89–188 PDF

Calendar No. 273

108TH CONGRESS REPORT

1st Session " ! SENATE 108–143

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2004

SEPTEMBER 5, 2003.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. BOND, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1584]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1584) 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, 2004, 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 ......................$122,740,712,000

Amount of appropriations, 2003 .............................. 118,754,173,000

Amount of budget estimates, 2004 .......................... 122,140,905,000

Above estimates for 2004 .................................. 599,807,000

Above appropriations for 2003 ......................... 3,986,539,000
(2)

CONTENTS

Page

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

Title II—Department of Housing and Urban Development ................................. 26

Title III—Independent agencies:

American Battle Monuments Commission ..................................................... 72

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board ........................................ 72

Department of the Treasury: Community development financial institutions ................................................................................................................ 73

Consumer Product Safety Commission ........................................................... 75

Corporation for National and Community Service ........................................ 75

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims .................................................... 84

Department of Defense—Civil: Cemeterial expenses, Army ......................... 85

Department of Health and Human Services:

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ........................... 85

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ................................ 85

Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................... 86

Executive Office of the President:

Office of Science and Technology Policy .................................................. 110

Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality ............................................................................................................ 112

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector General .......... 112

General Services Administration: Federal Consumer Information

Center ............................................................................................................ 113

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness ................................................... 114

National Aeronautics and Space Administration .......................................... 115

National Credit Union Administration ........................................................... 130

National Science Foundation ........................................................................... 132

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ....................................................... 144

Selective Service System .................................................................................. 145

Title IV—General provisions .................................................................................. 147

Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate ... 148

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 148

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 149
(3)

INTRODUCTION

The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban

Development and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 provides a total of $122,740,712,000 in budget authority, including approximately $32,706,712,000 in mandatory

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

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

research programs. The Committee paid special attention to the

final report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board which

was issued on August 26, 2003.

As recommended by the Committee, this bill attempts to provide

a fair and balanced approach to the many competing programs and

activities under the VA–HUD subcommittee’s jurisdiction.

The Committee recommendation provides $29,314,729,000 in discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, an increase of $2,795,257,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level

and $1,305,576,000 above the budget request. The funds include

$1,300,000,000 in emergency funding for Medical Care. 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 $36,085,777,000, an increase of

$876,869,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and

$157,645,000 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 $8,182,718,000, an increase of $104,656,000

above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of

$552,130,000 above the budget request.

The Committee recommendation for the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration totals $15,338,907,000, the same as the

fiscal year 2003 level and $130,393,000 below the budget request.

For the National Science Foundation, the Committee recommendation totals $5,585,760,000, an increase of $104,569,000

above the budget request. The Committee views NSF as a key investment in the future and this funding is intended to reaffirm the

strong and longstanding leadership of this Committee in support of

scientific research and education.
4

REPROGRAMMING AND INITIATION OF NEW PROGRAMS

The Committee continues to have a particular interest in being

informed of reprogrammings which, although they may not change

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

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

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

between programs, activities, or elements unless an alternate

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

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

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

the Committee wishes to be consulted regarding reorganizations of

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

The Committee also expects the Departments of Veterans Affairs

and Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

the National Science Foundation, the Corporation for National and

Community Service, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to submit operating plans, signed by the respective secretary,

administrator, chief executive officer, or agency head, for the Committee’s approval within 30 days of the bill’s enactment. Other

agencies within the bill should continue to submit operating plans

consistent with prior year policy.
(5)

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $58,100,432,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 60,718,865,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 62,024,441,000

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Veterans Administration was established as an independent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administration, and staff offices.

The Veterans Health Administration develops, maintains, and

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

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

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

162 hospitals, 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 im-
6

proving 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 $62,024,441,000 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, including $32,709,712,000 in mandatory spending and $29,314,729,000 in discretionary spending. The amount

provided for discretionary activities represents an increase of

$1,305,576,000 above the budget request and $2,795,157,000 above

the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.

The Committee once again has made VA its top priority in the

fiscal year 2004 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 remains committed to funding fully the medical

care needs of VA’s core constituency—service-connected, lower income, and special needs veterans. VA, unfortunately, has been

overwhelmed by substantial increases in users of the VA health

care system. The demand for VA health care has resulted in thousands of veterans waiting for medical care and in many instances,

waiting times of over 6 months.

Many believe that the demand and increase in users in the VA

health care system has been due to its generous health care benefits (primarily prescription drug benefits), its vastly improved quality access, and expanded eligibility and benefits authorized by the

Congress—the ‘‘Veterans’ Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of

1996’’ and the ‘‘Veterans Millennium Health Care Act of 1999.’’

Prior to the Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, VA generally targeted

health care to its core constituents—the service-connected, the

lower income, and those veterans requiring specialized services.

However, eligibility reform opened the door to all veterans and

while the benefit package varies among the priority groups established under the 1996 Act, all veterans have shared equal access

once enrolled in the VA health care system.

The authorizing committees believed that the 1996 Act would attract relatively few new users and would be budget neutral. The

authors of eligibility reform assumed that receipts from first and

third party payers, co-pays, and insurance, would offset the cost of

the services for Priority 8 veterans. Further, eligibility reform was

predicated on the enactment of Medicare Subvention, whereby

Medicare would reimburse VA for treating Medicare-eligible veterans.

The General Accounting Office [GAO] found that eligibility reform increased outpatient pharmacy use and expenditures among

all veterans. In its November 2002 report, GAO found that from

1996 through 2001, the number of Priority 7 veterans treated has

increased by almost eightfold (from 107,520 veterans to 827,722

veterans). VA spent $418,000,000 on outpatient pharmacy benefits

for non-core veterans in fiscal year 2001 and since the implementa-
7

tion of eligibility reform in 1999, Priority 7 veterans’ use of the

pharmacy benefit has increased rapidly. Specifically, the usage has

increased from about 11,000,000 30-day equivalents of drugs or

supplies in fiscal year 1999 to about 26,000,000 30-day equivalents

in fiscal year 2001. Further, GAO found that pharmacy usage

among VA’s core constituents also has increased significantly. In

particular, VA spent $2,460,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 compared

to $1,900,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 for Priority 1–6 veterans.

The Millennium Act also increased VA medical care expenditures

by expanding long-term care for veterans. The Act requires VA to

provide institutional nursing care for 70 percent and above serviceconnected disabled veterans, making non-institutional long-term

care services a part of the basic benefits package provided to all enrollees, and providing emergency care services. VA projects these

benefits to cost VA an additional $740,000,000 annually.

Eligibility reform and the Millennium Act combined with the improved VA’s health care system and VA’s favorable pharmacy benefits compared to other providers has created the current care quality and access problems for VA’s core constituents. These factors

have resulted in 54 percent growth in total users since 1996 with

the non-core veterans groups comprising the largest percentage increase. Despite record appropriation funding increases over the

past few years, VA continues to fail to meet the needs of its core

constituents. Some of its failure has been due to the Department’s

inability to meet its own collections goals and other significant

management inefficiencies.

To VA’s credit, the Department has taken steps to address the

health care access problems for its core veterans by prioritizing

medical care for its core veterans and reducing the waiting lines for

medical care by suspending new enrollments of higher income veterans and through collaborative work with the Institute for

Healthcare Improvement [IHI]. Further, the VA, the Department of

Health and Human Services [HHS], and the Centers for Medicare

& Medicare Services [CMS] are developing a new VA∂Choice program. VA∂Choice will offer veterans a health care benefit package

that is competitive with those currently offered by Medicare organizations. VA projects to enroll about 25,000 veterans within the first

year, beginning by October 2003. VA also plans for this program

to be revenue neutral and not use appropriated funds to supplement the program. Further, the Department has made recent

strides in its medical care collections and management systems.

The Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget request proposes a

$1,300,000,000 increase for VA medical care to meet the growing

demand of users. The request, however, also proposes a new $250

annual enrollment fee for nonservice-connected Priority 7 veterans

and all Priority 8 veterans, an increase in outpatient and pharmacy

co-pays for Priority 7 and 8 veterans, and a limitation on long-term

care benefits.

The Committee recognizes that these policy initiatives are consistent with the current practice of charging cost-share costs to

lower priority veterans and ensuring that VA’s health care remains

focused on its core constituents. Nevertheless, the Committee has

not included these fee proposals in the bill and believes that further debate is needed to understand fully their implications. The
8

Committee urges the authorizing committees to examine these fee

proposals.

The Committee recognizes that funding alone will not fully address the medical care needs of VA’s core constituents—service-connected, lower income, and special needs veterans. The Committee

believes that the Department must ensure greater accountability in

the medical care system and improve its long-standing management inefficiencies to ensure that it can assure veterans and taxpayers that VA is providing quality, accessible health care.

The Committee has provided $2,898,776,000 in additional funding above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level for VA medical care.

This level is $1,570,000,000 above the fiscal year 2004 budget request. Further, with third party collections projected to be

$178,000,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level, VA medical care will

have $3,076,776,000 more than available in fiscal year 2003. The

Committee has also directed the Secretary to continue providing

priority access for treatment of veterans to its core constituents.

Further, the Committee has provided discretionary authority to the

Secretary to streamline the process for filling privately written prescriptions for veterans. Under this authority, the Committee directs

the Secretary to ensure that this process is budget neutral. Lastly,

the Committee encourages the Secretary to explore other options

allowed under current law related to co-pay structures.

The Committee expects that the significant funding increase for

medical care, coupled with additional administrative tools, will

allow the VA to address the quality and access medical care needs

of its core constituents.

The Committee has chosen not to use the administration’s new

budget account structure without prejudice. The Committee supports the administration’s efforts to align costs and funding with

each program and to simplify the account structure. The Committee encourages the administration to continue these efforts in

consultation with the Appropriations Committees.

VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION

COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $28,949,000,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 29,845,127,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 29,845,127,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Compensation is payable to living veterans who have suffered

impairment of earning power from service-connected disabilities.

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

indemnity compensation is payable to the surviving spouses and

dependents of veterans whose deaths occur while on active duty or

result from service-connected disabilities. A clothing allowance may

also be provided for service-connected veterans who use a prosthetic or orthopedic device.
9

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 $29,845,127,000 for compensation

and pensions. This is an increase of $896,127,000 above the fiscal

year 2003 enacted level and the same as the budget request. This

amount includes the cost of living adjustment for fiscal year 2004.

The estimated caseload and cost by program follows:

COMPENSATION AND PENSIONS

2003 2004 Difference

Caseload:

Compensation:

Veterans ........................................................... $2,466,212 $2,543,600 ∂$77,388

Survivors .......................................................... 312,109 316,747 ∂4,638

Children ............................................................ 1,088 1,115 ∂27

Clothing allowance (non-add) ......................... (84,409) (86,681) (∂2,272)

Pensions:

Veterans ........................................................... 342,815 339,905 ¥2,910

Survivors .......................................................... 223,560 213,648 ¥9,912

Minimum income for widows (non-add) ......... (0) (0) (0)

Burial allowances and service connected

deaths .......................................................... 94,138 94,977 ∂839

Funds:

Compensation:

Veterans ........................................................... 21,120,999,000 22,829,533,000 ∂1,708,534,000

Survivors .......................................................... 3,947,369,000 4,060,390,000 ∂113,021,000

Children ............................................................ 18,418,000 19,166,000 ∂748,000

Clothing allowance .......................................... 49,632,000 52,938,000 ∂3,306,000

OBRA Payments (Public Laws 101–508 and

102–568) ..................................................... 1,267,000 1,179,000 ¥88,000

Medical exams pilot program (Public Law

104–275) ..................................................... 50,192,000 50,439,000 ∂247,000

Pensions:

Veterans ........................................................... 2,568,099,000 2,643,048,000 ∂74,949,000

Survivors .......................................................... 715,369,000 731,562,000 ∂16,193,000

Minimum income for widows ........................... ................................ ................................ ................................

Contract Medical Exam Pilot Program ..................... 558,000 561,000 ∂3,000

OBRA (Public Laws 101–508, 102–568, and 103–

446) ...................................................................... 7,296,000 6,787,000 ¥509,000

OBRA Payment to Medical Care (Public Laws 101–

508 and 102–568) ............................................... 8,575,000 9,090,000 ∂515,000

Payment to Medical Facilities (non-add) ................. (1,072,000) (1,093,000) (∂21,000)

Burial benefits .......................................................... 157,225,000 157,253,000 ∂28,000

Other assistance ....................................................... 3,467,000 3,509,000 ∂42,000

Unobligated balance and transfers .......................... ∂300,534,000 ¥720,328,000 ¥1,020,862,000

Total appropriation ............................................... 28,949,000,000 29,845,127,000 ∂896,127,000
10

The appropriation includes $17,617,000 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 2004 cost-of-living increase of 2.0 percent for

pension recipients.

The Committee notes the GAO’s report on addressing the Veterans Benefits Administration’s [VBA] workforce needs in the area

of claims processing. GAO found that about 16 percent of new examiners hired in fiscal year 2001 left VBA within 12 months of

their hiring date. This rate was more than double the rate for all

VBA employees. The Committee urges VBA to determine the reasons for this attrition rate and develop methods to reduce the attrition.

READJUSTMENT BENEFITS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $2,264,808,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 2,529,734,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,529,734,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The readjustment benefits appropriation finances the education

and training of veterans and servicepersons whose initial entry on

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

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

funded through appropriations made to the readjustment benefits

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

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

adapted housing grants, automobile grants with the associated approved adaptive equipment for certain disabled veterans, and educational assistance allowances for eligible dependents of those veterans who died from service-connected causes or have a total permanent service-connected disability as well as dependents of servicepersons who were captured or missing in action.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget estimate of $2,529,734,000 for readjustment benefits. The amount recommended is an increase of $264,926,000 above the fiscal year

2003 enacted level.

The estimated caseload and cost for this account follows:

READJUSTMENT BENEFITS

2003 2004 Difference

Number of trainees:

Education and training: dependents .................................... 56,314 59,128 +2,814
11

READJUSTMENT BENEFITS—Continued

2003 2004 Difference

All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:

Veterans and servicepersons ....................................... 328,244 332,026 +3,782

Reservists ..................................................................... 91,090 94,734 +3,644

Vocational rehabilitation .............................................. 71,549 73,517 +1,968

Tuition assistance ........................................................ 120,000 140,000 +20,000

Total ......................................................................... 667,197 699,405 +32,208

Licensing and certification tests ................................................... 7,500 15,000 +7,500

Funds:

Education and training: Dependents .................................... $249,048,000 $266,749,000 ∂$17,701,000

All-Volunteer Force educational assistance:

Veterans and servicepersons ....................................... 1,700,424,000 1,936,005,000 ∂235,581,000

Reservists ..................................................................... 161,189,000 170,938,000 ∂9,749,000

Vocational rehabilitation .............................................. 216,079,000 225,911,000 9,832,000

Tuition assistance ........................................................ 352,375,000 388,386,000 ∂36,011,000

Licensing and certification tests ................................. 2,594,000 5,371,000 ∂2,777,000

Housing grants ............................................................ 25,200,000 25,200,000 ............................

Automobile and other conveyances ............................. 37,832,000 38,532,000 ∂700,000

Work-study ................................................................... 46,440,000 46,440,000 ............................

