```

[Senate Report 107-222]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 519
107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     107-222

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

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

                                _______
                                

                 July 25, 2002.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

          Ms. Mikulski, from the Committee on Appropriations, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2797]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2797) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs 
and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent 
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other 
purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the 
bill do pass.

Amount of new budget (obligational) authority

Amount of bill as reported to Senate....................$124,507,956,000
Amount of appropriations to date, 2002.................. 119,907,308,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2003........................ 121,358,580,000
    Over estimates for 2003.............................   3,149,376,000
    Above appropriations for 2002.......................   4,600,648,000

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Title I--Department of Veterans Affairs..........................     6
Title II--Department of Housing and Urban Development............    27
Title III--Independent agencies:
    American Battle Monuments Commission.........................    66
    Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board...............    66
    Department of the Treasury: Community development financial 
      institutions...............................................    67
    Consumer Product Safety Commission...........................    69
    Corporation for National and Community Service...............    70
    U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims....................    74
    Department of Defense--Civil: Cemeterial expenses, Army......    75
    Department of Health and Human Services:
        National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences......    75
        Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.........    76
    Environmental Protection Agency..............................    77
    Executive Office of the President:
        Office of Science and Technology Policy..................    98
        Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
          Environmental Quality..................................   100
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector 
      General....................................................   100
    Federal Emergency Management Agency..........................   101
    General Services Administration: Federal Consumer Information
      Center.....................................................   108
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration................   109
    National Credit Union Administration.........................   120
    National Science Foundation..................................   122
    Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation........................   133
    Selective Service System.....................................   134
Title IV--General provisions.....................................   136
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   137
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   138
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   138

                              INTRODUCTION

    The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2003 provides a total of $123,009,956,000 in budget 
authority, including approximately $31,576,338,000 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 $26,509,207,000 in 
discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
an increase of $2,680,575,000 above the fiscal year 2002 
enacted level and $1,151,170,000 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 care and medical research.
    For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 
Committee recommendation totals $32,082,924,000, a decrease of 
$65,771,000 below the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and 
$634,073,000 above the budget request. The Committee has 
provided significant funding for all HUD programs while also 
providing the needed funding for all expiring section 8 
contracts. The Committee believes a balanced approach to the 
funding of housing programs is key to meeting the housing needs 
of low-income families.
    For the Environmental Protection Agency, the Committee 
recommendation totals $8,299,141,000, an increase of 
$220,328,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and an 
increase of $678,628,000 above the budget request. Major 
changes from the President's request include an increase of 
$238,000,000 for clean water State revolving funds.
    The Committee recommendation includes $5,935,117,000 for 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including 
$1,500,000,000 in emergency contingency funds for disaster 
relief.
    The Committee recommendation for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration totals $15,200,000,000, an increase of 
$298,300,000 above the fiscal year 2002 level.
    For the National Science Foundation, the Committee 
recommendation totals $5,353,360,000, an increase of 
$564,120,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The 
Committee views NSF as a key investment in the future and this 
funding is intended to reaffirm the strong and longstanding 
leadership of this Committee in support of scientific research 
and education.

              Reprogramming and Initiation of New Programs

    The Committee continues to have a particular interest in 
being informed of reprogrammings which, although they may not 
change either the total amount available in an account or any 
of the purposes for which the appropriation is legally 
available, represent a significant departure from budget plans 
presented to the Committee in an agency's budget 
justifications.
    Consequently, the Committee directs the Departments of 
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and the 
agencies funded through this bill, to notify the chairman of 
the Committee prior to each reprogramming of funds in excess of 
$250,000 between programs, activities, or elements unless an 
alternate amount for the agency or department in question is 
specified elsewhere in this report. The Committee desires to be 
notified of reprogramming actions which involve less than the 
above-mentioned amounts if such actions would have the effect 
of changing an agency's funding requirements in future years or 
if programs or projects specifically cited in the Committee's 
reports are affected. Finally, the Committee wishes to be 
consulted regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, and 
activities prior to the planned implementation of such 
reorganizations.
    The Committee also expects the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, as well as the 
Corporation for National and Community Service, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the National Science Foundation, the 
Corporation for National and Community Service, and the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, to submit operating plans, 
signed by the respective secretary, administrator, chief 
executive officer, or agency head, for the Committee's approval 
within 30 days of the bill's enactment. Other agencies within 
the bill should continue to submit operating plans consistent 
with prior year policy.

ACCRUAL FUNDING OF RETIREMENT COSTS AND POST-RETIREMENT HEALTH BENEFITS

    The President's Budget included a legislative proposal 
under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Governmental 
Affairs to charge to individual agencies, starting in fiscal 
year 2003, the fully accrued costs related to retirement 
benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and 
retiree health benefits for all civilian employees. The Budget 
also requested an additional dollar amount in each affected 
discretionary account to cover these accrued costs.
    The authorizing committee has not acted on this 
legislation, therefore the Senate Appropriations Committee has 
reduced the dollar amounts of the President's request shown in 
the ``Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority Request and 
Amounts Recommended in the Bill'', as well as in other tables 
in this report, to exclude the accrual funding proposal.
    The Committee further notes that administration proposals 
requiring legislative action by the authorizing committees of 
Congress are customarily submitted in the budget as separate 
schedules apart from the regular appropriations requests. 
Should such a proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally 
modifying the President's appropriation request for 
discretionary funding is subsequently transmitted to the 
Congress.
    The Senate Appropriations Committee joins with the House 
Appropriations Committee in raising concern that this practice, 
which has always worked effectively for both Congress and past 
administrations, was not followed for the accrual funding 
proposal. In this case, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) decided to include accrual amounts in the original 
discretionary appropriations language request. These amounts 
are based on legislation that has yet to be considered and 
approved by the appropriate committees of Congress. This led to 
numerous misunderstandings both inside and outside of Congress 
of what was the ``true'' President's budget request. The 
Committee believes that, in the future, OMB should follow long-
established procedures with respect to discretionary spending 
proposals that require legislative action.

                TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Appropriations, 2002

                                                     \1\ $52,786,164,000

Budget estimate, 2003

                                                          54,612,197,000

Committee recommendation

                                                          58,188,067,000

\1\ Reflects the latest funding levels for Compensation and Pension in 
the mid-session review in 2002 and 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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, 864 outpatient 
clinics, 137 nursing homes, and 43 domiciliaries is maintained 
to meet the VA's medical mission.
    The Veterans Benefits Administration provides an integrated 
program of nonmedical veteran benefits. This Administration 
administers a broad range of benefits to veterans and other 
eligible beneficiaries through 58 regional offices and the 
records processing center in St. Louis, MO. The benefits 
provided include: compensation for service-connected 
disabilities; pensions for wartime, needy, and totally disabled 
veterans; vocational rehabilitation assistance; educational and 
training assistance; home buying assistance; estate protection 
services for veterans under legal disability; information and 
assistance through personalized contacts; and six life 
insurance programs.
    The National Cemetery Administration provides for the 
interment of the remains of eligible deceased servicepersons 
and discharged veterans in any national cemetery with available 
grave space; permanently maintains these graves; marks graves 
of eligible persons in national and private cemeteries; and 
administers the grant program for aid to States in 
establishing, expanding, or improving State veterans' 
cemeteries. The National Cemetery Administration includes 154 
cemeterial installations and activities.
    Other VA offices, including the general counsel, inspector 
general, Boards of Contract Appeals and Veterans Appeals, and 
the general administration, support the Secretary, Deputy 
Secretary, Under Secretary for Health, Under Secretary for 
Benefits, and the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $58,188,067,000 for the Department 
of Veterans Affairs, including $31,580,338,000 in mandatory 
spending and $26,509,207,000 in discretionary spending. The 
amount provided for discretionary activities represents an 
increase of $1,151,170,000 above the budget request and 
$2,682,575,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.
    The Committee once again has made VA its top priority in 
the fiscal year 2003 VA-HUD bill. Specifically, the Committee 
is committed to ensuring that veterans have access to the 
quality medical care and services they deserve, in a timely 
manner.
    The Committee is deeply concerned about overwhelming 
evidence that the VA medical system is failing its core 
constituency--service-connected, lower income, and special 
needs veterans. The Committee has learned of numerous anecdotal 
examples where VA's core constituency does not have access to 
timely, quality medical care because the networks that serve 
them are operating with long waiting lists. According to VA's 
recent estimate, there are over 310,000 veterans on waiting 
lists for medical care. In many instances, the wait for a 
doctor's appointment is over 6 months, and VA projects the 
waiting list will grow even more significantly if current 
guidelines and expectations do not change.
    The Committee believes that the VA is ``a victim of its own 
success'' due to its generous healthcare benefits and vastly 
improved quality healthcare access. Over the last decade, VA 
has opened over 850 new outpatient clinics around the Nation 
that have attracted overwhelming numbers of users to the 
system. This, coupled with a generous pharmacy benefit and 
expanded eligibility criteria enacted in 1996, has resulted in 
a rapidly growing VA patient population. Most notably, since 
1996, VA has seen a 500 percent increase in Priority 7 
veterans--veterans who are not service-connected disabled and 
whose income is currently greater than $24,000 per year.
    Prior to 1996 eligibility reform, only veterans who were 
service-connected disabled or lower income were eligible for VA 
medical care. Eligibility reform opened the doors to all 
veterans--based on available resources and space--with the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs expected to make an enrollment 
decision at the beginning of each year. Veterans were 
categorized into seven priority groups, with Priority 1-6 
veterans being those with service-connected conditions or lower 
incomes. Priority 7 veterans were to be enrolled in the system 
on a space available basis. Receipts from first and third party 
payers, co-pays, and insurance, were to offset the cost of the 
services for Priority 7 veterans.
    Of course, 1996 eligibility reform was predicated on the 
enactment of Medicare Subvention, whereby the VA would be 
reimbursed by Medicare for treating Medicare-eligible veterans. 
This part of the plan, however, has not come to fruition. 
Additionally, the lack of a national prescription drug benefit, 
and the failure of many privately managed care health systems, 
has made the VA's generous prescription benefit even more 
attractive. At the same time, VA has had a poor record of 
collecting what it is owed by private insurance companies. In 
short, Priority 7 veterans came to the system, but the expected 
funding sources from collections and Medicare did not. These 
events have pushed the VA healthcare system into crisis.
    It is important to note that funding appropriated for VA 
medical care, which is allocated through the Veterans Equitable 
Resource Allocation (VERA) formula, only accounts for Priority 
1-6 veterans. Priority 7 veterans are not included in the VERA 
formula. Yet in many areas of the Nation today, high priority 
service-connected disabled veterans are waiting in line for a 
doctor's appointment behind Priority 7 veterans. The Committee 
believes this is evidence that the system is failing its core 
constituency. The Committee believes it has a responsibility--
an obligation--to protect the most vulnerable veterans.
    The Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget proposed a new 
$1,500 annual medical care deductible for Priority 7 veterans. 
VA estimated that this proposal would have saved over 
$1,145,543,000 through reduced demand on the system. The 
Committee is concerned that this proposal would leave many 
veterans, especially those who do not have private health 
insurance, without access to affordable medical care. The 
Committee has, therefore, rejected this proposal.
    The Committee understands that VA simply cannot sustain the 
timely, quality medical care services that are expected, while 
attempting to meet this increased demand. While the Committee 
has provided significant increased resources over the past 
several years, it recognizes that funding alone will not ensure 
that VA's core constituency--service-connected, lower-income, 
and special needs veterans--do not fall through the system's 
cracks.
    To that end, the Committee has provided an additional 
$1,145,543,000 in fiscal year 2003 for VA medical care above 
the Administration's request. The Committee has also given the 
Secretary discretionary authority to establish a priority for 
treatment of veterans. If the Secretary takes action, VA can 
align its resources to meet its original mission of serving its 
core constituency. Finally, the Committee has extend VA's 
authority to collect prescription drug co-payments. Without 
this authority, VA projects to lose some $600,000,000 in 
medical care resources. Further, VA projects that the loss of 
these valuable resources would result in the loss of care for 
110,000 veterans in 2003.
    The Committee notes that the Secretary currently has the 
authority to suspend enrollment or take other actions, such as 
creating an open enrollment season, in order to better manage 
demand on the system within available resources. The Committee 
further encourages the Secretary to explore other options such 
as creating a tiered pharmacy co-payment structure, increasing 
the income thresholds, and allowing current users of the VA 
system to fill their privately-written prescriptions through 
the VA.
    The Committee expects that its recommendation of 
significantly increased medical care funding and broad 
administrative discretion, will give the Secretary the 
necessary tools to address the VA's current healthcare crisis, 
while maintaining its vital mission of providing timely, 
quality medical care to service-connected disabled, lower 
income, and special needs veterans.

                    Veterans Benefits Administration

                       COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002

                                                     \1\ $26,044,288,000

Budget estimate, 2003

                                                          26,524,300,000

Committee recommendation

                                                          28,949,000,000

\1\ Reflects mid-session review funding levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Compensation is payable to living veterans who have 
suffered impairment of earning power from service-connected 
disabilities. The amount of compensation is based upon the 
impact of disabilities on earning capacity. Death compensation 
or dependency and indemnity compensation is payable to the 
surviving spouses and dependents of veterans whose deaths occur 
while on active duty or result from service-connected 
disabilities. A clothing allowance may also be provided for 
service-connected veterans who use a prosthetic or orthopedic 
device.
    Pensions are an income security benefit payable to needy 
wartime veterans who are precluded from gainful employment due 
to non-service-connected disabilities which render them 
permanently and totally disabled. Under the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1990, veterans 65 years of age or older 
are no longer considered permanently and totally disabled by 
law and are thus subject to a medical evaluation. Death 
pensions are payable to needy surviving spouses and children of 
deceased wartime veterans. The rate payable for both disability 
and death pensions is determined on the basis of the annual 
income of the veteran or his survivors.
    This account also funds burial benefits and miscellaneous 
assistance.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $28,949,000,000 for compensation 
and pensions. This is an increase of $2,904,712,000 above the 
fiscal year 2002 enacted level and $2,424,700,000 above the 
budget request because it takes into account OMB's mid-session 
review. This amount includes the cost of living adjustment for 
fiscal year 2003.
    The estimated caseload and cost by program follows:

                                            COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           2002 \1\              2003             Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload:
    Compensation:
        Veterans....................................          2,356,600           2,433,216             +76,616
        Survivors...................................            308,165             312,297              +4,132
        Children....................................              1,044               1,102                 +58
        (Clothing allowance)........................            (79,618)            (81,104)            (+1,486)
    Pensions:
        Veterans....................................            347,178             340,374              -6,804
        Survivors...................................            234,619             221,072             -13,547
        Minimum income for widows (non-add).........               (523)               (488)               (-35)
        Vocational training (non-add)...............  ..................  ..................  ..................
        Burial allowances and service connected                  97,602              97,393                -209
         deaths.....................................
                                                     ===========================================================
Funds:
    Compensation:
        Veterans....................................    $18,711,705,000     $21,191,850,000     +$2,480,145,000
        Survivors...................................      3,866,386,000       4,113,572,000        +247,186,000
        Children....................................         17,974,000          16,742,000          -1,232,000
        Clothing allowance..........................         46,178,000          47,640,000          +1,462,000
        Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508 and 102-          1,286,000             966,000            -320,000
         568........................................
        Medical exams pilot program (Public Law 104-         37,000,000          38,300,000          +1,300,000
         275........................................
    Pensions:
        Veterans....................................      2,596,916,000       2,595,459,000            -457,000
        Survivors...................................        733,584,000         761,037,000         +27,453,000
        Minimum income for widows...................          3,444,000           3,292,000            -152,000
    Vocational training.............................  ..................  ..................  ..................
    Payment to GOE (Public Laws 101-508, 102-568,             8,564,000           7,000,000          -1,564,000
     and 103-446....................................
    Payment to Medical Care (Public Laws 101-508 and          8,090,000           8,575,000            +485,000
     102-568........................................
    Payment to Medical Facilities (non-add).........           (891,000)           (937,000)           (+46,000)
    Burial benefits.................................        141,817,000         159,470,000         +17,653,000
    Other assistance................................          4,887,000           4,935,000             +48,000
    Unobligated balance and transfers...............       -133,543,000            -838,000        +132,705,000
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation...........................     26,044,288,000      28,949,000,000      +2,904,712,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include pending supplemental of $1,100,000 (H.R. 4775).

    The appropriation includes $17,138,000 in payments to the 
``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' accounts 
for expenses related to implementing provisions of the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, the Veterans' Benefits Act 
of 1992, the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, and 
the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1996. The amount 
also includes funds for a projected fiscal year 2003 cost-of-
living increase of 1.8 percent for pension recipients.

                         READJUSTMENT BENEFITS

Appropriations, 2002....................................  $2,135,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   2,264,808,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,264,808,000

                          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 recommends the budget estimate of 
$2,264,808,000 for readjustment benefits. The amount 
recommended is an increase of $129,808,000 above the fiscal 
year 2002 enacted level.
    The estimated caseload and cost for this account follows:

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

                   VETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $26,200,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      27,530,000
Committee recommendation................................      27,530,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The veterans insurance and indemnities appropriation is 
made up of the former appropriations for military and naval 
insurance, applicable to World War I veterans; National Service 
Life Insurance, applicable to certain World War II veterans; 
Servicemen's indemnities, applicable to Korean conflict 
veterans; and veterans mortgage life insurance to individuals 
who have received a grant for specially adapted housing.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget estimate of $27,530,000 
for veterans insurance and indemnities. This is an increase of 
$1,330,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The 
Department estimates there will be 4,203,880 policies in force 
in fiscal year 2003 with a value of $599,263,090,000.

         VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Administrative
                                        Program account      expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002..................     $203,278,000     $164,497,000
Budget estimate, 2003.................      437,522,000      168,207,000
Committee recommendation..............      437,522,000      168,207,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $437,522,000, and 
$168,207,000 for administrative expenses. The administrative 
expenses may be transferred to the ``General operating 
expenses'' account. Bill language limits gross obligations for 
direct loans for specially adapted housing to $300,000.

                  EDUCATION LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program     Administrative
                                              account        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002....................          $1,000         $64,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................           1,000          70,000
Committee recommendation................           1,000          70,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation covers the cost of direct loans for 
eligible dependents and, in addition, it includes 
administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct loan 
program. The administrative funds may be transferred to and 
merged with the appropriation for the general operating 
expenses to cover the common overhead expenses.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,000 for funding subsidy program 
costs and $70,000 for administrative expenses. The 
administrative expenses may be transferred to and merged with 
the ``General operating expenses'' account. Bill language is 
included limiting program direct loans to $3,400.

            VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program     Administrative
                                              account        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002....................         $72,000        $274,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................          55,000         289,000
Committee recommendation................          55,000         289,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation covers the funding subsidy cost of 
direct loans for vocational rehabilitation of eligible veterans 
and, in addition, it includes administrative expenses necessary 
to carry out the direct loan program. Loans of up to $896 
(based on indexed chapter 31 subsistence allowance rate) are 
available to service-connected disabled veterans enrolled in 
vocational rehabilitation programs as provided under 38 U.S.C. 
chapter 31 when the veteran is temporarily in need of 
additional assistance. Repayment is made in 10 monthly 
installments, without interest, through deductions from future 
payments of compensation, pension, subsistence allowance, 
educational assistance allowance, or retirement pay.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the requested $55,000 for program 
costs and $289,000 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 $3,626,000. It is 
estimated that VA will make 5,300 loans in fiscal year 2003, 
with an average amount of $684.

          NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                                                          Administrative
                                                                expenses

Appropriations, 2002....................................        $544,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................         558,000
Committee recommendation................................         558,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This program will test the feasibility of enabling VA to 
make direct home loans to native American veterans who live on 
U.S. trust lands. It is a pilot program that began in 1993 and 
expires on December 31, 2005. Subsidy amounts necessary to 
support this program were appropriated in fiscal year 1993.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget estimate of $558,000 
for administrative expenses associated with this program in 
fiscal year 2003. 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 2003, will be borne by the ``Medical 
care'' and ``General operating expenses'' appropriations.

                     Veterans Health Administration

                              MEDICAL CARE

Appropriations, 2002.................................\1\ $21,331,164,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................  22,743,761,000
Committee recommendation................................  23,889,304,000

\1\ Does not include pending supplemental of $417,000,000 (H.R. 4775) 
and transfers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] operates the 
largest Federal medical care delivery system in the country, 
with 172 medical centers, 43 domiciliaries, 137 nursing homes, 
and 864 outpatient clinics which includes independent, 
satellite, community-based, and rural outreach clinics.
    This appropriation provides for medical care and treatment 
of eligible beneficiaries in VA hospitals, nursing homes, 
domiciliaries, and outpatient clinic facilities; contract 
hospitals; State home facilities on a grant basis; contract 
community nursing homes; and through the hometown outpatient 
program, on a fee basis. Hospital and outpatient care also are 
provided for certain dependents and survivors of veterans under 
the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the VA [CHAMPVA]. 
The medical care appropriation also provides for training of 
medical residents and interns and other professional 
paramedical and administrative personnel in health science 
fields to support the Department's and the Nation's health 
manpower demands.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$23,889,304,000 for VA medical care, an increase of 
$2,558,140,000 over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and 
$1,145,543,000 above the budget request. In addition, VA has 
authority to retain co-payments and third-party collections, 
estimated to total $1,448,874,000 in fiscal year 2003. 
Therefore, the Committee's recommendation represents total 
resources for medical care of $25,338,178,000.
    Access to Care.--The Committee is deeply concerned that in 
some areas of the country, veterans are denied timely access to 
care because of long waiting lists for appointments for new 
patients, and directs VA to report by February 3, 2003, on 
plans to reduce the waitings lists, including a plan for 
ensuring that veterans who are on waiting lists can continue to 
have access to pharmaceuticals while they are waiting for their 
appointments.
    Alaska has the highest percentage of veterans in the 
Nation, and among Alaskans, Alaskan Natives have an 
extraordinary high rate of service. However, veterans' services 
are often spotty or non-existent in most Alaskan Native 
villages. The Committee urges the Department to provide support 
to the Alaska Native Veterans Association to provide services 
to veterans living in Eskimo and Indian villages and 
communities.
    The Committee commends the Department for opening the 
community-based outpatient clinic on the Kenai Peninsula, 
Alaska. The demand for services at the clinic, however, has 
been so high that many veterans often wait months to receive an 
appointment for routine care. The Committee urges the 
Department to address the resource needs of the Kenai clinic to 
ensure that it can meet the needs of the veterans it serves.
    The Committee understands that the VA has held preliminary 
discussions with interested parties in Northeastern Minnesota 
to assess the need for a community based outpatient clinic in 
the Fosston/Bemidji area. The Committee strongly urges the VA 
to expedite this assessment, and to report to the Committee by 
March 3, 2003, on the feasibility of opening a clinic in the 
region.
    The Committee urges the Department to continue its support 
for the Brother Francis Shelter, which provides critical 
services to homeless veterans in Anchorage, Alaska.
    VERA.--The Committee continues to support 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 best practices in health care. At the same time, 
the Committee is supportive of ongoing studies to recommend 
ways to increase the level of efficiency and fairness for 
distributing medical care resources. However, the Committee 
recognizes that recent studies have indicated that 
modifications to the VERA formula could better account for 
infrastructure costs and actual patient care costs. The 
Committee directs the VA to complete the presently planned work 
as scheduled, and to continue the study in the coming year, 
updating the results with the most recent data and utilizing 
the models developed. The Committee further directs the VA to 
provide interim reports to the Committee in February and June 
2003, and a final study with all findings by the end of fiscal 
year 2003. The final study should include any recommendations 
to better account for infrastructure costs and actual patient 
care costs, as well as ways to increase the level of efficiency 
and fairness for distributing medical care resources.
    Finally, the Committee continues to believe that when any 
Veterans Integrated Service Network (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 providing 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.
    Prevention of Amputations, Care, and Treatment.--The 
Committee is aware of studies that have found that collagen 
based therapies can reduce the need for amputations by 
increasing wound heal rates, and directs VA to provide a report 
by March 3, 2003, on the VA's experience in this matter as well 
as the VA's future plans to utilize collagen based therapies.
    Physician Assistant Advisor.--The Veterans Benefits and 
Health Care Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-419) 
directed the VHA to create a Physician Assistant (PA) Advisor 
position to the Office of the Under Secretary for Health. The 
Committee commends VA for filling this position and strongly 
encourages the VHA to ensure that the PA Advisor position is a 
full-time position, located in the VA central office or in a VA 
field medical center that is in close proximity to Washington, 
DC, and provided sufficient funding to support the 
administrative and travel requirements associated with the 
position. The Committee directs VA to report by March 3, 2003, 
as to the progress made on this matter.
    Psychology Post-Doctoral Training Program.--The Committee 
continues to support the VHA's efforts to strengthen the 
Psychology Post-Doctoral Training Program. The Committee awaits 
the progress report due early this year that will include the 
number of training slots for psychologists and their location.
    Long Distance Learning Program for Nursing.--The Committee 
supports the joint VA/DOD Distance Learning Program, and 
recommend that the VA continue the distance learning project 
designed to transition clinical nurse specialists into roles as 
adult nurse practitioners.
    Joslin Vision Network (JVN).--The Committee supports the 
current level of support to expand the JVN to additional pilot 
sites in fiscal year 2003. This program benefits diabetic 
patients by offering improved quality of care through increased 
access to the highest quality medical expertise and education, 
and the Committee encourages the VA to initiate new pilot sites 
to advance the JVN technology toward off-the-shelf deployment.
    Homelessness.--The Committee commends the Department's 
efforts to improve coordination of its homeless programs with 
other Federal departments and agencies. The Committee is 
especially pleased with the Department's participation in the 
Interagency Council on the Homeless. The Committee strongly 
urges the Department to continue participating in the Council 
and develop coordinated strategies with other agencies to 
prevent and end homelessness among veterans.
    Clarksburg/Ruby Memorial demonstration.--The Committee 
supports continuation at current levels of the Clarksburg VAMC/
Ruby Memorial hospital demonstration project.
    Rural Veterans Health Care Initiative.--The Committee 
supports continuation at the current level of the Rural 
Veterans Health Care Initiative at White River Junction, VT 
VAMC.
    Harry S. Truman VAMC.--The Committee strongly urges VA to 
support development of a new micro-imaging center for the Harry 
S. Truman VAMC in Columbia, Missouri by providing funds for a 
micro-MRI, a micro-SPET, and a micro-PET. These research 
systems will be for imaging experimental mouse or small rat 
models. These new instruments will assist cancer research 
specialists in expanding and enhancing their study and 
treatment of this deadly disease. These additions fill the 
critical remaining gap in a nationally prominent and unique 
program in the development of cancer therapeutics and imaging.
    Fort Howard VAMC.--The Committee supports the creation of a 
continuum of care community for veterans at the Fort Howard 
VAMC in Maryland, and directs the VA to report by October 30, 
2002, on the status of these efforts. The report should include 
specific timelines and milestones for the future.
    Ranch Hand Project.--The Committee supports the Ranch Hand 
project studying the impact of Agent Orange on Alaskan Native 
veterans and urges the Department to provide the funding 
necessary to complete this important project.
    Minnesota Veterans Home.--The Committee is aware that the 
Minnesota Veterans Home has designed a comprehensive dementia 
care program. The Committee supports these efforts, and urges 
VA to provide support for this initiative.
    Preventative Medicine.--The Committee is concerned that the 
Department's focus on acute care has overshadowed the need to 
include preventative medicine in its strategic healthcare 
delivery portfolio. To that end, the Committee urges the VA to 
develop strong collaborative efforts with academic public 
health institutions.
    Complementary and Alternative Medicine.--The Committee 
directs the VA to review the recent final report of the White 
House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine 
Policy, and to report by June 27, 2003, on the status of the 
VA's implementation of the report's recommendations to VA.
    The Committee has included bill language delaying the 
availability until August 1, 2003, of $500,000,000 in the 
equipment, lands, and structures object classifications.
    The Committee has included bill language to make available 
through September 30, 2003, up to $900,000,000 of the medical 
care appropriation. This provides flexibility to the Department 
as it continues to implement significant program changes.

                     MEDICAL CARE COLLECTIONS FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002..................................\1\ $1,031,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003..................................\2\ 1,448,874,000
Committee recommendation...............................\2\ 1,448,874,000

\1\ Includes $805,000,000 in MCCF and $226,000,000 in HSIF funds 
proposed to be transferred to the MCCF.
\2\ As estimated in the budget request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33) 
established the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care 
Collections Fund (MCCF). The Department deposits co-payments 
and third party insurance payments into this fund.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATON

    The budget request assumes that VA will collect 
$1,448,874,000 in co-payments, third party collections, and 
enhanced use lease proceeds. These funds will be transferred to 
the Medical Care account to provide direct healthcare services 
to our Nation's veterans. The Committee has included bill 
language extending VA's authority to collect co-payments for 
pharmaceuticals. The Committee has also included bill language 
making an accounting change to VA's collections account 
structure. The Committee's recommended change will result in 
all VA collections being deposited into the Medical Care 
Collections Fund, to be transferred to the Medical Care account 
in order to provide direct healthcare services to our Nation's 
veterans. Currently, VA has two separate collections accounts. 
The Committee's recommendation would place all of VA's 
collections into the Medical Care Collections Fund, and will 
result in better oversight to ensure that all co-payments, 
third party collections, and enhanced use lease proceeds are 
applied toward direct healthcare services for our Nation's 
veterans.

                    MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $371,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     394,373,000
Committee recommendation................................     400,000,000

                          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 $400,000,000 for medical and 
prosthetic research, an increase of $5,627,000 above the budget 
request and $29,000,000 above the fiscal year 2002 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.
    Neurofibromatosis.--Research has documented the link 
between neurofibromatosis (NF) and cancer, brain tumors, and 
heart disease. In view of this link, which suggests that 
research on NF stands to benefit a vast segment of the veteran 
population, the Committee encourages the VA to increase its NF 
research portfolio, in addition to continuing to collaborate 
with other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense, 
in joint initiatives.
    Nursing Research Program.--The Committee supports the 
Nursing Research Program to enable nurses to conduct research 
that focuses on the specific health care needs of aging 
veterans, and urges the program's continuation.

      MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $66,731,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      69,716,000
Committee recommendation................................      69,716,000

                          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 $69,716,000 for medical 
administration and miscellaneous operating expenses, an 
increase of $2,985,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level 
and the same as the budget request.
    In 2000, VA established a reimbursement process between 
VHA, NCA, and VBA for project technical and consulting services 
to be provided by the Facilities Management Service Delivery 
Office. The estimated level of reimbursement to the Medical 
Administration and Miscellaneous Operating Expenses account in 
fiscal year 2003 for facilities management support is 
$7,155,000.

                      Departmental Administration

                       GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002....................................  $1,195,728,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   1,256,418,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,256,418,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides for the administration of 
nonmedical veterans benefits through the Veterans Benefits 
Administration [VBA], the executive direction of the 
Department, several top level supporting offices, of the Board 
of Contract Appeals, and the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,256,418,000 for general 
operating expenses, an increase of $60,690,000 above the fiscal 
year 2002 enacted level. The amount provided includes 
$992,000,000 for the Veterans Benefits Administration and 
$264,418,000 for general administration. In addition to this 
appropriation, resources are made available for general 
operating expenses through reimbursements totaling $423,239,000 
for fiscal year 2003, with total estimated obligations of 
approximately $1,679,657,000.
    The Committee recommends making available $65,800,000 of 
the GOE appropriation for 2 years, a travel limitation of 
$17,082,000, and the current level of $25,000 for official 
reception and representation expenses.
    Veterans' Employment and Training Programs.--The Committee 
has not recommended the Administration's proposal to transfer 
these programs from the Department of Labor to the VA. The 
Committee expects that these programs will continue through the 
Department of Labor's Employment and Training Service, and will 
consider future proposals of this nature subject to the 
Committee's receiving more specific justifications on how such 
proposals will improve employment and training services for 
veterans.
    Management Issues.--The Committee is concerned that there 
continues to be unclear lines of accountability within the 
Veterans Benefits Administration, leading to diminished 
enforcement of quality standards and program policies, and 
reduced efficiency and timeliness in claims processing. The 
Committee directs VA to report by May 30, 2003, on efforts to 
address these management issues.
    VA Healthcare Information Security.--The Committee is 
pleased with the VA's efforts to modernize its cyber security 
infrastructure to ensure that sensitive VA records, and those 
of the VHA patient population are protected from cyber attack, 
and urges the VA to accomplish this high priority objective as 
quickly as possible. To that end, the Committee supports 
continuation at current levels of planning and development 
efforts related to the recent establishment of the Cyber 
Security Joint Program Office located at the Martinsburg, WV 
VAMC.

                    NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $121,169,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     133,149,000
Committee recommendation................................     133,149,000

                          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 154 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.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $133,149,000 for the National 
Cemetery Administration. This is an increase of $11,980,000 
over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and the same as the 
budget request.

                    OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $52,308,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      55,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      55,000,000

                          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 $55,000,000 
for the inspector general. This is an increase of $2,692,000 
above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $183,180,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     193,740,000
Committee recommendation................................     193,740,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The construction, major projects appropriation provides for 
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the 
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of VA, 
including planning, architectural and engineering services, 
Capital Asset Realignment Enhanced Services (CARES) activities, 
assessment, and site acquisition where the estimated cost of a 
project is $4,000,000 or more.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $193,740,000 
for construction, major projects, an increase of $10,560,000 
above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and equal to the 
budget request.
    The following table compares the Committee recommendation 
with the budget request.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Available
   Location and description       through        2003        Committee
                                    2002       request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans Health Administration
 (VHA):
    Palo Alto (Palo Alto        ...........       14,013         14,013
     Division), CA, Seismic
     Corrections, Building 2..
    Palo Alto (Palo Alto        ...........       21,750         21,750
     Division), CA, Seismic
     Corrections, Building 4
     (Research)...............
    San Francisco, CA, Seismic  ...........       31,000         31,000
     Corrections, Building 203
    West Los Angeles, CA,       ...........       27,200         27,200
     Seismic Corrections,
     Building 500.............
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Seismic.......  ...........       93,963         93,963
                               =========================================
Advance planning fund: Various  ...........       17,500         17,500
 stations.....................
CARES Fund....................  ...........        5,000          5,000
Asbestos abatement: Various     ...........        7,977          7,977
 stations.....................
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal, VHA...........  ...........      124,440        124,440
                               =========================================
National Cemetery
 Administration (NCA):
    Pittsburgh, PA National     ...........       16,400         16,400
     Cemetery, Phase I
     Development \1\..........
    Southern Florida National   ...........       23,300         23,300
     Cemetery, Phase I
     Development \1\..........
    Willamette National         ...........        8,400          8,400
     Cemetery, OR, Columbarium
     and Cemetery Improvements
    Advance planning fund:      ...........        1,800          1,800
     Various stations.........
    Design fund: Detroit, MI    ...........        3,400          3,400
     and Sacramento, CA.......
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal, NCA \2\.......  ...........       53,300         53,300
                               =========================================
Department Advance Planning...  ...........        2,000          2,000
Claims Analyses: Various        ...........        1,500          1,500
 locations....................
