500 ∂31,362 ¥150,200 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................... 11,408 12,500 12,500 12,445 ∂1,037 ¥55 

Department of Defense—Civil

Cemeterial Expenses, Army

Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................... 12,426 15,949 17,949 15,949 ∂3,523 .......................... 

Department of Health and Human Services

National Institute of Health

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ........................................... .......................... .......................... 60,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... 

Public Health Service

Toxic Substance and Environmental Public Health ............................................... .......................... .......................... 70,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... 

Environmental Protection Agency

Science and Technology ......................................................................................... 642,303 674,348 650,000 670,000 ∂27,697 ¥4,348 

Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund ........................................... 38,000 35,871 35,000 38,000 .......................... ∂2,129 
169

Subtotal, Science and Technology ............................................................ 680,303 710,219 685,000 708,000 ∂27,697 ¥2,219 ∂23,000

Environmental Programs and Management .......................................................... 1,895,267 2,099,461 1,895,000 2,000,000 ∂104,733 ¥99,461 ∂105,000Office of Inspector General .................................................................................... 32,380 34,094 34,000 34,094 ∂1,714 .......................... ∂94

Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund ........................................... 11,000 11,652 11,500 11,000 .......................... ¥652 ¥500

Subtotal, OIG ............................................................................................ 43,380 45,746 45,500 45,094 ∂1,714 ¥652 ¥406

Buildings and facilities ......................................................................................... 62,362 23,931 23,931 23,000 ¥39,362 ¥931 ¥931Hazardous Substance Superfund ........................................................................... 1,300,000 1,450,000 1,170,000 1,300,000 .......................... ¥150,000 ∂130,000

Delay of obligation ........................................................................................ 100,000 .......................... 100,000 100,000 .......................... ∂100,000 ..........................Transfer to Office of Inspector General ........................................................ ¥11,000 ¥11,652 ¥11,500 ¥11,000 .......................... ∂652 ∂500Transfer to Science and Technology ............................................................. ¥38,000 ¥35,871 ¥35,000 ¥38,000 .......................... ¥2,129 ¥3,000

Subtotal, Hazardous Substance Superfund .............................................. 1,351,000 1,402,477 1,223,500 1,351,000 .......................... ¥51,477 ∂127,500

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program ........................................................ 69,760 72,096 79,000 72,096 ∂2,336 .......................... ¥6,904Oil spill response ................................................................................................... 14,974 15,712 15,000 15,000 ∂26 ¥712 ..........................State and Tribal Assistance Grants ...................................................................... 2,560,765 1,838,000 2,108,000 2,365,000 ¥195,765 ∂527,000 ∂257,000

Categorical grants ........................................................................................ 885,000 1,068,957 1,068,957 955,000 ∂70,000 ¥113,957 ¥113,957

Subtotal, STAG .......................................................................................... 3,445,765 2,906,957 3,176,957 3,320,000 ¥125,765 ∂413,043 ∂143,043Total, EPA ................................................................................................. 7,562,811 7,276,599 7,143,888 7,534,190 ¥28,621 ∂257,591 ∂390,302

Executive Office of the President

Office of Science and Technology Policy ............................................................... 5,089 5,201 5,150 5,201 ∂112 .......................... ∂51Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality .............. 2,816 3,020 2,900 2,900 ∂84 ¥120 ..........................

Total .......................................................................................................... 7,905 8,221 8,050 8,101 ∂196 ¥120 ∂51

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Office of Inspector General (transfer) ................................................................... (33,666) (33,660) (33,661) (33,660) (¥6) .......................... (¥1)

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Disaster relief ......................................................................................................... 287,584 300,000 300,000 300,000 ∂12,416 .......................... ..........................

Emergency funding ....................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................(Transfer out) ................................................................................................ (¥2,900) (¥2,900) (¥35,500) (¥2,900) .......................... .......................... (∂32,600)Emergency funding ....................................................................................... 2,480,425 2,609,220 .......................... 2,609,220 ∂128,795 .......................... ∂2,609,220

Pre-disaster mitigation .......................................................................................... .......................... 30,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥30,000 ..........................