Payment to States ....................................................... 14,000,000 18,000,000 ∂4,000,000

Reporting fees .............................................................. 3,500,000 3,600,000 ∂100,000

Unobligated balance and other adjustments 1 ........... ¥543,873,000 ¥595,398,000 ¥51,525,000

Total appropriation .................................................. 2,264,808,000 2,529,734,000 ∂264,926,000

1 Includes offsetting collections.

VETERANS INSURANCE AND INDEMNITIES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $27,530,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 29,017,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 29,017,000

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 $29,017,000

for veterans insurance and indemnities. This is an increase of

$1,487,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The Department estimates there will be 4,110,960 policies in force in fiscal

year 2004 with a value of $703,970,770,000.
12

VETERANS HOUSING BENEFIT PROGRAM FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account Administrative

expenses

Appropriations, 2003 .......................................................................................................... $437,522,000 $167,114,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ....................................................................................................... 305,834,000 154,850,000

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................... 305,834,000 154,850,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides for all costs, with the exception of

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

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

and merged with the general operating expenses appropriation.

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

homes, condominiums, manufactured homes and for refinancing

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

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

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

guaranty if the borrower fails to repay the loan.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends such sums as may be necessary for funding subsidy payments, estimated to total $305,834,000, and

$154,850,000 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 account Administrative

expenses

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................................................... $1,000 $69,545

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................................................... 1,000 ........................

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
13

expenses may be transferred to and merged with the ‘‘General operating expenses’’ account. Bill language is included limiting program direct loans to $3,400.

Due to the lack of demand for the Education Loan program, the

administration has proposed the elimination of the program and

has not requested appropriations language for this program. The

program has not issued a loan in over 10 years. The administration

is expected to transmit legislation that eliminates the program. Accordingly, the Committee defers action on this program to the authorizing committee.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Program account Administrative

expenses

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................................................... $55,000 $286,764

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................................................... 52,000 300,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................................................... 52,000 300,000

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 $52,000 for program

costs and $300,000 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 identifying program direct loans to $3,938,000. It is estimated that VA will make

4,845 loans in fiscal year 2004, with an average amount of $813.

Language was added allowing the principal amount of direct

loans to be calculated based on the subsidy appropriated for the

Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program account. The loan level

provided in the language should be considered an estimate. The

Committee directs the Department to monitor carefully the program’s loan activity and notify the Committee during the year if it

determines that it may exceed the loan level amount.
14

NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Administrative

expenses

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $554,373

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 571,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 571,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

lands. It is a pilot program that began in 1993 and expires on December 31, 2005. Subsidy amounts necessary to support this program were appropriated in fiscal year 1993.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget estimate of $571,000 for

administrative expenses associated with this program in fiscal year

2004. 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

2004, will be borne by the ‘‘Medical care’’ and ‘‘General operating

expenses’’ appropriations.

The Committee is concerned that the homeless loan program has

not closed one loan since its inception in 1998. While VA has retooled this program and made some limited progress over the past

year, the Committee is troubled that this program has not gotten

off the ground. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department

to provide a status report on the program by no later than March

1, 2004. The report should include information on the number of

loans closed, estimated number of veterans served, and the total

dollars (administrative, credit subsidy, etc.) spent on the program

since its inception.
15

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

MEDICAL CARE

Veterans direct

health care

Medical care

collections

Total medical

care with

collections

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................... $23,889,304,000 $1,386,000,000 $25,275,304,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ............................................................ 25,218,080,000 2,141,409,000 27,359,489,000

Committee recommendation .................................................... 26,788,080,000 1,564,000,000 28,352,080,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] operates the largest

Federal medical care delivery system in the country, with 162 hospitals, 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.

The Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care Collections

Fund [MCCF] was established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997

(Public Law 105–33). The Department deposits first-party and

pharmacy co-payments, third party insurance payments, enhanced

use collections, long-term care co-payments, Compensated Work

Therapy Program collections, Compensation and Pension Living

Expenses Program collections, Parking Program fees, and collections from the sales of assets into the MCCF. These collections are

available until expended. The Committee has accepted the administration’s proposal to merge these accounts together.

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

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

is required under certain circumstances to establish and collect fees

for the use of such garages and parking facilities. Receipts from the

parking fees are to be deposited in to the MCCF and would be used

to fund future parking garage initiatives.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,788,080,000

for medical care, an increase of $2,870,000,000 over the fiscal year

2003 enacted level and $1,570,000,000 above the budget request.

The Committee has designated $1,300,000,000 as contingent emergency funds. The Committee has recaptured $270,000,000 in prior
16

year recoveries for medical care use. In addition, VA has authority

to retain co-payments and third-party collections, estimated to total

$1,564,000,000 in fiscal year 2004. The estimated medical care cost

recovery collections for fiscal year 2004 is a $178,000,000 increase

over the fiscal year 2003 collections level. Combined with the appropriated funds, medical care would receive $3,076,776,000 more

funds than the fiscal year 2003 level. Therefore, the Committee’s

recommendation represents total resources for medical care of

$28,352,080,000.

The Committee has included bill language delaying the availability until August 1, 2004, of $1,100,000,000 in the equipment,

lands, and structures object classifications.

The Committee has included bill language to make available

through September 30, 2005, up to $1,100,000,000 of the medical

care appropriation. This provides flexibility to the Department as

it continues to implement significant program changes.

The Committee has provided $1,300,000,000 in emergency funding for medical care due to the unanticipated and urgent need of

veterans seeking medical treatment and services. The Department

has seen unprecedented growth in the number of enrolled veterans

since 1999. VA has seen an increase of 3,100,000 enrollees during

this period and VA projects even more growth in the program. Further, these emergency funds will allow VA to treat unaccounted

veterans from the current Iraqi conflict and peacekeeping efforts

around the world, including the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, the Philippines, and Liberia.

The Committee has included bill language that directs the Secretary to prioritize funding for treatment of its core veterans—service-connected, lower income, homeless, and special needs. The Committee has also included bill language that prioritizes medical care

funding on its primary medical benefit package (such as those benefits defined under 38 C.F.R. 17.38) for its high priority veterans.

The Committee has included these directives to reinforce the Department’s efforts on refocusing its mission on serving its core constituents.

Further, the Committee has provided discretionary authority to

the Secretary to streamline the process for filling privately written

prescriptions for veterans. Under this authority, the Committee expects the Secretary to exercise this ‘‘medication-only’’ benefit authority for limited and special circumstances. In particular, the

Committee urges the use of this authority to address veterans who

are adversely impacted by the waiting time to see a clinician. The

Committee also supports the implementation of a pilot program to

determine the cost-effectiveness of a streamlined process for filling

privately written prescriptions. For example, the Secretary could

permit Medicare-eligible veterans to receive an outpatient medication-only benefit and construct such a program as proposed in S.

1153, the Veterans Prescription Drug Assistance Act of 2003.

Under any circumstance, the Committee expects the Department to

collect and independently verify data on the costs and benefits of

implementing a med-only benefit process for veterans and directs

the VA to submit a status report to the Committee by no later than

June 2, 2004. Lastly, the Committee encourages the Secretary to
17

explore other options allowed under current law related to co-pay

structures.

The Committee has not included the administration’s request to spend $50,000,000 in fiscal year 2004 to fund studies on the costbenefit of outsourcing VA functions. The Committee, however, believes that VA should be able to assess the cost of certain commercial, non-governmental type services such as laundry, janitorial,

and food services, which are already privatized in many VA facilities.

CARES.—The Committee has provided bill language that allows the Secretary to transfer up to $400,000,000 from medical care to

major construction for purposes of implementing the Capital Asset

Realignment for Enhanced Services or ‘‘CARES’’ program. The effectiveness and efficiency of VA’s medical care service delivery is

dependent on the quality and accessibility of its system. The VA,

currently, is wasting millions of dollars from the medical care account to maintain and operate unnecessary and empty spaces in its

medical care inventory. Accordingly, the Committee has provided

this transfer authority to replace VA’s unnecessary facilities and

spaces with new, modernized facilities closer to the current and

projected growing veteran population. The Committee strongly believes that a significant upfront investment is needed to address

VA’s aging and outdated medical infrastructure. The Committee directs the Department to notify the Committee prior to exercising

this authority.