Emergency Response Security     ...........        2,000          2,000
 Study........................
Judgment Fund: Various          ...........       10,000         10,000
 locations....................
Hazardous Waste: Various        ...........          500            500
 locations....................
                               -----------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Other line-     ...........       16,000         16,000
 items........................
                               =========================================
      Total construction,       ...........      193,740        193,740
 major projects...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Land acquisition funds ($15,000,000) in 2001 and design funds
  ($2,000,000) in 2002 were provided for a new cemetery in Southern
  Florida. Eighteen million dollars was provided in 2002 for land
  acquisition in Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Sacramento areas.
\2\  National Cemetery Administration major project requests do not
  include the purchase of pre-placed crypts, which are funded by the
  Compensation and Pensions appropriation.

    The Committee recommends the requested amounts for 4 
seismic correction projects in California, but directs that the 
VA proceed with these projects only upon confirmation that they 
are found to be consistent with the strategic plan which 
emerges from the CARES process in VISNs 21 and 22.
    The Committee also recommends the requested amounts for 
development of both the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the 
Miami, Florida National Cemeteries, and improvements at the 
Willamette, Oregon National Cemetery, and design funding for 
new cemeteries in Detroit, Michigan, and Sacramento, 
California.
    CARES.--The Committee remains strongly committed to the 
Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) 
initiative to ensure the VA healthcare system can meet the 
needs of veterans today and in the future. The Committee 
commends the Department for implementing the first phase of 
CARES in VISN 12 and supports the Department's recently 
announced plan to complete CARES for the rest of the VA health 
care system within 2 years. To that end, the Committee 
recognizes that VA may have additional resource needs to 
support CARES studies across the Nation, and directs VA to keep 
the Committee apprised of any additional needs to ensure that 
the process can move forward as scheduled.
    In support of the new CARES plan, the Committee has 
provided a total of $40,000,000--$5,000,000 in major 
construction and $35,000,000 in minor construction--for CARES 
activities, including advance planning, design development, 
construction documents, and construction for major capital 
initiatives stemming from the CARES recommendations.
    The Committee directs VA to propose, not later than 
November 15, 2002, a framework for prioritization of the 
capital improvement projects that will be identified as 
priorities as a result of the CARES studies. This proposal 
should include any necessary modifications to the VA capital 
investment and appropriations processes for major and minor 
construction funding.
    The Committee also directs the VA to submit, not later than 
May 15, 2003, a 5-year strategic plan that describes the 
implementation of CARES, criteria used for priority-setting of 
projects, estimated funding costs per VISN by year, and 
estimated savings to be reinvested back into each VISN by year. 
The Committee directs that this plan be inclusive of all VA 
infrastructure needs--major, minor, research-related, safety, 
seismic, and other--so that ultimately, VA will produce one 
master list of all priority infrastructure projects. The 
Committee believes this is imperative to be able to plan for 
the future resource needs of VA and to eliminate confusion 
between and among VA's current differing and conflicting 
priority setting mechanisms.
    Finally, the Committee directs that any major construction 
projects included in future budget submissions meet the 
following five basic criteria: (1) the project is CARES 
approved; (2) the project is included in the Department's 5-
year strategic plan; (3) the project is a top priority for the 
VISN in which it is located; (4) the project is at least 30 
percent design complete; and (5) the project is authorized.
    Beckley, WV nursing home care unit.--The Committee urges 
the VA to include sufficient funding in the 2004 budget request 
for a new nursing home care unit at the Beckley, WV VAMC, upon 
confirmation that the project is consistent with the strategic 
plan which emerges from the VISN 6 CARES process.

                      CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $210,900,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     210,700,000
Committee recommendation................................     210,700,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The construction, minor projects appropriation provides for 
constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of the 
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of VA, 
including planning, CARES activities, assessment of needs, 
architectural and engineering services, and site acquisition, 
where the estimated cost of a project is less than $4,000,000. 
Public Law 106-117, the Veterans Millennium Health Care and 
Benefits Act of 1999, gave VA the authority to make capital 
contributions from minor construction in enhanced-use leases.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $210,700,000 for minor 
construction, the same as the budget request and $200,000 below 
the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The Committee is aware of 
the authorizing committees' current efforts to raise the 
limitation on minor construction projects. The Committee 
understands that the current limitation has not been raised for 
several years despite the inflationary cost of construction, 
and supports the authorizers' efforts to address this matter.
    St. Louis Parking.--The Committee is aware that the 
Department is examining the use of enhanced-use leasing at the 
John Cochran Division of the VA Medical Center in St. Louis, 
Missouri as a means to address a severe parking deficiency and 
safety problem at the Medical Center. The Department is 
encouraged to address this problem consistent with the CARES 
protocols.

                         PARKING REVOLVING FUND

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $4,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

                          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 for the parking 
revolving fund in fiscal year 2003. Leases will be funded from 
parking fees collected.

       GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $100,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     100,000,000
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. Public Law 102-
585 granted permanent authority for this program and Public Law 
106-117 provided greater specificity in directing VA to 
prescribe regulations for the number of beds for which grant 
assistance may be furnished.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for grants for the 
construction of State extended care facilities, equal to the 
fiscal year 2002 enacted level and the budget request. This 
program cost-effectively meets long-term health care needs of 
veterans.

       GRANTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS' CEMETERIES

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      32,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      32,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Public Law 105-368, amended title 38 U.S.C. 2408, which 
established authority to provide aid to States for 
establishment, expansion, and improvement of State veterans' 
cemeteries which are operated and permanently maintained by the 
States. This amendment increased the maximum Federal Share from 
50 percent to 100 percent in order to fund construction costs 
and the initial equipment expenses when the cemetery is 
established. The States remain responsible for providing the 
land and for paying all costs related to the operation and 
maintenance of the State cemeteries, including the costs for 
subsequent equipment purchases.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $32,000,000 for grants for 
construction of State veterans' cemeteries in fiscal year 2003, 
$7,000,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and the 
same as the budget request.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    The Committee has included 10 administrative provisions 
(Sections 101-110) carried in earlier bills. Among these are:
    Section 107 enables VA to use surplus earnings from the 
national service life insurance, U.S. Government life 
insurance, and veterans special life insurance programs to 
administer these programs. This provision was included for the 
first time in fiscal year 1996 appropriations legislation. The 
Department estimates that $38,110,000 will be reimbursed to the 
``General operating expenses'' account as a result of this 
provision.
    Section 108 extends the VA's Franchise Fund pilot program.
    Section 109 enables the VA to reimburse accounts from 
enhanced use lease proceeds.
    Section 110 allows for fiscal year 2003 only, the 
reimbursement of the Office of Resolution Management (ORM) and 
the Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication 
(OEDCA) for services provided, from funds in any appropriation 
for salaries and other administrative expenses.
    Section 111 is a new administrative provision that: (1) 
reauthorizes VA's authority to collect co-payments for 
prescription drugs; and (2) makes an accounting change to 
combine the Health Services Improvement Fund (HSIF) and the 
Medical Care Collections Fund (MCCF), as described earlier in 
this report.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2002.................................... $32,148,695,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................  31,348,851,000
Committee recommendation................................  32,082,924,000

                          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 2003 an 
appropriation of $32,082,924,000 for the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. This is $65,771,000 below the fiscal 
year 2002 enacted level and an increase of $734,073,000 above 
the budget request.

                        HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

              (INCLUDING RECISSION AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002.................................\1\ $15,641,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003.................................\2\ 17,527,000,000
Committee recommendation................................  17,412,464,000

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 over 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 
$17,412,464,000, including the necessary funds to renew all 
expiring section 8 contracts. These funds also cover the costs 
of 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. 
Consistent with the budget resolution, this account includes an 
advance appropriation of $4,200,000,000 for the remainding 
costs of contracts renewed in calendar year 2003 for the months 
requiring section 8 assistance during calendar year 2004.
    Other activities eligible for funding under this account 
include: the conversion of section 23 projects to assistance 
under section 8; the relocation and replacement of demolished 
or disposed properties; 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.
    The Committee includes $90,075,000 for 15,000 additional, 
incremental vouchers instead of the administration's request of 
$204,170,000 for 34,000 incremental vouchers.
    Within the amount provided for incremental vouchers, the 
Committee has provided $40,000,000 be used to provide needed 
section 8 tenant-based housing assistance for disabled 
families. The Committee also has included $20,000,000 for new 
welfare-to-work vouchers. The Committee has included funding 
for welfare-to-work vouchers in order to facilitate the 
successful transition of working people off of income subsides. 
Housing affordability continues to be one of the primary 
problems for families who are moving from welfare to work. The 
Committee is concerned that vouchers designated for people with 
disabilities are being converted to non-designated vouchers. 
The Committee intends for vouchers that are appropriated for 
people with disabilities and for people moving from welfare to 
work to remain available to these populations. The Committee 
has included bill language to clarify this position.
    The remaining funds made available for new vouchers are 
designated for incremental vouchers to be made available on a 
fair share basis to public housing authorities that have no 
less than a 97 percent occupancy rate. This is to ensure that 
this assistance is provided to areas with the greatest need. 
The Department is expected to distribute this assistance within 
90 days of enactment of this legislation.
    The Committee did not provide the administration's request 
for an additional 34,000 new vouchers because of ongoing 
concerns over the effectiveness of tenant-based vouchers in 
providing decent, safe, and affordable housing to low-income 
people. The Committee is deeply concerned that the tenant-based 
voucher program offers a false promise of rental choice that 
recipients cannot realize. In many instances, voucher holders 
have limited choices, and end up concentrated in the same low-
income neighborhoods. This result is antithetical to the goals 
of the program, which include resident choice, mixed-income 
housing, and decent living conditions. The Committee urges HUD 
to make voucher reform a priority for the Department.
    The Committee also directs HUD to identify in its fiscal 
year 2004 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 urges the administration to use all available 
tools at its disposal to preserve existing project-based 
section 8 units. By one estimate, over 675,000 contracts on 
project-based section 8 units are due to expire by 2005. The 
Committee is very concerned about the loss of these units, 
given the shortage in the supply of affordable housing, and in 
light of this Committee's substantial investment in those 
units. With an initial report due by January 18, 2003, the 
Department is directed to submit quarterly reports to this 
Committee on the number of units and properties where owners 
have elected to opt out of a section 8 contract, or to prepay 
the HUD mortgage. The report should also detail the repair 
needs for apartments covered by expiring section 8 contracts, 
and actions taken by the Department to preserve and/or improve 
the units.

                      PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002....................................  $2,843,400,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   2,425,900,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,783,400,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides funding for modernization and capital 
needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing 
authorities), including management improvements, resident 
relocation and homeownership activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,783,400,000 
for the public housing capital fund, $357,500,000 more than the 
budget request and $60,000,000 below the fiscal year 2002 
enacted level. The Committee has rejected the reduction 
proposed by the administration in light of the approximate 
$20,000,000 in public housing captial needs.
    Of the amount made available under this section, up to 
$55,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public 
housing, and up to $15,000,000 is for the Neighborhood Networks 
Initiative in public housing. Funds for the Neighborhood 
Networks Initiative are provided to establish and operate 
computer centers in and around public housing. The Committee 
provides these funds so that residents of public housing can 
have access to the technology skills that are increasingly 
important in the 21st century workplace. The Committee is 
concerned that HUD does not have a comprehensive plan to 
address the digital divide, despite the Committee's urging last 
year to develop such a plan.
    HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account 
as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States 
Housing Act of 1937, but is provided up to $75,000,000 for 
emergency capital needs.
    The Committee does not accept the administration's 
legislative proposal to finance privately the capital needs of 
public housing with secton 8 funds. The Committee is concerned 
that the proposal could result in a loss of public housing 
units, and would not benefit public housing units with the 
greatest capital needs. The Committee agrees, however, that 
Public Housing Authorities should have the tools they need to 
finance improvements to public housing units. New authority is 
needed so that Public Housing Authorities can use funds they 
receive to address deferred maintenance needs. The Committee 
includes a provision to allow public housing authorities the 
flexibility to use public housing funds to leverage private 
capital to rehabilitate distressed units and develop public 
housing units in mixed-income housing developments.

                     PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2002....................................  $3,494,868,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   3,530,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,530,000,000

                          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 $3,530,000,000 
for the public housing operating fund, an increase of 
$35,132,000 over the fiscal year 2002 level and the same as the 
budget request. HUD is prohibited from using any funds under 
this account as an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the 
United States Housing Act of 1937.

         REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING 
                               [HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $573,735,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     574,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     574,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The ``Revitalization of severely distressed public 
housing'' account makes awards to public housing authorities on 
a competitive basis to demolish obsolete or failed developments 
or to revitalize, where appropriate, sites upon which these 
developments exist. This is a focused effort to eliminate 
public housing which was, in many cases, poorly located, ill-
designed, and not well constructed. Such unsuitable housing has 
been very expensive to operate, and difficult to manage 
effectively due to multiple deficiencies.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $574,000,000 
for the ``HOPE VI'' account, the same as the budget request and 
the same as the fiscal year 2002 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.
    Of the amount provided under this account, $5,000,000 is 
for a Neighborhood Networks Initiative in HOPE VI developments. 
These are additional funds for the development and operation of 
computer centers, and are not intended to supplant grants for 
computer centers that are made to PHAs in the normal HOPE VI 
process.
    The Committee has included bill language to sunset the HOPE 
VI program on September 30, 2003. The Committee is taking this 
action because of concerns over the future and mandate of the 
HOPE VI program. Since the inception of the HOPE VI program, 
HUD has approved the demolition of approximately 140,000 units. 
The Committee directs the Department to submit a report by June 
15, 2003, on the number and location of severely distressed 
public housing units that are in need of substantial 
revitalization or demolition. Further, the Committee urges the 
Department to use the lessons learned since the inception of 
the HOPE VI program to inform its reauthorization proposal. 
Successful HOPE VI developments have spurred the revitalization 
of low-income neighborhoods and provided new opportunities to 
residents of public housing. The Committee urges the Department 
to submit legislation that would codify those practices used by 
PHAs that have successfully implemented the HOPE VI program. 
The Committee stresses the importance of a meaningful 
reauthorization process, and urges the Department to work with 
the appropriate authorizing committees to make HOPE VI a viable 
program for future years.

                  NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $648,570,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     646,594,000
Committee recommendation................................     648,570,000

                          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 $648,570,000 for the native 
American housing block grant, of which $5,987,000 is set aside 
for a credit subsidy for the section 601 Loan Guarantee 
Program. The Committee recommendation is $1,976,000 more than 
the budget request and the same as the fiscal year 2002 enacted 
level.
    The Committee believes that training and technical 
assistance in support of NAHASDA should be shared, with 
$2,200,000 to be administered by the National American Indian 
Housing Council (NAIHC) and $5,000,000 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 notes that there is not a requirement that 
qualified Indian and Alaska Native owned construction companies 
be given priority consideration in construction of Indian 
housing. In many Indian and Native communities, the 
unemployment rate exceeds 80 percent, and housing contracts 
would provide much needed employment and training opportunities 
for Native Americans living on reservations and in Alaska 
Native villages. The Committee directs the agency and its 
grantees to give priority consideration to qualified Native 
owned firms in the design and construction of Indian housing.

           INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $5,987,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This program provides access to private financing for 
Indian families, Indian tribes and their tribally designated 
housing entities who otherwise could not acquire housing 
financing because of the unique status of Indian trust land. As 
required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account 
includes the subsidy costs associated with the loan guarantees 
authorized under this program.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $5,000,000 in program subsidies to 
support a loan guarantee level of $197,243,000. This is 
$987,000 less than the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and the 
same as the budget request.

              NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This program provides access to private financing for 
Native Hawaiians who otherwise could not acquire housing 
financing because of the unique status of the Hawaiian Home 
Lands as trust land. As required by the Federal Credit Reform 
Act of 1990, this account includes the subsidy costs associated 
with the loan guarantees authorized under this program.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $1,000,000 in program subsidies to 
support a loan guarantee level of $39,712,000. This is the same 
as the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and the same as the 
budget request.

                   Community Planning and Development

          HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $277,432,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     292,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     292,000,000

                          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.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $292,000,000 
for this program, $14,568,000 above the fiscal year 2002 
enacted level and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee requires HUD to allocate these funds in a 
manner that preserves existing HOPWA programs to the extent 
those programs are determined to be meeting the needs of 
persons with AIDS.

            OFFICE OF RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development was 
established to ensure that the Department has a comprehensive 
approach to rural housing and rural economic development 
issues. The account includes funding for technical assistance 
and capacity building in rural, underserved areas, and grants 
for Indian tribes, State housing finance agencies, State 
economic development agencies, rural nonprofits and rural 
community development corporations to pursue strategies 
designed to meet rural housing and economic development needs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the Office of 
Rural Housing and Economic Development for fiscal year 2003 to 
support housing and economic development in rural communities 
as defined by USDA and HUD. This funding level is the same as 
the fiscal year 2002 level and $25,000,000 above the budget 
request.
    The Committee does not accept the administration's 
recommendation to eliminate funding for this program. The 
Committee believes that the Office of Rural Housing and 
Economic Development plays an important role in HUD's community 
development activities. Twenty-five percent of nonmetropolitan 
homes are renter-occupied, and the high cost of housing burdens 
those in rural areas, as it does in urban communities. 
Furthermore, the Committee notes that the programs of the 
Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development are 
sufficiently different from the housing programs administered 
by the Department of Agriculture to warrant separate 
appropriations.
    HUD is directed to administer this program according to 
existing regulatory requirements. It is expected that any 
changes to the program shall be made subject to notice and 
comment rulemaking.

                EMPOWERMENT ZONES/ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $45,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      30,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) 
program was authorized under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1993. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 later authorized 
two additional Round I urban EZs and 15 Round II urban EZs. 
This interagency initiative is designed to create self-
sustaining, long-term development in distressed urban and rural 
areas throughout the Nation. The program utilizes a combination 
of Federal tax incentives and flexible grant funds to 
reinvigorate communities that have been in decline for decades.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,000,000 
for this program, $15,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2002 
enacted level and $30,000,000 more than the budget request. 
These funds will be distributed to the 15 communities that 
received a second round EZ designation. The Committee remains 
concerned that the previous Administration acknowledged that 
this program was intended to be funded as a mandatory program 
and not as an obligation of this bill. The Committee urges the 
Senate Finance Committee to fund this program as mandatory. 
Moreover, the Committee remains concerned over accountability 
in this program and notes that the HUD Inspector General has 
been critical about how communities have implemented this 
program and used EZ funds.

                       COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002..................................\1\ $5,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   4,732,500,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,050,000,000

\1\ Does not include a $2,000,000,000 appropriation made in the 2002 
emergency supplemental bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act 
of 1974, as amended, the Department is authorized to award 
block grants to units of general local government and States 
for the funding of local community development programs. A wide 
range of physical, economic, and social development activities 
are eligible with spending priorities determined at the local 
level, but the law enumerates general objectives which the 
block grants are designed to fulfill, including adequate 
housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic 
opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate 
income. Grant recipients are required to use at least 70 
percent of their block grant funds for activities that benefit 
low- and moderate-income persons.
    Funds are distributed to eligible recipients for community 
development purposes utilizing the higher of two objective 
formulas, one of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age 
of housing stock. Seventy percent of appropriated funds are 
distributed to entitlement communities and 30 percent are 
distributed to nonentitlement communities after deducting 
designated amounts for special purpose grants and Indian 
tribes.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,050,000,000 
for the Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] program in 
fiscal year 2003. This is an increase of $317,500,000 above the 
budget request for fiscal year 2003 and $50,000,000 more than 
the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.
    The Committee has included $4,610,200,000 for community 
development block grants (CDBG). The Committee does not include 
funding for the Administration's Colonias Gateway Initiative. 
The Committee encourages the Department to seek an 
authorization of the legislation required for this proposal and 
to perform a thorough review of the CDBG formula before 
proposing adjustments.
    Set-asides under this account include $72,500,000 for 
native Americans; $3,300,000 for the Housing Assistance 
Council; $2,600,000 for the National American Indian Housing 
Council; $35,500,000 for the National Community Development 
Initiative; and $45,500,000 for section 107 grants, including 
$4,000,000 to support Alaska Native-Serving Institutions and 
Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions; $3,000,000 for 
competitive grants awarded to Tribal Colleges and Universities 
to build, expand, renovate, and equip their facilities; 
$3,000,000 for community development work study, $11,000,000 
for historically black colleges and universities, of which up 
to $2,000,000 is for technical assistance, $7,000,000 for 
insular areas; and $7,500,000 for Hispanic-serving 
institutions. The Committee includes $10,000,000 for assistance 
authorized under the Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 
2000 under section 107. The Administration proposed to fund 
this program in a separate account.
    In addition, this legislation includes a set-aside of 
$140,000,000 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:
    $1,000,000 for Arkansas State University at Mountain Home 
to develop community outreach programs;
    $1,000,000 for Clark County, Nevada for the construction of 
a community center;
    $900,000 for the City of Riverton, Utah for reconstruction 
of a Historic City Civic Center;
    $1,500,000 for the RMC Aviation Training Center in 
Billings, Montana;
    $200,000 for Baltimore Clayworks in Baltimore, Maryland to 
expand the facility;
    $200,000 for the Audubon Center in Sandstone, Minnesota for 
the capital construction project;
    $500,000 for Boysville of Michigan in Detroit for the 
Samaritan Outreach Center;
    $500,000 for the Michigan Regional Carpenters Council for 
the Alter Kercheval Housing Project;
    $400,000 for the Asian Pacific Community Center in St. 
Paul, Minnesota to create an urban village;
    $250,000 for the Friends of Youth in Renton, Washington for 
building renovations;
    $250,000 for Horizons, Inc. in Sunnyside, Washington for 
technology training centers;
    $400,000 for Audubon Nebraska for the Spring Creek Prairie 
Education Center;
    $800,000 for Topeka, Kansas for redevelopment activities in 
Topeka, Kansas;
    $800,000 for the Schenectady Municipal Housing Authority, 
New York for community development and revitalization;
    $750,000 for the City of Daytona Beach, Florida for 
boardwalk area revitalization;
    $600,000 for the City of Baltimore, Maryland for the Main 
Street Initiative;
    $750,000 for the County of Hawaii for the construction of 
an emergency homeless shelter in Kailua-Kona;
    $750,000 for the City of Cincinnati, Ohio for the 
development of the Ohio River Trail;
    $750,000 for the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the 
Menomonee River Valley Redevelopment project;
    $700,000 for the Pojoaque Pueblo of New Mexico to complete 
the Poeh Cultural Center and Museum;
    $700,000 for Franklin County MetroParks, Franklin County, 
Ohio for the purchase of land in the Darby Creek Watershed;
    $700,000 for the City of Charleston, South Carolina for 
pre- and post homeownership classes;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Columbia, South Carolina for the 
redevelopment of the Drew Park Wellness Center;
    $1,000,000 for El Paso, Texas for the renovation of the El 
Paso Plaza Theatre;
    $600,000 for the City of Madera, California for a community 
cultural and youth center;
    $1,300,000 for Sevier County, Utah for development of a 
Multi-Events Center;
    $1,000,000 for Anchorage, Alaska for an expansion of the 
Anchorage Museum;
    $600,000 for Marguerite's Place, Nashua, New Hampshire to 
provide transitional housing for women who are victims of 
domestic abuse and their children;
    $600,000 for the New Jersey Community Development 
Corporation for the Transportation Opportunity Center;
    $600,000 for the City of Portland, Oregon for a central 
city streetcar extension;
    $200,000 for Biddeford, Maine for theater restoration;
    $200,000 for the Mississippi Tribe of Choctaw for the 
development of a Choctaw Veterans Memorial;
    $500,000 for the Mobile Historic Development Commission in 
Mobile, Alabama for a Neighborhood Initiative Program;
    $500,000 for the Mananuska-Susitna Borough for an 
agricultural processing facility in Wasilla, Alaska;
    $500,000 for Ketchikan, Alaska for the Tongass Coast 
Aquarium in Ketchikan, Alaska;
    $500,000 for the Southside Community Center in Fairbanks, 
Alaska for an addition;
    $500,000 for the World War II Lend Lease Museum in 
Anchorage, Alaska;
    $500,000 for the Arkansas YMCAs for program development;
    $500,000 for the Wilmington Housing Authority, Delaware for 
redevelopment of blighted land;
    $500,000 for Spellman College in Atlanta, Georgia for 
renovations of Packard Hall;
    $500,000 for the Dekalb County Community Center, Georgia 
for the construction of a community center;
    $500,000 for the County of Kauai, Hawaii for the West Kauai 
High Tech Training Facility;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Rugby, North Dakota to complete 
information technology and energy projects;
    $350,000 for Providence College, Rhode Island for the 
construction of a cultural arts center;
    $350,000 to the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board for 
the development of affordable housing in Vergennes, Vermont;
    $1,000,000 for the North Dakota Tourism Department for the 
Three Affiliated Tribes Interpretative Center;
    $500,000 for the Clearwater Economic Development 
Association in Clearwater, Idaho for the Lewis and Clark 
Bicentennial Solid Waste Disposal program;
    $400,000 for Coastal Carolina University in Conway, South 
Carolina for The Center for Economic and Community Development 
to provide affordable housing;
    $500,000 for Boise State University, Idaho for a Center for 
Environmental Science and Economic Development;
    $500,000 to the City of Des Moines, Iowa for the Agriment 
Technology Park;
    $500,000 for the City of Chicago, Illinois for cleanup 
associated with economic development in Chicago's Pilsen/Little 
Village Community;
    $500,000 to the Chicago Park District for Phase II of Ping 
Tom Memorial Park development in Chicago's Chinatown community;
    $500,000 for the Ernest Morial New Orleans Exhibition Hall 
Authority in Louisiana for the expansion of the Morial 
Convention Center;
    $500,000 for the University of Louisiana, Lafayette for the 
National Wetlands Research Center;
    $500,000 for the Biomedical Research Foundation in 
Shreveport, Louisiana for infrastructure improvements and 
development of an incubator;
    $500,000 for University of Maine (Fort Kent and Presque 
Isle) Aroostook County Development Effort;
    $500,000 for the Greektown Community Development 
Corporation in Baltimore, Maryland for the Housing and Business 
Stabilization Project;
    $500,000 for Montgomery County, Maryland for the 
revitalization of Fenton Street Village;
    $500,000 for Prince George's County, Maryland for 
acquisition and rehabilitation of properties along the Route 1 
corridor;
    $500,000 for the West Arlington Improvement Center to 
rehabilitate a water tower and construct a new multi-purpose 
center in Baltimore, Maryland;
    $500,000 for Anne Arundel County, Maryland for the Wiley 
Bates High School Redevelopment project;
    $500,000 for the FOCUS: HOPE Institute in Detroit, Michigan 
to renovate a job-training facility;
    $500,000 for the NorthStar Community Development 
Corporation in Detroit, Michigan to build affordable housing;
    $500,000 for the Northeast Ventures Corporation in Duluth, 
Minnesota for a revolving loan fund;
    $500,000 for the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians in Red 
Lake, Minnesota for the construction of a criminal justice 
complex;
    $500,000 for Tchula, Mississippi for the development of a 
municipal complex;
    $500,000 for the City of Kewanee, Mississippi for the 
development of the Kewanee industrial park;
    $3,000,000 for West Virginia Wesleyan College in 
Buckhannon, West Virginia for renovation/expansion of a science 
hall;
    $500,000 for Pearl, Mississippi for the renovation of a 
community center;
    $500,000 for the Boathouse Museum in St. Charles, Missouri;
    $500,000 for the City of Chillicothe, Missouri for downtown 
revitalization;
    $100,000 for Montgomery City, Missouri for streetscape 
improvements;
    $500,000 for the Westside Housing Organization in Kansas 
City, Missouri for the Westside Agency Collaboration;
    $500,000 for the Advanced Technology Center in Mexico, 
Missouri for expansion;
    $500,000 for the City of Cape Girardeau, Missouri for 
downtown revitalization;
    $500,000 for the Thomas Hill Enterprise Center in Macon, 
Missouri to build low income housing;
    $500,000 for the Palestine Senior Citizens Center in Kansas 
City, Missouri for the Kansas City Area Assisted Living Center 
for the Elderly;
    $500,000 for Billings, Montana for the expansion of the 
HRDC District 7 Building;
    $500,000 for Billings Deaconess Clinic Research Facility in 
Billings, Montana;
    $500,000 for the Yellowstone Boys and Girls Ranch in 
Billings, Montana for renovation;
    $500,000 for the Portsmouth Riverwalk, Portsmouth, New 
Hampshire to assist in the creation of a safe pedestrian link 
between scenic and historical destinations and New Hampshire's 
only working deep water seaport;
    $500,000 for the Bayshore Senior Center in Keansburg, New 
Jersey for renovations;
    $500,000 for the Children's Cultural Center in Red Bank, 
New Jersey for the renovation of Shrewsbury Township Hall;
    $500,000 for the New Mexico Food Bank Association, 
Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the Gleaning Project;
    $500,000 for the City of North Las Vegas, Nevada for 
neighborhood redevelopment;
    $400,000 for the City of Brookings, South Dakota for 
downtown redevelopment;
    $400,000 for the Southeast Council of Governments, South 
Dakota to establish a revolving loan fund;
    $500,000 for Spirit Lake Tribal Court in Fort Totten, North 
Dakota for renovations to the Spirit Lake Courthouse;
    $500,000 for the City of Dayton, Ohio for the development 
of structures in the Main Street Historic Mission;
    $500,000 for the Lawrence Economic Development Corporation 
for the development of the Point Commercial/Industrial Park in 
Ohio;
    $500,000 for the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority for the 
Northwest Ohio Brownfield Restoration Initiative;
    $500,000 for Capitol University Center, Pierre, South 
Dakota to construct a facility for job training;
    $500,000 for Center for Rural Collaboration and 
Partnerships for facility construction;
    $500,000 for the City of Rapid City, South Dakota to build 
a business incubator;
    $500,000 for the City of Clark, South Dakota for 
development of an industrial property;
    $500,000 for the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee for the 
revitalization of Alton Park;
    $500,000 for Nashville, Tennessee for the revitalization of 
Rolling Mill Road;
    $500,000 for Lubbock, Texas for capital needs of the 
Lubbock Amphitheater;
    $500,000 for the Vermont Institute of Science for the 
construction of a new public education and wildlife center;
    $500,000 for the SWIFT Cyber Corporation in Washington for 
broadband access;
    $500,000 for the YMCA of Seattle, Washington for the 
Griffin Home Renovation;
    $500,000 for the city of Madison, Wisconsin for the 
development of affordable housing;
    $450,000 for Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Florida for 
the expansion of the Youth Opportunity and Development Center;
    $450,000 for the Discovery Center for the development of an 
exhibit in Springfield, Missouri;
    $2,000,000 for Colorado UpLift;
    $2,000,000 for Potomac State College in Keyser, West 
Virginia for renovation of a library;
    $2,000,000 for Glenville State College in Summersville, 
West Virginia for the construction of a new campus community 
education center;
    $430,000 for the Seattle Art Museum, Washington for 
brownfields cleanup;
    $400,000 for the Town of Ledyart, Connecticut to build a 
public safety services building;
    $400,000 for the Hartt School of Performing Arts Education 
Center in West Hartford, Connecticut for building renovations;
    $400,000 for the Riverfront Development Corporation in 
Wilmington, Delaware for an environmental education center;
    $400,000 to the City of Council Bluffs for land acquisition 
and clean-up;
    $400,000 to the City of Dubuque, Iowa for land acquisition 
and clean-up;
    $400,000 to the City of Waterloo for redevelopment of the 
Rath area brownfields and housing development;
    $1,000,000 for the University of Missouri-Kansas City for 
academics investments related to the Cardiovascular Proteomics 
Center;
    $1,000,000 for Southeast Missouri State University to build 
a small business incubator;
    $400,000 to the City of Davenport, Iowa for the Scott 
County Housing Council trust fund;
    $400,000 for the Mercy Home for Boys and Girls in Chicago, 
Illinois for facility expansion;
    $400,000 for the Merit School of Music in Chicago, Illinois 
for the construction of a new facility;
    $1,000,000 for the Clearwater Economic Development 
Association in Clearwater, Idaho for the implementation of the 
Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Plan;
    $300,000 for the City of Vidalia, Louisiana for riverfront 
redevelopment;
    $750,000 for the County of Maui, Hawaii for senior housing;
    $750,000 for the City of St. Paul, Minnesota for 
renovations to existing low-income housing;
    $400,000 for Bethel Outreach Center in Baltimore, Maryland 
for development of a cyber community center;
    $400,000 for Northern Forest Heritage Park, Berlin, New 
Hampshire to help create heritage based tourism and regional 
economic development;
    $400,000 for the Mines Falls Park Restoration, Nashua, New 
Hampshire to restore historic gatehouse and assist in 
developing an educational resource center;
    $400,000 for Capitol Center for the Arts, Concord, New 
Hampshire to enhance programming and make renovations to the 
facility;
    $400,000 for the Urban League State Council in New 
Brunswick, New Jersey for the New Futures Projects;
    $100,000 for the Carving Studio in West Rutland, Vermont 
for building renovations;
    $100,000 for the City of Forks, Washington for 
telecommunications initiatives;
    $400,000 for Willingboro Township, New Jersey for the 
Kennedy Senior Center construction project;
    $400,000 for the Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico for the 
construction of a community center;
    $400,000 for Turtle Mountain Community College in Belcourt, 
North Dakota to complete construction of an economic 
development complex;
    $200,000 for the Meeting Street School in Providence, Rhode 
Island for the construction of a National Center of Excellence;
    $200,000 for St. Elizabeth's Home in Providence, Rhode 
Island for low-income assisted living;
    $400,000 for New Economy Initiative in North Dakota for 
technology training;
    $400,000 for the Rhode Island Community Food Bank in 
Providence for a new warehouse facility;
    $400,000 for the City of Vermillion, South Dakota for a 
business incubator;
    $400,000 for the City of Burlington, Vermont for 
neighborhood revitalization;
    $400,000 for the Lund Family Center in Burlington, Vermont 
for building renovations;
    $400,000 for the Town of Madison, Wisconsin for the 
Novation Technology Campus;
    $350,000 for the Massachusetts Technology Enterprise Fund 
for providing internet access to rural and low income areas;
    $350,000 for the Missouri School Board Association for the 
C.L.A.S.S. Program;
    $500,000 for the Alternative Structures International in 
Waianae, Hawaii for expansion of housing facilities;
    $500,000 for the City of Wichita, Kansas for the 
development of Mennonite Housing;
    $350,000 for the Center for Economic Growth in Albany, New 
York for the Regional Technology Roadmap project;
    $350,000 for the Erie Municipal Airport Authority for the 
redevelopment of the recently acquired, former Fenestra window 
manufacturing facility in Erie, Pennsylvania, to serve the 
needs of major air express carriers as an on-airport integrated 
service center;
    $300,000 for Haleyville, Alabama for a downtown 
revitalization project;
    $300,000 for the Florence Crittenden Home in Little Rock, 
Arkansas for the expansion of services, education programs, and 
emergency shelter;
    $300,000 for the Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford, 
Connecticut for expansions and renovations;
    $3,000,000 to Tuscaloosa, Alabama for the Tuscaloosa 
Downtown Revitalization Project;
    $300,000 for Hall Neighborhood House in Bridgeport, 
Connecticut to build a child care center;
    $300,000 for the Jacksonville Port Authority, Florida for 
brownfields clean-up;
    $300,000 for College Partners Inc. in Atlanta, Georgia for 
neighborhood revitalization;
    $300,000 for the Tubman Museum in Macon, Georgia for a new 
facility;
    $300,000 for the Nanakuli Neighborhood in Oahu, Hawaii for 
housing management classes;
    $300,000 for the State of Hawaii for the Boys and Girls 
Club of Hawaii;
    $300,000 to the City of Clinton, Iowa for development in 
the business park area;
    $300,000 to the Mid-American Housing Partnership in Cedar 
Rapids, Iowa for the Housing Trust Fund;
    $900,000 for the South Carolina Association of Community 
Development Corporations in Charleston for job training;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Summersville, West Virginia for 
the expansion of the National Guard Readiness Center;
    $300,000 to the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa for brownfields 
redevelopment;
    $450,000 for the Audubon Nature Institute in New Orleans, 
Louisiana for revitalization of a historic building;
    $300,000 for Mott Community College in Flint, Michigan to 
develop a program and curriculum to improve workforce and 
manufacturing development;
    $300,000 for Pinola, Mississippi for the renovation of the 
historic Pinola School House;
    $300,000 for Natchez, Mississippi for the development of 
the Natchez-Adams County industrial park;
    $300,000 for Petosi/Washington County Industrial 
Development Authority for the Petosi Industrial Park.