(Transfer out) ................................................................................................ .......................... (¥2,600) .......................... .......................... .......................... (∂2,600) ..........................
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2000 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation compa

(∂ or ¥)

2000

appropriation Budget estimate Ho

Disaster assistance direct loan program account:

State share loan ........................................................................................... 1,295 1,678 1,295 1,678 ∂383 .......................... 

(Limitation on direct loans) ................................................................. (25,000) (25,000) (19,000) (25,000) .......................... .......................... 

Administrative expenses ............................................................................... 420 427 420 427 ∂7 .......................... 

Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................... 179,950 221,024 190,000 215,000 ∂35,050 ¥6,024 Office of Inspector General .................................................................................... 7,965 8,476 8,015 10,000 ∂2,035 ∂1,524 Emergency management planning and assistance .............................................. 266,782 269,652 267,000 269,652 ∂2,870 .......................... 

(By transfer) .................................................................................................. (2,900) (5,500) (5,500) (2,900) .......................... (¥2,600) 

Radiological emergency preparedness fund .......................................................... ¥1,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂1,000 .......................... ....Emergency food and shelter program ................................................................... 110,000 140,000 110,000 110,000 .......................... ¥30,000 ....Flood map modernization fund .............................................................................. 5,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 .......................... ....

(By transfer) .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... (30,000) .......................... .......................... .......................... 

National insurance development fund ................................................................... (3,730) .......................... .......................... .......................... (¥3,730) .......................... ....National Flood Insurance Fund (limitation on administrative expenses):

Salaries and expenses .................................................................................. (24,333) (25,736) (25,736) (25,736) (∂1,403) .......................... ....Flood mitigation ............................................................................................ (78,710) (77,307) (77,307) (77,307) (¥1,403) .......................... ....(Transfer out) ................................................................................................ (¥20,000) (¥20,000) (¥20,000) (¥20,000) .......................... .......................... ....

National flood mitigation fund (by transfer) ......................................................... .......................... (20,000) (20,000) (20,000) (∂20,000) .......................... ....

Total, Federal Emergency Management Agency ....................................... 3,338,421 3,580,477 876,730 3,515,977 ∂177,556 ¥64,500 

Appropriations .................................................................................. (857,996) (971,257) (876,730) (906,757) (∂48,761) (¥64,500) Rescissions ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ....Emergency funding .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ....

General Services Administration

Federal Consumer Information Center Fund .......................................................... 2,622 6,822 7,122 7,122 ∂4,500 ∂300 ....

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Human space flight ............................................................................................... 5,487,900 5,499,900 5,472,000 5,400,000 ¥87,900 ¥99,900 
171

Science, aeronautics and technology .................................................................... 5,580,895 5,929,400 5,579,600 5,837,000 ∂256,105 ¥92,400 ∂257,400Mission support ...................................................................................................... 2,512,024 2,584,000 2,584,000 2,584,000 ∂71,976 .......................... ..........................Office of Inspector General .................................................................................... 20,000 22,000 23,000 23,000 ∂3,000 ∂1,000 ..........................

Total, NASA ............................................................................................... 13,600,819 14,035,300 13,658,600 13,844,000 ∂243,181 ¥191,300 ∂185,400

Rescissions ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

National Credit Union Administration

Central liquidity facility:

(Limitation on direct loans) .......................................................................... .......................... (600,000) (3,000,000) (600,000) (∂600,000) .......................... (¥2,400,000)(Limitation on administrative expenses, corporate funds) .......................... (257) (296) (296) (296) (∂39) .......................... ..........................Revolving loan program ................................................................................ 996 .......................... 1,000 .......................... ¥996 .......................... ¥1,000Community development credit union revolving loan fund ......................... .......................... 1,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,000 ..........................