Homelessness.—According to the VA, the Department estimates that it will spend $1,397,879,000 on treatment costs for homeless

veterans and another $174,001,000 on targeted programs to assist

homeless veterans in fiscal year 2004. The Committee supports

these expenditures and strongly believes that treating homeless

veterans should be one of the VA’s highest priorities, especially

given the large population of veterans that represent the overall

homeless population. As part of the administration’s efforts coordinated through the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH]

to end chronic homelessness in 10 years, the Committee urges the

VA to develop a strategy consistent with the administration’s 10-

year goal by creating department-wide performance goals. These

goals should also address the VA’s efforts in preventing homelessness among veterans. Further, the Committee strongly urges the

Department to participate in local efforts on devising 10-year plans

that support the end of chronic homelessness. The Committee expects the Department to work with the ICH on addressing these

matters.

The Committee urges the Department to continue its support for

the Brother Francis Shelter, which treats homeless veterans in Anchorage, Alaska.

Integrative Healing Practices.—The Committee is aware of significant improvements in patient care outcomes demonstrated by

integrative healing practices employed as adjuncts to conventional

biomedical methods. The Committee is supportive of more definitive research to identify and evaluate integrated healing practices

that have efficacy for our veterans, particularly those veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other conditions

exhibited by troops returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other lo-
18

cations, Gulf War Syndrome, and those who are terminally ill and

in palliative or end-of-life care. The Committee expects the Department to collaborate as a full partner with the Department of Defense in the VET–HEAL program—an Integrative Healing Practices for Veterans Research Project—with a goal of identifying and

investigating those integrative healing practices appropriate for inclusion in everyday VA patient care.

Anchorage Health Care Clinic.—The Committee notes that the

Department will not renew the existing lease for the clinic in Anchorage, Alaska, which will expire in 2007. Instead, the Department will replace the clinic with a new facility at the Elmendorf

AFB. To ensure that local veterans do not experience any gap in

medical coverage during this transition period, the Committee

strongly urges the Department to begin addressing this issue with

planning and design work, consistent with the CARES protocols.

Clarksburg/Ruby Memorial Demonstration.—The Committee

supports continuation at current levels of the Clarksburg VAMC/

Ruby Memorial hospital demonstration project.

Elko County CBOC.—The Committee is aware that veterans in

Elko County, Nevada, must travel more than 200 miles for VA

medical care—either to the Community Based Outpatient Clinic

[CBOC] in White Pine County or to the medical center in Salt Lake

City—and that VA’s market penetration in Elko County is only 5

percent, one of the lowest rates in the country. The Committee is

aware that the Network Strategic Plan for VISN 19 includes a recommendation to locate a CBOC in Elko County and encourages VA

to implement this recommendation.

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.

Psychology Post-Doc Program.—The Committee recognizes the

VA’s Psychology Post-Doctoral Training program and directs the

Department to provide a progress report by December 5, 2003 on

the number of training slots, their location, and progress in their

interdisciplinary training programs.

MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $397,400,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 408,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 413,000,000

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.
19

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $413,000,000 for medical and prosthetic research, which is $5,000,000 above the budget request and

$15,600,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The Committee remains highly supportive of this program, and recognizes

its importance both in improving health care services to veterans

and recruiting and retaining high-quality medical professionals in

the Veterans Health Administration.

Human Identical Cytochromes.—The Committee is encouraged by

the potential results from research by the Nashville VA Medical

Center and Vanderbilt University Medical Center on human identical cytochromes. Research in this field will improve methods for

the synthesis and characterization of drug metabolites prior to initiating human testing. The Committee urges the Department to

evaluate this promising research and consider possible funding options.

MEDICAL ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING

EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $74,230,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 79,146,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 79,146,000

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.

Language to clarify the treatment of 2-year funding was added

to permit treating the operating dollars as one fund during the first

year of availability.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $79,146,000 for medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses, an increase of

$4,916,000 above the fiscal year 2003 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 2004

for facilities management support is $8,426,000.

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. 1 $1,345,849,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,283,272,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,283,272,000

1 Includes $100,000,000 supplemental funding included in Public Law 108–11.
20

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 the budget request of

$1,283,272,000 for general operating expenses, a decrease of

$62,577,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The amount

provided includes $1,004,704,000 for the Veterans Benefits Administration and $278,568,000 for general administration. In addition

to this appropriation, resources are made available for general operating expenses through reimbursements totaling $550,146,000 for

fiscal year 2004, with total estimated obligations of approximately

$1,833,418,000.

The Committee recommends making available $64,000,000 of the

GOE appropriation for 2 years, and the current level of $25,000 for

official reception and representation expenses.

NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $132,284,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 144,203,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 144,203,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

of the remains of eligible deceased servicepersons and discharged

veterans, together with their spouses and certain dependents, and

permanently to maintain their graves; to mark graves of eligible

persons in national and private cemeteries; to administer the grant

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

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

There are a total of 157 cemeterial installations in 39 States, the

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

funds for all of these cemeterial installations.

Language to clarify the treatment of 2-year funding was added

to permit treating the operating dollars as one fund during the first

year of availability.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $144,203,000 for the National Cemetery Administration. This is an increase of $11,919,000 over the

fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the budget request.
21

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $57,623,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 61,750,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 62,250,000

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 $62,250,000 for the Inspector Gen- eral. This is an increase of $4,627,000 above the fiscal year 2003

enacted level and $500,000 above the budget request.

CONSTRUCTION, MAJOR PROJECTS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $99,128,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 272,690,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 272,690,000

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 more than the

amount set forth in 38 U.S.C. 8104(a)(3)(A). Proceeds realized from

Enhanced Use Lease activities may also be transferred from the

Medical Care Collections Fund and merged with the major construction account.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $272,690,000 for construction, major projects, $173,562,000 above the fiscal year

2003 enacted level and the same level as the budget request.

The following table compares the Committee recommendation

with the budget request.

[In thousands of dollars]

Location and description Available

through 2003 2004 request Committeerecommendation

Veterans Health Administration [VHA]:

CARES Project—TBD 1 .......................................................... ............................ 183,000 183,000

Chicago, IL, new Inpatient Bed Building ............................. ............................ ( 2 ) ............................

Subtotal CARES ................................................................ ............................ 183,000 183,000

Advance planning fund: Various stations ..................................... ............................ 15,000 15,000

Asbestos abatement: Various stations .......................................... ............................ 5,000 5,000

Claims Analyses: Various locations ............................................... ............................ 2,000 2,000

Judgment Fund: Various locations ................................................ ............................ 10,000 10,000

Hazardous Waste: Various locations ............................................. ............................ 1,000 1,000
22

[In thousands of dollars]

Location and description Available

through 2003 2004 request Committeerecommendation

Subtotal, Other line-items ................................................ ............................ 33,000 33,000

Total Medical Care construction, major projects ............. ............................ 216,000 216,000

Veterans Benefits Administration [VBA] ........................................ ............................ 271 271

National Cemetery Administration [NCA]: 3

Detroit, MI Area, Phase I Development ................................ ............................ 8,700 8,700

Cemetery Expansion and Improvements:

Fort Snelling, MN, gravesite expansion and cemetery

improvements .......................................................... ............................ 24,800 24,800

Barrancas, FL, gravesite expansion and cemetery improvements .............................................................. ............................ 12,000 12,000

Subtotal, Construction ........................................ ............................ 45,500 45,500

Design Fund: Various locations ..................................................... ............................ 6,000 6,000

Advance Planning Fund: Various locations ................................... ............................ 2,919 2,919

Subtotal, Other line-items ................................................ ............................ 8,919 8,919

Total NCA construction, major projects ........................... ............................ 54,419 54,419

Staff Offices: Various locations ..................................................... ............................ 2,000 2,000

Total construction, major projects ................................... ............................ 272,690 272,690

1 Projects will be selected after the completion of the CARES studies and will be forwarded to Congress for authorization and approval. 2 This project may be funded by enhanced-use revenues.