    $300,000 for the City of Omaha, Nebraska for the creation 
of information technology training;
    $300,000 for Strawberry Banke, Portsmouth, New Hampshire to 
assist in the design and planning of programming and create 
partnerships with neighborhood associations and organizations 
for disadvantaged youth;
    $300,000 for the Borough of Paulsboro, New Jersey for 
brownfields redevelopment;
    $300,000 for the Community Pantry in Gallup, New Mexico;
    $300,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Santa Fe, New 
Mexico for the construction of a facility;
    $300,000 for Chautauqua County, New York for high-speed, 
broadband fiber installation;
    $300,000 for the Cleveland Foodbank for the development of 
a new food distribution center;
    $300,000 for Crook County, Oregon to construct a human 
services building;
    $300,000 for the City of Dalles, Oregon for the 
construction of the Dalles riverfront access project in Oregon;
    $300,000 for the Community Initiatives Development 
Corporation, Our City Reading, for the rehabilitation of 
abandoned houses and parks in Reading, Pennsylvania, to provide 
quality home ownership opportunities to low-income families;
    $300,000 for Lehigh County, Pennsylvania to construct a 
Regional Public Training Facility, which will provide services, 
programs and cross training to professional and volunteer 
service providers;
    $250,000 for the Mystic Valley Development Corporation in 
Medford, Massachusetts for the development of a technology and 
research center;
    $250,000 for the New Bedford Waterfront Historic Area 
League, Massachusetts for restoration of low income housing;
    $300,000 for the City of Sturgis, South Dakota for the 
construction of a community library;
    $300,000 for the City of Orem, Utah for improvement of 
Nielsen's Grove Historical Park;
    $300,000 to the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board for 
rehabilitation and construction of affordable housing in the 
historic Tuttle Building in Rutland, Vermont;
    $300,000 to the City of Burlington for construction of the 
Intervale Food Enterprise Center in Burlington, Vermont;
    $300,000 for the Vermont Development Initiative to expand 
their services throughout Vermont;
    $300,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board in 
Stowe, Vermont for the creation of affordable housing;
    $300,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board in 
Newport, Vermont for the expansion of affordable senior 
housing;
    $250,000 for the City of Talladega, Alabama for the 
restoration of the Historic Antique Talladega;
    $250,000 for Covenant House California in Oakland to 
purchase and renovate a building;
    $250,000 to the Martin Luther King Jr., Freedom Center in 
Oakland, California to build a community center;
    $250,000 to the Los Angeles Theatre Group in Culver City, 
California for building renovations;
    $250,000 for the Corporation for Supportive Housing in 
California for a homeless intervention program;
    $250,000 for Lewis-Clark State College for the Idaho 
Virtual Incubator;
    $250,000 for the Historic Silver City Foundation in Silver 
City, Idaho for the restoration of the historic Silver City 
School;
    $250,000 for the Youth Services Bureau of Illinois in 
LaSalle County for improvements and relocation of facilities;
    $1,000,000 for Alaska Pacific University for the 
restoration of an historic property in Anchorage, Alaska;
    $1,000,000 for Petersburgh, Alaska for waterfront 
improvements;
    $250,000 for Cornerstone Services in Joliet, Illinois for 
renovation of facility;
    $250,000 for the City of Quincy, Illinois to renovate the 
historic downtown Washington Theatre;
    $250,000 for the City of Peoria, Illinois for 
infrastructure improvements to foster economic development in 
the biosciences field;
    $250,000 for Dillard University, New Orleans, Louisiana for 
the International Center for Economic Freedom;
    $250,000 for Advocates for Science and Math Education, New 
Orleans, Louisiana for construction of a building for the New 
Orleans Center for Science and Math;
    $250,000 for the City of Westbrook, Maine for a parking 
facility;
    $250,000 for the City of Brewer, Maine for waterfront 
redevelopment;
    $250,000 for the Preble Street Resource Center in Maine for 
a homeless teen center and health clinic;
    $250,000 for the Piscataquis County Economic Development 
Council for a business incubator in Greenville, Maine to 
support and house businesses seeking to commercialize wood 
composite material;
    $250,000 for Harford County, Maryland for a digital 
inclusion project in Edgewood;
    $250,000 for the Suitland Family and Life Development 
Corporation in Glenarden, Maryland for development of the 
Suitland Technology Center;
    $250,000 for Montgomery County, Maryland for facade 
improvements and streetscaping in Wheaton;
    $250,000 for Montgomery County, Maryland for the 
construction of community centers in Long Branch;
    $500,000 for the City of Worcester, Massachusetts for 
neighborhood revitalization and redevelopment;
    $500,000 for the City of Boston, Massachusetts for 
development of low and moderate income housing;
    $250,000 for Neighborhood House in St. Paul, Minnesota to 
construct a new city center;
    $250,000 for the City of Warrensberg, Missouri for downtown 
revitalization;
    $250,000 for the City of Beloit, New Hampshire for 
neighborhood redevelopment;
    $250,000 for the City of Grove City, Ohio for the 
development of the All Children Adventure Playground at Fryer 
Park;
    $250,000 for the Providence Public Library, Rhode Island 
for the South Providence Branch renovation;
    $250,000 for the Town of Glocester, Rhode Island for the 
Glocester Senior Center;
    $250,000 to the Vermont Broadband Council to promote 
broadband accessibility throughout Vermont;
    $250,000 for Mary Baldwin College in Staunton, Virginia for 
the Center for the Exceptionally Gifted;
    $250,000 for Transitions in Spokane, Washington to purchase 
a building for the Women's Drop in Center;
    $250,000 for Kent Youth and Family Services in Kent, 
Washington to build two new community centers;
    $250,000 for the Port of Chelan in Wenatchee, Washington to 
complete the construction of a community technology center;
    $750,000 for the City of East Palo Alto, California for 
redevelopment to Ravenswood Industrial Area;
    $250,000 for the Washington State Office of Community 
Development for a planning and development resource center;
    $250,000 for the YWCA of Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the 
rehabilitation of two central city properties;
    $500,000 for the City of Inglewood, California for the 
construction of a senior center;
    $500,000 for the City of Fresno, California for the 
redevelopment of the Roeding Business Park;
    $250,000 for city of Burlington, Wisconsin for development 
of the Bel-Mur site;
    $250,000 for the city of Beloit, Wisconsin for the 
renovation of abandoned Beloit Corporation land;
    $250,000 for the City of Eau Claire, Wisconsin for downtown 
revitalization;
    $225,000 for the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny 
County, Pennsylvania for the redevelopment of the East Commerce 
Center, which will assist in the cost assessment, remediation 
and demolition of existing blighted buildings and tenant 
relocation costs;
    $220,000 for the Sankofa Community Development Corporation 
in Baltimore, Maryland to renovate a building for a business 
center;
    $200,000 for Lawson State Community College in Alabama for 
an information technology training and placement service 
center;
    $200,000 for the City of Dermott, Arkansas for the Dermott 
City Community Nursing Home expansion;
    $200,000 for the Seaford Historical Society in Seaford, 
Delaware for the renovation of a vacant property;
    $200,000 for the Waianae Coast Comprehensive Health Center 
for construction of an expanded facility;
    $200,000 for the City of Freeport, Illinois for a new 
library building;
    $200,000 for the City of Shreveport, Louisiana for the 
redevelopment of a bus terminal;
    $200,000 for Lewiston, Maine for the Franco-American 
Heritage Center;
    $200,000 for Eastern Maine Technical College for a 
technical resource center;
    $1,500,000 for Newport News, Virginia for the development 
of the Newport News Fine Arts Center;
    $900,000 to the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board for 
infrastructure improvements and other costs related to the 
development of affordable housing on Depot Street in 
Burlington, Vermont;
    $200,000 for the Forum Francophone Des Affaires, Maine to 
facilitate exports to French-speaking markets;
    $200,000 for the University of Maine at Farmington for an 
education center;
    $200,000 for Jackson, Mississippi for the development of 
the Farish Street Historic Center;
    $200,000 for Nashua downtown public investment initiative, 
City of Nashua Community Development, Nashua, New Hampshire, to 
revitalize the downtown community;
    $200,000 for The State University of New York at Potsdam 
for the Northern New York Data Center;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Reno, Nevada for the 
rehabilitation of a building for a senior center;
    $1,000,000 for the Show-Me Aquatic Center in Missouri for 
development;
    $200,000 for the City of Albany, New York for the Palace 
Theatre Renovation project;
    $200,000 for the Tri-County Community College in Murphy, 
North Carolina to build a TeleCenter;
    $200,000 for the North Carolina Rural Economic Development 
Center in Eastern to provide housing construction and repair in 
rural communities;
    $200,000 for the Rogers Regional Performing Arts Center 
Consortium in Shelby, North Carolina for the Rogers Theatre;
    $200,000 for the Morton County Park District, North Dakota 
for the Missouri River Trail project;
    $200,000 for Wasco County, Oregon for the development of a 
fiber optic system;
    $200,000 for the City of Newberg, Oregon for the 
development of a Community and Family Resource Center;
    $200,000 to the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to 
support the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, which will 
demolish abandoned homes as well as revitalize the Philadelphia 
region;
    $200,000 to the City of Scranton, Pennsylvania for the 
revitalization of existing vacant and dilapidated buildings in 
the downtown area;
    $200,000 for the Tides Family Services in Providence and 
Pawtucket, Rhode Island to acquire and renovate two buildings;
    $200,000 for the Park-McCullough House in North Bennington, 
Vermont for preservation of property;
    $200,000 for the Rural and Farmworker Housing Trust in 
Washington for farmworker housing;
    $200,000 for the Squaxin Island tribe in Shelton, 
Washington for the Squaxin Island Museum, Library and Research 
Center;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Detroit, Michigan to redevelop 
the Detroit River Promenade;
    $1,000,000 for Alcorn State University, Mississippi for the 
construction and rehabilitation of buildings;
    $200,000 for the Wenatchee Valley College Foundation in 
Wenatchee, Washington to complete construction of the Institute 
for Rural Innovation and Stewardship;
    $175,000 for the Dorcas Place Adult and Family Learning 
Center in Providence, Rhode Island for facility expansion;
    $175,000 for the International Institute of Rhode Island 
for the International Charter School to expand its facility;
    $1,000,000 for the Denver Art Museum, in Denver, Colorado;
    $200,000 for the Mohawk Valley Heritage Corridor Commission 
in Canajoharie, New York for the Heritage in Upstate New York 
project;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Madison, Mississippi for 
downtown renovation;
    $1,000,000 for Ebenezer Baptists Church in Atlanta, Georgia 
for the continued construction of a senior center;
    $175,000 for the Abilene, Texas for the rehabilitation of 
the Matera Paper Building, including land acquisition;
    $150,000 for Huntsville, Alabama for development of the 
Alabama Constitution Village Plaza;
    $100,000 for the City of Opelousas, Louisiana, for downtown 
development;
    $150,000 for Harford County, Maryland for the Edgewood 
Mobile Community Substation;
    $150,000 for Assumption College, Worcester, Massachusetts 
for a science and technology center;
    $150,000 for Universal Community Homes in Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, to continue the conversion of more than 500 
parcels of land into for-sale units to low- and moderate-income 
families;
    $1,000,000 for the Hubbard Museum of the American West in 
Ruidoso, New Mexico for expansion;
    $1,000,000 for the Mesilla Valley Community of Hope, Las 
Cruces, New Mexico for the Casa de Peregrinos Building;
    $150,000 to the Ogontz Avenue Revitalization Corporation in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to assist with substantial 
rehabilitation of severely deteriorated vacant properties that 
will be developed as a part of the West Oak Lane community 
development rebuilding initiative;
    $150,000 to the Philadelphia Martin Luther King Center for 
Nonviolence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for the College for 
Teens Program;
    $150,000 for the City of Freeman, South Dakota for the 
construction of a community library;
    $150,000 for the City of Canton, South Dakota for 
renovations for the conversion of the train depot for economic 
development;
    $150,000 for the city of Racine, Wisconsin for neighborhood 
redevelopment.
    $125,000 for the Nellie Byers Training Center in Bogalusa, 
Louisiana for the construction of a new center;
    $125,000 for Strength Incorporated's Project Blanket in 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for a drug and alcohol prevention 
program for juveniles in jail;
    $3,000,000 for construction of the University of Louisville 
library in Louisville, Kentucky;
    $125,000 to the National Trust for Historic Gettysburg for 
the restoration of the historic Majestic Theater in Gettysburg, 
Pennsylvania;
    $125,000 to the Westmoreland County Industrial Development 
Corporation for initiation of the second phase of the 
Westmoreland Technology Park in Westmoreland County, 
Pennsylvania;
    $125,000 to the Invest Erie Community Development 
Corporation for the acquisition and development of property in 
Erie, Pennsylvania to establish a Parade Street Plaza;
    $100,000 for the City of Prattville, Alabama for the Boys 
and Girls Club of Prattville;
    $100,000 for the Arcata House Inc., California for facility 
renovations;
    $100,000 for Claremont downtown revitalization, City of 
Claremont, New Hampshire to assist the city in improving and 
redeveloping the downtown area;
    $100,000 for Winchester economic revitalization, Town of 
Winchester, New Hampshire to assist the community in 
redeveloping its downtown area;
    $100,000 for Hood River, Oregon for an Integrated 
Technology Center;
    $100,000 for the Santo Community Center in Medford, Oregon;
    $100,000 to the City of Philadelphia for the rehabilitation 
of the Royal Theater, which will serve as an anchor in the 
emerging African American Cultural and Entertainment District;
    $100,000 to the Philadelphia Chinatown Development 
Corporation for the construction of a Chinatown Community 
Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
    $100,000 for the West Warwick Police Department in Rhode 
Island to create a community center and park;
    $100,000 for the Warwick Shelter Incorporated in Rhode 
Island to purchase a new facility;
    $100,000 for the Providence Black Repertory Theatre in 
Rhode Island for renovations to an abandoned building;
    $100,000 for Festival Ballet Providence, Rhode Island for 
educational programs and a new facility;
    $100,000 to the Northeastern Vermont Development 
Association to support the Northeast Kingdom Enterprise 
Collaborative and the Northeast Kingdom REAP zone in promoting 
economic development throughout the region;
    $825,000 for Fort Worth, Texas for the revitalization of 
the Fort Worth Polytechnic Heights Historic Commercial and 
Educational Center;
    $3,000,000 for Wakpa Sica Historical Society in Fort 
Pierre, South Dakota for the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Center;
    $100,000 for the Elks Club of Pierce and Thurston Counties 
in Tacoma, Washington for the Toys for Disabled Youth Project;
    $100,000 for the Washington State Rural Development Council 
for the Rural Community Assessment Project;
    $100,000 for the Lummi Indian Nation for planning and 
development of the Semiahmah Memorial and Coast Salish Heritage 
Park;
    $100,000 for the Burleigh Street CDC in Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin for a community and enterprise center;
    $100,000 for the Genesis Foundation of Madison, Wisconsin 
for the South Madison Incubator;
    $75,000 for Oakridge, Oregon for the development of the 
Oakridge Community Center;
    $75,000 for Deschutes County, Oregon for the renovation of 
the Tower Theatre;
    $75,000 to the Redevelopment Authority of Cumberland County 
for the conversion of the Molly Pitcher Hotel in Carlisle, 
Pennsylvania into apartments for senior citizens who require 
services to live independently;
    $75,000 to the Philadelphia Commerce Department for the 
redevelopment of the former Schmidt's Brewery site in the 
Northern Liberties section of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
    $50,000 for the Children's Therapy and Early Education 
School in Mexico, Missouri for Mexico Special Needs Kids 
equipment;
    $50,000 for program and technology initiatives of the 
Oregon Historical Society;
    $125,000 for the Community Empowerment Association's 
``Friend-2-Friend'' Mentoring Program in Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania which will provide mentoring for at-risk youth 
aged 12 to 15.
    The Committee includes $65,000,000 for the Youthbuild 
program, of which $10,000,000 is for new programs in 
underserved and rural areas and $2,000,000 is for capacity 
building by Youthbuild USA.
    The Committee includes $22,000,000 for the Self Help 
Homeownership Opportunity Program.
    The Committee includes $2,000,000 for the Girl Scouts of 
the USA for youth development initiatives in public housing.
    The Committee includes $2,000,000 for the Boys and Girls 
Clubs of America for the operating and start-up costs of clubs 
located in or near, and primarily serving residents of, public 
and Indian housing.

         COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Limitation on
                                     guarantee loans     Program costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002..............       $608,696,000        $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003.............        275,000,000          6,325,000
Committee recommendation..........        608,696,000         15,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal 
loan guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and 
non-entitlement communities to cover the costs of acquiring 
real property, rehabilitation of publicly-owned real property, 
housing rehabilitation, and other economic development 
activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000 
for program costs associated with the section 108 loan 
guarantee program. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 
2002 enacted level and $7,715,000 more than the budget request. 
Of the funds provided, $14,000,000 is for credit subsidy costs 
to guarantee $608,696,000 in section 108 loan commitments in 
fiscal year 2003, and $1,000,000 is for administrative expenses 
to be transferred to the salaries and expenses account.

                       BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      25,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act 
of 1974, as amended, authorizes the Brownfields Redevelopment 
program. This program provides competitive economic development 
grants in conjunction with section 108 loan guarantees for 
qualified brownfields projects. Grants are made in accordance 
with Section 108(q) selection criteria. The program supports 
the cleanup and economic redevelopment of contaminated sites.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000 
for this program. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 
2002 enacted level and the budget request. In order to allow 
greater flexibility, Brownfields funds are no longer required 
to be tied to section 108 development funding.

                  HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002....................................  $1,846,040,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   2,084,100,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,950,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as 
amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. 
This program provides assistance to States and units of local 
government for the purpose of expanding the supply and 
affordability of housing to low- and very low-income people. 
Eligible activities include tenant-based rental assistance, 
acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable rental and 
ownership housing and, also, construction of housing. To 
participate in the HOME program, State and local governments 
must develop a comprehensive housing affordability strategy. 
There is a 25-percent matching requirement for participating 
jurisdictions which can be reduced or eliminated if they are 
experiencing fiscal distress.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,950,000,000 
for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This amount is 
$103,960,000 more than the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and 
$134,100,000 less than the budget request.
    The Committee did not include any funds for the 
Administration's proposed American Dream Downpayment Fund. The 
Committee supports expanding homeownership opportunities, but 
remains concerned that this program constrains the ability of 
local communities to determine how best to use HOME funds. The 
Committee supports any efforts the Department may undertake to 
educate communities on how to use HOME funds to expand 
homeownership, and encourages the Department to use its 
technical assistance funds towards this end. The Committee also 
reminds HUD that technical assistance funds available under 
this heading should be used to provide both Community Housing 
Development Organization (CHDO) and HOME technical assistance.
    Of the amount provided for the HOME program, $40,000,000 is 
for housing counseling assistance. The Committee does not fund 
housing assistance counseling in a new account, as proposed by 
the administration. Funding for housing counseling assistance 
has been doubled from the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The 
Committee views homeownership counseling, including pre- and 
post-purchase counseling, as an essential part of successful 
homeownership. The Committee expects that this program will 
remain available to those participating in all of HUD's 
homeownership programs. The Committee urges HUD to utilize this 
program as a means of educating homebuyers on the dangers of 
predatory lending, in addition to the administration's stated 
purpose of expanding homeownership opportunities.

                       HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANTS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002....................................  $1,122,525,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   1,129,500,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,215,025,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The ``Homeless Assistance Grants Program'' account funds 
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 $1,215,025,000 for homeless 
assistance grants. The amount recommended is $92,500,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level and $85,525,000 
more than the budget request. Of the amount provided, 
$193,000,000 is to fund Shelter Plus Care renewals on an annual 
basis and $17,600,000 is for technical assistance and 
management information system.
    The Committee also has provided funds for the Interagency 
Council on the Homeless through a new account established under 
title III of this bill.
    The Committee continues to believe that HUD and local 
providers need to increase, over time, the supply of permanent 
supportive housing for chronically homeless, chronically ill 
people until the need is met at an estimated 150,000 units. 
Accordingly, the Committee again includes a requirement that a 
minimum of 30 percent of the funds appropriated under this 
account be allocated to permanent housing. To this end, the 
Committee urges the Department to use its technical assistance 
funds to increase the capacity of homeless assistance providers 
to finance, develop, and operate permanent supportive housing.
    The Committee is concerned that the Department is not 
taking the proper steps to ensure that Shelter Plus Care units 
are targeted to chronically homeless individuals. The Committee 
recognizes that the goal of creating 150,000 units of permanent 
supportive housing will not succeed in ending chronic 
homelessness if the Shelter Plus Care units are not properly 
targeted. The Committee directs the Department to report to the 
Committee by June 15, 2003 on how it is ensuring that Shelter 
Plus Care grants are made to providers serving chronically 
disabled, chronically homeless people.
    The Committee remains supportive of the Department's 
ongoing work on data collection and analysis within the 
homeless programs. HUD should continue its collaborative 
efforts with local jurisdictions to collect an array of data on 
homelessness in order to analyze patterns of use of assistance, 
including how people enter and exit the homeless assistance 
system, and to assess the effectiveness of the homeless 
assistance system. The Committee directs HUD to take the lead 
in working with communities toward this end, and to analyze 
jurisdictional data within 1 year. The Committee directs HUD to 
report on the progress of this data collection and analysis 
effort by no later than May 12, 2003.
    The Committee remains concerned about the out-year costs of 
renewing permanent housing programs. Therefore, the Committee 
directs the Department to include 5-year projections, on an 
annual basis, for the cost of renewing the permanent housing 
component of the Supportive Housing Program and Shelter Plus 
Care grants in its fiscal year 2004 budget justifications. This 
legislation includes a new provision requiring HUD to include 
individual line requests for all housing assistance renewal 
requirements, including the amounts needed for expiring 
Supportive Housing Program and Shelter Plus Care grants.

                   EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2002....................................................
Budget estimate, 2003...................................    $153,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Emergency Food and Shelter Program originated as a one-
time emergency appropriation to combat the effects of high 
unemployment in the emergency jobs bill (Public Law 98-8) which 
was enacted in March 1983. It was authorized under title III of 
the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, Public 
Law 100-177.
    The program has been funded by the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) and administered by a national board 
and the majority of the funding has been spent for providing 
temporary food and shelter for the homeless. Participating 
organizations are restricted by legislation from spending more 
than 3.5 percent of the funding received for administrative 
costs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee does not include the Administration's 
proposal to transfer the Emergency Food and Shelter Program 
from FEMA to HUD. The Emergency Food and Shelter Program is 
successfully administered at FEMA, and the Committee does not 
concur that there is a compelling reason to disrupt the program 
by transferring it. The Committee has provided funding for this 
program within FEMA.

                            Housing Programs

                    HOUSING FOR SPECIAL POPULATIONS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002....................................  $1,024,151,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   1,024,151,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,033,801,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account consolidates the housing for the elderly under 
section 202 and housing for the disabled under section 811. 
Under these programs, the Department provides capital grants to 
eligible entities for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or 
construction of housing. Up to 25 percent of the funding 
provided for housing for the disabled may be made available for 
tenant-based assistance under section 8.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,033,801,000 
for development of additional new subsidized housing. Included 
in this recommendation is $783,286,000 for capital advances for 
housing for the elderly (section 202 housing) and $250,515,000 
for capital advances for housing for the disabled (section 811 
housing). This is $9,650,000 more than the budget request for 
fiscal year 2002. This represents an increase of $9,650,000 for 
section 202 above fiscal year 2002 level, including recaptures, 
and an increase of $9,650,000 for section 811 over the fiscal 
year 2002 level. Up to 25 percent of the funding allocated for 
housing for the disabled can be used to fund tenant-based 
rental assistance for the disabled.
    The section 202 funds include up to $50,000,000 for the 
conversion of section 202 housing to assisted living 
facilities, and up to $53,000,000 for service coordinators.
    The Committee is concerned about the growing costs of 
renewal contracts within the elderly and disabled housing 
programs. This legislation includes a new provision requiring 
HUD to include individual line requests for all housing 
assistance renewal requirements, including the amounts needed 
for expiring elderly and disabled housing contracts.

                         FLEXIBLE SUBSIDY FUND

                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 authorized 
HUD to establish a revolving fund into which rental collections 
in excess of the established basic rents for units in section 
236 subsidized projects are deposited. Subject to approval in 
appropriations acts, the Secretary is authorized under the 
Housing and Community Development Amendment of 1978 to transfer 
excess rent collections received after 1978 to the Troubled 
Projects Operating Subsidy program, renamed the Flexible 
Subsidy Fund.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends that the account continue to serve 
as a repository of excess rental charges appropriated from the 
Rental Housing Assistance Fund. Although these resources will 
not be used for new reservations, they will continue to offset 
Flexible Subsidy outlays and other discretionary expenditures.

                       RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The section 236 Rental Housing Assistance Program is 
authorized by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as 
amended. The section 236 program subsidizes the monthly 
mortgage payment that an owner of a rental or cooperative 
project is required to make. This interest subsidy reduces 
rents for lower income tenants. Title V of the 1998 
Appropriations Act established a program of rehabilitation 
grants for owners of eligible projects.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has included a provision that directs HUD to 
make $100,000,000 from contract authority in excess of required 
payments for fiscal year 2003 available for the capital costs 
of rehabilitation for projects eligible under section 236(s) of 
the National Housing Act. The Committee believes that these 
funds should be dedicated to the rehabilitation of HUD assisted 
housing, including housing for elderly and disabled people.

                  MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $13,566,000
Budget request, 2002....................................      13,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      13,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety 
Standards Act of 1974, as amended by the Manufactured Housing 
Improvement Act of 2000, authorizes the Secretary to establish 
Federal manufactured home construction and safety standards for 
the construction, design, and performance of manufactured 
homes. All manufactured homes are required to meet the Federal 
standards, and fees are charged to producers to cover the costs 
of administering the Act.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $13,000,000 to support the 
manufactured housing standards programs to be derived from fees 
collected and deposited in the Manufactured Housing Fees Trust 
Fund account. The amount recommended is the same as the budget 
request and $556,000 less than the fiscal year 2002 enacted 
level.

                     FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

               MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Limitation on       Limitation on      Administrative
                                                         direct loans      guaranteed loans        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002................................        $250,000,000    $160,000,000,000        $336,700,000
Budget estimate, 2003...............................          50,000,000     160,000,000,000         347,829,000
Committee recommendation............................         250,000,000     160,000,000,000         347,829,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Limitation on     Limitation on    Administrative
                                            direct loans    guaranteed loans      expenses        Program costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002....................       $50,000,000   $21,000,000,000      $216,100,000       $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................        50,000,000    21,000,000,000       223,716,400        15,000,000
Committee recommendation................        50,000,000    21,000,000,000       223,716,400        15,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Housing Administration [FHA] fund covers the 
mortgage and loan insurance activity of about 40 HUD mortgage/
loan insurance programs which are grouped into the mutual 
mortgage insurance [MMI] fund, cooperative management housing 
insurance [CMHI] fund, general insurance fund [GI] fund, and 
the special risk insurance [SRI] fund. For presentation and 
accounting control purposes, these are divided into two sets of 
accounts based on shared characteristics. The unsubsidized 
insurance programs of the mutual mortgage insurance fund and 
the cooperative management housing insurance fund constitute 
one set; and the general risk insurance and special risk 
insurance funds, which are partially composed of subsidized 
programs, make up the other.
    The amounts for administrative expenses are to be 
transferred from appropriations made in the FHA program 
accounts to the HUD ``Salaries and expenses'' accounts. 
Additionally, funds are also appropriated for administrative 
contract expenses for FHA activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has included the following amounts for the 
``Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program'' account: a limitation on 
guaranteed loans of $160,000,000,000, a limitation on direct 
loans of $250,000,000, and an appropriation of $347,829,000 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 $223,716,400 
for administrative expenses. The administrative expenses 
appropriation will be transferred and merged with the sums in 
the Department's ``Salaries and expenses'' account and the 
``Office of the Inspector General'' account.
    In addition, the Committee directs HUD to continue direct 
loan programs in 2003 for multifamily bridge loans and single 
family purchase money mortgages to finance the sale of certain 
properties owned by the Department. Temporary financing shall 
be provided for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 
multifamily projects by purchasers who have obtained 
commitments for permanent financing from another lender. 
Purchase money mortgages will enable governmental and nonprofit 
intermediaries to acquire properties for resale to owner-
occupants in areas undergoing revitalization.
    The Committee included the ``Credit Watch Act of 2001'' in 
the fiscal year 2002 enacted bill in order to ensure that HUD 
could maintain its Federal Housing Administration (FHA) lender 
oversight program. The Committee notes that FHA continues to be 
a significant engine of homeownership for low income, minority, 
and first time homebuyers. However, in some cases and in 
certain neighborhoods, FHA has been misused to underwrite bad 
loans that lead to defaults and foreclosed homes, contributing 
to neighborhood decline and destabilization. Defaulted FHA 
properties sit vacant for 242 days, on average, before they are 
sold. Because the FHA does not then rehabilitate these 
properties, they cause blight in neighborhoods. Faulty 
appraisals have contributed significantly to this problem. The 
Committee notes that HUD cancelled its appraisal oversight 
program and has yet to implement its proposed alternative, 
which is based on the Credit Watch model.
    Credit Watch is an excellent tool for uncovering 
unscrupulous or careless lenders after they have originated bad 
loans. By eliminating fraudulent or unqualified lenders, the 
Committee and the Department hope to reduce the number of 
foreclosed properties in the future. However, the Committee 
notes that the Credit Watch model is only effective after 
problem loans default.
    The Committee directs the Department to report to the 
appropriate Congressional Committees on further actions that 
can be taken to protect homebuyers and communities in census 
tracts that experience high rates of FHA defaults and 
foreclosures. Specifically, the Committee directs the 
Department to consider making FHA lenders responsible for the 
appraisals on loans in these census tracts. The Department 
should also consider: requiring first time homebuyers to 
receive counseling prior to the closing of an FHA loan; 
requiring home inspections on FHA-insured homes bought by first 
time homebuyers; and, requiring the use of specially certified 
FHA appraisers for the purchase of homes. In considering these 
and other possible options, the Committee urges the Department 
to avoid proposals that create additional burdens for the FHA 
program or FHA homebuyers as a whole.
    Finally, the Committee has heard from numerous parties in 
areas affected by large numbers of FHA foreclosures and 
property flipping that certain investors are repeatedly 
involved in buying FHA foreclosed properties, making 
superficial repairs, and then reselling, or flipping them 
quickly at inflated prices. In some instances the unscrupulous 
investor that caused a borrower to default is then allowed to 
purchase the same property, post-foreclosure. The Committee 
asks the Department to explore strategies to identify investors 
who are involved in such schemes and prevent their purchasing 
FHA properties.
    While the Committee recognizes that the Department 
continues to help ameliorate the problems created by FHA 
property flipping, the Department must become more aggressive 
in adopting the kind of preventive measures discussed here. The 
Department is directed to submit a report that responds 
directly to the issues raised by the Committee by January 3, 
2003.
    The Committee is concerned about the effect that the 
accelerated claims disposition demonstration will have in low-
income, distressed communities. The Department has been unable 
to demonstrate how this program--in which HUD bundles 
delinquent loans and partners with a private bank to mitigate, 
or foreclose on, delinquent loans--could benefit very low-
income communities, especially those where predatory lending 
has disproportionately occurred. The Committee is concerned 
that, in those communities, foreclosures will occur more 
frequently than they do under the current system, contributing 
to the deterioration of those communities. The Committee 
directs HUD to implement a system by which revitalization areas 
can be exempted from the accelerated claims disposition process 
should they choose to be.
    The Committee remains concerned that HUD has failed to 
calculate adequately the amount of credit subsidy necessary to 
support its multifamily mortgage insurance programs. The 
Committee expects HUD to institute a computer program that 
accurately identifies the risk of default and financial risk to 
the insurance fund, including the ability to mark to market 
each day. The Committee further directs HUD to issue any 
premium changes through notice and comment rule making, as 
required by law.

                Government National Mortgage Association

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                        $200,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                               9,383,000

Budget estimate, 2003:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         200,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                              10,343,000

Committee recommendation:

    Limitation on guaranteed loans

                                                         200,000,000,000

    Administrative expenses

                                                              10,343,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Government National Mortgage Association [GNMA], 
through the mortgage-backed securities program, guarantees 
privately issued securities backed by pools of mortgages. GNMA 
is a wholly owned corporate instrumentality of the United 
States within the Department. Its powers are prescribed 
generally by title III of the National Housing Act, as amended. 
GNMA is authorized by section 306(g) of the act to guarantee 
the timely payment of principal and interest on securities that 
are based on and backed by a trust, or pool, composed of 
mortgages that are guaranteed and insured by the Federal 
Housing Administration, the Farmers Home Administration, or the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. GNMA's guarantee of mortgage-
backed securities is backed by the full faith and credit of the 
United States.
    In accord with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1990 [OBRA] requirements for direct and guaranteed loan 
programs, the administration is requesting $10,343,000 for 
administrative expenses in the mortgage-backed securities 
program. Amounts to fund this direct appropriation to the ``MBS 
program'' account are to be derived from offsetting receipts 
transferred from the ``Mortgage-backed securities financing'' 
account to a Treasury receipt account.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on new commitments of 
mortgage-backed securities of $200,000,000,000. This amount is 
the same level as proposed by the budget request. The Committee 
also has included $10,343,000 for administrative expenses, the 
same as the budget request and an increase of $960,000 above 
the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.