National Science Foundation

Research and related activities ............................................................................. 2,958,462 3,540,680 3,117,690 3,245,562 ∂287,100 ¥295,118 ∂127,872Major research equipment ..................................................................................... 93,500 138,540 76,600 109,100 ∂15,600 ¥29,440 ∂32,500Education and human resources ........................................................................... 690,872 729,010 694,310 765,352 ∂74,480 ∂36,342 ∂71,042Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................... 148,900 157,890 152,000 170,890 ∂21,990 ∂13,000 ∂18,890Office of Inspector General .................................................................................... 5,450 6,280 5,700 6,280 ∂830 .......................... ∂580

Total, NSF ................................................................................................. 3,897,184 4,572,400 4,046,300 4,297,184 ∂400,000 ¥275,216 ∂250,884

Rescissions ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ..................................... 74,715 90,000 90,000 80,000 ∂5,285 ¥10,000 ¥10,000

Selective Service System

Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................... 23,909 24,480 23,000 24,480 ∂571 .......................... ∂1,480

Total, title III, Independent agencies ....................................................... 29,070,497 30,374,144 26,212,139 29,908,644 ∂838,147 ¥465,500 ∂3,696,505

Appropriations ......................................................................... (26,590,072) (27,764,924) (26,212,139) (27,299,424) (∂709,352) (¥465,500) (∂1,087,285)Rescissions ............................................................................. (¥80,000) .......................... .......................... (¥50,000) (∂30,000) (¥50,000) (¥50,000)Emergency funding ................................................................. (2,480,425) (2,609,220) .......................... (2,609,220) (∂128,795) .......................... (∂2,609,220)

(Limitation on administrative expenses) ......................................... (103,043) (103,043) (103,043) (103,043) .......................... .......................... ..........................(Limitation on direct loans) ............................................................ (25,000) (625,000) (3,019,000) (625,000) (∂600,000) .......................... (¥2,394,000)(Limitation on corporate funds) ...................................................... (257) (296) (296) (296) (∂39) .......................... ..........................
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2000 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recommendation compa

(∂ or ¥)

2000

appropriation Budget estimate Ho

OTHER PROVISIONS

H.R. 202—Preservation of Affordable Housing ..................................................... ¥14,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... ∂14,000 .......................... ....VA Compensation Date Shift 1 ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,574,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... VA Pension Date Shift 1 ......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥258,000 .......................... .......................... .......................... 

Grand total (net) ...................................................................................... 99,190,610 109,781,099 101,269,836 107,507,953 ∂8,317,343 ¥2,273,146 

Current year, fiscal year 2001 ........................................................ (94,990,610) (105,581,099) (97,069,836) (103,307,953) (∂8,317,343) (¥2,273,146) (

Appropriations ......................................................................... (94,907,585) (102,971,879) (97,345,224) (101,023,733) (∂6,116,148) (¥1,948,146) (Rescissions ............................................................................. (¥2,397,400) .......................... (¥275,388) (¥325,000) (∂2,072,400) (¥325,000) Emergency funding ................................................................. (2,480,425) (2,609,220) .......................... (2,609,220) (∂128,795) .......................... (

Advance appropriation, fiscal year 2001/2002 ............................... (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) .......................... .......................... ....(By transfer) .................................................................................... (216,727) (53,660) (83,661) (53,660) (¥163,067) .......................... (Transfer out) ................................................................................... (¥203,061) (¥20,000) (¥50,000) (¥20,000) (∂183,061) .......................... (Limitation on administrative expenses) ......................................... (103,043) (103,043) (103,043) (103,043) .......................... .......................... ....(Limitation on direct loans) ............................................................ (349,860) (999,985) (3,243,985) (999,985) (∂650,125) .......................... ((Limitation on guaranteed loans) ................................................... (359,902,000) (383,217,000) (382,217,000) (382,261,000) (∂22,359,000) (¥956,000) (Limitation on corporate funds) ...................................................... (561,333) (562,372) (561,372) (561,372) (∂39) (¥1,000) ....

1 CBO assigned request to authorizing committee.

Æ