3 National Cemetery Administration major project requests do not include the purchase of pre-placed crypts, which are funded by the Com- pensation and Pensions appropriation.

The Committee recommends the requested amount of

$183,000,000 for major construction projects approved through the

Department’s Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services

[CARES] program. The Committee has also provided transfer authority to shift funds from the medical care account to the major

construction account to support construction projects approved

through CARES. Combined with these transferred funds, the Committee is providing up to $583,000,000 for CARES.

The Committee also recommends the requested amounts for the

development of the Detroit, Michigan National Cemetery, and expansion and improvements for Fort Snelling, Florida and

Barrancas, Florida National Cemeteries.

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 supports the Department’s efforts to complete all

remaining CARES plans for the rest of the Nation. The Committee

reiterates the directives regarding CARES from the fiscal year

2003 conference report. Specifically, VA should submit a 5-year

strategic plan for capital asset management, construction and improvement of all VA’s infrastructure needs including, but not limited to, major construction, minor construction, research facilities,

safety and seismic improvements, and improved access for veterans. This report should include estimated costs by VISN by year.

The Committee expects the Department to update this plan as necessary and to keep the authorizing and appropriations committees

informed of any changes.
23

The Committee commends the Department for moving forward

with the implementation of the VISN 12 plan. The Committee is

pleased with VA’s progress to date but encourages VA to proceed

expeditiously with both the outlease of the Lakeside property at

full market value and construction of the West Side bed tower

project. The Committee supports VA’s intention to utilize resources

generated from the Lakeside outlease to fund all or part of the

West Side bed tower construction project. With prior notification to

the Committee, the VA may allocate major construction funds appropriated for CARES to meet any funding shortfalls due to delays

in acquiring receipts/revenues for the Lakeside property, for the

West Side bed tower project. The Committee urges VA to proceed

with the design and construction of both the West Side bed tower

simultaneously with the enhanced-use lease for the Lakeside property. The Committee further directs VA to accomplish both of these

projects in a manner that minimizes service disruptions to local

veterans.

Beckley, WV Nursing Home Care Unit.—The Committee urges

the VA to include sufficient funding in the 2005 budget request for

a new nursing home care unit at the Beckley, WV VAMC upon confirmation that the project is consistent with the strategic plans

which emerges from the VISN 6 CARES process.

Lebanon VAMC.—The Committee recognizes the need for longterm care enhancements to the Lebanon VA Medical Center and

encourages VA to continue to work with the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania to achieve those needs.

Denver VAMC.—The Committee supports the efforts to co-locate

the Denver VAMC with a new University of Colorado Hospital at

the Fitzsimons campus. The Committee encourages the Department to continue working with the University of Colorado and the

Department of Defense in developing a cost-effective and efficient

plan to address the needs of local veterans.

CONSTRUCTION, MINOR PROJECTS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $224,531,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 252,144,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 252,144,000

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 equal to or less than the amount set forth in 38 U.S.C.

8104(a)(3)(4). Public Law 106–117, the Veterans Millennium

Health Care and Benefits Act of 1999, gave VA the authority to

make capital contributions from minor construction in enhanceduse leases. Proceeds realized from Enhanced Use Lease activities

may also be transferred from the Medical Care Collections Fund

and merged with the minor construction account.
24

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $252,144,000 for minor construction, the same as the budget request and $27,613,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The Committee is aware of the authorizing committees’ 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 strongly encouraged

to address this problem.

GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $99,350,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 102,100,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 102,100,000

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 $102,100,000 for grants for the construction of State extended care facilities, equal to the budget request and $2,750,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. This

program cost-effectively meets long-term health care needs of veterans.

GRANTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE VETERANS’ CEMETERIES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $31,792,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 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
25

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 2004, $208,000

above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the budget request.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee has included 13 administrative provisions (Sections 101–113) carried in earlier bills and two new administrative

provisions. Among these are:

Section 107 enables VA to use surplus earnings from the National service life insurance, U.S. Government life insurance, and

veterans special life insurance program to administer these programs. This provision was included for the first time in fiscal year

1996 appropriations legislation. The Department estimates that

$38,922,000 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 2004 only the reimbursement

of the Office of Resolution Management [ORM] and the Office of

Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication [OEDCA] for

services provided, from funds in any appropriation for salaries and

other administrative expenses.

Section 112 limits funds for medical treatment of non-service

connected veterans to those who have provided accurate insurance

annual income information.

The two new administrative provisions are as follows:

Section 114 allows medical care appropriations to provide access

to the various sources of collections, which are to be deposited into

the Medical Care Collection Fund, as well as authorize expenditures for these activities.

Section 115 allows proceeds from Enhanced Use Leasing Activities to be used for planning, and construction of major and minor

projects.
(26)

TITLE II—DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $35,208,908,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 35,928,132,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 36,085,777,000

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 2004 an appropriation of $36,085,777,000 for the Department of Housing and Urban

Development. This is $876,869 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted

level and $157,645 above the budget request.

HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

(INCLUDING RECISSION AND TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2003 .............................................................................1 $17,111,613,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... ( 2 )

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3 18,433,606,000

1 Includes an advance appropriation of $4,172,700,000 for fiscal year 2004.

2The Administration proposed $12,535,201,000 through a new ‘‘Housing assistance for needy

families’’ account that was designed to transfer authority for section 8 vouchers to States as a

block grant. Under the budget request, section 8 project-based assistance would be funded a separate account. 3 Includes an advance appropriation of $4,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
27

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding mainly for the section 8 programs,

including tenant-based and project-based rental assistance. Section

8 assistance is the principle appropriation for Federal housing assistance and provides rental housing assistance to over 3 million

families. The account provides funding for the renewal of the existing Section 8 contracts covering Vouchers, Moderate Rehabilitation,

Loan Management, Property Disposition, New Construction/Substantial Rehabilitation, and Preservation contracts. Further, it

funds incremental vouchers to assist non-elderly disabled families,

to provide vouchers for tenants that live in projects where the

owner of the project has decided to leave the section 8 program, or

for replacement of units lost from the assisted housing inventory

(Tenant Protection vouchers), etc. Under these programs, eligible

low-income families pay 30 percent of their adjusted income for

rent, and the Federal Government is responsible for the remainder

of the rent, up to the fair market rent or some other payment

standard. This account also provides funding for the Contract Administrator program and Family Self-Sufficiency [FSS]. The contract administrators are responsible for the oversight and administration of section 8 project-based contracts such as Loan Management, Property Disposition, Preservation, and New Construction/

Substantial Rehabilitation. Under FSS, families receive job training and employment that should lead to a decrease in their dependency on welfare programs and move towards economic self-sufficiency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,433,606,000

for fiscal year 2004, including $4,200,000,000 as an advance appropriation to be made available on October 1, 2004. These funds include $1,372,000,000 in funds that are rescinded from unobligated

balances remaining from funds appropriated for this account in

previous fiscal years. These rescinded funds are for use in meeting

section 8 needs in fiscal year 2004.