                    Policy Development and Research

                        RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $50,250,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      47,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      47,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, 
as amended, directs the Secretary of the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development to undertake programs of research, 
evaluation, and reports relating to the Department's mission 
and programs. These functions are carried out internally and 
through grants and contracts with industry, nonprofit research 
organizations, educational institutions, and through agreements 
with State and local governments and other Federal agencies. 
The research programs seek ways to improve the efficiency, 
effectiveness, and equity of HUD programs and to identify 
methods to achieve cost reductions. Additionally, this 
appropriation is used to support HUD evaluation and monitoring 
activities and to conduct housing surveys.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $47,000,000 for research and 
technology activities in fiscal year 2003. This amount is 
$3,250,000 below the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and the 
same as the budget request. Of this funding, $8,750,000 is for 
the Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing (PATH) 
program. The Committee expects the PATH program to continue its 
cold climate housing research with the Cold Climate Housing 
Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska. In addition, because in 
the past HUD 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, 2002....................................     $45,899,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      45,899,000
Committee recommendation................................      45,899,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding 
for both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the 
Fair Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP].
    The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local 
agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1968, as amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, 
rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of 
brokerage services. The major objective of the program is to 
assure prompt and effective processing of title VIII complaints 
with appropriate remedies for complaints by State and local 
fair housing agencies.
    The Fair Housing Initiatives Program is authorized by 
section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1987, as amended, and by section 905 of the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1992. This initiative is designed 
to alleviate housing discrimination by increasing support to 
public and private organizations for the purpose of eliminating 
or preventing discrimination in housing, and to enhance fair 
housing opportunities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation provides $45,899,000, of which 
$25,649,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP] 
and no more than $20,250,000 is for the fair housing 
initiatives program [FHIP].
    The Committee emphasizes that State and local agencies 
under FHAP should have the primary responsibility for 
identifying and addressing discrimination in the sale, rental, 
and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage 
services. It is critical that consistent fair housing policies 
be identified and implemented to insure continuity and 
fairness, and that States and localities continue to increase 
their understanding, expertise, and implementation of the law.

                     Office of Lead Hazard Control

                         LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $109,758,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     126,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     201,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1992 established the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction Act under which HUD is authorized to make grants to 
States, localities and native American tribes to conduct lead-
based paint hazard reduction and abatement activities in 
private low-income housing. This has become a significant 
health hazard, especially for children. According to the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], some 890,000 
children have elevated blood levels, down from 1.7 million in 
the late 1980s. Despite this improvement, lead poisoning 
remains a serious childhood environmental condition, with some 
4.4 percent of all children aged 1 to 5 years having elevated 
blood lead levels. This percentage is much higher for low-
income children living in older housing.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $201,000,000 for lead-based paint 
hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2003. 
This amount is $75,000,000 more than the budget request and 
$91,242,000 more than the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. Of 
this amount, HUD may use up to $10,000,000 for the Healthy 
Homes Initiative under which HUD conducts a number of 
activities designed to identify and address housing-related 
illnesses. The Committee supports the research being conducted 
by the National Foundation for Environmental Education on black 
mold, and encourages the Department to use funds provided for 
the Healthy Homes Initiative to fund this type of research.
    The Committee recommends $75,000,000 to establish a new 
lead hazard reduction demonstration program focused on major 
urban areas where children are disproportionately at risk for 
lead poisoning. For more than a dozen years, the Committee has 
taken an active interest in ending the highest public health 
threat to children under the age of 6 in the United States--
lead poisoning from lead-based paint. Through a combination of 
initiatives, the Committee's efforts have resulted in dramatic 
reductions to lead hazards in low-income public housing.
    Unfortunately, the progress has not been as great in 
privately-owned housing, particularly in unsubsidized low-
income units. For that reason, approximately 1 million children 
under the age of 6 in the United States suffer from lead 
poisoning. While lead poisoning crosses all socioeconomic, 
geographic, and racial boundaries, the burden of this disease 
falls disproportionately on low-income and minority families. 
In the United States, children from poor families are eight 
times more likely to be poisoned than those from higher income 
families.
    The urban lead hazard reduction program is designed to 
target funding to major urban areas where the lead hazard risk 
for low-income children under the age of 6 is greatest. 
Qualified applicants are the 25 major urban areas identified by 
the Secretary as having: (1) the highest number of pre-1940 
units of rental housing; (2) significant deterioration of paint 
and; (3) a disproportionately high number of documented cases 
of lead-poisoned children. At least 80 percent of funds must be 
used for abatement and interim control of lead-based paint 
hazards. Further, the program targets abatement to units that 
serve low-income families. In order to ensure that occupants of 
all units in multi-family housing developments are adequately 
protected by lead hazard reduction activities, grantees are 
permitted to treat all residential units in structures with 5 
or more units, a majority of which are occupied by low-income 
families, as though they were occupied entirely by low-income 
people. As a condition of assistance, each major urban area 
shall submit a detailed plan for use of funds that demonstrates 
sufficient capcity acceptable to the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development. The plans should identify units with the 
most significant risk, and should include strategies to reduce 
the risk of lead hazards and to mobilize public and private 
resources.
    The Committee does not intend for any language contained in 
this bill about the urban lead hazard reduction program to 
prejudice any ongoing or future litigation brought against lead 
pigment manufacturers. Additionally, nothing in this language 
is intended to mitigate the responsibility of housing owners to 
address the existence of lead-based paint hazards in a timely 
and expeditious manner.
    The Committee has made this program subject to 
authorization by the proper committees.

                     Management and Administration

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                      Native
                                                                                     FHA      GNMA      CGDB                         Hawaiian
                                                                   Appropriation  funds by  funds by  funds by  Title VI   Indian      loan      Total
                                                                                  transfer  transfer  transfer  transfer   housing  guarantee
                                                                                                                                       fund
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002.............................................      556,067     530,457     9,383     1,000       150       200         35  1,097,292
Budget estimate, 2003............................................      510,299     548,202    10,343     1,000       150       200         35  1,070,229
Committee recommendation.........................................      510,299     548,202    10,343     1,000       150       200         35  1,070,229
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The ``Salaries and expenses'' account finances all salaries 
and related expenses associated with administering the programs 
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. These 
include the following activities:
    Housing and mortgage credit programs.--This activity 
includes staff salaries and related expenses associated with 
administering housing programs, the implementation of consumer 
protection activities in the areas of interstate land sales, 
mobile home construction and safety, and real estate settlement 
procedures.
    Community planning and development programs.--Funds in this 
activity are for staff salaries and expenses necessary to 
administer community planning and development programs.
    Equal opportunity and research programs.--This activity 
includes salaries and related expenses associated with 
implementing equal opportunity programs in housing and 
employment as required by law and Executive orders and the 
administration of research programs and demonstrations.
    Departmental management, legal, and audit services.--This 
activity includes a variety of general functions required for 
the Department's overall administration and management. These 
include the Office of the Secretary, Office of General Counsel, 
Office of Chief Financial Officer, as well as administrative 
support in such areas as accounting, personnel management, 
contracting and procurement, and office services.
    Field direction and administration.--This activity includes 
salaries and expenses for the regional administrators, area 
office managers, and their staff who are responsible for the 
direction, supervision, and performance of the Department's 
field offices, as well as administrative support in areas such 
as accounting, personnel management, contracting and 
procurement, and office services.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,070,229,000 
for salaries and expenses. This amount is $27,063,000 less than 
the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and the same as the budget 
request. The appropriation includes the requested amount of 
$548,202,000 transferred from various funds from the Federal 
Housing Administration, $10,343,000 transferred from the 
Government National Mortgage Association, $1,000,000 from the 
community development block grant funds, $150,000 from title 
VI, $200,000 from the Native American Housing Block Grant, and 
$35,000 from the Native Hawaiian Housing Program.
    In addition, the Department is prohibited from employing 
more than 77 schedule C and 20 noncareer senior executive 
service employees. The Committee understands that the 
Department is staffed largely by personnel who are close to 
retirement and at the top of the civil service pay schedule. 
The Committee encourages HUD to implement hiring practices that 
result in the hiring of young professionals who can gain 
experience and advancement.

                      Office of Inspector General

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Drug
                                                                   FHA funds by     elimination
                                                   Appropriation     transfer         grants           Total
                                                                                     transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002............................     $66,555,000     $22,343,000          $5,000     $93,898,000
Budget estimate, 2003...........................      74,341,000      23,343,000  ..............      97,684,000
Committee recommendation........................      74,341,000      23,343,000  ..............      97,684,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation will finance all salaries and related 
expenses associated with the operation of the Office of the 
Inspector General [OIG].

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a funding level of $97,684,000 for 
the Office of Inspector General (OIG). This amount is 
$3,786,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and the 
same as the budget request. This funding level includes 
$23,343,000 by transfer from various FHA funds. The Committee 
commends OIG for its commitment and its efforts in reducing 
waste, fraud and abuse in HUD programs. The Committee directs 
that of the funds provided, $10,000,000 is to be targeted to 
anti-predatory lending and anti-flipping activities.

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 2002....................................................
Budget estimate, 2003...................................    $276,737,000
Committee recommendation................................     276,737,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The working capital fund, authorized by the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, finances information 
technology and office automation initiatives on a centralized 
basis.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $276,737,000 for the working 
capital fund for fiscal year 2003. In 2001 and 2002 the fund 
was financed from fees charged for services performed. Fees 
will continue for services to develop and modify systems where 
the benefit is limited to a specific program.

                         CONSOLIDATED FEE FUND

                              (RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2002....................................     -$6,700,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      -8,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      -8,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Section 7(j) of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development Act establishes fees and charges from selected 
programs which are deposited in a fund to offset the costs of 
audits, inspections, and other related expenses that may be 
incurred by the Department in monitoring these programs. These 
fees were misclassified for many years as deposit funds, and 
are now re-classified as on-budget Federal funds.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a rescission of all unobligated 
balances from the fee fund, as requested by the Administration.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $27,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      30,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      30,000,000

                          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 $30,000,000 for the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is the same as the 
budget request and $3,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2002 
enacted level.

                       Administrative Provisions

    The Committee recommends 20 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. HOPWA Technical. Extends provision requiring HUD 
to allocate funds directly to Wake County, North Carolina.
    Sec. 205. Assisted Living Project Waiver. Extends the 
authority to waive the 40 percent rent ceiling under section 8 
for certain projects.
    Sec. 206. HUD Reform Act Compliance. Requires HUD to award 
funds on a competitive basis.
    Sec. 207. Section 811 Housing. Includes Section 811 housing 
as eligible housing in the definition of ``federally assisted 
housing''.
    Sec. 208. Public Housing Financing. Facilitates the 
financing of rehabilitation and development of public housing.
    Sec. 209. Payments to Public Housing Units. Prohibits 
assistance for housing units defined under section 9(n) of the 
United States Housing Act of 1937.
    Sec. 210. Administrative Funds Reimbursement. Allows funds 
to be used to reimburse GSEs and other Federal entities for 
various administrative expenses.
    Sec. 211. Restrictions on Spending Activities. Limits 
spending to amounts set out in the budget justification.
    Sec. 212. Government Corporation Control Act. Clarifies 
expenditure authority for entities subject to the Government 
Corporation Control Act.
    Sec. 213. Repeal of Federalization of Public Housing Units. 
Amends federalization provisions.
    Sec. 214. Multifamily Disposition. Requires HUD to maintain 
section 8 assistance on properties occupied by elderly or 
disabled families.
    Sec. 215. Welfare-to-Work Vouchers. Amends the welfare-to-
work housing voucher program.
    Sec. 216. Downpayment Simplification. Extends the 
applicability of down payment provisions.
    Sec. 217. Exemption from requirement of resident on board 
of PHA. Exempts Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi from the 
requirement of having a PHA resident on the board of directors 
for fiscal year 2003. Instead, the public housing agencies in 
these States are required to establish advisory boards that 
include public housing tenants and section 8 recipients.
    Sec. 218. Renewal Requirements. Requires HUD to include the 
specific funds needed to renew expiring housing assistance 
grants in future budgets.
    Sec. 219. Sunset of HOPE VI Program. Sunsets the HOPE VI 
program on September 30, 2003.
    Sec. 220. Section 8 Prohibition on Funds. Prohibits HUD 
from waiving income eligibility on section 8 housing. Applies 
to instances in which a refinancing of the project occurs.

                    TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $35,466,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      30,400,000
Committee recommendation................................      30,400,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The American Battle Monuments Commission [ABMC] is 
responsible for the maintenance and construction of U.S. 
monuments and memorials commemorating the achievements in 
battle of our Armed Forces where they have served since April 
1917; for controlling the erection of monuments and markers by 
U.S. citizens and organizations in foreign countries; and for 
the design, construction, and maintenance of permanent military 
cemetery memorials in foreign countries. The Commission 
maintains 24 military memorial cemeteries and 31 monuments, 
memorials, markers, and offices in 15 countries around the 
world, including three large memorials on U.S. soil. It is 
presently charged with erecting a World War II Memorial in the 
Washington, DC, area.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $30,400,000 
for the American Battle Monuments Commission, which is 
$5,066,000 below the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $7,850,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       7,850,000
Committee recommendation................................       7,850,000

                          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.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $7,850,000 
for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, equal 
to the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.
    The Committee believes that the Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board serves the very important mission of 
promoting the prevention of accidents at chemical plants. The 
Committee is deeply concerned that the Board's management 
deficiencies, as identified in a March 2002, FEMA IG report, 
have done a disservice to the Board's main constituency--the 
workers in our Nation's chemical plants.
    The Committee recognizes that the Board has accepted the 
FEMA IG's recommendations to rectify these unacceptable 
deficiencies, and has taken positive steps to implement the 
recommendations. The Committee continues to support the FEMA 
IG's ongoing review of the Board's activities.
    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, 2002....................................     $80,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      68,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      73,000,000

                   PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FOR CDFI FUND

    The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund makes 
investments in the form of grants, loans, equity investments, 
deposits, and technical assistance grants to new and existing 
community development financial institutions (CDFIs), through 
the CDFI program. CDFIs include community development banks, 
credit unions, venture capital funds, revolving loan funds, and 
microloan funds, among others. Recipient institutions engage in 
lending and investment for affordable housing, small business 
and community development within underserved communities. The 
CDFI Fund administers the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program, 
which provides a financial incentive to insured depository 
institutions to undertake community development finance 
activities. The CDFI Find also administers the New Markets Tax 
Credit Program, a newly created program that will provide an 
incentive to investors in the form of a tax credit, which is 
expected to stimulate private community and economic 
development activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $73,000,000 for the CDFI Fund, 
which is $7,000,000 below the fiscal year 2002 level and 
$5,000,000 above the administration's request.
    The Committee also recommends a set-aside of $5,000,000 for 
grants, loans, and technical assistance and training programs 
to benefit Native American, Alaskan Natives, and Native 
Hawaiian communities in the coordination of development 
strategies, increased access to equity investments, and loans 
for development activities. This amount is an increase of 
$5,000,000 above the budget request and the same as the fiscal 
year 2002 enacted level. The Committee is concerned that the 
CDFI Fund has not released all funds appropriated in fiscal 
years 2001 and 2002 for this purpose. The Committee has 
included this set-aside in fiscal year 2003 because the Native 
American, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiian communities have 
been historically underserved by CDFIs.
    The Department of the Treasury's November 2001 Native 
American Lending Study confirmed the inadequacy of capital 
investment in Indian communities and found that the investment 
gap between Native American economies and the United States 
overall totals $44,000,000,000. The Committee directs the Fund 
to submit a 5-year strategic plan to the Committee that 
outlines its efforts to improve the economic needs of Native 
Americans. This report is due to the Committee by February 17, 
2003.
    The Committee remains concerned over the CDFI Fund's lack 
of data on its programs' outputs and outcomes. The Committee 
has difficulty making funding decisions for the Fund without an 
accurate accounting of the activities that the Fund has 
contributed to in low-income communities. The Committee 
recognizes that this has been a long-standing problem with the 
CDFI Fund, and urges the Administration to improve its 
monitoring systems. This is especially important now that the 
CDFI Fund will have administrative responsibilities for the New 
Markets Tax Credit Program.

                  Interagency Council on the Homeless

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002....................................        $500,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Interagency Council on the Homeless is an independent 
agency created by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 
1987 to coordinate and direct the multiple efforts of Federal 
agencies and other designated groups. The Council was 
authorized to review Federal programs that assist homeless 
persons and to take necessary actions to reduce duplication. 
The Council can recommend improvements in programs and 
activities conducted by Federal, State and local government as 
well as local volunteer organizations. The Council consists of 
the heads of 18 Federal agencies such as the Departments of 
Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, 
Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 
Labor, and Transportation; and other entities as deemed 
appropriate.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the Interagency 
Council on the Homeless (ICH), $500,000 more than the budget 
request and $1,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2002 enacted 
level. These funds are for carrying out the functions 
authorized under section 203 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
Assistance Act.
    The Council was previously funded under the HUD Homeless 
assistance grants account. The Committee has created a separate 
account for the Council to reflect better the law's intent that 
it operate and function as an independent agency. The 
Committee, however, expects HUD to continue providing 
administrative support for the Council as mandated under 
section 204(d) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
    The Committee expects the primary activity of the ICH to be 
the development of a comprehensive Federal approach to end 
homelessness. In order for the ICH to be successful in this 
endeavor relevant Federal departments and agencies should defer 
to the ICH on policy and funding proposals that affect 
homelessness. The Committee understands that homelessness is 
affected by factors that cut across Federal agencies, including 
housing costs, job readiness, education, substance abuse and 
mental health. The Committee believes it is important to have 
an independent ICH in order to assess how the multitude of 
Federal programs have contributed to the rise in homelessness, 
and how they can contribute to ending homelessness.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $55,200,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      56,767,000
Committee recommendation................................      56,767,000

                          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 $56,767,000 for the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, equal to the budget request and an 
increase of $1,567,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted 
level.
    The Committee does not recommend the administration's 
request for an exemption of CPSC's litigation travel from the 
travel ceiling imposed by General Provision 401 of this Act. 
Instead, the Committee will continue to consider CPSC's 
increased travel requirements through regular reprogramming 
requests.

             Corporation for National and Community Service

                NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $401,980,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     631,342,000
Committee recommendation................................     515,342,000

                          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-of-school youth, and adults 
through innovative, full- and part-time national and community 
service programs. National service participants may receive 
education awards which may be used for full-time or part-time 
higher education, vocational education, job training, or 
school-to-work programs.
    The Corporation is governed by a Board of Directors and 
headed by the Chief Executive Officer. Board members and the 
Chief Executive Officer are appointed by the President of the 
United States and confirmed by the Senate.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $515,342,000 for the Corporation 
for National and Community Service, $114,362,000 above the 
fiscal year 2002 enacted level and $116,000,000 below the 
budget request.
    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:
    -$112,925,000 for AmeriCorps Grants, National Direct and 
State Funds, for a total of $290,342,000. This amount is 
$49,850,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The 
Committee expects the distribution of this funding to be 
consistent with the National and Community Service Act, and 
notes that the authorizing Committee of jurisdiction is 
currently in the process of reauthorizing the Corporation's 
programs.
    Within the amount provided, the Committee directs the 
Corporation to continue at the least the current level of 
support for programs designed to help teach children to read by 
the third grade ($100,000,000), and for activities dedicated to 
developing computer and information technology skills for 
students and teachers in low-income communities ($25,000,000). 
The Committee directs the Corporation to provide specifics in 
its fiscal year 2003 operating plan detailing how the 
Corporation will fulfill these directives.
    The Committee is aware that the Corporation has recently 
added a new criterion in its AmeriCorps application process 
that takes into account the leveraging of unpaid volunteers. 
The Committee supports this new criterion and encourages the 
Chief Executive Officer to focus heavily on an applicant's 
ability to leverage and mobilize unpaid volunteers when 
awarding grants under the National and Community Service Act.
    In order to ensure that as many qualified grant applicants 
as possible have the opportunity to access Corporation 
resources, the Committee supports efforts to reduce grantee 
reliance on Federal funding, and expects that some grantees 
should eventually be able to operate without Federal funding. 
The Inspector General recently reviewed the Corporation's 
National Direct Grant Application Review Process and 
recommended that the Corporation establish a means of clearly 
measuring a grantee's reliance on Federal funding and consider 
developing a performance goal for reducing grantees' reliance 
on Federal funds. Accordingly, the Committee directs the 
Corporation to provide a report by January 21, 2003, that 
details its efforts to measure a grantee's reliance on Federal 
funding and to reduce grantee reliance on Federal funds both in 
terms of total Corporation resources provided to grantees, and 
as a percentage of grantee operating costs. Further, the 
Committee directs the Corporation to provide quarterly reports 
with the initial report due on January 21, 2003 that lists 
every grantee that receives a minimum of $500,000 from the 
Corporation. These quarterly reports should include the name of 
the grantee, the amount of Corporation funds it has received, 
the Corporation program source of funding, the amount of 
private sector funds it has received, and sources of other 
Federal or public funding.
    The Committee is encouraged by the Corporation's goal to 
improve the accountability of its grantees. Accordingly, the 
Committee directs the Corporation to establish, in consultation 
with grantees receiving assistance under all parts of the 
National and Community Service Act, performance measures for 
each grantee. The Corporation shall require any grantee that 
does not achieve the established levels of performance on the 
measures, as determined by the Corporation, to submit to the 
Corporation for approval a plan of correction. If the grantee 
fails to achieve the established levels of performance, the 
Committee directs the Corporation to either reduce some portion 
or terminate the entire amount of assistance provided to the 
grantee consistent with established due process requirements.
    The Committee does not recommend the request to transfer 
the Education Award and Promise Fellows programs from 
Innovation Activities to AmeriCorps grants. The Committee 
supports the Administration's efforts to integrate AmeriCorps 
activities. However, the request to transfer the program would 
require legislative language to exempt grantee organizations 
from AmeriCorps administration cost, matching requirements, and 
participant benefit requirements. The Committee notes that 
these requirements have never been part of the Education Award 
or Promise Fellows programs, but the Committee believes that 
any necessary exemptions should be addressed in the context of 
reauthorization of the Corporation's programs.
    +$32,500,000 for innovation, demonstration, and assistance 
activities, for a total of $68,000,000. Within the amount 
provided, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for 
demonstration programs, an increase of $5,000,000 above the 
request. The Committee directs that the Corporation use this 
increase to provide seed funding to start-up organizations to 
foster the ``next generation'' of National Direct 
organizations. Also within the amount provided, the Committee 
recommends $33,000,000 for Challenge Grants, an increase of 
$23,000,000 above the request. The Committee intends for these 
grants to be administered in a manner that allows eligibility 
of: (1) AmeriCorps organizations; (2) non-profit organizations 
that may not otherwise qualify for AmeriCorps funding because 
they do not use AmeriCorps volunteers; and (3) non-profit 
organizations that are not direct service organizations. The 
Committee also intends for Challenge Grants to require a match 
of $1 in private funding for every $1 in Challenge Grant 
funding. The Committee directs the Corporation to notify the 
Committee at least 5 business days in advance of making any 
Challenge Grant award. Finally, the Committee's recommendation 
for AmeriCorps grants includes sufficient funding for the 
Corporation to continue the Education Award and Promise Fellows 
programs within this amount.
    -$7,500,000 for America's Promise. The Committee intends 
for America's Promise to be eligible to compete for Challenge 
Grant funding.
    -$10,000,000 for the National Civilian Community Corps, for 
a total program level of $25,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. This 
amount is equal to the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The 
Committee does not recommend funding for two additional NCCC 
campuses. The Committee emphasizes that it has taken this 
action without prejudice to a future expansion of the program, 
and directs the Corporation to provide a report by January 31, 
2003, with a comprehensive, strategic expansion plan. The plan 
should include dates and milestones for establishing new 
campuses, including cost estimates.
    +$4,000,000 for Learn and Serve America, for a total 
program level of $47,000,000. This amount is $4,000,000 above 
the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The Committee notes that 
funding for school-based and community-based service-learning 
programs has been level for many years, and therefore provides 
a modest funding increase to expand opportunities to make 
service an integral part of the education and life experiences 
of young people.
    -$2,075,000 for program administration/State commissions, 
for a total of $33,000,000 to provide support for an oversight 
of the Corporation's programs and projects. This amount is 
$2,000,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The 
Committee intends $20,000,000 for program administration, 
including staffing, compensation, and operating expenses, and 
$13,000,000 as support for Governor-appointed State Commissions 
on National and Community Service. The Committee notes that 
State Commissions are required to provide a 50 percent match of 
this funding.
    The Committee commends the Corporation for the significant 
improvements it has made in management and financial accounting 
and for its second consecutive ``clean'' opinion on its 
financial statements audit. Nevertheless, the Committee remains 
concerned about the Corporation's remaining reportable 
condition related to grants management. Many grantees fail to 
provide accurate and timely information on grant expenditures 
and in some cases, the Inspector General has identified 
significant questionable costs. The Committee commends the 
Corporation's progress in ensuring that its new grants 
management and cost accounting system is fully operational by 
no later than the fall of 2002. The Committee also supports the 
recommendations from a recent PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) 
report, especially the recommendation that the new cost 
accounting system is able to calculate cost per grant or cost 
per grant dollar so that improvements in administrative cost 
management can be monitored.
    -$20,000,000 for the National Service Trust, for a total of 
$37,000,000 to support service awards, interest forbearance, 
and President's Student Service Scholarship payments. This 
reduction reflects the Committee's recommendation not to fund 
the Senior Service Initiative, which is a proposed new activity 
to allow senior volunteers to transfer their education awards 
to a child or grandchild. Instead, the Committee recommends 
that this proposal be considered in the context of 
reauthorization of the Corporation's programs. The Committee 
did not appropriate funding into the Trust in fiscal year 2002 
as it was determined that sufficient funds were available from 
previous years to cover all estimated awards for fiscal year 
2002. The Committee directs the Corporation to provide 
quarterly activity reports to the Committee and the Inspector 
General on the expenditure of awards under the National Service 
Trust Fund. The initial report should be submitted by January 
22, 2003.
    The Committee's recommendation for the Trust includes up to 
$5,000,000 to support an estimated 8,000 President's Student 
Service Scholarship awards. This program provides $1,000 
scholarships to high school juniors and seniors who have 
performed outstanding service to their communities during their 
high school years. The Corporation provides one-half of the 
scholarship, and local funding from schools, businesses, 
nonprofit organizations, or civic groups provides the other 
half.
    The Committee also recommends the budget request of 
$5,000,000 for audits and evaluations, and $10,000,000 for the 
Points of Light Foundation. The Committee suppoprts the 
Corporation's efforts to track the performance of its programs 
and measure outcomes.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,000,000

                          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 $6,000,000 for 
the Office of Inspector General (OIG). This amount is 
$1,000,000 above the budget request and the 2002 level. The 
Committee has recommended a significant increase in funding for 
the Corporation's National and Community Service Act 
activities. The Committee also recommends an increase for the 
Office of Inspector General in order to maintain oversight of 
the Corporation's significantly increased activities.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommends bill language to ensure that loans 
made, insured, or guaranteed by State agencies are considered 
to be qualified student loans for the purpose of making 
AmeriCorps education awards. A modified version of this 
provision has been carried in prior year appropriations acts.
    The Committee also recommends new bill language to allow 
disability placement funds, which are primarily used to pay for 
reasonable accommodations and other efforts to make AmeriCorps 
programs accessible to persons with disabilities, available to 
any AmeriCorps program funded under subtitle C.

               U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $13,221,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      14,326,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,612,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was established by 
the Veterans' Judicial Review Act. The court is an independent 
judicial tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction to review 
decisions of the Board of Veterans' Appeals. It has the 
authority to decide all relevant questions of law; interpret 
constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions; and 
determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an 
action by the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is authorized 
to compel action by the Department unlawfully withheld or 
unreasonably delayed. It is authorized to hold unconstitutional 
or otherwise unlawful and set-aside decisions, findings, 
conclusions, rules and regulations issued or adopted by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs or the Board of Veterans' 
Appeals.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $14,612,000 
for the Court of Appeals for Veterans claims, an increase of 
$1,105,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.

                      Department of Defense--Civil

                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $22,537,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      24,445,000
Committee recommendation................................      24,445,000

                          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, 2001, 
Arlington and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemeteries 
contained the remains of 289,494 persons and comprised a total 
of approximately 628 acres. There were 3,727 interments and 
2,212 inurnments in fiscal year 2001; 3,800 interments and 
2,500 inurnments are estimated for the current fiscal year; and 
3,925 interments and 2,700 inurnments are estimated for fiscal 
year 2003.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $24,445,000 
for the Army's cemeterial expenses. This amount is $1,908,000 
above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.

                Department of Health and Human Services

                     National Institutes of Health

          NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $80,728,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................  \1\ 74,471,000
Committee recommendation................................      76,074,000

\1\ Does not include $1,603,000 proposed transfer from the National 
Cancer Institute.

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, an 
agency within the National Institutes of Health, was authorized 
in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, to conduct 
multidisciplinary research and training activities associated 
with the Nation's Hazardous Substance Superfund program, and in 
section 126(g) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizations 
Act of 1986, to conduct training and education of workers who 
are or may be engaged in activities related to hazardous waste 
removal or containment or emergency response.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $76,074,000 for the National 
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which is $4,654,000 
below the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The recommendation 
includes $27,137,520 for worker training grants and $48,936,480 
for research.

            Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

            TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $78,235,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      77,388,000
Committee recommendation................................      81,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR), an agency of the Public Health Service, was created in 
section 104(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. The ATSDR's primary 
mission is to conduct surveys and screening programs to 
determine relationships between exposure to toxic substances 
and illness. Other activities include the maintenance and 
annual update of a list of hazardous substances most commonly 
found at Superfund sites, the preparation of toxicological 
profiles on each such hazardous substance, consultations on 
health issues relating to exposure to hazardous or toxic 
substances, and the development and implementation of certain 
research activities related to ATSDR's mission.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $81,000,000 for the Agency for 
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which is $3,612,000 
above the budget request and $2,765,000 above the fiscal year 
2002 enacted level.
    Within the amount provided, the Committee directs ATSDR to 
continue at least the current level of support for the Great 
Lakes Fish Consumption Study. Additionally, the Committee 
directs ATSDR to establish a fish consumption advisory pilot 
program in Michigan based on the information included in the 
Agency's December 2001 feasibility report.
    Also within the amount provided, the Committee directs 
ATSDR to implement a multi-faceted health study of 
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) exposure in Anniston, Alabama. 
The study should be undertaken in consultation with community 
residents and in cooperation with the Alabama Department of 
Public Health.
    The Committee also directs that within the amount provided, 
ATSDR monitor and assess the long-term health status of 
children, adolescents and young adults in Herculaneum, Missouri 
regarding their potential exposure to lead.

                    Environmental Protection Agency

Appropriations, 2002..................................\1\ $8,078,813,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   7,620,513,000
Committee recommendation................................   8,299,141,000

\1\ Includes $175,600,000 in fiscal year 2002 supplemental funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          GENERAL DESCRIPTION

    The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] was created 
through Executive Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 designed to 
consolidate certain Federal Government environmental activities 
into a single agency. The plan was submitted by the President 
to the Congress on July 8, 1970, and the Agency was established 
as an independent agency in the executive branch on December 2, 
1970, by consolidating 15 components from 5 departments and 
independent agencies.
    A description of EPA's pollution control programs by media 
follows:
    Air.--The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 authorize a 
national program of air pollution research, regulation, 
prevention, and enforcement activities.
    Water quality.--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
amended, provides the framework for protection of the Nation's 
surface waters. The law recognizes that it is the primary 
responsibility of the States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate 
water pollution. The States determine the desired uses for 
their waters, set standards, identify current uses and, where 
uses are being impaired or threatened, develop plans for the 
protection or restoration of the designated use. They implement 
the plans through control programs such as permitting and 
enforcement, construction of municipal waste water treatment 
works, and nonpoint source control practices. The CWA also 
regulates discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of 
the United States, including wetlands.
    Drinking water.--The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as 
amended in 1996, charges EPA with the responsibility of 
implementing a program to assure that the Nation's public 
drinking water supplies are free of contamination that may pose 
a human health risk, and to protect and prevent the 
endangerment of ground water resources which serve as drinking 
water supplies.
    Hazardous waste.--The Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act of 1976 mandated EPA to develop a regulatory program to 
protect human health and the environment from improper 
hazardous waste disposal practices. The RCRA Program manages 
hazardous wastes from generation through disposal.
    EPA's responsibilities and authorities to manage hazardous 
waste were greatly expanded under the Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments of 1984. Not only did the regulated universe of 
wastes and facilities dealing with hazardous waste increase 
significantly, but past mismanagement practices, in particular 
prior releases at inactive hazardous and solid waste management 
units, were to be identified and corrective action taken. The 
1984 amendments also authorized a regulatory and implementation 
program directed to owners and operators of underground storage 
tanks.
    Pesticides.--The objective of the Pesticide Program is to 
protect the public health and the environment from unreasonable 
risks while permitting the use of necessary pest control 
approaches. This objective is pursued by EPA under the Food 
Quality Protection Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
through three principal means: (1) review of existing and new 
pesticide products; (2) enforcement of pesticide use rules; and 
(3) research and development to reinforce the ability to 
evaluate the risks and benefits of pesticides.
    Radiation.--The radiation program's major emphasis is to 
minimize the exposure of persons to ionizing radiation, whether 
from naturally occurring sources, from medical or industrial 
applications, nuclear power sources, or weapons development.
    Toxic substances.--The Toxic Substances Control Act 
establishes a program to stimulate the development of adequate 
data on the effects of chemical substances on health and the 
environment, and institute control action for those chemicals 
which present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 
environment. The act's coverage affects more than 60,000 
chemicals currently in commerce, and all new chemicals.
    Multimedia.--Multimedia activities are designed to support 
programs where the problems, tools, and results are cross media 
and must be integrated to effect results. This integrated 
program encompasses the Agency's research, enforcement, and 
abatement activities.
    Superfund.--The Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 established a national 
program to protect public health and the environment from the 
threats posed by inactive hazardous waste sites and 
uncontrolled spills of hazardous substances. The original 
statute was amended by the Superfund Amendments and 
Reauthorization Act of 1986. Under these authorities, EPA 
manages a hazardous waste site cleanup program including 
emergency response and long-term remediation.
    Leaking underground storage tanks.--The Superfund 
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 established the 
leaking underground storage tank [LUST] trust fund to conduct 
corrective actions for releases from leaking underground 
storage tanks that contain petroleum or other hazardous 
substances. EPA implements the LUST response program primarily 
through cooperative agreements with the States.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total of $8,299,141,000 for EPA. 
This is an increase of $678,628,000 above the budget request 
and an increase of $220,328,000 above the fiscal year 2002 
enacted level.
    The Agency is directed to notify the Committee prior to 
each reprogramming in excess of $500,000 between objectives, 
when those reprogrammings are for different purposes. The 
exceptions to this limitation are as follows: (1) for the 
``Environmental programs and management'' account, Committee 
notification is required at $500,000; Committee approval is 
required only above $1,000,000; and (2) for the ``State and 
tribal assistance grants'' account, reprogramming of 
performance partnership grant funds is exempt from this 
limitation.

                         SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2002....................................\1\ $788,397,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     670,008,000
Committee recommendation................................     710,008,000

\1\ Includes $90,308,000 in fiscal year 2002 supplemental funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    EPA's ``Science and technology'' account provides funding 
for the scientific knowledge and tools necessary to support 
decisions on preventing, regulating, and abating environmental 
pollution and to advance the base of understanding on 
environmental sciences. These efforts are conducted through 
contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with 
universities, industries, other private commercial firms, 
nonprofit organizations, State and local government, and 
Federal agencies, as well as through work performed at EPA's 
laboratories and various field stations and field offices. In 
addition, Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund resources 
are transferred to this account directly from the Hazardous 
Substance Superfund.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $710,008,000 for science and 
technology, $40,000,000 above the budget request and 
$78,389,000 below the enacted level including supplemental 
funding. In addition, the Committee recommends the transfer of 
$86,168,000 from the Superfund account, for a total of 
$796,176,000 for science and technology.
    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:
    +$9,750,000 for the STAR Fellowships Program. The budget 
request proposed to transfer this program to the National 
Science Foundation.
    -$9,750,000 for the National Environmental Technology 
Competition. The Committee supports the Agency's efforts to 
foster private and public sector development of new, cost-
effective environmental technologies, and has instead 
recommended full funding of the budget request of two existing 
Agency programs designed to achieve this objective--the Small 
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program, whereby 2.5 
percent of all extramural research funding is set-aside for 
work with small businesses, and the Environmental Technology 
Verification (ETV) Program ($3,618,000). The Committee urges 
EPA to develop a ``one stop shop'' office to coordinate these 
programs to ensure the greatest impact without duplication or 
overlap, and directs the Agency to report to the Committee by 
March 3, 2003, detailing such efforts.
    +$10,000,000 for small system arsenic removal research, for 
a total of $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. The Committee 
strongly encourages EPA to utilize a significant portion of 
this funding to carry out demonstrations of implementation of 
low-cost treatment technology, and directs the Agency to report 
to the Committee by March 3, 2003, on its plans to carry out 
such demonstrations.
    +$700,000 for the Center for the Conservation of Biological 
Resources at Black Hills State University, South Dakota.
    +$750,000 for Clean Air Counts of Northeastern Illinois to 
develop an innovative and cost effective method to reduce smog-
causing emissions in the Chicago metropolitan region. The 
funding will provide support for an ongoing partnership 
involving EPA, the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, Illinois EPA, 
and the Delta Institute.
    +$800,000 for the Contra Costa Water District, California, 
for applied research studies related to the water quality and 
water treatment challenges facing Bay Delta water users.
    +$800,000 for Lake Superior State University for education 
and research on aquatic biota and their associated habitats.
    +$750,000 for the Louisiana Environmental Research Center 
at McNeese State University for research into wetland ecology 
and the environmental effects of oil spills.
    +$300,000 for the Foundation for the Advancement of Science 
and Education's pesticides recording project.
    +$750,000 for the Southwest Clean Air Quality Agency's 
Columbia Gorge Air Quality Technical Foundation Study.
    +$500,000 for the Center for the Study of Metals in the 
Environment.
    +$1,200,000 for the Center for Air Toxic Metals at the 
Energy and Environmental Research Center.
    +$100,000 for the University of Vermont's Proctor Maple 
Research Center to continue mercury deposition monitoring 
effects.
    +$350,000 for acid rain research at the University of 
Vermont.
    +$500,000 for the City of Glendale, California for research 
and development of technology for the removal of Chromium 6 
from water.
    +$750,000 for the Integrated Public/Private Energy and 
Environmental Consortium (IPEC) to develop cost-effective 
environmental technology, improved business practices, and 
technology transfer for the domestic petroleum industry.
    +$500,000 for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology 
Research
    +$1,000,000 for the National Environmental Respiratory 
Center at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute.
    +$3,900,000 for the Mine Waste Technology Program at the 
National Environmental Waste Technology, Testing, and 
Evaluation Center.
    +$1,500,000 for the Connecticut River Airshed-Watershed 
Consortium.
    +$3,600,000 for the Water Environment Research Foundation.
    +$3,600,000 for the American Water Works Association 
Research Foundation.
    +$700,000 for the Mid-America Regional Council to apply 
urban agroforestry technologies to meet community green 
infrastructure needs.
    +$1,000,000 for the Center for Estuarine Research at the 
University of South Alabama.
    +$1,000,000 for the Alabama Department of Environmental 
Management for the Alabama Water and Wastewater Training 
Program.
    +$1,000,000 for the Environmental Lung Center at the 
National Jewish Medical and Research Center.
    +$2,000,000 for air quality program for Fairbanks North 
Star Borough, Alaska.
    Drinking Water Security.--The Committee supports the budget 
request of $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 to address the 
security of our Nation's drinking water system. The Committee 
notes these funds, in addition to the approximately 
$140,000,000 provided by the Committee in previous and pending 
supplemental appropriations acts, will result in the 
Committee's having recommended a total of $160,000,000 for 
drinking water security efforts. The Committee directs that by 
March 31, 2003, the Agency provide a full accounting of how 
these funds have been or will be expended. Additionally, within 
the funds provided, the Committee strongly encourages EPA to 
support water infrastructure research and development 
activities as well as security vulnerability assessments. The 
Committee is also aware of efforts to develop a Water 
Information Security Analysis Center (ISAC), and strongly 
encourages EPA to provide support for the implementation of 
this system to provide a secure communications network linking 
law enforcement and local drinking water systems.
    The Committee has not included proposed bill language 
relative to the environmental services fund.

                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2002..................................\1\ $2,093,511,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   2,047,703,800
Committee recommendation................................   2,140,469,000

\1\ Includes $39,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 supplemental funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $2,140,469,000 for environmental 
programs and management, an increase of $92,765,200 above the 
budget request and $46,958,000 above the fiscal year 2002 
enacted level.
    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:
    +$20,100,000 to fully fund enforcement FTEs at no less than 
the 2001 level, consistent with the 2001 operating plan. The 
Committee does not recommend the Administration's request to 
reduce funding for Federal enforcement of environmental laws to 
instead fund a new State enforcement grant program.
    +$9,160,000 for Environmental Education, equal to the 2002 
level. The budget request proposed to eliminate this program.
    +$2,000,000 for Environmental Justice, for a total of 
$6,079,000. This amount is $1,915,000 above the 2002 program 
level.
    +$5,275,000 for the National Estuary Program, for a total 
of $24,521,000. This amount is equal to the 2002 program level.
    +$5,200,000 for the Energy Star program, for a total 
program level of $55,000,000. This amount is $6,400,000 above 
the 2002 level.
    -$8,969,000 for regulatory development, for a total program 
level of $27,412,000, equal to the 2002 level.
    +$5,000,000 for America's Clean Water Foundation for 
implementation of on-farm environmental assessments for 
livestock operations.
    +$2,000,000 for Chesapeake Bay small watershed grants. The 
Committee expects that the funds provided for this program, 
managed by the Fish and Wildlife Foundation, shall be used for 
community-based projects including those that design and 
implement on-the-ground and in-the-water environmental 
restoration or protection activities to help meet Chesapeake 
Bay Program goals and objectives. This increase will result in 
a total of $22,651,000 available in fiscal year 2003 for the 
Chesapeake Bay Program, which is $1,383,600 above the fiscal 
year 2002 program level.
    +$2,320,000 for the Lake Champlain Basin Program, for a 
total program level of $3,275,000. This amount is $775,000 
above the 2002 program level.
    +$2,000,000 for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration 
Program. The Committee directs the Administrator to give 
priority consideration to the proposals of the Lake 
Pontchartrain Basin Foundation.
    +$2,523,000 for the Long Island Sound Program, for a total 
program level of $3,000,000. This amount is $500,000 above the 
2002 program level.
    +$250,000 for the Maryland Bureau of Mines for an acid mine 
drainage remediation project.
    +$1,000,000 for projects demonstrating the benefits of Low 
Impact Development along the Anacostia Watershed in Prince 
Georges County, Maryland.
    +$500,000 for the University of Arkansas to develop bio-
environmental engineering solutions to watershed management.
    +$50,000 for the Northwest Straits Commission.
    +$700,000 for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 
with distribution as follows: $160,000 to the Northwest Indian 
Fisheries Commission for coordination and $540,000 to be 
divided among the 26 participating tribes to implement this 
tribal initiative by integrating state, Federal, tribal and 
local governmental efforts to develop common water quality 
protection goals and reduce jurisdictional barriers.
    +$200,000 for the Columbia Basin Groundwater Area 
Management Study.
    +$500,000 for the Gateway Cities Council of Governments, 
California, pilot program to reduce diesel emissions.
    +$750,000 for Columbus Water Works, Georgia, biosolids 
thermophilic treatment technology demonstration.
    +$250,000 for the Illinois Department of Agriculture's 
Council on Best Management Practices initiative to reduce 
nitrate contamination in drinking water.
    +$250,000 for the CropLife Foundation North Carolina 
environmental stewardship project.
    +$500,000 for the Central California ozone study.
    +$500,000 for the Center for Agricultural and Rural 
Development at Iowa State University for the Resource and 
Agricultural Policy Systems program.
    +$500,000 for the Small Business Pollution Prevention 
Center at the University of Northern Iowa.
    +$750,000 for the painting and coating assistance 
initiative through the University of Northern Iowa.
    +$100,000 for the American Farmland Trust Center for 
Agriculture in the Environment for sustainable agriculture in 
Hawaii and the American Pacific.
    +$500,000 for the Economic Development Alliance of Hawaii 
promote biotechnology to reduce pesticide use in tropical and 
subtropical agricultural production
    +$250,000 for the County of Hawaii and the Hawaii Island 
Economic Development Board to establish and implement a 
community development model for renewable resource management 
by upgrading solid waste transfer stations into community 
recycling centers.
    +$250,000 for a storm water research initiative at the 
University of Vermont.
    +$200,000 for the Vermont small business compliance 
assistance project conducted by the Vermont Small Business 
Assistance Center.
    +$500,000 for Boston Metropolitan Area Planning Council 
(MAPC) and the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC) to 
develop regional solutions for managing and protecting water 
resources.
    +$160,000 for the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Commission 
Crandon Mine analysis.
    +$500,000 for the Sand County Foundation in Wisconsin for 
an incentive program to promote the reduction of nitrogen 
discharge in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
    +$250,000 for Livingston Parish, Louisiana, for a water and 
wastewater infrastructure feasibility study.
    +$250,000 for the Vermont Department of Agriculture to work 
with conservation districts and local communities to reduce 
non-point source run-off in the Potash Brook watershed.
    +$500,000 for the Lohontan Regional Water Quality Control 
Board in Nevada for the Board, working with California water 
officials and the State of Nevada, to address Lake Tahoe water 
quality issues.
    +$50,000 for the Tioga County Department of Economic 
Development and Planning, New York, for the Owego 
infrastructure master plan.
    +$200,000 for design, engineering, and planning activities 
related to the pollution prevention of Wreck Pond and nearby 
beaches in Spring Lake, New Jersey.
    +$150,000 for the New Jersey EnvironMentors project.
    +$350,000 for planning and engineering studies for the 
Storm Lake, Iowa, cleanup project.
    +$250,000 for a study to address the characterization and 
remediation of ash sites in Jacksonville, Florida.
    +$16,000,000 for rural water training and technical 
assistance activities and source water protection initiatives 
with distribution as follows: $9,000,000 for the National Rural 
Water Association, $3,500,000 for the Rural Community 
Assistance Program, $750,000 for the Ground Water Protection 
Council, $750,000 for the Water Systems Council to assist in 
the effective delivery of water to rural citizens nationwide, 
and $2,000,000 for the source water protection program.
    +$1,372,000 for the Great Lakes National Program Office, 
for a total program level of $16,500,000. This amount is 
$1,570,000 above the 2002 program level.
    +$200,000 for the Northeast Waste Management Officials 
Association to continue solid waste, hazardous waste, cleanup, 
and pollution prevention programs.
    +$200,000 for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use 
Management (NESCAUM).
    +$2,500,000 for the National Alternative Fuels Training 
Consortium.
    +$1,500,000 for the Ecological and Water Resources 
Assessment Project.
    +$500,000 for the Valley Water Mill Watershed Education and 
Demonstration Center.
    +$175,000 for the Hypoxia Education and Stewardship 
Project.
    +$200,000 for the Sutherlin, Oregon Water Control 
District's Watershed Assessment Project.
    +$500,000 for the Kenai river Center in Kenai, Alaska.
    +$2,000,000 for Region 10 environmental compliance 
activities in Alaska.
    +$2,000,000 for the Coeur d'Alene Basin Commission to 
continue a pilot program for environmental response, natural 
resource restoration and related activities.
    +$1,500,000 for ORSANCO for the Ohio River Pollution 
Reduction Program.
    +$500,000 for the University of Southern Maine for 
environmental education activities.
    +$1,500,000 for the University of Louisville for the Stream 
Restoration Institute.
    +$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.
    +$1,000,000 to complete the full feasibility study/
environmental impact statement for the Medford, Oregon, 
effluent reuse project.
    Brownfields.--The Committee supports the request of 
$29,500,000 for Brownfields administrative costs, and has 
included bill language, as requested by the administration, to 
specify that funds in this account are available for these 
purposes. The Committee notes that this amount, coupled with 
the $170,500,000 provided in the State and Tribal Assistance 
Grants accounts, makes $200,000,000 available in fiscal year 
2003 for implementation of the Small Business Liability Relief 
and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002.
    Enforcement.--The Committee is deeply concerned that the 
Agency's implementation of fiscal year 2002 enforcement funding 
has been inconsistent with the Committee's direction. 
Specifically, the fiscal year 2002 VA-HUD conference report 
rejected proposed cuts to enforcement, and directed the Agency 
to restore enforcement funding in a manner consistent with the 
fiscal year 2001 operating plan. Instead, the Agency has 
redirected 30 civil enforcement FTE to the criminal enforcement 
program. The Agency asserts that the conference directive 
occurred prior to management's understanding of the full scope 
and role of the EPA's participation in criminal enforcement 
efforts associated with homeland security. The Committee 
recognizes and appreciates the vital investigative expertise of 
EPA's criminal enforcement program--that is why the Committee 
also provided an additional $6,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 
supplemental funds to assist the Agency's increased response to 
terrorism in the area of criminal investigations. Instead, the 
Agency has planned to spend this funding on other homeland 
security related priorities that the Committee did not intend 
to fund. The Committee maintains that any increase in criminal 
enforcement activities necessary should be funded through these 
additional supplemental funds, not at the expense of other 
important enforcement functions. Therefore, the Committee 
directs the Agency to halt the redirection of enforcement 
positions from civil to criminal activities, to restore civil 
enforcement funding to not less than the 2001 level, and to 
report to the Committee no later than October 3, 2002, on how 
the Agency has accomplished this directive. Additionally, the 
Committee is concerned about the vacancy rate in the Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance (OECA), where over 100 FTE positions 
are unfilled. The Committee directs the Agency to report by 
October 3, 2002, with an aggressive plan to fill and retain 
these vacancies.
    Chromated copper arsenate (CCA).--The Committee continues 
to be concerned about whether there are significant health and 
safety risks related to CCA-treated consumer products, 
including playground equipment, decks, picnic tables, walkways/
boardwalks, landscaping timers and fences. In a February 2002 
report required by the Committee, EPA informed the Committee 
that the Agency is currently conducting a risk assessment of 
CCA-treated consumer products. The Committee directs the Agency 
to accelerate the schedule for this risk assessment and to 
complete it by December 31, 2002. The Committee expects this 
assessment to include concrete findings and conclusions about 
whether there are significant health and safety risks of CCA-
treated wood products. The Committee also expects the 
assessment to include recommendations on ways to mitigate 
potential risks, and the Agency's plans to conduct public 
education to ensure that consumers, local governments, and 
school systems are aware of potential risks and ways to 
mitigate them.
    Food Quality Protection Act.--The Committee directs EPA to 
submit to Congress by December 31, 2002, a resource plan 
detailing the number of pesticide tolerance re-assessments and 
re-registrations required under FQPA, the number and kind of 
such activities completed since 1996, the status of the 
remaining activities, including the projected number to be 
completed year-by-year under FQPA, and the level of resources 
needed to meet these deadlines. In estimating resources, EPA 
should indicate the number of FTEs or contracted activities 
that would be required for these activities.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $34,019,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      35,325,000
Committee recommendation................................      35,325,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Inspector General (OIG) provides audit, 
evaluation, and investigation products and advisory services to 
improve the performance and integrity of EPA programs and 
operations.
    Trust fund resources are transferred to this account 
directly from the hazardous substance Superfund.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $35,325,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General, the same as the budget request and 
$1,306,000 above the fiscal year 2002 level. In addition, 
$12,742,000 will be available by transfer from the Superfund 
account, for a total of $48,067,000. The trust fund resources 
will be transferred to the inspector general ``General fund'' 
account with an expenditure transfer.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $25,318,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      42,918,000
Committee recommendation................................      42,918,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The appropriation for buildings and facilities at EPA 
covers the necessary maintenance, and 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 $42,918,000 for buildings and 
facilities, $17,600,000 above the fiscal year 2002 level and 
the same as the budget request.
    The Committee notes that with this appropriation, the 
Committee has provided a total of $49,000,000 account-wide in 
fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for EPA to better secure its offices 
and laboratory facilities. The Committee directs that by March 
31, 2002, the Agency supply an accounting of how these funds 
have provided a safer working environment for its employees. 
This report should include a description of activities 
undertaken at each office or facility.

                     HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002..................................\1\ $1,311,292,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   1,272,888,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,272,888,000

\1\ Includes $41,292,000 in fiscal year 2002 supplemental funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    On October 17, 1986, Congress amended the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 
[CERCLA] through the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 
Act of 1986 [SARA]. SARA reauthorized and expanded the 
Hazardous Substance Superfund to address the problems of 
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and spills. Specifically, 
the legislation mandates that EPA: (1) provide emergency 
response to hazardous waste spills; (2) take emergency action 
at hazardous waste sites that pose an imminent hazard to public 
health or environmentally sensitive ecosystems; (3) engage in 
long-term planning, remedial design, and construction to clean 
up hazardous waste sites where no financially viable 
responsible party can be found; (4) take enforcement actions to 
require responsible private and Federal parties to clean up 
hazardous waste sites; and (5) take enforcement actions to 
recover costs where the fund has been used for cleanup. Due to 
the site-specific nature of the Agency's Superfund program, 
site-specific travel is not considered part of the overall 
travel ceiling set for the Superfund account.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,272,888,000 for Superfund, 
equal to the budget request and $38,404,000 below the fiscal 
year 2002 enacted level including supplemental funding. The 
amount provided includes equal amounts of $636,444,000 from 
general revenues.
    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:
    +$25,000,000 for response, for a total response level of 
    $856,900,000.
    -$25,000,000 for building decontamination research. The 
    Committee commends EPA for its leadership role in anthrax 
    decontamination of the Capitol complex, and supports the 
    Agency's increased efforts in developing new technologies 
    to decontaminate buildings from future releases of chemical 
    and biological substances. However, the Committee is 
    concerned that the budget proposed to fund this initiative 
    at the expense of core Superfund cleanup activities. The 
    Committee notes that this reduction will result in a total 
    of $50,000,000 for EPA's building decontamination research 
    initiative for fiscal year 2003.
    The Committee does not recommend the past practice of 
delaying the availability of Superfund resources until later in 
the year.

              LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $73,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      72,313,000
Committee recommendation................................      72,313,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizations Act of 1986 
[SARA] established the leaking underground storage tank [LUST] 
trust fund to conduct corrective actions for releases from 
leaking underground storage tanks containing petroleum and 
other hazardous substances. EPA implements the LUST program 
through State cooperative agreement grants which enable States 
to conduct corrective actions to protect human health and the 
environment, and through non-State entities including Indian 
tribes under section 8001 of RCRA. The trust fund is also used 
to enforce responsible parties to finance corrective actions 
and to recover expended funds used to clean up abandoned tanks.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget request of $72,313,000 
for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, a decrease 
of $687,000 below the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The 
Committee directs that not less than 85 percent of these funds 
be provided to the States and tribal governments.

                           OIL SPILL RESPONSE

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      15,581,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,581,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation, authorized by the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act of 1987 and amended by the Oil Pollution 
Act of 1990, provides funds to prepare for and prevent releases 
of oil and other petroleum products in navigable waterways. 
Also EPA is reimbursed for incident specific response costs 
through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund managed by the 
United States Coast Guard. EPA is responsible for: directing 
all cleanup and removal activities posing a threat to public 
health and the environment; conducting site inspections, 
including compelling responsible parties to undertake cleanup 
actions; reviewing containment plans at facilities; reviewing 
area contingency plans; pursuing cost recovery of fund-financed 
cleanups; and conducting research of oil cleanup techniques. 
Funds for this appropriation are provided through the Oilspill 
Liability Trust Fund which is composed of fees and collections 
made through provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the 
Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act, the 
Deepwater Port Act of 1974, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
Act Amendments of 1978, and the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act as amended. Pursuant to law, the Trust Fund is managed by 
the United States Coast Guard.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $15,581,000 for the oil spill 
response trust fund, $581,000 above the fiscal year 2002 
enacted and the level budget request.

                   STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2002..................................\1\ $3,738,276,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   3,463,776,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,009,639,000

\1\ Includes $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 supplemental funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The ``State and tribal assistance grants'' account funds 
grants to support the State revolving fund programs; State, 
tribal, regional, and local environmental programs; and special 
projects to address critical water and waste water treatment 
needs.
    Included in this account are funds for the following 
infrastructure grant programs: Clean Water and Drinking Water 
State Revolving Funds; United States-Mexico Border Program; 
Alaska Native villages; and Brownfield assessment and 
revitalization grants.
    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, regional, 
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; (17) enforcement and 
compliance assurance; (18) BEACHS Protection grants (sec. 406 
of FWPCA as amended); and (19) PWSS State Counter-terrorism 
Coordinator grants; (20) Brownfields cleanup grants; (21) 
targeted watershed grants; and (22) pesticides enforcement. As 
with the case in past fiscal years, no reprogramming requests 
associated with States and Tribes applying for Performance 
Partnership Grants need to be submitted to the Committee for 
approval should such grants exceed the normal reprogramming 
limitations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,009,639,000 
for State and tribal assistance grants, an increase of 
$545,863,000 over the budget request and an increase of 
$271,363,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.
    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:
    +$238,000,000 for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan 
Fund, for a total of $1,450,000,000. This amount is 
$100,000,000 above the 2002 level.
    +$25,000,000 for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan 
Fund, for a total of $875,000,000. This amount is $25,000,000 
above the 2002 level.
    +$3,459,900 for Section 103 and 105 State and Local 
Assistance grants, for a total of $225,000,000.
    +$12,100,000 for the Section 106 State Pollution Control 
Grant Program, which includes support for State Total Maximum 
Daily Load programs, for a total program level of $192,477,000. 
This amount is equal to the 2002 level.
    +5,000,000 for Alaska Native Villages, for a total of 
$45,000,000.
    +$3,000,000 for remediation of above ground leaking fuel 
tanks in Alaska as authorized by Public Law 106-554.
    -$15,000,000 for State Multimedia Enforcement Grants. 
Instead, the Committee has recommended increased funding for 
Federal enforcement activities in the Environmental Programs 
and Management account.
    -$25,000,000 for Information Exchange Network grants. The 
Committee supports the Agency's efforts to build an internet-
based system that will enable environmental information 
exchanges among States, tribes, localities, the regulated 
community, the public and the Agency. In fiscal year 2002, the 
Committee provided $25,000,000 for these grants, which the 
Committee understands will be awarded late in fiscal year 2002 
and should be sufficient to cover State needs for fiscal year 
2003. Instead, the Committee has provided only the requested 
$20,157,000 in EPM for the Agency's component of the 
information integration project.
    -$8,000,000 for Homestake Mine.
    +$140,000,000 for special needs infrastructure grants. This 
amount, together with an additional $2,241,450 previously made 
available in fiscal year 2002, is to be allocated in the 
following manner:
    $885,000 for Washoe County, Nevada for the Spanish Valley 
    Nitrate Remediation Pilot Program;$875,000 for the Orleans 
    Parish Sewer and Water Board, New Orleans, Louisiana, for 
    an inflow and infiltration project;
    $875,000 for East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, for water 
    and wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $770,000 for the Mason County Public Utility District, 
    Washington to construct a wastewater and collection 
    facility in Hoodsport, Washington;
    $750,000 for the Village of Pomeroy, Ohio for the 
    construction of an iron and manganese removal water 
    treatment plant;
    $875,000 for the City of Lake Charles, Louisiana, for 
    wastewater treatment plant improvements;
    $2,000,000 for South and North Valley of Albuquerque and 
    Bernalillo County, New Mexico, for water and wastewater 
    treatment;
    $2,000,000 for San Antonio, Texas for water and sewer 
    improvements;
    $2,000,000 for Flowood, Mississippi for the Hogg Creek 
    Interceptor System;
    $1,850,000 for the City of Cynthiana, Kentucky for the 
    Cynthiana Water Treatment Plant;
    $1,800,000 for the Palmer, Alaska for a water main;
    $1,700,000 to Kansas City, Missouri for the water component 
    of the Beacon Hill Redevelopment Plan;
    $875,000 for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, for sewer 
    infrastructure improvements;
    $750,000 for the Village of Belmont, Ohio for the 
    construction of a wastewater treatment plant and collection 
    system;
    $750,000 for the County of Nassau, New York for water 
    quality infrastructure improvements at Nassau County Park 
    facilities;
    $750,000 for the City of Van Wert, Ohio for the expansion 
    of the reservoir;
    $750,000 for the City of Huntington Beach, California for 
    the Alabama Storm Drain project;
    $750,000 for the City of Compton, California, for a water 
    well replacement project;
    $750,000 for the City of Centerville, South Dakota, for 
    drinking water infrastructure improvements;
    $575,000 for the Alabama Rural Utilities Authority for 
    remedial on-site and collective wastewater treatment 
    systems in Lowndes County, Alabama;
    $550,000 for the State of Hawaii Health Department, for 
    cesspool system replacement;
    $550,000 for the City of Hood River, Oregon, drinking water 
    infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 to Dudley, Missouri for the City Water Expansion 
    Project;
    $500,000 for Wrangell, Alaska for sewer expansion;
    $1,000,000 for the Town of Bridgeville, Delaware, for 
    wastewater treatment plant improvements;
    $1,000,000 for the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe in Agency 
    Village, South Dakota, for the expansion of the Brown 
    Marshall Day Water System;
    $1,000,000 for the Mount Pleasant Waterworks Commission, 
    South Carolina, for the Snowden Community Wastewater 
    Collection Project;
    $1,000,000 for the Fairbanks City, Alaska sewer and storm 
    drain connection;
    $1,000,000 for the Coolin Sewer District in Idaho for a 
    wastewater facility upgrade project;
    $500,000 for Vinalhaven, Maine for its sewer system;
    $500,000 for Vigo County, Indiana for the Sugar Creek 
    Township Sanitary Sewer Project;
    $500,000 for the Village of Port Byron, Illinois for 
    drinking water improvements;
    $500,000 for the Township of Vernon, New Jersey, for 
    wastewater improvement;
    $500,000 for the Town of Robbins, North Carolina, for water 
    treatment plant improvements;
    $500,000 for the Town of Coventry, Rhode Island, for 
    drinking water infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for the Northeast Public Sewer District, Missouri 
    for the Old Highway 141 Collection System;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Akron, Ohio for sewer 
    infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for Meridian, Mississippi for wastewater 
    improvements;
    $1,000,000 for Jackson, Mississippi for water 
    infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for Great Falls, Montana for the upper and lower 
    river road;
    $1,000,000 for Fayette, Mississippi for Jefferson County 
    water and sewer improvements project;
    $500,000 for the Kodiak, Alaska for water and sewer 
    upgrades;
    $500,000 for the Holland Regional Water System in 
    Effingham, Illinois for a water treatment facility to 
    improve regional drinking water;
    $500,000 for the Glaize Creek Public Sewer District, 
    Missouri for the Barnhart Subdivisions Project;
    $500,000 for the Fairfax County Water Authority for 
    infrastructure enhancements;
    $500,000 for the City of Wilmington, Illinois to develop a 
    new wastewater facility;
    $500,000 for the City of Whittier, California, for water 
    and sewer infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of West Liberty, Iowa, for wastewater 
    treatment improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of Shelton, Washington for design and 
    construction of the Shelton Area Regional Water and Sewer 
    Project;
    $500,000 for the City of Sacramento, California, for 
    Combined Sewer System Improvement and Rehabilitation 
    Project;
    $500,000 for the City of Pevely, Missouri, for wastewater 
    treatment plant improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of Omaha, Nebraska, for sewer 
    separation construction;
    $500,000 for the City of Moline, Illinois for drinking 
    water improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of Middletown, New York for the City 
    of Middletown Filtration Plant;
    $500,000 for the City of Huron, South Dakota, for drinking 
    water infrastructure improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of Georgetown, Illinois for drinking 
    water improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of Gallup, New Mexico, for wastewater 
    treatment plant improvements and upgrades;
    $500,000 for the City of Galena, Illinois to expand and 
    improve wastewater facilities;
    $500,000 for the City of Flint, Michigan to upgrade the 
    Pierson Road water main system;
    $500,000 for the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas for 
    regional wastewater system improvements;
    $500,000 for the City of Eureka, California, for the Martin 
    Slough Interceptor project;
    $500,000 for the City of Alexandria, Virginia for 
    wastewater treatment facility upgrades;
    $500,000 for the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii, for 
    wastewater treatment technologies;
    $500,000 for Sumiton, Alabama for the Sumiton Sanitary 
    Sewer System;
    $500,000 for Saco, Maine for its sewer system; $500,000 for 
    Latimer, Kansas for a pipeline project;
    $500,000 for Lake County, California, for the Clear Lake 
    Basin 2000 project;
    $500,000 for Box Elder, South Dakota, for water and 
    wastewater system improvements;
    $500,000 for Berry, Alabama for the construction of a new 
    sanitary wastewater lagoon system;
    $500,000 for Augusta, Maine for its sewer system;
    $500,000 for a water supply project in Guin, Alabama;
    $450,000 to Bolivar, Missouri for the Bolivar Industrial 
    Park Sewer and Water System;
    $450,000 for Talladega, Alabama for county water supply 
    facilities upgrades and construction;
    $400,000 for the City of Deadwood, South Dakota, for a 
    drinking water extension project;
    $400,000 for Mountain Village, Colorado for water 
    infrastructure investment;
    $4,000,000 for Baltimore City, Maryland, for sewer 
    infrastructure improvements;
    $350,000 to Warrenton, Missouri for the Warrenton 
    Industrial Park Lift Station;
    $350,000 for the Community of Dakota Dunes, South Dakota, 
    for a drinking water infrastructure connection project;
    $325,000 for the Town of Notasulga, Alabama for the 
    Notasulga Wastewater System;
    $300,000 for Tillamook, Oregon for infrastructure;
    $300,000 for the Albany-Millersburg Joint Water Project in 
    Oregon;
    $300,000 for Muscle Shoals, Alabama for a wastewater 
    project;
    $300,000 for Mountain Village, Colorado for remediation of 
    above-ground storage tanks;
    $250,000 to Warrensburg, Missouri for the water component 
    of the Warrensburg Downtown Revitalization Project;
    $250,000 for the Wahkiakum County Public Utility District, 
    Washington for the Puget Island Drinking Water Project;
    $250,000 for the United Water Conservation District of 
    Ventura County, California, for the Oxnard Plain 
    Groundwater Recharge Project;
    $250,000 for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management 
    Commission, Eugene and Springfield, Oregon, drinking and 
    wastewater improvements;
    $250,000 for the Community Water System Public Water 
    Authority of Arkansas in Lonoke and White Counties for the 
    Green Ferry drinking water project;
    $250,000 for the City of St. George, Utah for water and 
    sewer line extensions;
    $250,000 for the City of South Salt Lake, Utah for water 
    infrastructure improvements;
    $250,000 for the City of Filer, Idaho for a new drinking 
    water system;
    $250,000 for Park City, Utah for the Judge Tunnel Water 
    Treatment Facility;
    $200,000 for Eva, Alabama for a sewer system project;
    $2,500,000 for the Narragansett Bay Commission in 
    Providence and other Bay communities in Rhode Island for 
    sewer infrastructure improvements;
    $2,500,000 for the City of Mason City, Iowa, for the 
    Municipal Water System Radium Removal Project;
    $2,500,000 for Monticello, Utah for a primary water supply 
    pipeline;
    $2,000,000 to Joplin, Missouri for the Crossroads Relief 
    Sewer #2 and Sewer Extension Project;
    $2,000,000 for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration 
    Program, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania to fund several 
    innovative demonstration projects in municipalities in the 
    greater Pittsburgh area to plan, design, and construct 
    projects to eliminate separate sewer overflows;
    $2,000,000 for the Maryland Department of Environment for 
    Woodland Village sewer and water improvements;
    $2,000,000 for the City of Park River, North Dakota for the 
    Park River Water System Improvements;
    $2,000,000 for the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the 
    Central Metropolitan Interceptor Improvement Project;
    $2,000,000 for the City of Atlanta, Georgia for the Nancy 
    Creek sewer infrastructure improvement project;
    $1,700,000 for the Chittenden Water District, Vermont, for 
    wastewater system improvements;
    $1,700,000 for Rico, Colorado for a wastewater treatment 
    plant;
    $1,650,000 for the Town of Klickitat, Washington, to 
    construct a new wastewater water treatment facility;
    $1,600,000 for Brownsville District Sewer Development, 
    Colorado for water and wastewater investments;
    $1,500,000 to Monett, Missouri for the Monett Sewer 
    Treatment Plant Upgrade;
    $1,500,000 for the Town of Warren, Vermont, for wastewater 
    treatment facility upgrades;
    $1,500,000 for the City of Safford, Arizona for wastewater 
    treatment plant construction;
    $1,500,000 for the City of Norman, Oklahoma for wastewater 
    system improvements;
    $1,500,000 for the City of Lead, South Dakota, for water 
    and wastewater system improvements;
    $1,500,000 for the City of Franklin, Tennessee for water 
    quality improvements;
    $1,500,000 for the City of Conrad, Montana for a wastewater 
    and drinking water project;
    $1,500,000 for the City of Belgrade, Montana, for 
    wastewater treatment;
    $1,500,000 for the Camden County Municipal Authority, New 
    Jersey, for sewer infrastructure improvements;
    $1,500,000 for Nacogdoches, Texas for the development of a 
    water and sewer drainage system;
    $1,500,000 for Missoula, Montana for the Mullan Road 
    Corridor Project;
    $1,300,000 for the Town of Richmond, Vermont, for 
    wastewater treatment facility upgrades;
    $1,250,000 for South Florida Water Management District Tri-
    County (Palm Beach, Martin and St. Lucie Counties) 
    Biosolids Project;
    $1,250,000 for Eastern Orange and Seminole Counties, 
    Florida, for the Regional Reuse Project;
    $1,200,000 for the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility 
    for the development of a water and sewer facility in 
    Anchorage, Alaska;
    $1,100,000 for the City of Fallon, Nevada, for construction 
    of an arsenic treatment facility;
    $1,000,000 to the Eastern Snyder County Regional Authority 
    in Pennsylvania to upgrade its wastewater treatment plant, 
    including replacing equipment, improving the treatment 
    system, and installing new technology for nutrient removal, 
    in order to improve the water quality of the Chesapeake 
    Bay;
    $700,000 for Virgin Valley Water District, Mesquite, 
    Nevada, for construction of an arsenic treatment facility;
    $1,000,000 for Upper Allen Township, Cumberland County, 
    Pennsylvania to increase sewer treatment capacity by 
    repairing inflow and infiltration problems in older 
    sections of the collection system, divert sewage to a 
    treatment plant, and install new sanitary sewer collection 
    system extensions to replace malfunctioning on-lot disposal 
    systems;
    $1,000,000 for the Wasilla, Alaska for water and sewer 
    improvements;
    $1,000,000 for the Town of Harrington, Delaware, for 
    wastewater treatment plant improvements;
    $1,000,000 for the Connecticut River Clean-Up Coalition in 
    West Springfield, Massachusetts, for combined sewer 
    overflow improvements;
    $1,000,000 for the Commission of Public Works of the City 
    of Charleston, South Carolina, for wastewater tunnel 
    replacement;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Saginaw, Michigan, for sewer 
    infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Racine, Wisconsin for the Racine 
    Advanced Water Treatment System;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Port Huron, Michigan, for sewer 
    infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for the City of New Britain, Connecticut for the 
    New Britain Water Filtration Replacement Project;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Nashua, New Hampshire to upgrade 
    the waste water treatment system;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Manchester, New Hampshire to 
    assist in the water treatment plant upgrade and renovation;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Greenville, South Carolina, for 
    water and sewer infrastructure related to the Greenline-
    Spartanburg Neighborhood Redevelopment Project;
    $750,000 for the City of Bancroft, Idaho for water system 
    upgrades;
    $750,000 for Morrison, Ohio for a sanitary sewer collection 
    system;
    $750,000 for Blanding, Utah for the Blanding water 
    conveyance tunnel;
    $300,000 for the City of Las Vegas, Nevada, sewer 
    replacement project;
    $650,000 for the City of Sebree, Kentucky for the City of 
    Sebree Sewer project,
    $650,000 for Autauga County, Alabama for a sewer 
    infrastructure construction project;
    $600,000 for the Gold Hill, Oregon for a water intake 
    relocation project;
    $580,000 for the City of Richland, Washington, for 
    wastewater infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Grafton, North Dakota for the 
    Grafton Water Treatment Plant Improvement;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Espanola, New Mexico for water 
    and wastewater treatment;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Clay, Kentucky for the Clay 
    Sewer project;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Burley, Idaho for improvements 
    to the wastewater treatment system;
    $1,000,000 for the City of Berlin, New Hampshire to assist 
    in construction of water delivery infrastructure;
    $1,000,000 for Eastern Calhoun County, Michigan, for 
    regional wastewater treatment infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for Corinna, Maine for its sewer system;
    $1,000,000 for Bristol County, Massachusetts, for sewer 
    infrastructure improvements;
    $1,000,000 for Alamogordo, New Mexico for the Alamogordo 
    Regional Desalination Project.