Of these overall amounts, the Committee has allocated

$16,202,616,000 for the renewal of all expiring section 8 contracts;

$461,329,000 for a central fund to be allocated by HUD in support

of section 8 contracts up to the authorized section 8 contract level

for all public housing agencies; $252,203,000 for section 8 preservation contracts; $72,000,000 for family self-sufficiency contracts

under section 23 of the 1937 Act; $1,339,448,400 for section 8 administrative costs; $100,000,000 for section 8 project-based administration costs; $3,010,000 for the working capital fund; and up to

$3,000,000 for an outside audit to assess the current status of all

funds within the account, including the amount of all obligated and

unobligated for all programs for this fiscal year, prior, and subsequent fiscal years. For purposes of this audit, the Committee directs GAO to work with the outside auditors on the status of this

account. Finally, the Committee includes a rescission of

$1,372,000,000 from unobligated funds under the section 8 tenantbased program from previous fiscal years in support of section 8

needs in fiscal year 2004.
28

This account continues to fund all section 8 contracts in a manner consistent with the implementation of the Section 8 program

in the VA/HUD fiscal year 2003 Appropriations bill. Under this approach, PHAs would receive funding from HUD for all section 8

contracts that are currently in use and HUD would maintain a central fund to provide additional section 8 funds for PHAs that can

fund additional section 8 voucher units up to the authorized contract level. In many cases, PHAs would use their reserves to meet

the immediate housing needs of families that can use vouchers to

obtain housing up to the PHA’s authorized contract level. Once a

PHA has exceeded the use of 50 percent of its reserve, HUD would

be required to reimburse the PHA for these funds. PHAs that have

entered into contracts for units in excess of their authorized contract level for vouchers would be required to meet their authorized

voucher level no later than 60 days after the start of the fiscal

year. A PHA also could not award any additional vouchers (including turnover vouchers) until the PHA is within its authorized contract level.

While the Committee supports and understands the need for

PHAs to allocate to tenants more vouchers than are permissible

under their authorized contract levels, the Committee is very concerned over intentional or negligent abuses of this discretion. In

particular, the Committee directs the Department to make quarterly reports on PHA utilization rates and to identify PHAs that

have exceeded their authorized contract levels by more than 5 percent.

The current section 8 funding structure was first implemented in

fiscal year 2003 as an alternative to the previous funding model

that required the funding of all section 8 contracts up to the authorized level, whether in use or not. This previous funding structure resulted in the annual availability for rescissions of unused

funding in billions of dollars and undermined the credibility of the

account. While the new structure is targeted to providing the funding needs of all vouchers in use as well as providing adequate

funds for all vouchers that likely will be used, HUD does not have

reliable data for these purposes. The Committee directs HUD to develop a real-time data model which will identify the actual use of

all vouchers (those in use and those that can and will be used up

to the authorized contract level). This HUD model is key to ensuring that families with vouchers will not lose their housing due to

a lack of adequate funding or be denied the use of vouchers to obtain housing.

The Committee is concerned that the Administration has not

adequately estimated the per-unit costs of vouchers or the utilization rate. This is understandable since much of the available

voucher data is old and unreliable. Nevertheless, the Committee

has made a commitment to help low-income families obtain affordable housing through the Section 8 programs. Therefore, if the

costs of the Section 8 programs exceed the appropriated funding,

as estimated by the Administration, the Committee expects the Administration to submit a budget amendment as part of any fiscal

year 2004 supplemental appropriations bill to provide the full funding of all section 8 needs.
29

To support this account, the Committee rejects the Administration’s proposal to establish a new account, the Housing Assistance

for Needy Families account, that is designed as a transition account to allocate section 8 voucher funding to States through a

block grant. Under this proposal, HUD would have continued to administer a Section 8 project-based housing assistance program. The

Committee agrees with the philosophical approach of the Administration that States and localities are in a better position to understand and meet the local housing needs of low-income families.

Nevertheless, the funding level proposed by the Administration in

this proposal is inadequate to meet the State and local housing

needs of low-income families and is likely to result in a large funding shortfall and an unfunded mandate over the foreseeable future.

HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $0

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 12,535,201,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 0

The Committee does not adopt the budget proposal to fund the

proposed new section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (tenant-based assistance) program as a separate new account but instead has continued funding for these activities in the Housing Certificate Fund.

While the Committee believes that States and localities are in a

better position to address State and local housing needs, the Committee is concerned that the block grant proposal does not take into

account the actual and future costs associated with section 8 voucher needs. Until there is reliable data on the current per-unit costs

and utilization rates of vouchers as well as assurances that the

block grant funding will meet all voucher needs, the Committee is

not inclined to consider fully the administration’s block grant proposal.

PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $0

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 4,823,405,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 0

The Committee does not adopt the budget proposal to fund the

Section 8 project-based assistance program as a separate new account but instead has continued to provide funding for these programs in the Housing Certificate Fund.

PUBLIC HOUSING CAPITAL FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $2,712,255,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 2,641,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,641,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides funding for modernization and capital

needs of public housing authorities (except Indian housing authori-
30

ties), including management improvements, resident relocation and

homeownership activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,641,000,000

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

and $71,255,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.

Of the amount made available under this section, up to $55,000,000 is for supportive services for residents of public housing, and $15,000,000 is for the Neighborhood Networks Initiative

in public housing. Funds for the Neighborhood Networks Initiative

are provided to establish and operate computer centers in and

around public housing. These funds are intended to allow residents

of public housing access to the technology skills that are increasingly important in the 21st century workplace.

HUD is prohibited from using any funds under this account as

an emergency reserve under section 9(k) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, but is provided up to $50,000,000 for emergency

capital needs including $13,000,000 for troubled PHAs.

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 PHAs 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 critical, deferred maintenance needs. The Committee includes an administrative provision for loan and loan guarantee authority 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. The Committee also includes a set-aside of

up to $125,000,000 for grants and credit subsidy to support this

loan and loan guarantee program.

PUBLIC HOUSING OPERATING FUND

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $3,576,600,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 3,574,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,576,600,000

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 $3,576,600,000

for the public housing operating fund, the same as the fiscal year

2003 level and $2,600,000 more than 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
31

of 1937. The bill includes language from the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill that prohibits the use of operating funds to pay for

the operating expenses for a prior fiscal year.

REVITALIZATION OF SEVERELY DISTRESSED PUBLIC HOUSING [HOPE VI]

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $570,269,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 0

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 195,115,000

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 $195,115,000 for the ‘‘HOPE VI’’ account, $195,115,000 above the budget request

and $375,154,000 below the fiscal year 2003 level. The Committee

urges the Department to reconsider the elimination of the HOPE

VI program. This program has resulted in the funding of innovative

projects that work both as public and mixed-income housing as well

as building blocks to revitalizing neighborhoods.

The Committee has included bill language to sunset the HOPE

VI program on September 30, 2006. This is an important program

that has revitalized many distressed properties as well as being the

anchor for the revitalization of many communities in which these

properties are located. As noted, the Committee is disappointed

that the Administration has eliminated HOPE VI without proper

review and without providing alternative authority and funding to

address the needs of the remaining PHAs with obsolete units and

those with substantial rehabilitation needs.

In particular, since the inception of the HOPE VI program, HUD

has approved the demolition of some 140,000 units with a replacement program of mixed income projects. And as noted, these

projects have leveraged new investments and revitalized entire

communities. Nevertheless, the Committee is disappointed that

HUD has failed to evaluate fully the impact of HOPE VI on communities as well as failed to provide a new strategy to continue

needed revitalization efforts. The Committee expects the Department to identify those practices used by PHAs that have successfully implemented the HOPE VI program and either work to extend the HOPE VI program or develop appropriate alternative authorities that will continue the efforts of PHAs to develop mixed income/public housing developments that can continue to anchor the

redevelopment of their communities. 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 or a successor program a meaningful program

for the future.
32

The Committee also authorizes HUD to recapture funds for use

in awarding HOPE VI grants in fiscal year 2004 from HOPE VI

grants that were awarded in fiscal year 1997 and prior fiscal years.