    Of the amount provided for high priority water and 
wastewater facilities in the area of the United States-Mexico 
border, the Committee intends $4,000,000 for the El Paso-Las 
Cruces Sustainable Water Project and $2,000,000 for the 
Brownsville water supply project.
    EPA is to work with the grant recipients on appropriate 
cost-share arrangements consistent with past practice.
    In addition, the Committee recommends the budget request 
for the following programs: BEACH grants ($10,000,000); Section 
319 non-point source pollution grants ($238,476,800); United 
States-Mexico Border ($75,000,000); the Indian General 
Assistance Program ($57,469,700); and Brownfields 
infrastructure projects and grants ($170,500,000). The 
Committee notes that this amount, along with $29,500,000 
provided in the Environmental Programs and Management account, 
brings total funding for Brownfields activities to $200,000,000 
for fiscal year 2003.
    The Committee has included bill language, as carried in 
previous appropriations acts, to clarify that drinking water 
health effects studies are to be funded through the science and 
technology account.
    The Committee has also included bill language, as requested 
by the administration and as carried in previous appropriations 
acts, to: (1) extend for an additional year the authority for 
States to transfer funds between the Clean Water SRF and the 
Drinking Water SRF; (2) waive the 1.5 percent cap on the Tribal 
set aside from non-point source grants; (3) increase to 1.5 
percent the cap on the Tribal set-aside for the Clean Water 
SRF; and (4) require that any funds provided to address the 
water infrastructure needs of colonias within the United States 
along the United States-Mexico border be spent only in areas 
where the local governmental entity has established an 
enforceable ordinance or rule which prevents additional 
development within colonias that lacks water, wastewater, or 
other necessary infrastructure.
    Finally, the Committee has included bill language making a 
technical correction to a grant provided to the City of Welch, 
West Virginia, in fiscal year 2000.

                       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

    Cooperative Agreements with Tribes.--The Committee has 
included bill language, as proposed in the budget request and 
as carried in previous appropriations acts, permitting EPA, in 
carrying out environmental programs required or authorized by 
law in the absence of an acceptable tribal program, to use 
cooperative agreements with federally-recognized tribes and 
inter-tribal consortia.
    Pesticide Tolerance Processing Fees.--The Committee has 
included a provision prohibiting the Agency from collecting 
pesticide tolerance processing fees as envisioned in the 
proposed rule issued on June 9, 1999. The budget request 
assumes that in 2003, EPA will have available to spend 
approximately $25,000,000 in both retroactive and current fees 
based on this proposed rule. However, the Committee notes that 
the conference agreement on the Farm Bill (H. Rpt. 107-424, 
page 666) questioned the legal basis of this proposed rule, and 
strongly encouraged the EPA to withdraw the proposed rule and 
work with the appropriate House and Senate oversight Committees 
to develop comprehensive pesticide user fee legislation. 
Because of this lack of consensus on the tolerance processing 
fee, the Committee believes it would be irresponsible to assume 
the availability of any funding for the Agency under this 
proposed rule, as the budget request does. Furthermore, the 
Committee believes that making such an assumption would leave 
the Agency without sufficient funding to run its pesticides 
programs, which would ultimately result in reductions to other 
important core environmental activities to pay the 
approximately 200 FTE in the pesticides programs. Therefore, to 
ensure that that Agency has sufficient funding to run its 
pesticide programs, the Committee has also included provisions 
to extend the pesticide maintenance fee for an additional year, 
including the collection of up to $23,200,000 for operation of 
the registration, re-registration, and tolerance assessment 
programs. The Committee notes that these provisions are similar 
to provisions included in the fiscal year 2002 VA-HUD 
conference agreement. Furthermore, the Committee stresses that 
it recommends these actions for one additional year only in 
order to allow for the development of a consensus proposal for 
all pesticide fees, and notes that it has directed the Agency 
to issue a final pesticide tolerance processing fee rule, 
exclusive of retroactivity, no later than September 30, 2003. 
The Committee expects these issues to be resolved for the 
fiscal year 2004 budget cycle, and does not intend to include 
this or any similar stop-gap measure as part of the fiscal year 
2004 bill.

                   Executive Office of the President

                OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $5,267,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       5,368,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,368,000

                          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 the budget request of $5,368,000 
for the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This 
represents an increase of $101,000 or 1.9 percent over the 
fiscal year 2002 level.
    The Committee supports the administration's interagency 
initiatives in nanoscience and engineering and information 
technology research. These are cutting-edge interagency 
programs that are important for the long term health of the 
Nation. In the area of nanotechnology, the National Academy of 
Sciences has made a number of recommendations that would 
strengthen the interagency National Nanotechnology Initiative 
(NNI). The Committee urges OSTP to give serious consideration 
to the Academy's recommendations. The Committee is particularly 
supportive of the recommendation for an independent advisory 
council, modeled after the one used for the information 
technology initiative. The Committee views such outside advice 
as vital to help focus the interagency program on critically 
important challenges. The Committee also supports the 
recommendation calling for increased interagency investments in 
areas related to nanotechnology and the life sciences. It is 
already apparent that applications of nanotechnology can have 
significant impacts in disease diagnosis and treatment. 
Accordingly, the Committee calls on OSTP to ensure the active 
participation of the National Institutes of Health in this 
interagency research initiative.
    The Committee is concerned with recent changes made in the 
administration's interagency global change research program. It 
is vital this interagency program be based on a broad, well-
balanced research agenda, focused on both short-term and long-
term needs and questions, and implemented using an open peer 
review process to ensure scientific excellence. The Committee 
believes that the Science Advisor must play the lead role in 
the Federal Government's global environmental research program 
to ensure scientific excellence is maintained. OSTP is 
requested to provide the Committee with a progress report on 
this matter by February 3, 2003.
    The Committee believes that the deployment of next-
generation broadband networking infrastructure will stimulate 
cutting edge research activities, create jobs, increase 
productivity, and improve our quality of life. With appropriate 
support from the Federal Government, the research community can 
develop innovative last-mile technologies, cutting-edge, high-
bandwidth applications such as telepresence, and advances in 
wide-area networking technologies. The Committee urges OSTP to 
expeditiously re-establish the Presidential Information 
Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC), and as part of their 
work, request PITAC to develop a proposal to support research 
into applications that will stimulate and promote ubiquitous 
broadband deployment.
    The Committee remains concerned about the balance among 
fields in the Federal research portfolio, particularly as it 
relates to the physical sciences and engineering. Advances in 
the biomedical area are dependent on progress in such areas as 
physics, chemistry, electrical engineering, and chemical 
engineering. However, progress in these fields is being 
hindered by funding shortfalls. Therefore, the Committee 
directs the Science Advisor, in conjunction with the 
Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 
(PCAST), to develop an action plan to address this issue as a 
part of the fiscal year 2004 budget proposal.
    The Committee is concerned that too few U.S. students are 
pursuing undergraduate and advanced degrees in science and 
engineering to meet the Nation's workforce needs. The Committee 
recognizes that for advanced education to be effective, it must 
be pursued at colleges and universities with active research 
programs. The NSF, NASA, and other agencies are in a unique 
position to help ensure that our universities are well 
positioned to meet the Nation's needs. The Committee believes 
that an overarching Federal strategy should be developed. OSTP, 
in cooperation with the National Science and Technology Council 
(NSTC) and the Nation's colleges and universities, is urged to 
develop a comprehensive strategy to increase the number of 
students pursuing degrees in science and engineering. The plan 
should include means to increase the number of university 
research and educational groups, to increase the number of new, 
young faculty; to build cooperative relationships between 
universities and the various Federal agencies; and means for 
attracting and supporting undergraduate and graduate students. 
The plan should be submitted to the Committee by March 15, 
2003.
    In Senate Report 107-43, the Committee directed OSTP to 
develop an interagency plan for the implementation of an 
integrated ocean observing system. The Committee notes that 
efforts are underway to develop such a plan, but it has not yet 
been completed. The Committee expects that this interagency 
oceans observatories plan will be completed and submitted by 
the time the President's fiscal year 2004 is released.

  Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $2,974,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       3,031,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,031,000

                          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 $3,031,000 for the Council on 
Environmental Quality, an increase of $57,000 above the fiscal 
year 2002 enacted level and equal to the budget request.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $33,660,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      30,848,000
Committee recommendation................................      30,848,000

                          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 $30,848,000 for the FDIC inspector 
general, $2,812,000 less than the 2002 enacted level and the 
same as the budget request. Funds are to be derived by transfer 
from the bank insurance fund, the savings association insurance 
fund, and the FSLIC resolution fund.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency

Appropriations, 2002....................................  $7,555,546,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   6,441,846,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,435,560,000

                          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 $4,435,560,000 for the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. This appropriation provides 
funding for disaster relief, emergency management planning, 
emergency food and shelter and the Inspector General.

                            DISASTER RELIEF

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002....................................  $6,520,871,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   1,842,843,000
Committee recommendation...............................\1\ 1,842,843,000

\1\ Includes $1,500,000,000 as a contingent emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 has provided $1,842,843,000 for FEMA disaster 
relief, the same as the budget request. However, the Committee 
has designated $1,500,000,000 of the amount as an emergency.

            disaster assistance direct loan program account

                      (LIMITATION ON DIRECT LOANS)

                            STATE SHARE LOAN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Program     Administrative
                                              account        expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002....................        $405,000        $543,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................  ..............         557,000
Committee recommendation................  ..............         557,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 $557,000 in 
administrative expenses.

                 NATIONAL PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION FUND

Appropriations, 2002....................................................
Budget estimate, 2003...................................    $300,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

                          GENERAL DESCRIPTION

    This account supports the new grant program for pre-
disaster mitigation. Grants are available through a competitive 
process to eligible States and local jurisdictions to reduce 
the risk of future damage in hazard areas and to ultimately 
reduce the future needs for Federal disaster assistance by 
encouraging the building of an environment increasingly 
resistant to the effects of natural hazards.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for pre-disaster 
mitigation. This is $275,000,000 below the budget request and 
$25,000,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $266,114,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     239,690,000
Committee recommendation................................     239,690,000

                          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, intergovernmental, 
international, and media affairs, and financial and personnel 
management, as well as the management of the Agency's 
facilities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $239,690,000 for FEMA salaries and 
expenses. This is equal to the request and a decrease of 
$26,424,000 from the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $10,303,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      11,549,000
Committee recommendation................................      17,754,000

                          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 $17,754,000 for the Office of the 
Inspector General, an increase of $7,451,000 above the fiscal 
year 2002 enacted level.
    Bill language has been retained which authorizes the FEMA 
Inspector General to serve also as the IG for the Chemical 
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
    The Committee has included funding for FEMA to continue to 
undertake new initiatives to enhance State and local terrorism 
preparedness and to improve disaster prevention strategies as a 
response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. 
Consequently, additional funds have been recommended to enable 
the OIG to acquire the necessary staffing and contract support 
services for the audit, investigation, and inspection of these 
new initiatives.

              EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $617,310,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   3,747,214,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,747,214,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The emergency management planning and assistance 
appropriation provides resources for the following activities: 
readiness, response, and recovery; information technology 
services; fire prevention and training; national preparedness; 
policy and regional operations; mitigation programs; and 
executive direction.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,747,214,000 for emergency 
management planning and assistance. This is an increase of 
$1,129,904,000 above the fiscal year 2002 level and 
$2,000,000,000 below the request.
    The Committee has provided $1,747,214,000 for emergency 
management planning and assistance. Of this amount, 
$900,000,000 is for the fire grant program; $180,000,000 is for 
interoperable communications equipment for firefighters and EMS 
personnel; $75,000,000 is for Urban Search and Rescue Teams; 
$75,000,000 is for State and local emergency planning grants; 
$180,000,000 is for emergency operations centers; $15,000,000 
is for mutual aid; $60,000,000 is for emergency responder 
training; $15,000,000 is for the CERT program; and 
$1,100,000,000 is for security clearances for State and local 
emergency management personnel.
    Fire Grants.--The Committee has provided $900,000,000 for 
the fire grant program, the fully authorized level. This amount 
is $540,000,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The 
Committee has provided the fully authorized level of funding 
for the fire grant program to provide the maximum level of 
funding directly to the Nation's firefighters. The Committee 
notes that FEMA has done an exemplary job in administering the 
program by obligating almost all of the funds within 1 year.
    Interoperable Communications Equipment.--The Committee has 
provided $180,000,000 for grants to firefighters and related 
emergency medical services for interoperable communications 
equipment. The Committee urges that grants under this program 
be used to purchase cost effective solutions which allow 
entities to make existing communications interoperable such as 
cross band repeaters, frequency band patching and other network 
level solutions. In addition, equipment provided under these 
programs should be compatible with public safety analog ANSI/
TIA-603 and/or digital radio ANSI/TIA-102 Standards.
    Emergency Operations Centers.--The Committee has included 
$180,000,000 for grants to State emergency operations centers. 
The Committee is aware that many State and local emergency 
operation centers are in need of physical and technical 
improvements to enable them to provide an effective command and 
control structure in response to large catastrophic disasters 
as well as acts of terrorism.
    Search and Rescue Teams.--The Committee has included 
$75,000,000 to upgrade all 28 existing search and rescue teams 
to ensure that each team has the necessary equipment to respond 
to any disaster including weapons of mass destruction.
    State and Local Planning Grants.--The Committee has 
provided $75,000,000 for grants to States to upgrade their 
State and local emergency operations plans. This funding is 
provided to ensure that State and local emergency operations 
plans cover all hazards including natural disasters and weapons 
of mass destruction. The Committee urges FEMA to work with the 
Office of Domestic Preparedness to ensure coordination at the 
State and local level.
    Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT).--The Committee 
has included the budget request of $15,000,000 for CERT.
    Emergency Responder Training.--The Committee has provided 
$60,000,000 for emergency responder training. FEMA offers 
training to local first responders through the U.S. Fire 
Administration and other institutions to provide first 
responders with new and improved training procedures and 
management expertise.
    Mutual Aid.--The Committee has included $15,000,000 to help 
initiate mutual aid agreements among State and local 
governments to maximize local resources in the event of a 
natural disaster or an act of terrorism.
    First Responder Training.--The Committee commends the 
Nation's first responders for their dedicated service to their 
communities in times of natural or man-made disasters. In 1996, 
Congress first recognized the potential for terrorist attacks 
using weapons of mass destruction with the creation of the 
Nunn-Lugar-Domenici program to train first responders in 120 
major U.S. cities. Department of Justice programs continue to 
prepare first responders for potential terrorist attacks. In 
addition, FEMA has longstanding experience in consequence 
management as the primary Federal agency with responsibility 
for responding to natural and man-made disasters. As the 
Congress considers establishing a new Department of Homeland 
Security, the Committee urges that priority be given to 
maintaining comprehensive and coordinated training programs to 
best serve our first responders and all America.
    In addition, the Committee has included transfer authority 
of up to 5 percent of the amounts made available for both the 
fire grant program and for the urban search and rescue task 
force assistance program (USAR program) for salaries and 
expenses for the administrative costs associated with these 
programs. Each program is to be independently administered at 
the Fire Academy in Emmittsburg, Maryland. In addition, FEMA is 
directed to administer the new USAR program as a competitive 
grants program designed to fund fully all training and 
equipment needs of the existing 28 USAR task forces as well as 
the administrative costs of these teams. FEMA is expected to 
issue interim regulations for the USAR program that are 
published in the Federal Register no later than January 15, 
2003.

                RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND

    The Radiological Emergency Preparedness [REP] Program 
assists State and local governments in the development of 
offsite radiological 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 2003 
are $347,000.

                   EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $140,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003................................... \1\ 153,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     153,000,000

\1\ The fiscal year 2003 budget request proposed to transfer this 
program to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Emergency Food and Shelter Program originated as a one-
time emergency appropriation to combat the effects of high 
unemployment in the emergency jobs bill (Public Law 98-8) which 
was enacted in March 1983. It was authorized under title III of 
the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, Public 
Law 100-177.
    The program has been 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 fiscal year 2003 budget request proposed the transfer 
of Emergency Food and Shelter program to the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development. The Committee did not agree with 
this proposal and has decided to retain the program within 
FEMA. The Committee recommends $153,000,000 for the Emergency 
Food and Shelter Program, the same as the budget request.

                      FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND

Appropriations, 2002....................................................
Budget estimate, 2003...................................    $300,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     300,000,000

                          GENERAL DESCRIPTION

    This program provides funds to modernize and digitize 
FEMA's inventory of over 100,000 flood maps. These flood maps 
are used to determine appropriate risk-based premium rates for 
the National Flood Insurance Program, complete hazard 
determinations required for the Nation's lending institutions, 
and to develop appropriate disaster response plans for Federal, 
State, and local emergency management personnel.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided the budget request of 
$300,000,000 for floodplain map modernization.
    Floodplain mapping, including both new mapping as well as 
updates of existing floodplain maps, is critical to successful 
community planning for purposes of mitigation and risk of loss 
associated with flooding. Unfortunately, much of the floodplain 
mapping throughout the Nation is out of date and in many cases 
obsolete. This new program will allow FEMA to move forward in 
meeting these floodplain mapping needs.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER 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 2003, 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 
flood-prone 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 new construction.
    The Committee remains very concerned that FEMA has not 
taken the necessary steps to ensure the success of the National 
Flood Insurance program. In particular, participation in the 
National Flood Insurance is very low in many areas of the 
country vulnerable to flooding, including areas which have been 
damaged in the recent past by extreme flooding. In addition, 
without increased participation, the flood insurance program 
will continue to suffer large financial losses that cannot be 
sustained by premiums and are covered instead by borrowing from 
the United States Treasury. The Committee believes that much of 
the problem of low participation is the result of inattention 
to the National Flood Insurance program by FEMA, including 
decisions that are inconsistent with program requirements and 
good policy. In particular, the Committee expects FEMA to 
require all homeowners to obtain flood insurance if they have 
received assistance in replacing, repairing or restoring 
property damaged by flooding. Consistent with section 532 of 
the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, FEMA is 
expected to deny flood disaster assistance, including buyout 
assistance, to any homeowner that has failed to obtain or 
maintain flood insurance as required by this section.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has included bill language, providing up to 
$32,393,000 for administrative costs from the Flood Insurance 
Program for salaries and expenses. The Committee has also 
included bill language providing up to $77,666,000 for flood 
mitigation activities including up to $20,000,000 for expenses 
under section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act.

                     NATIONAL FLOOD MITIGATION FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Through fee-generated funds transferred from the National 
Flood Insurance Fund, this fund supports 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 
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 FUND

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $7,276,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      12,541,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,000,000

                          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 services. To 
accomplish this mission, contractual services are used 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 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.
    During fiscal year 2002, FCIC became a critical part of 
GSA's newly established Office of Citizen Services and 
Communications which brings together all of GSA's citizen-
centered programs. The new Office will serve as a central 
Federal gateway for citizens, businesses, other governments, 
and the media to easily obtain information and services from 
the government. Under this new organization, FCIC remains 
committed to its consumer information outreach mission mandate 
but adds additional channels to broaden its scope to provide 
all citizens with access to the information and services 
available from government. FCIC assumed operational control of 
the FirstGov.gov website and plans to begin accepting e-mail 
and fax inquiries from the public in fiscal year 2003.
    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 $15,000,000 for the Federal 
Consumer Information Center, an increase of $5,265,000 above 
the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. This increase is provided 
to enable FCIC to begin accepting and responding to e-mail and 
fax inquires from the public in fiscal year 2003.
    The appropriation will be augmented by a projected $556,000 
reimbursements from Federal agencies for distribution of 
consumer publications, user fees from the public, and other 
income. FCIC's anticipated resources for fiscal year 2003 will 
total approximately $15,556,000.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Appropriations, 2002

                                                         $14,901,600,000

Budget estimate, 2003

                                                          15,000,000,000

Committee recommendation

                                                          15,200,000,000

                          GENERAL DESCRIPTION

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 
1958 to conduct space and aeronautical research, development, 
and flight activities for peaceful purposes designed to 
maintain U.S. preeminence in aeronautics and space. NASA's 
unique mission of exploration, discovery, and innovation is 
intended to preserve the United States' role as both a leader 
in world aviation and as the pre-eminent space-faring nation. 
It is NASA's mission to: advance human exploration, use and 
development of space; advance and communicate scientific 
knowledge and understanding of the Earth, the Solar System and 
the Universe; and research, develop, verify and transfer 
advanced aeronautics and space technologies.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $15,200,000,000 for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2003, an 
increase of $200,000,000 above the budget request and 
$298,400,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.
    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, 2002....................................  $6,830,100,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   6,130,900,000
Committee recommendation................................   6,130,900,000

                          GENERAL DESCRIPTION

    NASA's ``Human Space Flight'' account provides for human 
space flight activities, and for safety, mission assurance and 
engineering activities supporting the Agency. The HSF 
activities are centered around the operation of the Space 
Shuttle as well as high priority investments to improve the 
safety of the Space Shuttle and required construction projects 
in direct support of the Space Station and Space Shuttle 
programs. This appropriation also provides for: salaries and 
related expenses (including travel); design, repair, 
rehabilitation, and modification of facilities and construction 
of new facilities; maintenance and operation of facilities; and 
other operations activities supporting human space flight 
programs; and space operations, safety, mission assurance and 
engineering activities that support the Agency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided $6,130,900,000 for the Human 
Space Flight account. This amount is the same amount as the 
President's request for these activities in fiscal year 2003.
    Space Station.--The Committee has provided $1,492,100,000 
for the International Space Station (ISS), the same as the 
budget request. This funding level will continue assembly 
missions through U.S. Core Complete (Flight 10A), currently 
planned for calendar year 2004, and support early research 
commensurate with the build-up of on-orbit utilization 
capabilities.
    In previous years, the Committee has criticized NASA's 
management of the ISS program. The lack of credible budget 
estimates, program mismanagement and the absence of any 
credible oversight forced the Committee to cut funding and 
impose cost caps on the program. Despite these actions by 
Congress, NASA was unable to correct the underlying problems 
associated with the program. In 2001, NASA announced that the 
ISS would require an additional $4,800,000,000 over previous 
estimates to complete the ISS, as planned.
    As a result of these cost overruns, NASA and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) eliminated certain program elements 
to reduce cost and provide additional time to re-scope the ISS 
with the international partners. In addition, NASA created an 
independent assessment team known as the ISS Management and 
Cost Evaluation (IMCE) Task Force to evaluate program 
management. The Committee supports the recommendations of the 
(IMCE) Task Force and the development of a Cost Analysis 
Requirements Document (CARD) to support cost estimates of the 
U.S. Core Complete baseline. Furthermore, the Committee notes 
the agency's intention to develop an integrated management 
action plan based on recommendations of the IMCE Task Force. 
The Committee fully supports this approach in order to provide 
the Congress with reliable cost estimates for the U.S. Core 
Complete and beyond.
    In addition, the Committee supports the recommendations of 
the Research Maximization and Prioritization Task Force (REMAP) 
as it pertains to ISS research. The Committee views the Task 
Force report as the foundation upon which the OBPR sets ISS 
research priorities and its organizational structure. The 
Committee notes that a final report on the REMAP 
recommendations is to be provided by the NASA Advisory Council 
during the third quarter of calendar year 2002. Given the 
importance of the REMAP report to the future of the ISS and the 
agency's overall research agenda, the Committee directs the 
Administrator to report to the Committees on Appropriations by 
December 1, 2001 on the implementation of the REMAP 
recommendations in relation to the ISS as well as the overall 
structure of the OBPR.
    The Committee remains concerned about Russia's continued 
policy of selling time on the ISS for tourists, especially 
since the guiding purpose for the construction of the ISS was 
to have a world class microgravity research platform, a goal 
which is still far away. The Committee urges NASA to strictly 
enforce the protocols developed in cooperation with the 
international partners to ensure that any space tourist is 
fully trained and physically capable of participating as a crew 
member on the ISS.
    Space Shuttle.--The Committee has provided $3,208,000,000 
for the Space Shuttle program, the same as the budget request. 
In fiscal year 2003, four Space Shuttle flights are planned in 
support of ISS. The proposed budget also supports key Space 
Shuttle safety investments as part of the Integrated Space 
Transportation Plan.
    The Committee believes their is no higher priority than 
improving the safety of the Shuttle orbiters. The Committee 
directs NASA to proceed with implementation of the Cockpit 
Avionics Upgrade, the Advanced Heath Management System and the 
External Tank Friction stir weld project.
    In March 2002, NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel 
issued its Annual Report. The Committee commends the Panel for 
its thorough assessment of the Human Space Flight Program and 
its recommendations to improve ISS and Space Shuttle safety. 
The Committee recognizes that NASA has made safety its top 
priority and applauds the agency for the steps it has taken to 
date to reduce risks and improve the safety and reliability of 
all programs within the HEDS Enterprise including operation of 
the Space Shuttle.
    However, the Panel stated that current budget projections 
for the Space Shuttle are insufficient to accommodate 
significant safety upgrades, infrastructure upgrades and 
maintenance of critical workforce skills over the long term. 
The Committee concurs with this assessment. While the Committee 
recognizes that NASA is studying the overall space 
transportation architecture, including second and third 
generation re-usable launch vehicles to eventually replace the 
Shuttle, it is clear that the Space Shuttle will continue to 
operate for at least the next decade, and possibly as long as 
two decades, as NASA's main heavy lift vehicle for human space 
flight. Therefore, the Committee directs the Administrator to 
include, as part of the fiscal year 2004 budget, a thorough 
assessment of flight systems, logistics, infrastructure and 
workforce readiness costs that would be needed to maintain and 
improve Space Shuttle safety over the expected operational life 
of the Shuttle.
    The Committee remains concerned about the overall state of 
the infrastructure of the Space Shuttle program. While the 
committee is aware that NASA has conducted an assessment of 
some of its infrastructure, there has been no official 
comprehensive study of Shuttle infrastructure needs with 
reliable cost estimates. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
Administrator to report the Committees on Appropriations by 
January 10, 2003, on the critical infrastructure needs for the 
Space Shuttle program ranked by order of priority including 
cost estimates for each project identified.
    Payload and Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) Support.--The 
Committee recommends $87,500,000 for payload and ELV support, 
the same as the budget request. This account provides technical 
expertise, facilities, flight carrier hardware and capabilities 
necessary to provide servicing of multiple payloads to be flown 
aboard the Space Shuttle. In 2002 and 2003, over 20 major and 
secondary payloads will be flown on the Shuttle.
    In addition, this account provides funds for technical and 
management insight of commercial launch services, including 
advanced mission design/analysis and leading-edge integration 
services which are provided for the full range of NASA missions 
under consideration for launch on ELVs. In 2003, support for 10 
ELV launches, including 1 secondary, is planned.
    Investments and Support.--The Committee recommends 
$1,178,200,000 for investments and support, the same as the 
budget request. Funding in the account provides institutional 
support to the Human Exploration and Development of Space 
(HEDS) Enterprise through research and program management, 
construction of facilities, rocket propulsion testing and 
engineering and technical support to maintain ``core'' 
technical skills and capability at the NASA centers involved in 
human space flight.
    Space Communications and Data Systems.--The Committee has 
provided $117,500,000 for space communications and data 
systems, the same as the budget request. Funding in this 
account provides space communications services for all NASA 
Enterprises not otherwise covered by each Enterprise.
    Safety, Mission Assurance and Engineering.--The Committee 
recommends $47,600,000 for safety, mission assurance and 
engineering, the same as the budget request. This account 
provides funding for agencywide safety and engineering programs 
to ensure uniform safety programs, practices and procedures are 
implemented throughout all NASA Enterprises.

                  SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2002....................................  $8,047,800,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   8,844,500,000
Committee recommendation................................   9,044,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    NASA's ``Science, aeronautics and technology'' account 
provides funding for science, aeronautics and technology 
activities supporting the Agency. These activities include 
space science, biological and physical research, Earth science, 
aerospace technology and academic programs. This appropriation 
also provides for salaries and related expenses (including 
travel); design, repair, rehabilitation, and modification of 
facilities and construction of new facilities; maintenance and 
operation of facilities; and other operations activities 
supporting science, aeronautics, and technology programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $9,044,500,000 for the Science, 
Aeronautics and Technology account, an increase of $200,000,000 
above the President's request and $996,700,000 above the fiscal 
year 2002 enacted level.
    Space Science.--The activities of NASA's Space Science 
Enterprise seek to chart the evolution of the universe, from 
origins to destiny, and understand its galaxies, stars, 
planetary bodies, and life. The Enterprise asks basic questions 
that have eternally perplexed human beings, such as how the 
universe began and evolved and whether there is other 
intelligent life in the universe. The Space Science Enterprise 
develops space observatories and directs robotic spacecraft 
into the solar system and beyond to investigate the nature of 
the universe.
    The quest for this information, and the answers themselves, 
is intended to maintain scientific leadership, excite and 
inspire our society, strengthen education and scientific 
literacy, develop and transfer technologies to promote U.S. 
competitiveness, foster international cooperation to enhance 
programs and share their benefits, and set the stage for future 
space ventures.
    The Committee has made the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
    An increase of $105,000,000 for the New Horizons Program 
for the Pluto-Kuiper Belt (PKB) mission to be used for the 
spacecraft, instruments, project management, the radioisotope 
thermoelectric generator and the launch vehicle. The Committee 
has added funding to continue development work on the Pluto-
Kuiper Belt mission as the first mission in the New Horizons 
Program. The Committee notes that the PKB mission meets all of 
the criteria for the New Horizons Program and expects the 
agency to include funding for PKB in subsequent budget 
submissions in order to launch the mission by 2006.
    An increase of $2,000,000 for a center on life in extreme 
thermal environments at Montana State University.
    An increase of $500,000 to the University of Alaska, 
Anchorage, for broadband riverine research in Alaska.
    A decrease of $16,500,000 from the flight projects building 
at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The Committee makes this 
reduction without prejudice in light of the Agency's decision 
to postpone construction in fiscal year 2002.
    A decrease of $9,000,000 from the proposed Nuclear Power 
Program and a decrease of $4,000,000 from the proposed Nuclear 
Electric Propulsion program. The Committee supports both new 
programs, but believes that the necessary technology will be 
slow to ramp up. Moreover, the Committee is concerned about out 
year budget costs of these programs, the Space Launch 
Initiative and Shuttle upgrades, all program that will need to 
complement each other.
    Mars Program.--The Committee has provided the full budget 
request for the Mars Program.
    Hubble Space Telescope.--The Committee has provided the 
full budget request for the Hubble Space Telescope and the Next 
Generation Space Telescope.
    The Committee commends the Agency for the continued success 
of the Hubble Space Telescope and the extraordinary 
contributions it has made to the advancement of science.
    Living With A Star.--The Committee remains strongly 
supportive of the Living With A Star program because of the 
critical role its missions will play in understanding the 
effect of the Sun on our solar system particularly its impact 
on space weather which can have a profound impact on the Earth. 
Therefore, the Committee has provided the full budget request 
for technology development requested for the magnetospheric 
multiscale mission (MMS), the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) 
and the Geospace Missions. Should the Agency wish to reallocate 
funds within these missions, the Committee will entertain a re-
programming request in the operating plan provided that any re-
programming preserves the LWS objective of maintaining 
contemporaneous science.
    Earth Science.--The activities of NASA's Earth Science 
Enterprise seek to understand the total Earth system and the 
effects of humans on the global environment. This pioneering 
program of studying global climate change is developing many of 
the capabilities that will be needed for long-term environment 
and climate monitoring and prediction. Governments around the 
world need information based on the strongest possible 
scientific understanding. The unique vantage-point of space 
provides information about the Earth's land, atmosphere, ice, 
oceans, and biota as a global system, which is available in no 
other way. In concert with the global research community, the 
Earth Science Enterprise is developing the understanding needed 
to support the complex environmental policy decisions that lie 
ahead.