Funds may only be recaptured where HUD determines a project is

less than 90 percent complete and the project is unlikely to be completed successfully within the next 2 fiscal years. In addition, HUD

may not recapture funds from a HOPE VI project that has unobligated funds due to litigation or a court ordered consent decree.

HUD is also required to develop an alternative housing strategy to

meet the needs of the tenants in a failed HOPE VI project and may

only recapture those funds from the HOPE VI grant that are not

needed to fund this housing strategy. No additional funds may be

used to fund an alternative housing strategy or a project that

meets the requirements of a failed HOPE VI project. HUD also is

consult with the tenants and the PHA on an alternative housing

strategy unless HUD determines that efforts of the PHA or the tenants is designed to undermine the recapture of the funds and the

development of the alternative housing strategy.

NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $644,782,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 646,600,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 646,600,000

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 $646,600,000 for the Native American Housing Block Grant, of which $2,000,000 is set aside for a

credit subsidy for the section 601 Loan Guarantee Program. The

Committee recommendation is the same as the budget request and

$1,818,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.

The Committee continues to believe that training and technical

assistance in support of NAHASDA should be shared, with

$2,200,000 to be administered by the National American Indian

Housing Council [NAIHC] and $4,000,000 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.

As discussed last year, the Committee notes that there is not a

requirement that qualified Indian and Alaska Native owned construction companies be given priority consideration in construction
33

of Indian housing. In many Indian and Native communities, the

unemployment rate exceeds 80 percent, and housing contracts

would provide much needed employment and training opportunities

for Native Americans living on reservations and in Alaska Native

villages. As with last year, the Committee directs the agency and

its grantees to give priority consideration to qualified Native owned

firms in the design and construction of Indian housing. The Committee also directs HUD to report on the use of Native owned firms

under this account by April 15, 2004.

INDIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $5,266,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,300,000

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 $5,300,000 in program subsidies to

support a loan guarantee level of $197,243,000. This is $34,000

more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $4,300,000 more

than the budget request.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. ( 1 )

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... $10,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 0

1 In fiscal year 2003, funding for this program was provided under the Community Development Fund.

The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 creates

the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program to provide

grants to the State of Hawaii’s Department of Hawaiian Home

Lands [DHHL] for housing and housing related assistance to develop, maintain and operate affordable housing for eligible low-income Native Hawaiian families.

The Committee rejects the administration proposal to fund this

program as an independent account and continues to recommend

funding within the Community Development Fund.

NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING LOAN GUARANTEE FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,028,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,035,000
34

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 $1,035,000 in program subsidies to

support a loan guarantee level of $39,712,000. This is $7,000 more

than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $35,000 more than the

budget request.

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS [HOPWA]

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $290,102,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 297,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 291,000,000

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.

Statutorily, 90 percent of appropriated funds are distributed by

formula to qualifying States and metropolitan areas on the basis of

the number and incidence of AIDS cases reported to Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention by March 31 of the year preceding

the appropriation year. The remaining 10 percent of funds are distributed through a national competition.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $291,000,000 for

this program, $898,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and

$6,000,000 less than the budget request.

The Committee also requires HUD to allocate these funds in a

manner that preserves existing HOPWA programs to the extent

those programs are determined to be meeting the needs of persons

with AIDS. The Committee includes legislation that allocates the

formula funding in a manner consistent with fiscal year 2003 allocations.

OFFICE OF RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $25,000,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 0

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 ap-
35

proach 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 2004 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 2003 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, 2003 ............................................................................. $29,805,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 0

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities [EZ/EC] program was authorized under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

of 1993. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 later authorized two additional Round I urban EZs and 15 Round II urban EZs. This interagency initiative is designed to create self-sustaining, long-term development in distressed urban and rural areas throughout the Nation. The program utilizes a combination of Federal tax incentives

and flexible grant funds to reinvigorate communities that have

been in decline for decades.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $0 for this program, $29,805,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and

the same as the budget request. As with the previous Administration, the Committee believes that this program was intended to be

funded as a mandatory program and not as an obligation of this

bill. The Committee expects 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
36

Inspector General has been critical about how many communities

have implemented this program and used EZ funds.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $4,904,909,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 4,716,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,950,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of

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

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

physical, economic, and social development activities are eligible

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

enumerates general objectives which the block grants are designed

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

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

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

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

of which gives somewhat greater weight to the age of housing

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

purpose grants and Indian tribes.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,950,000,000

for the Community Development Fund in fiscal year 2004. This is

an increase of $234,000,000 above the budget request for fiscal year

2004 and $45,091,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.

The Committee has included $4,545,700,000 for community development block grants [CDBG]. 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; $12,000,000 for the Self Help Homeownership

Opportunity Program; $35,500,000 for capacity building of which

$31,500,000 is for Capacity Building for Community Development

and Affordable Housing for LISC and the Enterprise Foundation;

and $52,500,000 for section 107 grants, including $4,000,000 to

support Alaska Native-Serving Institutions and Native HawaiianServing 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; $4,000,000 for Community Outreach Partnerships,

and $7,500,000 for Hispanic-serving institutions. The Committee
37

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.

The Committee also includes $60,000,000 for the Youthbuild program of which $10,000,000 is to develop programs in underserved

and rural areas. The Committee remains concerned that this program has not developed a significant base of support for funding

outside the Federal funds made available through this account.

The Committee also funds the Economic Development Initiative

at $140,000,000 and the Neighborhood Initiatives program at

$21,000,000.

The Economic Development Initiatives are as follows:

1. $3,000,000 for the City of Tuscaloosa for the 21st Avenue

Urban Renewal Project in Tuscaloosa, Alabama;

2. $400,000 for the University of South Alabama for improvements related to the Mitchell College of Business Library in Mobile, Alabama;

3. $75,000 for the Elmore County Economic Development Authority for business and economic development activities in Elmore

County, Alabama;

4. $100,000 for the City of Millport, Alabama for construction

costs associated with the Regional Cultural Center;

5. $200,000 for the Tuscaloosa County Commission for Community Development in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama;

6. $100,000 for the Montgomery Boys and Girls Club, Alabama

for facility improvements;

7. $250,000 for the City of Fairhope, Alabama for construction of

the Fairhope Library;

8. $100,000 for the Huntsville/ Madison County Convention and

Visitor’s Bureau for furnishing of the Visitor’s Center in Huntsville,

Alabama;

9. $425,000 for the Crenshaw County Economic/ Industrial Development Authority for industrial site preparation in Crenshaw

County, Alabama;

10. $100,000 for the Rockford Council of Arts and Crafts for renovation of the Old Rockford School in Rockford, Alabama;

11. $150,000 for the City of Eufaula, Alabama for the Main

Street Revitalization project;

12. $100,000 for the City of Northport, Alabama for community

development;

13. $1,000,000 for the Anchorage Museum, Anchorage, Alaska for

facilities expansion;

14. $30,000 for the City of Palmer, Alaska for public facility improvements;

15. $200,000 for the City of North Pole, Alaska for recreation improvements;

16. $150,000 for Juneau, Alaska for port facilities;

17. $500,000 for the Bering Straits Native Corporation for the

Cape Nome quarry upgrade, Nome, Alaska;

18. $1,000,000 for the Tongass Coast Aquarium, Ketchikan, Alaska for improvements;

19. $750,000 for the J.P. Jones Community Development Center,

Fairbanks, Alaska for improvements;
38

20. $400,000 for Love, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska for a social service

facility;

21. $1,000,000 for Cordova, Alaska costs associated with the construction of a community center;

22. $750,000 for the Kenai Pensula Borough, Kenai, Alaska for

recreation facilities;

23. $500,000 for the City of Sitka, Alaska for the Sawmill Cove

jobs center;