    However, the Committee is concerned about the potential for 
the administration to diminish NASA's pre-eminent role in earth 
science and earth science applications. As the Committee noted 
during its fiscal year 2003 hearings, the Agency's development 
and launch of a series of major earth science missions combined 
with a successful ground system that is processing and 
distributing the largest volumes of data ever received by 
civilian users from space are among NASA highest technological 
and scientific achievements. The Committee wishes to affirm its 
unequivocal support for expanding NASA's role in earth science 
and earth science applications.
    Within the applications program, the Committee believes 
that the Agency's approach needs more refinement and 
integration of emerging programs, like Synergy, the Regional 
Earth Science Applications Centers (RESACs), the Earth Science 
Information Partnerships (ESIPS) and the considerable in-house 
scientific capability at the NASA Centers. Such integration 
should not disrupt the existing program structure in 2003, but 
should plan for an evolutionary approach in fiscal year 2004. 
The Committee is pleased with efforts to integrate key Federal 
agency requirements as objectives of the applications program 
and expects a progress report on these efforts in the operating 
plan.
    The Committee strongly supports the development of remote 
sensing research and technology as a collaboration and 
partnership between NASA, universities and the private sector. 
The Committee commends both SSC and Goddard for their 
investment and commitment to the commercial aspects of remote 
sensing research and technology. There already have been 
significant advances made with regard to remote sensing 
applications in agriculture, flood mapping, environmental 
protection, urban planning, firefighting and land use issues. 
The Committee urges both Goddard and SSC to work together to 
continue to develop those remote sensing research and 
technology projects that have the strongest potential for 
commercial applications.
    In keeping with this emphasis, the Committee makes the 
following adjustments to the budget request:
    An increase of $25,000,000 for EOSDIS for the Synergy 
Program at the Goddard Space Flight Center.
    An increase of $20,000,000 for pre-formulation studies. The 
additional funding provided for this program is to be used to 
continue pre-formulation studies for solar irradiance, total 
column ozone and ocean vector winds.
    An increase of $2,500,000 to the University of Washington, 
Pacific Northwest Regional Collaboratory to develop 
applications and end-uses for earth science data in the 
Northwest.
    An increase of $750,000 for Utah State University for 
landscape analysis, planning and monitoring at the 
Intermountain Region Digital Image Archive and Processing 
Center.
    An increase of $2,000,000 for the University of Montana for 
an International Earth Observing System Natural Resource 
Training Center.
    An increase of $2,000,000 for joint weather and ocean 
research at the University of Massachusetts and the University 
of Alaska.
    An increase of $1,500,000 for the University of Louisville 
for the Bio-MEMS Microtechnology Center in Louisville, 
Kentucky.
    An increase of $2,000,000 for the University of New Mexico 
for the development of the Center for Rapid Environmental 
Assessment and Terrain Evaluation (Create) which would provide 
for the rapid acquisition, processing and dissemination of 
environmental data.
    An increase of $1,500,000 for George Mason University in 
Fairfax, Virginia for the Mid-Atlantic Geospatial Information 
Consortium.
    A decrease of $3,400,000 from the flight projects building 
at JPL. The Committee makes this reduction without prejudice in 
light of the Agency's decision to postpone construction in 
fiscal year 2002.
    Biological and Physical Research.--NASA's Biological and 
Physical Research (BPR) Enterprise recognizes the essential 
role biology will play in the 21st century and pursues the core 
of biological and physical sciences research needed to support 
NASA's strategic objectives. BPR fosters and enhances rigorous 
interdisciplinary research, closely linking fundamental 
biological and physical sciences in order to develop leading-
edge, world-class research programs. BPR uses the unique 
characteristics of the space environment to understand 
biological, physical, and chemical processes, conducting 
science and technology research required to enable humans to 
safely and effectively live and work in space, and transferring 
knowledge and technologies for Earth benefits. BPR also fosters 
commercial space research by the private sector toward new or 
improved products and/or services on Earth, in support of the 
commercial use of space.
    The Committee has included the following changes to the 
budget request:
    An increase of $7,500,000 for the National Space Biomedical 
Research Institute.
    An increase of $600,000 to North Carolina State University, 
Raleigh, North Carolina for gravitational and space biology.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to the University of Connecticut 
Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut for bone and muscle loss 
studies.
    An increase of $1,500,000 for interactive biological 
crystallization technology development.
    Aero-Space Technology.--NASA's Aerospace Technology 
Enterprise works to maintain U.S. preeminence in aerospace 
research and technology. The Enterprise aims to radically 
improve air travel, making it safer, faster, and quieter as 
well as more affordable, accessible, and environmentally sound. 
The Enterprise is also working to develop more affordable, 
reliable, and safe access to space; improve the way in which 
air and space vehicles are designed and built; and ensure new 
aerospace technologies are available to benefit the public.
    The Committee is concerned about the status of aerospace 
technology within NASA's budget and emphasizes the important 
role that NASA plays in developing new aerospace technologies 
that are key to the continued development of such aircraft 
needs as long range aircraft, supersonic transports, global 
reach transports as well as cost-effective access to space. The 
Committee especially is interested in the viability of 
``intelligent'' engine systems such as ``Propulsion 21'' which 
could build on current investments in the Ultra Efficient 
Engine Technology (UEET) and Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT) 
because of the potential benefits to the U.S. aerospace 
industry.
    However, the Committee recognizes that the budget will not 
permit the funding of all proposals or promising technologies. 
The Committee also believes that the development of aerospace 
technologies must be based in public/private partnerships 
guided by cost-sharing principles. Therefore, the Committee 
directs NASA to submit a report by August 30, 2003 on NASA's 5-
year investment plan for aerospace technology including a list 
of technology goals and priorities, funding needs of these 
goals and priorities, the criteria used for selecting these 
priorities and goals, and the nature of the public-private 
partnership in reaching these priorities and goals.
    The Committee makes the following adjustments to the budget 
request:
    An increase of $3,000,000 for the Chesapeake Information 
Based Aeronautics Consortium based in partnership at Morgan 
State University, Baltimore, Maryland, Bowie State University 
and the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore.
    An increase of $3,000,000 for the Stennis Space Center for 
the development of a visitors center.
    An increase of $1,000,000 for the Educational Training 
Center at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, 
Alabama.
    An increase of $3,000,000 for the Alabama Science Center 
Alliance (Sci Quest) for the acquisition of addition 
``immersive reality laboratories'' and networking capacity.
    An increase of $2,000,000 for the University of Alabama in 
Huntsville to augment the UAH Propulsion Test Facility.
    An increase of $750,000 for the National Institute for 
Aviation Research for icing aviation safety research in Kansas;
    An increase of $1,500,000 for the Glenn Research Center for 
the Glennan Microsystems Initiative.
    An increase of $1,000,000 for the Glenn Research Center for 
the Garrett Morgan Commercialization Initiative.
    An increase of $7,000,000 to build on investments in the 
Ultra Efficient Engine Technology and Quiet Aircraft Technology 
by demonstrating related engine technology including low noise, 
active control of engine air flows and combustion processes, 
emissions and fuel reduction concepts and a ``virtual engine 
simulation'' capability.
    An increase of $4,500,000 to for propulsion test complex 
upgrades at the Stennis Space Center. An increase of $2,000,000 
for the National Technology Transfer Center at Wheeling Jesuit 
University.
    Aviation.--The Committee has provided $541,400,000 for 
aviation programs, the same as the budget request. This 
includes funding for aviation safety, vehicle systems and 
airspace systems programs.
    Advanced Space Transportation.--The Committee recommends 
$849,400,000 for advanced space transportation.
    Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (SLI).--Within 
the amount provided for Advanced Space Transportation, the 
Committee provides $729,200,000 for development of the 2nd 
Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle, $30,000,000 below the 
budget request and $262,200,000 more than the fiscal year 2002 
enacted level. The Committee supports the Space Launch 
Initiative as a necessary step towards finding a cost effective 
replacement for the Space Shuttle.
    The Committee recognizes the Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) 
as a launch and recovery site for next generation launch 
vehicles and small commercial and scientific payloads. The 
Committee directs the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) to 
utilize the WFF as a site for testing and demonstration of new 
launch vehicles and technology development. The Committee 
directs NASA to report to Congress by January 31, 2003 on how 
the MSFC will utilize Wallops as a testing and launch facility.
    Revolutionary Technology.--The Committee has provided 
$274,900,000 for revolutionary technology development, the same 
as the budget request. Funding in this initiative includes 
computing, information and communications technology, 
engineering for complex systems and enabling concepts and 
technologies.
    Commercial Technology.--The Committee recommends 
$146,900,000 for commercial technology development including 
commercial technology transfer and the Small Business 
Innovation Research Programs. This is the same amount as the 
budget request.
    Aerospace Institutional Support.--The Committee recommends 
$973,200,000 for aerospace institutional support, the same as 
the budget request.
    Academic Programs.--The objective of NASA's academic 
programs is to promote excellence in America's education system 
through enhancing and expanding scientific and technological 
competence. Activities conducted within academic programs 
capture the interest of students in science and technology, 
develop talented students at the undergraduate and graduate 
levels, provide research opportunities for students and faculty 
members at NASA centers, and strengthen and enhance the 
research capabilities of the Nation's colleges and 
universities. NASA's education programs span from the 
elementary through graduate levels, and are directed at 
students and faculty. Academic programs includes the Minority 
University Research Program, which expands opportunities for 
talented students from underrepresented groups who are pursuing 
degrees in science and engineering, and to strengthen the 
research capabilities of minority universities and colleges.
    The Committee recommendation has included $10,000,000 for 
the NASA EPSCoR Program, $5,400,000 above the budget request 
and the same as the fiscal year 2002 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 $82,100,000 for NASA's minority 
university research and education activities. This is the same 
as the budget request. Furthermore, the Committee supports the 
continuation of a stand-alone Minority University Research and 
Education Division.
    The Committee includes the following adjustments to the 
budget request:
    An increase of $1,000,000 to the Delaware Aerospace 
Education Foundation, Kent County, Delaware.
    An increase of $750,000 to the Chabot Space and Science 
Center, Oakland, California.
    An increase of $2,500,000 to Marshall University, 
Bridgeport, West Virginia, for the Hubble Telescope Project.
    An increase of $1,500,000 to the University of Missouri-
Columbia for the Life Sciences Center.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to Wesleyan College, Macon, 
Georgia for the Monroe Science Center.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to Morehouse College, Atlanta, 
Georgia, for the Center of Excellence in Telecommunication and 
Space.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to the Montefiore Medical Center, 
Bronx, New York for the Discovery Center.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to Rutgers University, 
Piscataway, New Jersey for the Biomedical Engineering Facility.
    An increase of $3,000,000 to the University of North Dakota 
Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium, Grand Forks, North Dakota, 
for earth science education and remote sensing activities.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to the Museum of Science and 
Industry, Chicago, Illinois, for the Henry Crown Space Center.
    An increase of $2,500,000 to Iowa State University, Ames, 
Iowa for non-destructive evaluation studies.
    An increase of $750,000 to the City of Des Moines, Iowa, 
for the Des Moines Science Center.
    An increase of $750,000 for the California Science Center.
    An increase of $2,000,000 to the South Carolina Association 
of School Administrators, Columbia, South Carolina for the Blue 
Ribbon School Reform Project and Interactive Library.
    An increase of $2,000,000 to the College of Charleston, 
Charleston, South Carolina, for the School of Science and 
Mathematics.
    An increase of $4,000,000 to the University of Hawaii, 
Hilo, for the Mauna Kea Astronomy Education Center.
    An increase of $2,000,000 to the University of Wisconsin, 
Green Bay, for the Wisconsin Initiative for Math, Science and 
Technology Education.
    An increase of $4,000,000 to the University of New Orleans, 
Louisiana, for the Composites Research Center of Excellence at 
the Michoud Space Center to develop advanced metallic joining 
technologies for aerospace applications.
    An increase of $250,000 for the University of Vermont for 
muscle, bone blood studies related to human space flight.
    An increase of $3,000,000 to the Mitchell Foundation, 
Portland, Maine for science and engineering education.
    An increase of $1,500,000 to the Maryland Science Center, 
Baltimore, Maryland for expansion of the earth science hall.
    An increase of $750,000 to the University of Arkansas, 
Little Rock, for minority recruitment in science and 
engineering.
    An increase of $2,500,000 to Brown University, Providence, 
Rhode Island for the Life Sciences Building.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to the State University of New 
York, Buffalo, for the Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics.
    An increase of $1,000,000 to Lane County, Oregon for the 
Planetarium Learning Center.
    An increase of $500,000 for Virginia Commonwealth 
University for advance research in batteries and fuel cells.
    An increase of $2,000,000 for the Gulf of Maine Aquarium 
Foundation for the construction of a Gulf of Maine Laboratory.
    An increase of $1,000,000 for the University of North 
Carolina-Chapel Hill for the Destiny Mobile Science Laboratory.
    An increase of $500,000 for Widener University in 
Pennsylvania for the development of a rooftop observatory.
    An increase of $1,500,000 for the University of Missouri's 
Center for Gender Physiology for infrastructure and research 
needs.
    An increase of $3,500,000 for the University of Missouri-
Rolla for a Center of Excellence for Aerospace Propulsion 
Particulate Emissions Reduction.
    An increase of $1,500,000 for Montana State University in 
Bozeman, Montana for space science and engineering laboratory.
    An increase of $1,000,000 for the University of Montana in 
Missoula, Montana for the Northern Rockies Center for space 
privatization of microgravity research.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $23,700,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      24,600,000
Committee recommendation................................      24,600,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Inspector General was established by the 
Inspector General Act of 1978. The Office is responsible for 
providing agencywide 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 $24,600,000 for fiscal year 2003, 
the same as the President's budget request. The Committee 
commends the NASA IG's diligence in 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       Administrative
                                        limitation          expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2002..............         $1,500,000           $309,000
Budget estimate, 2003.............          1,500,000            309,000
Committee recommendation..........          1,500,000            309,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National Credit Union Administration [NCUA] Central 
Liquidity Facility [CLF] was created by the National Credit 
Union Central Liquidity Facility Act (Public Law 95-630). The 
CLF is a mixed-ownership Government corporation managed by the 
National Credit Union Administration Board and owned by its 
member credit unions.
    The purpose of the facility is to improve the general 
financial stability of credit unions by meeting their seasonal 
and emergency liquidity needs and thereby encourage savings, 
support consumer and mortgage lending, and provide basic 
financial resources to all segments of the economy. To become 
eligible for facility services, credit unions invest in the 
capital stock of the CLF, and the facility uses the proceeds of 
such investments and the proceeds of borrowed funds to meet the 
liquidity needs of credit unions. The primary sources of funds 
for the CLF are stock subscriptions from credit unions and 
borrowings.
    The CLF may borrow funds from any source, with the amount 
of borrowing limited to 12 times the amount of subscribed 
capital stock and surplus.
    Loans are available to meet short-term requirements for 
funds attributable to emergency outflows from managerial 
difficulties or local economic downturns. Seasonal credit is 
also provided to accommodate fluctuations caused by cyclical 
changes in such areas as agriculture, education, and retail 
business. Loans can also be made to offset protracted credit 
problems caused by factors such as regional economic decline.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends the budget request of limiting 
administrative expenses for the Central Liquidity Fund [CLF] to 
$309,000 in fiscal year 2003. The Committee recommends a 
limitation of $1,500,000 for the principal amount of new direct 
loans to member credit unions. These amounts are the same as 
the budget request. Funds provided for administrative expenses 
are the same as the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.
    The Committee directs the National Credit Union 
Administration (NCUA) to continue to provide reports on the 
lending activities under CLF. This information should be 
provided to the Committee on a quarterly basis through 
September 2003.

               COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Community Development Revolving Loan Fund Program 
(CDRLF) was established in 1979 to assist officially designated 
``low-income'' credit unions in providing basic financial 
services to low-income communities. Low-interest loans and 
deposits are made available to assist these credit unions. 
Loans or deposits are normally repaid in 5 years, although 
shorter repayment periods may be considered. Technical 
assistance grants are also available to low-income credit 
unions. Until fiscal year 2001, only earnings generated from 
the CDRLF were available to fund technical assistance grants. 
Grants are available for improving operations as well as 
addressing safety and soundness issues.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides $1,000,000 for loans and technical 
assistance to community development credit unions. These 
amounts are equal to the budget request and the fiscal year 
2001 enacted level.
    The Committee's recommendation includes $700,000 for loans 
to community development credit unions and $300,000 for 
technical assistance to low-income and community development 
credit unions.

                      National Science Foundation

Appropriations, 2002..................................\1\ $4,789,240,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   5,028,220,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,353,360,000

\1\ Includes $300,000 in fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental 
funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          GENERAL DESCRIPTION

    The National Science Foundation was established as an 
independent agency by the National Science Foundation Act of 
1950 (Public Law 81-507) and is authorized to support research 
and education programs that promote the progress of science and 
engineering in the United States. The Foundation supports 
research and education in all major scientific and engineering 
disciplines, through grants, contracts, and other forms of 
assistance awarded to more than 2,000 colleges and 
universities, nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and 
other organizations in all parts of the United States. The 
Foundation also supports international programs and unique, 
large scale, national user research facilities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,353,360,000 
for the National Science Foundation in fiscal year 2003. This 
represents an increase of $564,120,000 over the fiscal year 
2002 level and $325,140,000 more than the budget request. The 
Committee was guided in its allocation of resources for the 
Foundation by two central considerations.
    First, productivity growth, powered by new knowledge and 
technological innovation, makes the economic benefits of a 
comprehensive fundamental research and education enterprise 
abundantly clear. New products, processes, entire new 
industries, and the employment opportunities that result, 
depend upon rapid advances in research and their equally rapid 
movement into the marketplace. In today's global economy, 
continued progress in science and engineering and the transfer 
of the knowledge developed is vital if the United States is to 
maintain its competitiveness.
    In addition, the events of September 11 and subsequent 
anthrax attacks demonstrate that a nation strong in science and 
technology can respond rapidly and effectively to crises and 
changing national circumstances. Fundamental research across 
the full spectrum of science and engineering disciplines in an 
appropriately balanced manner, together with the highly skilled 
workforce that makes research and innovation possible, provides 
the intellectual capital for the nation to draw upon in times 
of need. A growing stock of knowledge focused on the frontiers 
of research increases the options available for response. A 
diverse, internationally competitive, and globally engaged 
science and engineering workforce accelerates the development 
of new technologies to meet unexpected needs.
    The Committee reiterates its long standing requirement for 
reprogramming, initiation of new programs or activities, and 
reorganizations. The Committee directs the Foundation to notify 
the chairman and ranking minority member prior to each 
reprogramming of funds in excess of $250,000 between programs, 
activities, or elements unless an alternate amount is specified 
elsewhere by the Committee. The Committee expects to be 
notified of reprogramming actions which involve less than the 
above-mentioned amount if such actions would have the effect of 
changing the agency's funding requirements in future years or 
if programs or projects specifically cited in the Committee's 
reports are affected. Finally, the Committee wishes to be 
consulted regarding reorganizations of offices, programs, and 
activities prior to the planned implementation of such 
reorganizations.

                    RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2002..................................\1\ $3,598,640,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................   3,783,210,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,131,630,000

\1\ Includes $300,000 in fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental 
funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The research and related activities appropriation addresses 
the Foundation's three strategic outcomes: people--developing a 
diverse, internationally competitive and globally-engaged 
workforce of scientists, engineers, and well-prepared citizens; 
ideas--enabling discovery across the frontiers of science and 
engineering, connected to learning, innovation, and service to 
society; and tools--providing broadly accessible, state-of-the-
art information bases and shared research and education tools. 
Research activities will contribute to the achievement of these 
outcomes through expansion of the knowledge base; integration 
of research and education; stimulation of knowledge transfer 
among academia and the public and private sectors; and bring 
the perspectives of many disciplines to bear on complex 
problems important to the Nation. The Foundation's discipline-
oriented research programs are: biological sciences; computer 
and information science and engineering; engineering; 
geosciences; mathematical and physical sciences; and social, 
behavioral and economic sciences. Also included are U.S. polar 
research programs and related logistical support and 
integrative activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $4,131,630,000 for research and 
related activities. This amount is $532,990,000 or 15 percent 
more than the fiscal year 2002 level and $348,420,000 more than 
the budget request. This funding level is consistent with 
proposals to double the NSF research budget over 5 years.
    The Committee is concerned that the size and number of 
awards made by the Foundation are far below what is needed to 
enable our research scientists and engineers to meet the 
challenges presented by our global competitors. The Committee 
urges the Foundation, to the maximum extent possible, to use 
the growth in resources being provided to make a marked and 
substantial increase in the average award, as well as increase 
the number of awards being made with special efforts made to 
include those individuals and institutions not well represented 
in the Nation's research enterprise.
    The Committee's recommendation includes a total of 
$616,940,000 for computer and information science and 
engineering. This is $90,000,000 more than the request of which 
$80,000,000 is for information technology research and 
$10,000,000 is for the terascale computing systems. Within the 
additional funds provided for information technology research, 
the Committee directs NSF to provide $25,000,000 for cyber 
security research for individual investigators and 
multidisciplinary research centers and $15,000,000 is for 
advanced broadband research.
    The Nation has become vulnerable to cyber-attacks, in part, 
because critical aspects of daily life rely on computer 
systems, networks, and the internet (e.g., water systems and 
electricity grids). Currently available technologies provide 
inadequate protection, yet relatively little research is being 
conducted to develop new approaches to protecting computer 
systems and networks. The private sector has had little 
incentive to invest in cyber security because the market 
emphasizes only speed and convenience. The Federal Government 
has not filled the gap, but instead has chronically 
underinvested in cyber security. As a result, what little 
research has been done on cyber security has been incremental, 
leaving the basic approaches to cyber security unchanged for 
decades. As a field with relatively modest support, few 
researchers, and minimal attention, cyber security fails to 
attract the interest of students, perpetuating the problems of 
a lack of trained personnel. Therefore, the Committee is 
providing $25,000,000 to be used to strengthen support for 
research in computer and network security. The Committee 
expects these funds will be used to support both individual 
investigators and a number of interdisciplinary research 
centers in computer and network security research.
    The universal availability of broadband in the United 
States will increase productivity, create high-wage jobs, and 
expand access to healthcare and life-long learning. The 
Committee believes that the NSF and research community can and 
should do more to support this national imperative along the 
lines suggested in the recent National Academy of Sciences 
report, Broadband: Bringing Home the Bits. In particular, R&D 
on innovative ``last mile'' technologies (both wired and 
wireless) could significantly reduce the cost of national 
broadband deployment, particularly in remote and rural areas. 
NSF should use the additional $15,000,000 being provided to 
support research and education activities in this area.
    The Committee is aware of the recent report by the NSF's 
Blue-Ribbon Advisory Committee on Cyber-infrastructure. This 
advisory Committee called for a significant expansion in high-
performance computing, optical networking, software 
applications for ``e-science,'' and large-scale digital 
libraries. Such an initiative, if focused around a number of 
critically important challenges, could accelerate the pace of 
discovery in all science and engineering disciplines, and serve 
as a ``multiplier'' for the Government's substantial investment 
in R&D. The Committee urges NSF to give this careful 
consideration in developing the fiscal year 2004 proposal.
    The Committee's recommendation provides $567,980,000 for 
engineering. This is $80,000,000 more than the request. These 
additional funds are to strengthen the nanoscience and 
engineering initiative in the engineering directorate.
    The Committee is providing $1,056,570,000 for the 
mathematical and physical sciences. The Committee has increased 
the fiscal year 2003 request for the physics, chemistry, 
astronomy, materials research and multidisciplinary research 
subactivities by a total of $135,000,000. The Committee remains 
concerned that support for the physical sciences has not kept 
pace with the growth in other disciplines. Yet it is the 
sustained investment in these disciplines that has enabled the 
development of today's advanced weapon systems, state-of-the-
art medical diagnostic equipment, and improved communications 
systems. The Committee's recommendation will strengthen the 
core research and instrumentation programs in these 
subactivities as well as adequately support the national 
astronomy centers in West Virginia, New Mexico, and elsewhere, 
and other NSF physical science facilities. The Committee also 
directs NSF to provide adequate support for preparatory work 
for the Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope (GSMT). The GSMT was 
one of the highest priorities recommended in the National 
Academy of Sciences Astronomy and Astrophysics Committee's 
decadal survey.
    The Committee also encourages NASA and NSF to work together 
on the Large-aperture Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST). The 
LSST was highly recommended in the recent National Academy of 
Sciences decadal survey and is designed to survey the visible 
sky to a much fainter level than that reached by existing 
surveys. It is expected to catalog 90 percent of the near-Earth 
objects larger than 300 meters and assess the threat they pose 
to life on Earth. Its ability to find and catalog primitive 
objects in the Kuiper Belt is expected to significantly aid in 
the success of NASA's Pluto-Kuiper Belt Explorer mission.
    From the additional funds provided for the mathematical and 
physical sciences directorate, the Committee is adjusting the 
request by providing an additional $7,300,000 for the national 
radio astronomy observatories, $4,200,000 for the national 
optical astronomy observatories, and $14,500,000 for the 
Indiana University Cyclotron Facility, the National High 
Magnetic Field Laboratory, the Wisconsin Synchrotron Radiation 
Center, and other facilities. The Committee's recommendation 
also includes the $4,000,000 requested for the continuation of 
the Telescope System Instrumentation Program which was 
initiated by the Committee in fiscal year 2002.
    The Committee is recommending that the mathematical 
sciences be funded at $162,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000 
over the fiscal year 2002 level. With this appropriation, the 
mathematical sciences will have grown by over 50 percent since 
fiscal year 2000. Consistent with the NSF budget request, 
nearly $13,000,000 in additional support for interdisciplinary 
mathematics is available in the other research and education 
directorates within the Foundation. The Committee directs NSF 
to provide a report documenting what has been accomplished as a 
result of this growth in mathematics research. The report 
should be submitted to the Committee by January 31, 2003.
    Within the request for the biological sciences activity, 
the Committee is providing $85,000,000 to support ongoing 
research on the genomics of plants of major economic 
importance. With this support, researchers will be able to 
focus on functional genomics, large-scale sequencing, and 
developing tools and resources for plant genomics studies. Also 
within the biological sciences activity, the Committee is 
providing $26,000,000 for biocomplexity research; this 
represents a 53 percent increase over the comparable fiscal 
year 2002 level.
    The Committee encourages the NSF to continue its 
participation in the interagency microbial genomics sequencing 
program, especially as it relates to sequencing of plant 
pathogens, and to support comparable interagency efforts on 
sequencing the genomes of domesticated animals. In terms of the 
plant genome program, the Committee continues to be interested 
in the sequencing of economically important crops, such as 
corn, wheat, and barley. Accordingly, the Committee directs the 
NSF to fund the sequencing of one or more of the crops that are 
the most economically important to the United States and 
expects the NSF to complete the sequencing of at least one of 
the crops by 2004. To accomplish this objective, the Committee 
expects the Foundation to work with the large-scale sequencing 
centers involved in sequencing the human genome, the Department 
of Energy Joint Genome Institute, the Department of 
Agriculture, and other large-scale sequencing centers to ensure 
that the funding is utilized in the most cost-effective and 
timely manner. Finally, the Committee is interested in 
developing research partnerships supporting plant biotechnology 
targeted to the needs of the developing world and encourages 
NSF to work with the U.S. Agency for International Development 
in creating opportunities for U.S. research institutions to 
partner with research institutions in a developing country.
    The Committee's recommendation provides $684,490,000 for 
geosciences research. This is $75,020,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2002 level. The Committee has rejected the 
Administration's proposal to transfer programs from NOAA, EPA 
and the USGS. In lieu of the transfer, the Committee is 
directing that the funds provided be used to augment high 
priority research activities in the earth, atmospheric, and 
ocean sciences. The Committee supports the efforts being made 
to develop multi-year strategic plans in the atmospheric 
sciences and in ocean drilling. As a result, the Committee 
expects NSF will use $15,000,000 of the increase to augment 
support for the national user facilities in this directorate 
and move forward on the integrated ocean drilling program.
    The Committee supports the important research being 
performed at the International Arctic Research Center (IARC). 
The Committee understands that the cooperative agreement 
between the Foundation and the International Arctic Research 
Center (IARC) will expire on April 30, 2003. Accordingly, the 
Committee urges NSF to work with the Center and the University 
of Alaska to renew the cooperative agreement.
    The Committee provided funds in fiscal year 2001 to begin 
the design and model testing of a vessel to replace the R/V 
Alpha Helix. While NSF has made some progress in the design and 
model testing stages, the Committee is concerned that it may 
not be developed adequately for its consideration in the fiscal 
year 2004 budget. The Committee, therefore, urges the 
Foundation to expedite the completion of the design of the 
vessel and submit the proposal to the Board for its 
consideration so that the next phase of construction can go 
forward in fiscal year 2004.
    The Committee has also increased the request for U.S. polar 
research programs by $10,000,000 to support priority research 
and infrastructure needs.
    As a key part of the Administration's climate change 
research initiative, the Committee recognizes the Nation needs 
substantially better information on the current and future 
state of the ocean and its role in environmental change. 
Adequate predictive capability is a prerequisite to the 
development of sound policies at the national and regional 
level, policies ranging from maritime commerce to public 
health, from fisheries to safety of life and property, from 
climate change to national security. The Committee urges NSF to 
move ahead to support an ocean observatories initiative that is 
tightly integrated with the Administration's interagency 
climate change science program.
    The Committee supports the fiscal year 2003 budget request 
for the social, behavioral and economic sciences. Within this 
amount, the Committee provides $10,000,000 for the children's 
research initiative.
    The Committee is providing an additional $50,000,000 to 
augment the request for the major research instrumentation 
program. The Committee reiterates its long-standing concern 
about the infrastructure needs of developing institutions, 
historically black colleges and universities; and other 
minority-serving colleges and universities. The Committee 
directs NSF to use these additional funds to support the merit-
based instrumentation and infrastructure needs of these 
institutions.
    The Committee's recommendation includes an additional 
$10,000,000 for the innovation partnership program. With these 
funds, NSF is to support competitive, merit-based partnerships, 
consisting of States, local and regional entities, industry, 
academic institutions, and other related organizations for 
innovation-focused local and regional technology development 
strategies.

          MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $138,800,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     126,280,000
Committee recommendation................................      79,280,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The major research equipment and facilities construction 
appropriation supports the acquisition, procurement, 
construction, and commissioning of unique national research 
platforms, research resources and major research equipment. 
Projects supported by this appropriation will push the 
boundaries of technology and will offer significant expansion 
of opportunities, often in new directions, for the science and 
engineering community. Preliminary design and development 
activities, and on-going operations and maintenance costs of 
the facilities are provided through the research and related 
activities appropriation account.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $79,280,000 for major research 
equipment and facilities construction. Support for the 
terascale computing systems has been provided in the Research 
and Related Activities Appropriations Account. Within this 
account, the Committee's recommendation includes funding for 
the following projects:
    $20,000,000 for Earthscope; $30,000,000 for the Atacama 
Large Millimeter Array telescope; $9,720,000 for the Large 
Hadron Collider; $13,560,000 for the Network for Earthquake 
Engineering Simulation; and $6,000,000 for South Pole Station.
    The Committee remains concerned about the Foundation's 
management of large scale construction projects and the 
priority setting process used to select projects to be funded. 
The Committee received a report from NSF required by Public Law 
107-73 which addressed a number of issues of concern to the 
Committee. However neither the report nor the budget 
justifications addressed the way in which criteria are used by 
the agency and the National Science Board in setting priorities 
among new and potential new starts. A recent audit by the 
Inspector General identified a number of issues in both the 
financial management and project management of previously 
funded projects. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences 
has recently been asked by the Committee and NSF's authorizing 
committees to assist in the development of a process for 
prioritizing projects to be funded out of this account. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs NSF to provide $750,000 to 
support the Academy's work on this matter. These funds should 
be made available from resources used for Planning and 
Evaluation.
    The Committee also supports provisions under consideration 
by the authorizing committees to establish a more transparent 
process for the establishment of priorities with respect to the 
funding of major research equipment and facilities 
construction. The Committee believes a more open and 
understandable process, which includes National Science Board 
and NSB Committee meetings, are important aspects of such a 
priority setting process.
    In addition, despite repeated concerns expressed by the 
Congress and the Inspector General, NSF has not addressed 
adequately the management and funding problems associated with 
large research facilities funded through the major research 
equipment and facilities construction account (formerly named 
the major research equipment or MRE account). The Inspector 
General's May 1, 2002 report found that the lack of adequate 
guidance ``have allowed NSF to use multiple appropriation 
accounts to fund the acquisition and construction costs of 
major research equipment and facilities, and led to 
inconsistencies in the types of costs funded through the MRE 
account.'' This practice has led to the use of funds from the 
research and related activities account to pay for cost 
overruns and scope increases of large facility projects without 
adequate notification and consultation with the Committee. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs NSF to include in its fiscal 
year 2003 operating plan to the Committee a report that details 
approved budgeted and actual expenditure information on each 
individual large research facility projects approved by the 
Congress. The report should include information on the amount 
of funds approved by the Congress from its inception by year, 
the amount of actual funds spent on the project by year, and a 
breakdown of the budgeted and actual expenditures by 
appropriation account. In addition, the Committee notes the 
findings and recommendations contained in the OIG report 
pertaining to NSF's cost accounting system. As a result, the 
Committee also directs NSF to address the deficiencies in its 
cost accounting system to ensure that the system is capable of 
readily and reliably providing the Foundation and the Committee 
with information on the actual cost of NSF programs and 
activities.
    The Committee notes that since last year, the Foundation 
has been recruiting for a Deputy Director for Large Facility 
Projects. However, NSF has not yet filled this important 
position. Accordingly, while the Committee has recommended 
start up funding for the Earthscope project, bill language has 
been included delaying the obligation of these funds until NSF 
fills the position of Deputy Director for Large Facility 
Projects on a permanent basis.
    The Committee notes that NSF is proposing to spend 
$40,000,000 over the next 3 years to develop two National 
Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) sites. The Committee 
notes that NSF considers this the first phase of NEON. 
Information on the full NEON concept, including cost estimates, 
has yet to be provided to the Committee. In the absence of such 
information, and without prejudice, the Committee is not 
prepared to recommend funding for NEON at this time.
    The Committee urges NSF to continue moving forward with the 
IceCube Neutrino Detector Observatory. The technology developed 
by IceCube's precursor project has proven successful at 
detecting high-energy atmospheric neutrinos. Continued 
development is expected to lead to a new era in astronomy in 
which researchers will have unique opportunities to analyze 
some of the most distant and significant events in the 
formulation and evolution of the universe.

                     EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $875,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     908,080,000
Committee recommendation................................     947,730,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The education and human resources appropriation supports a 
comprehensive set of programs across all levels of education in 
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). The 
appropriation supports activities that unite school districts 
with institutions of higher learning to improve precollege 
education. Other precollege activities include development of 
the next generation of precollege STEM education leaders; 
instructional materials; and the stem instructional workforce. 
Undergraduate activities support curriculum, laboratory, and 
instructional improvement; expand the STEM talent pool through 
scholarships and attracting STEM participants to teaching; 
augment advanced technological education at 2-year colleges; 
and develop dissemination tools. Graduate support is directed 
to research and teaching fellowships and traineeships, and 
linking precollege systems with higher education to improve the 
instructional workforce. Programs also seek to broaden the 
participation of groups underrepresented in the STEM 
enterprise; build State and regional capacity to compete 
successfully for research funding; and promote informal science 
education. Ongoing evaluation efforts and research on learning 
strengthen the base for these programs. In addition to this 
appropriation, the Foundation supports private-public K-12 
partnerships and undergraduate scholarships in high-need fields 
through H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Fees provided through 
Public Law 105-277, as amended.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has recommended $947,730,000 for this 
account. This amount is $72,730,000 more than the fiscal year 
2002.
    The Committee provided $160,000,000 last year to start the 
new Math and Science Partnership program. It appears that NSF 
will not be able to obligate all of these funds in fiscal year 
2002 and as much as $30,000,000 may be carried over into fiscal 
year 2003. Therefore the Committee is providing $120,000,000 in 
new budget authority for this program in fiscal year 2003. 
Together with the estimated carryover, this will provide up to 
$150,000,000 for this program in fiscal year 2003.
    To support additional K-12 math and science education 
efforts, the Committee is also providing a total of 
$223,550,000 for elementary, secondary, and informal science 
education, of which $37,460,000 is from the H-1B nonimmigrant 
petitioner fees.
    The Committee is aware of the unique and important 
relationship between historically black colleges and 
universities (HBCUs) and their surrounding communities, 
especially with schools located in some of the nation's most 
underserved, economically disadvantaged, and isolated areas, 
and recognizes that there is a natural linkage between school 
districts with high minority enrollments and HBCUs. The 
Committee expects the National Science Foundation will take 
explicit actions to include HBCUs among the set of institutions 
of higher education participating in its efforts to increase 
this nation's supply of math and science teachers.
    Recent data suggest a number of important trends regarding 
the development of the Nation's high-tech workforce. Student 
interest has shifted markedly from the physical sciences and 
mathematics to the life sciences and computer science. This 
trend seems to parallel Federal funding trends for research 
support. In addition, in a number of fields, the percentage of 
degrees awarded to foreign students has been steadily 
increasing. At the same time, the demand for jobs requiring 
technical expertise is growing. Given the demands of our 
knowledge-based economy, the United States needs to increase 
the number and diversity of our scientific and technical 
workforce and facilitate an understanding of basic scientific 
principles among non-scientists. For this reason, the Committee 
has focused on a set of NSF programs that relate to education 
and training at all levels of math and science education.
    The Committee has increased the budget request for NSF's 
graduate and professional education programs by $25,000,000. 
These additional funds are to be used to increase graduate 
student stipends in the fellowship programs and the traineeship 
program to a level of $30,000 per year. The Committee 
recognizes that graduate stipends in science and engineering 
need to be made more attractive to students to compensate for 
the cost of education and mounting student debt, and to offset 
opportunities for higher salaries offered by employers to 
science and engineering baccalaureate degree holders.
    The Informal Science Education program, which provides 
support to museums and science centers, is funded at 
$70,000,000. This represents the first increase in this program 
in 3 years.
    The undergraduate ``tech talent'' expansion program is 
increased by $20,000,000. The Committee is informed that nearly 
$70,000,000 was requested by the proposals submitted for the 
fiscal year 2002 competition in which only $5,000,000 was 
available. The Committee is also providing an additional 
$5,000,000 to increase the Advanced Technological Education 
program. This important NSF program supports undergraduate 
science education activities at the Nation's community 
colleges. The Committee strongly encourages NSF to develop a 
robust and comprehensive plan for undergraduate science and 
engineering education that builds on the ``tech talent'' 
program and other NSF undergraduate activities.
    The Committee is recommending an increase for the HBCU-
Research University Science & Technology (THRUST) initiative 
within the Centers of Research Excellence in Science and 
Technology (CREST) program of $10,000,000. Eligibility for 
THRUST should not exclude CREST recipients, but funds provided 
in fiscal year 2003 should be used to first fully-fund multi-
year awards to recipients of THRUST awards in the program's 
first year.
    The Committee does not agree with the budget request to 
reduce funding for the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority 
Participation program (LSAMP) or the Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities--Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP). 
Both of these programs play important roles in attracting and 
retaining minorities into science and engineering. In lieu of 
the reductions proposed by the Administration, the Committee is 
adding $5,000,000 to LSAMP and $5,000,000 to HBCU-UP.
    The Committee has included $110,000,000 for the 
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) 
in this account in order to allow full implementation of the 
infrastructure awards as well as continuation of other 
activities. The Committee's recommendation is $35,000,000 more 
than the budget request and reverses the Administration's 
proposed $10,000,000 reduction from the fiscal year 2002 level. 
These funds are necessary due to the increase in program 
eligibility. In addition, the Committee notes that at least 
$30,000,000 will be available for EPSCoR activities from the 
research programs through their share of co-funding.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $170,040,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     202,950,000
Committee recommendation................................     182,160,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The salaries and expenses appropriation provides funds for 
staff salaries, benefits, travel, training, rent, advisory and 
assistance services, communications and utilities expenses, 
supplies, equipment, and other operating expenses necessary for 
management of the agency's research and education activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee is providing $182,160,000 for salaries and 
expenses. This represents an increase of 7 percent over the 
fiscal year 2002 level. In light of the Committee's rejection 
of the transfer of programs from NOAA, EPA, and the U.S. 
Geological Survey, the Committee has not provided the resources 
requested for the 17 full-time equivalents that had been 
proposed in connection with the program transfers. The balance 
of the adjustment to the request should be taken at the 
Foundation's discretion.
    The Committee is supportive of the NSF's need for 
additional FTEs. From 1990 to 2000, the Foundation's budget 
doubled while its FTE level declined from 1202 to 1153. 
However, the Committee notes that little detail regarding the 
distribution of the additional FTEs was included in the fiscal 
year 2003 budget request. Therefore, the Committee directs NSF 
to provide the Committee with a detailed staffing plan for 
fiscal year 2003 by September 3, 2002.

                         National Science Board

Appropriations, 2002....................................................
Budget estimate, 2003...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      $3,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National Science Board is the governing body of the 
National Science Foundation. The Board is composed of 24 
members, appointed by the President and confirmed by the 
Senate. The Board is charged with serving as adviser to the 
President and Congress on policy matters related to science and 
engineering. By law, the Board establishes the policies of the 
National Science Foundation, providing oversight of its 
programs and activities, and approval of its strategic 
directions and budgets. The Board reviews and approves NSF 
awards, at levels above its delegation of authority to the NSF 
Director.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has created a separate account to support the 
operations and staffing of the National Science Board (NSB). 
Given the increasing oversight responsibilities of the Board, 
driven by the growth of the Foundation, the Committee wants to 
ensure the Board continues to carryout effectively its policy-
making and oversight responsibilities. The Committee is 
providing $3,500,000 to support the operations, activities, 
expenses, and staffing of the Board. It is the Committee's view 
that NSB staffing and management decisions are the 
responsibility and prerogative of the Board. Support for the 
preparation of Science and Engineering Indicators is provided 
within the Research and related activities account.
    The Committee strongly urges the authorizing committees to 
provide the Chairman of the National Science Board the 
permanent authority to hire its own professional staff. The 
Committee also urges the authorizing committees to consider the 
merits of having the selection of the Chairman of the Board 
subject to Senate confirmation to further ensure the 
independence of the Chairman and the Board.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2002....................................      $7,040,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................       7,700,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,060,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Inspector General appropriation provides 
audit and investigation functions to identify and correct 
deficiencies which could create potential instances of fraud, 
waste, or mismanagement.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee is providing $9,060,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General to support the increasing audit and oversight 
activities of this office driven by the substantial growth in 
the size and complexity of NSF research and education programs.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

          PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2002....................................    $105,000,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................     105,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     110,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by 
the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the 
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public 
Law 95-557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment helps 
local communities establish working partnerships between 
residents and representatives of the public and private 
sectors. These partnership-based organizations are independent, 
tax-exempt, nonprofit entities and are often known as 
Neighborhood Housing Services [NHS] or mutual housing 
associations. Collectively, these organizations are known as 
the NeighborWorks network.
    Nationally, over 225 NeighborWorks organizations 
serve over 2,100 urban, suburban and rural communities in 49 
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In fiscal 
year 2001, the NeighborWorks network assisted nearly 
64,000 families obtain and maintain safe and affordable rental 
and homeownership housing, where 71 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 nearly 25 years, 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 
that are placed with private sector social investors.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $110,000,000 for the Neighborhood 
Reinvestment Corporation, $5,000,000 above the budget request 
and $5,000,000 above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The 
Committee has also included a set-aside of $5,000,000 for the 
section 8 homeownership program. The administration requested 
$10,000,000 for this program.
    The Committee is including $5,000,000 above the budget 
request to continue the Corporation's multi-family rental 
housing initiative. The Corporation has demonstrated success 
with this program; in fiscal year 2002, 110 extremely low-
income people benefited from the production of new multi-family 
housing units.
    The Committee continues to support the work being done by 
NeighborWorks members to combat predatory lending 
practices. The Committee recognizes the importance that 
financial literacy and homeownership counseling have in 
preventing people from becoming victims of predatory schemes. 
The Committee also recognizes that NeighborWorks 
members have successfully counseled 50,000 people who went on 
to become homeowners and encourages the Neighborhood 
Reinvestment Corporation and its network to expand its 
education and counseling programs.

                        Selective Service System

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002....................................     $25,003,000
Budget estimate, 2003...................................      26,480,000
Committee recommendation................................      26,480,000

                          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 should 
the need arise. The development of supplemental standby 
products, such as a compliance system for health care 
personnel, continues using very limited existing resources.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,480,000 
for the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as 
the budget request for fiscal year 2003 and an increase of 
$1,477,000 over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommends inclusion of 19 general provisions 
previously enacted. They are largely standard limitations which 
have been carried in the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 
appropriations bill in the past.

  COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 7 of Rule XVI requires that Committee reports on 
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment 
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.''

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

    Housing certificate fund: $17,412,464,000.
    Fair housing activities: $45,899,000.
    HOME Investment Partnerships Program: $1,950,000,000.
    Homeless assistance grants: $1,215,025,000.
    Community development block grants: $5,050,000,000.
    Rural housing and economic development: $25,000,000.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

    Community Development Financial Institutions Fund: 
$73,000,000.

                   CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

    Salaries and expenses: $56,767,000.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Environmental programs and management: $2,140,469,000.
    Science and technology: $796,176,000.
    State and tribal assistance grants: $4,009,639,000.
    Superfund: $1,272,888,000.

                  FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

    Salaries and expenses: $239,690,000.
    Emergency management planning and assistance: 
$1,747,214,000.
    Emergency food and shelter: $153,000,000.

                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

    Federal Consumer Information Center: $15,000,000.

                      NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

    Research and related activities: $4,131,630,000.
    Major research equipment and facilities management: 
$79,280,000.
    Education and human resources: $947,730,000.
    Salaries and expenses: $182,160,000.
    National Science Board: $3,500,000.
    Office of Inspector General: $9,060,000.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 25, 2002, 
the Committee ordered reported en bloc, S. 2801, an original 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Agencies Programs Appropriations bill, 2003; an 
original District of Columbia Appropriations bill, 2003; an 
original Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations 
bill, 2003; and S. 2797, an original Veterans Affairs and 
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations bill, 2003, each subject to amendment and each 
subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29-0, 
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Mrs. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine

 COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports 
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute 
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or 
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a 
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution 
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof 
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and 
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical 
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the 
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by 
the committee.''
    With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the 
Committee that it is necessary to dispense with these 
requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.

                                            BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Budget authority                 Outlays
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee     Amount of      Committee     Amount of
                                                        allocation \1\      bill     allocation \1\      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee
 allocations to its subcommittees, fiscal year 2003:
 Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies:
    Discretionary.....................................         91,434        91,434         97,314    \2\ 96,089
    Mandatory.........................................             NA        31,576             NA        27,883
Projection of outlays associated with the
 recommendation:
    2003..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............   \3\ 71,670
    2004..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............       27,510
    2005..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        9,101
    2006..............................................  ..............  ...........  ..............        4,899
    2007 and future years.............................  ..............  ...........  ..............        4,454
Financial assistance to State and local governments                NA        34,838             NA         7,919
 for  2003............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Levels approved by the Committee on June 27, as modified on July 25, 2002.
\2\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\3\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2003
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                             compared with (+ or -)
                                Item                                       2002       Budget estimate     Committee    ---------------------------------
                                                                      appropriation                     recommendation        2002
                                                                                                                         appropriation   Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              TITLE I

                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                  Veterans Benefits Administration

Compensation and pensions..........................................      24,944,288       26,524,300       28,949,000       +4,004,712       +2,424,700
Readjustment benefits..............................................       2,135,000        2,264,808        2,264,808         +129,808   ...............
Veterans insurance and indemnities.................................          26,200           27,530           27,530           +1,330   ...............
Veterans housing benefit program fund program account (indefinite).         203,278          339,000          339,000         +135,722   ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................            (300)  ...............  ...............           (-300)  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................         164,497          168,207          168,207           +3,710   ...............
    Administrative savings from prohibiting new Vendee Home Loans..  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Education loan fund program account................................               1                1                1   ...............  ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................              (3)              (3)              (3)  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................              64               70               70               +6   ...............
Vocational rehabilitation loans program account....................              72               55               55              -17   ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................          (3,301)          (3,626)          (3,626)           (+325)  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................             274              289              289              +15   ...............
Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account...............             544              558              558              +14   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Veterans Benefits Administration......................      27,474,218       29,324,818       31,749,518       +4,275,300       +2,424,700

                   Veterans Health Administration

Medical care.......................................................      20,656,164       22,243,761       23,389,304       +2,733,140       +1,145,543
    Delayed equipment obligation...................................         675,000          500,000          500,000         -175,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................................      21,331,164       22,743,761       23,889,304       +2,558,140       +1,145,543

    (Transfer to general operating expenses).......................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............

Medical care cost recovery collections:
    Offsetting receipts............................................        -691,000         -752,000       -1,386,000         -695,000         -634,000
    Appropriations (indefinite)....................................         691,000          752,000        1,386,000         +695,000         +634,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total available (excludes offsetting receipts)...............      22,022,164       23,495,761       25,275,304       +3,253,140       +1,779,543

Medical and prosthetic research....................................         371,000          394,373          400,000          +29,000           +5,627
Medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses........          66,731           69,716           69,716           +2,985   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Veterans Health Administration........................      21,768,895       23,207,850       24,359,020       +2,590,125       +1,151,170

                    Departmental Administration

General operating expenses.........................................       1,195,728        1,256,418        1,256,418          +60,690   ...............
    Offsetting receipts............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Program Level.........................................      (1,195,728)      (1,256,418)      (1,256,418)        (+60,690)  ...............

    (Transfer from medical care)...................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    (Transfer from national cemetery)..............................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    (Transfer from inspector general)..............................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Emergency supplemental.........................................           2,000   ...............  ...............          -2,000   ...............
National Cemetery Administration...................................         121,169          133,149          133,149          +11,980   ...............
    (Transfer to general operating expenses).......................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................          52,308           55,000           55,000           +2,692   ...............
    (Transfer to general operating expenses).......................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Construction, major projects.......................................         183,180          193,740          193,740          +10,560   ...............
Facility rehabilitation fund.......................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Construction, minor projects.......................................         210,900          210,700          210,700             -200   ...............
    (Transfer to Parking Revolving Fund)...........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
Grants for construction of State extended care facilities..........         100,000          100,000          100,000   ...............  ...............
Parking Revolving Fund.............................................           4,000   ...............  ...............          -4,000   ...............
Grants for the construction of State veterans cemeteries...........          25,000           32,000           32,000           +7,000   ...............
    (Transfer from Parking Revolving Fund).........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental Administration...........................       1,894,285        1,981,007        1,981,007          +86,722   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title I, Department of Veterans Affairs...............      51,137,398       54,513,675       58,089,545       +6,952,147       +3,575,870
        (By transfer)..............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
        (Limitation on direct loans)...............................          (3,604)          (3,629)          (3,629)            (+25)  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
        Consisting of:
          Mandatory................................................     (27,308,766)     (29,155,638)     (31,580,338)     (+4,271,572)     (+2,424,700)
          Discretionary............................................     (23,828,632)     (25,358,037)     (26,509,207)     (+2,680,575)     (+1,151,170)

                              TITLE II

            DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                     Public and Indian Housing

Housing Certificate Fund:
    Direct appropriation...........................................      11,440,975       13,326,559       13,212,464       +1,771,489         -114,095
    Advance appropriations provided in previous acts...............       4,200,000        4,200,000        4,200,000   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, discretionary......................................      15,640,975       17,526,559       17,412,464       +1,771,489         -114,095

    (Advance appropriation)........................................      (4,200,000)      (4,200,000)      (4,200,000)  ...............  ...............
Rescission of unobligated balances: Section 8 recaptures                 -1,200,000       -1,100,000       -1,100,000         +100,000   ...............
 (rescission)......................................................

Public housing capital fund........................................       2,843,400        2,425,900        2,783,400          -60,000         +357,500
Public housing operating fund......................................       3,494,868        3,530,000        3,530,000          +35,132   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................       6,338,268        5,955,900        6,313,400          -24,868         +357,500

Operation Safe Home (rescission)...................................         -11,000   ...............  ...............         +11,000   ...............
Revitalization of severely distressed public housing (HOPE VI).....         573,735          574,000          574,000             +265   ...............
Native American housing block grants...............................         648,570          646,594          648,570   ...............          +1,976
Native Hawiian housing block grant.................................  ...............          10,000   ...............  ...............         -10,000
Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account.................           5,987            5,000            5,000             -987   ...............
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................        (234,283)        (197,243)        (197,243)        (-37,040)  ...............
Native Hawaiian housing loan guarantee fund........................           1,000            1,035            1,000   ...............             -35
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................         (40,000)         (39,712)         (39,712)           (-288)  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, Public and Indian Housing.............................      21,997,535       23,619,088       23,854,434       +1,856,899         +235,346

                 Community Planning and Development

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS........................         277,432          292,000          292,000          +14,568   ...............
Rural housing and economic development.............................          25,000   ...............          25,000   ...............         +25,000
Empowerment zones/enterprise communities...........................          45,000   ...............          30,000          -15,000          +30,000
Community development block grants.................................       5,000,000        4,715,500        5,050,000          +50,000         +334,500
Community development fund (emergency supplemental)................       2,000,000   ...............  ...............      -2,000,000   ...............
Section 108 loan guarantees:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................        (608,696)        (275,000)        (608,696)  ...............       (+333,696)
    Credit subsidy.................................................          14,000            6,285           14,000   ...............          +7,715
    Administrative expenses........................................           1,000            1,000            1,000   ...............  ...............
Brownfields redevelopment..........................................          25,000           25,000           25,000   ...............  ...............
HOME investment partnerships program...............................       1,846,040        2,084,100        1,950,000         +103,960         -134,100
Homeless assistance grants.........................................       1,122,525        1,129,500        1,215,025          +92,500          +85,525
Shelter Plus Care Renewals.........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Community planning and development....................      10,355,997        8,253,385        8,602,025       -1,753,972         +348,640

                          Housing Programs

Housing for special populations....................................       1,024,151        1,024,151        1,033,801           +9,650           +9,650
    Housing for the elderly........................................        (783,286)        (773,636)        (783,286)  ...............         (+9,650)
    Housing for the disabled.......................................        (240,865)        (250,515)        (250,515)         (+9,650)  ...............
Housing counseling assistance......................................  ...............          35,000   ...............  ...............         -35,000
Rental Housing assistance (rescission).............................  ...............        -100,000         -100,000         -100,000   ...............
Rental Housing assistance..........................................  ...............  ...............         100,000         +100,000         +100,000
Manufactured housing fees trust fund...............................          13,566           13,000           13,000             -566   ...............
    Offsetting collections.........................................         -13,566          -13,000          -13,000             +566   ...............
        Savings from canceling S. 1029.............................          -8,000   ...............  ...............          +8,000   ...............

                   Federal Housing Administration

FHA--Mutual mortgage insurance program account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................    (160,000,000)    (160,000,000)    (160,000,000)  ...............  ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................        (250,000)         (50,000)        (250,000)  ...............       (+200,000)
    Administrative expenses........................................         336,700          347,829          347,829          +11,129   ...............
    Negative subsidy...............................................      -2,323,000       -2,753,000       -2,753,000         -430,000   ...............
    Administrative contract expenses...............................         160,000           85,720           85,720          -74,280   ...............
    Additional contract expenses...................................           1,000            1,000            1,000   ...............  ...............
    Streamlined down payment requirements..........................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
FHA--General and special risk program account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................     (21,000,000)     (21,000,000)     (21,000,000)  ...............  ...............
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................         (50,000)         (50,000)         (50,000)  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................         216,100          223,716          223,716           +7,616   ...............
    Negative subsidy...............................................        -225,000         -225,000         -225,000   ...............  ...............
    Subsidy........................................................          15,000           15,000           15,000   ...............  ...............
    Non-overhead administrative expenses...........................         144,000           93,780           93,780          -50,220   ...............
    Additional contract expenses...................................           4,000            4,000            4,000   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, Federal Housing Administration........................      -1,671,200       -2,206,955       -2,206,955         -535,755   ...............

          Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program
 account:
    (Limitation on guaranteed loans)...............................    (200,000,000)    (200,000,000)    (200,000,000)  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................           9,383           10,343           10,343             +960   ...............
    Offsetting receipts............................................        -382,000         -358,000         -358,000          +24,000   ...............

                  Policy Development and Research

Research and technology............................................          50,250           47,000           47,000           -3,250   ...............

                 Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Fair housing activities............................................          45,899           45,899           45,899   ...............  ...............

                   Office of Lead Hazard Control

Lead hazard reduction..............................................         109,758          126,000          201,000          +91,242          +75,000

                   Management and Administration

Salaries and expenses..............................................         556,067          510,299          510,299          -45,768   ...............
    Transfer from:
        Limitation on FHA corporate funds..........................        (530,457)        (548,202)        (548,202)        (+17,745)  ...............
        GNMA.......................................................          (9,383)         (10,343)         (10,343)           (+960)  ...............
        Community Development Loan Guarantees Program..............          (1,000)          (1,000)          (1,000)  ...............  ...............
        Native American Housing Block Grants.......................            (150)            (150)            (150)  ...............  ...............
        Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program.................            (200)            (200)            (200)  ...............  ...............
        Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program........             (35)             (35)             (35)  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Salaries and expenses.............................      (1,097,292)      (1,070,229)      (1,070,229)        (-27,063)  ...............

Office of Inspector General........................................          66,555           74,341           74,341           +7,786   ...............
    (By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds)...............         (22,343)         (23,343)         (23,343)         (+1,000)  ...............
    (By transfer from Public Housing Oper Subsidy).................          (5,000)  ...............  ...............         (-5,000)  ...............

      Total, Office of Inspector General...........................         (93,898)         (97,684)         (97,684)         (+3,786)  ...............

    Emergency supplemental.........................................           1,000   ...............  ...............          -1,000   ...............
Consolidated fee fund (rescission).................................          -6,700           -8,000           -8,000           -1,300   ...............
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.....................          27,000           30,000           30,000           +3,000   ...............
    Offsetting receipts............................................         -27,000          -30,000          -30,000           -3,000   ...............
Working capital fund...............................................  ...............         276,300          276,737         +276,737             +437
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Development       32,148,695       31,348,851       32,082,924          -65,771         +734,073
       (net).......................................................
              Appropriations.......................................     (27,165,395)     (28,356,851)     (28,990,924)     (+1,825,529)       (+634,073)
              Rescissions..........................................     (-1,217,700)     (-1,208,000)     (-1,108,000)       (+109,700)       (+100,000)
              Emergency appropriations.............................      (2,001,000)  ...............  ...............     (-2,001,000)  ...............
              Advance provided in previous acts....................      (4,200,000)      (4,200,000)      (4,200,000)  ...............  ...............
          (Limitation on direct loans).............................        (300,000)        (100,000)        (300,000)  ...............       (+200,000)
          (Limitation on guaranteed loans).........................    (381,882,979)    (381,511,955)    (381,845,651)        (-37,328)       (+333,696)
          (Limitation on corporate funds)..........................        (563,568)        (583,273)        (583,273)        (+19,705)  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                             TITLE III

                        INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                American Battle Monuments Commission

Salaries and expenses..............................................          35,466           30,400           30,400           -5,066   ...............

           Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

Salaries and expenses..............................................           7,850            7,850            7,850   ...............  ...............

                     Department of the Treasury

            Community Development Financial Institutions

Community development financial institutions fund program account..          80,000           68,000           73,000           -7,000           +5,000

                Interagency Council on the Homeless

Operating expenses.................................................  ...............  ...............           1,500           +1,500           +1,500

                 Consumer Product Safety Commission

Salaries and expenses..............................................          55,200           56,767           56,767           +1,567   ...............

           Corporation for National and Community Service

National and community service programs operating expenses.........         401,980          631,342          515,342         +113,362         -116,000
Office of Inspector General........................................           5,000            5,000            6,000           +1,000           +1,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................................         406,980          636,342          521,342         +114,362         -115,000

             U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Salaries and expenses..............................................          13,221           14,326           14,612           +1,391             +286

                    Department of Defense--Civil

                     Cemeterial Expenses, Army
Salaries and expenses..............................................          22,537           24,445           24,445           +1,908   ...............

              Department of Health and Human Services

                    National Institute of Health

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences................          70,228           74,471           76,074           +5,846           +1,603
    Emergency supplemental.........................................          10,500   ...............  ...............         -10,500   ...............

             Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

          Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Toxic substances and environmental public health...................          78,235           77,388           81,000           +2,765           +3,612
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, Department of Health and Human Services...............         158,963          151,859          157,074           -1,889           +5,215

                  Environmental Protection Agency

Science and Technology.............................................         698,089          670,008          710,008          +11,919          +40,000
    Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund....................          36,891          111,168           86,168          +49,277          -25,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Science and Technology.............................         734,980          781,176          796,176          +61,196          +15,000

    Emergency supplemental.........................................          90,308   ...............  ...............         -90,308   ...............

Environmental Programs and Management..............................       2,054,511        2,047,704        2,140,469          +85,958          +92,765
    Emergency supplemental.........................................          39,000   ...............  ...............         -39,000   ...............

Office of Inspector General........................................          34,019           35,325           35,325           +1,306   ...............
    Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund....................          11,867           12,742           12,742             +875   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, OIG................................................          45,886           48,067           48,067           +2,181   ...............

Buildings and facilities...........................................          25,318           42,918           42,918          +17,600   ...............

Hazardous Substance Superfund......................................       1,170,000        1,272,888        1,272,888         +102,888   ...............
    Delay of obligation............................................         100,000   ...............  ...............        -100,000   ...............
    Transfer to Office of Inspector General........................         -11,867          -12,742          -12,742             -875   ...............
    Transfer to Science and Technology.............................         -36,891         -111,168          -86,168          -49,277          +25,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Hazardous Substance Superfund......................       1,221,242        1,148,978        1,173,978          -47,264          +25,000

    Emergency supplemental.........................................          41,292   ...............  ...............         -41,292   ...............

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program...........................          73,000           72,313           72,313             -687   ...............
Oil spill response.................................................          15,000           15,581           15,581             +581   ...............

State and Tribal Assistance Grants.................................       2,658,900        2,305,500        2,875,804         +216,904         +570,304
    Categorical grants.............................................       1,074,376        1,158,276        1,133,835          +59,459          -24,441
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, STAG...............................................       3,733,276        3,463,776        4,009,639         +276,363         +545,863

    Emergency supplemental.........................................           5,000   ...............  ...............          -5,000   ...............
Environmental services.............................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, EPA...................................................       8,078,813        7,620,513        8,299,141         +220,328         +678,628

                 Executive Office of the President

Office of Science and Technology Policy............................           5,267            5,368            5,368             +101   ...............
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental                  2,974            3,031            3,031              +57   ...............
 Quality...........................................................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total........................................................           8,241            8,399            8,399             +158   ...............

               Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Office of Inspector General (transfer).............................         (33,660)         (30,848)         (30,848)         (-2,812)  ...............

                Federal Emergency Management Agency

Disaster relief....................................................         664,000        1,842,843          342,843         -321,157       -1,500,000
    (Transfer to EMPA).............................................         (-2,900)         (-2,900)         (-2,900)  ...............  ...............
    (Transfer to OIG)..............................................  ...............        (-21,577)        (-21,577)        (-21,577)  ...............
    Contingent emergency appropriations............................       1,500,000   ...............       1,500,000   ...............      +1,500,000
    Emergency supplemental.........................................       4,356,871   ...............  ...............      -4,356,871   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................       6,520,871        1,842,843        1,842,843       -4,678,028   ...............

National pre-disaster mitigation fund..............................  ...............         300,000           25,000          +25,000         -275,000
Disaster assistance direct loan program account:
    State share loan...............................................             405   ...............  ...............            -405   ...............
        (Limitation on direct loans)...............................         (25,000)         (25,000)         (25,000)  ...............  ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................             543              557              557              +14   ...............
Salaries and expenses..............................................         225,874          209,163          209,163          -16,711   ...............
    Defense function...............................................          40,240           30,527           30,527           -9,713   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         266,114          239,690          239,690          -26,424   ...............

    Emergency supplemental.........................................          25,000   ...............  ...............         -25,000   ...............

Office of Inspector General........................................          10,303           11,549           17,754           +7,451           +6,205
    (Transfer from Disaster relief)................................  ...............         (21,577)         (21,577)        (+21,577)  ...............

Emergency management planning and assistance.......................         617,310        3,728,214        1,728,214       +1,110,904       -2,000,000
    Defense function...............................................          20,000           19,000           19,000           -1,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         637,310        3,747,214        1,747,214       +1,109,904       -2,000,000

    (Transfer from Disaster relief)................................          (2,900)          (2,900)          (2,900)  ...............  ...............

    Emergency supplemental.........................................         220,000   ...............  ...............        -220,000   ...............

Radiological emergency preparedness fund...........................          -1,000           -1,000           -1,000   ...............  ...............
Emergency food and shelter program.................................         140,000          153,000          153,000          +13,000   ...............
Flood map modernization fund.......................................  ...............         300,000          300,000         +300,000   ...............

National Flood Insurance Fund:
    (Limitation on administrative expenses):
        Salaries and expenses......................................          28,798           32,393           32,393           +3,595   ...............
        Flood mitigation...........................................          76,381           77,666           77,666           +1,285   ...............
        (Transfer out).............................................        (-20,000)        (-20,000)        (-20,000)  ...............  ...............
National Flood Migration Fund (by transfer)........................         (20,000)         (20,000)         (20,000)  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Emergency Management Agency...................       7,924,725        6,703,912        4,435,117       -3,489,608       -2,268,795
          Appropriations...........................................      (1,822,854)      (6,703,912)      (2,935,117)     (+1,112,263)     (-3,768,795)
      (Transfer out)...............................................        (-22,900)        (-44,477)        (-44,477)        (-21,577)  ...............
      (By transfer)................................................         (22,900)         (44,477)         (44,477)        (+21,577)  ...............
          Emergency appropriations.................................      (6,101,871)  ...............      (1,500,000)     (-4,601,871)     (+1,500,000)

                  General Services Administration

Federal Consumer Information Center Fund...........................           7,276           12,541           15,000           +7,724           +2,459

           National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Human space flight.................................................       6,912,400        6,130,900        6,130,900         -781,500   ...............
    Emergency supplemental.........................................          76,000   ...............  ...............         -76,000   ...............
Science, aeronautics and technology................................       7,857,100        8,844,500        9,044,500       +1,187,400         +200,000
    Emergency supplemental.........................................          32,500   ...............  ...............         -32,500   ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................          23,700           24,600           24,600             +900   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NASA..................................................      14,901,700       15,000,000       15,200,000         +298,300         +200,000

                National Credit Union Administration

Central liquidity facility:
    (Limitation on direct loans)...................................      (1,500,000)      (1,500,000)      (1,500,000)  ...............  ...............
    (Limitation on administrative expenses, corporate funds).......            (309)            (309)            (309)  ...............  ...............
    Community development revolving loan fund......................           1,000            1,000            1,000   ...............  ...............

                    National Science Foundation

Research and related activities....................................       3,530,270        3,715,140        4,063,560         +533,290         +348,420
    Defense function...............................................          68,070           68,070           68,070   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................       3,598,340        3,783,210        4,131,630         +533,290         +348,420

    Emergency supplemental.........................................             300   ...............  ...............            -300   ...............

Major research equipment and facilities construction...............         138,800          126,280           79,280          -59,520          -47,000
Education and human resources......................................         875,000          908,080          947,730          +72,730          +39,650
Salaries and expenses..............................................         170,040          202,950          182,160          +12,120          -20,790
National Science Board.............................................  ...............  ...............           3,500           +3,500           +3,500
Office of Inspector General........................................           6,760            7,700            9,060           +2,300           +1,360
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NSF...................................................       4,789,240        5,028,220        5,353,360         +564,120         +325,140

               Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation...............         105,000          105,000          110,000           +5,000           +5,000

                      Selective Service System

Salaries and expenses..............................................          25,003           26,480           26,480           +1,477   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title III, Independent agencies.......................      36,621,215       35,496,054       34,335,487       -2,285,728       -1,160,567
              Appropriations.......................................     (30,224,444)     (35,496,054)     (32,833,987)     (+2,609,543)     (-2,662,067)
              Rescissions..........................................  ...............  ...............          (1,500)         (+1,500)         (+1,500)
          (Transfer out)...........................................        (-22,900)        (-44,477)        (-44,477)        (-21,577)  ...............
          (By transfer)............................................         (56,560)         (75,325)         (75,325)        (+18,765)  ...............
          (Limitation on direct loans).............................      (1,525,000)      (1,525,000)      (1,525,000)  ...............  ...............
          (Limitation on corporate funds)..........................            (309)            (309)            (309)  ...............  ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Grand total (net)............................................     119,907,308      121,358,580      124,507,956       +4,600,648       +3,149,376
              Appropriations.......................................    (108,525,237)    (118,366,580)    (119,914,456)    (+11,389,219)     (+1,547,876)
              Rescissions..........................................     (-1,217,700)     (-1,208,000)     (-1,106,500)       (+111,200)       (+101,500)
              Emergency appropriations.............................      (8,399,771)  ...............      (1,500,000)     (-6,899,771)     (+1,500,000)
              Advance provided in previous acts....................      (4,200,000)      (4,200,000)      (4,200,000)  ...............  ...............
          (By transfer)............................................         (61,560)         (75,325)         (75,325)        (+13,765)  ...............
          (Transfer out)...........................................        (-22,900)        (-44,477)        (-44,477)        (-21,577)  ...............
          (Limitation on direct loans).............................      (1,828,604)      (1,628,629)      (1,828,629)            (+25)       (+200,000)
          (Limitation on guaranteed loans).........................    (381,882,979)    (381,511,955)    (381,845,651)        (-37,328)       (+333,696)
          (Limitation on corporate funds)..........................        (563,877)        (583,582)        (583,582)        (+19,705)  ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


```