24. $500,000 for the Valdez Senior Center, Valdez Alaska for improvements;

25. $150,000 for the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska for a global logistics center;

26. $250,000 for the Alaska Aviation Heritage Museum, Anchorage for improvements;

27. $500,000 for the Central Arkansas Resource Conservation

and Development Council in Helena, Arkansas for the Cherry

Street Historic Preservation Project;

28. $250,000 for the City of Conway, Arkansas for downtown revitalization;

29. $250,000 for the City of Fort Smith, Arkansas for

streetscapes improvements to Garrison Avenue;

30. $250,000 for the Studio for the Arts in Pocahontas, Arkansas

for construction of a theatre;

31. $1,000,000 for the City of Inglewood, California for the construction of a senior center;

32. $250,000 for the City of San Francisco, California for the Old

Mint redevelopment project;

33. $750,000 for the City of San Diego, California for the construction of low income housing;

34. $250,000 for the Sacramento Housing and Development

Agency, California for the construction of new low income housing;

35. $250,000 for the City of East Palo Alto, California to build

a new town civic center;

36. $1,000,000 for Fort Westernaire, Golden, Colorado for the expansion of the Westernaire museum;

37. $200,000 for YouthBiz, Inc., Denver, Colorado for construction needs related to an inner-city youth business training program;

38. $1,000,000 for Colorado UpLift, Denver, Colorado for construction needs related to a program benefiting ‘‘at-risk’’ inner-city

youth in Denver;

39. $1,000,000 for the Denver Art Museum, Colorado for continued design and development of the Center for American Indian Art;

40. $200,000 for the City of Arvada, Colorado for the design

phase of the community’s arts and humanities center;

41. $500,000 for Mercy Housing, Inc., Denver, Colorado for the

development of affordable housing in Durango, Colorado;

42. $500,000 for the City of Hartford, Connecticut for the Hartford Home Ownership Initiative;

43. $250,000 for the Southside Institutions Neighborhood Alliance, Hartford, Connecticut for rehabilitation to dilapidated housing stock;
39

44. $500,000 for Sacred Heart Village, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware to complete the construction of an affordable housing facility

for seniors;

45. $500,000 for the Wilmington Senior Center, Wilmington,

Delaware for renovations for the Lafayette Court senior apartments;

46. $250,000 for the Greater Washington Urban League, in

Washington, DC for renovations to their new headquarters; 47. $500,000 for Miami Dade County, Florida for the construction

of the Miami Dade County Performing Arts Center; 48. $500,000 for Volusia County, Florida for the construction of

a community performing arts center; 49. $500,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Hawaii, Nanakuli,

Hawaii for the planning and construction of a new facility; 50. $500,000 for the Oahu Continuum of Care, Wainae, Hawaii

for the construction and renovation of permanent supportive housing; 51. $500,000 for the Hawaii Nature Center, Wailuku, Hawaii for

the Maui Renovation Project; 52. $500,000 for the County of Kauai, Hawaii to purchase a

building for a technology training facility; 53. $250,000 for the Kapahulu Senior Center, Honolulu, Hawaii

for improvements and renovations to the senior center; 54. $900,000 for the Clearwater Economic Development Association, Idaho, to continue implementation of a Lewis and Clark Bicentennial commemoration plan; 55. $800,000 for Boise State University, Idaho, for construction

on an Environmental Science and Economic Development Building; 56. $900,000 for the City of Salmon, Idaho, for expansion of the

Sacajawea Cultural and Arts Center expansion; 57. $900,000 for the University of Idaho, for construction related

to a Performance and Education Facility; 58. $500,000 for Access Living, Chicago, Illinois for the construction of a new community service facility;

59. $350,000 for Children’s Advocacy Center, Chicago, Illinois for

costs associated with expansion;

60. $300,000 for the City of Des Plaines, Illinois for infrastructure improvements;

61. $300,000 for the Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs, Illinois for restoration of the Chicago Cultural Center Domes;

62. $250,000 for the City of East Moline, Illinois for necessary

upgrades to infrastructure for economic development purposes, including the Quarter project and revitalization of the central business district;

63. $500,000 for improvements to the Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois;

64. $250,000 for Manteno Township, Manteno, Illinois for economic redevelopment activities;

65. $250,000 for the City of Springfield, Illinois for infrastructure

improvements to support economic development;

66. $800,000 for the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana for the expansion of the Northeast Indiana Innovation Center;

67. $200,000 for the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns, Indianapolis, Indiana for downtown revitalization;
40

68. $200,000 for the City of Anderson, Indiana for the Anderson

Business Center project; 69. $350,000 for the Delaware County Commissioners, City of

Muncie, Indiana for building improvements to the Fairgrounds facilities;

70. $300,000 for the City of Council Bluffs, Iowa for the 23rd Avenue Housing Project; 71. $250,000 for the Scott County Housing Council, Davenport,

Iowa for the construction and rehabilitation of housing; 72. $200,000 for the Iowa Department of Economic Development

for the enhancement of regional economic development capabilities; 73. $250,000 for the Mid America Housing Partnership in Cedar

Rapids, Iowa for the housing trust fund; 74. $100,000 for the Iowa State Fair Board in Des Moines, Iowa

for a statewide awareness and education/exhibit;

75. $280,000 for the City of Waterloo, Iowa for the John Deere

brownfield and bio-based incubator project; 76. $300,000 for the Witwer Senior Center, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

for facility expansion and renovation; 77. $600,000 for the City of Clinton, Iowa for the Liberty Square

brownfields redevelopment project; 78. $2,000,000 for Catholic Housing of Wyandotte County, St.

Peter, Kansas for the development of affordable housing; 79. $1,000,000 for the El Zocalo Hispanic Community Center,

Wichita, Kansas for construction costs;

80. $500,000 for Railroad Heritage, Inc. for construction costs associated with the Great Overland Station Renovation and Restoration Project; 81. $3,000,000 for the H.L. Neblett Center in Owensboro/Daviess

County, Kentucky for the construction of a new facility; 82. $500,000 for the Crittenden County Economic Development

Corporation in Marion, Kentucky, for the Marion/Crittenden County Technology-Economic Development Training Center;

83. $100,000 for Harrison County, Kentucky for improvements to

the Harrison County Courthouse;

84. $400,000 for Hopkinsville, Kentucky for construction related

to the Hopkinsville-Christian County Conference and Convention

Center;

85. $500,000 for the Louisville Science Center, Kentucky for renovation and construction related to the Science Education Wing;

86. $500,000 for PACE Louisiana, New Orleans, Louisiana for

the renovation of a building for a senior adult day center;

87. $750,000 for the State of Louisiana for the Poverty Point restoration project;

88. $250,000 to the Biomedical Research Foundation for the

InterTech Science Park;

89. $100,000 for the Comprehensive Central City Initiative of

New Orleans, Inc., Louisiana for neighborhood revitalization;

90. $500,000 for the City of Alexandria, Louisiana for redevelopment of the riverfront area;

91. $200,000 for the City of Opelousas, Louisiana for the redevelopment of the historic downtown district;

92. $100,000 for the City of Bogalusa, Louisiana for recreation

improvements;
41

93. $100,000 for facility improvements at the American Rose

Center in Shreveport, Louisiana; 94. $500,000 for the City of Caribou, Maine to improve and repair gymnasium and related facilities in the Armory building; 95. $125,000 for the Center Theater for the Performing Arts in

Dover-Foxcroft, Maine to improve and repair the Center Theater; 96. $125,000 for the Town of Fort Fairfield, Maine to improve

and repair the Armory facility; 97. $220,000 for the University of Maine (Jonesboro and Orono),

Blueberry Hill Farm to renovate the blueberry research facility; 98. $200,000 for the Central Maine Technical College-Western

Maine University and Technical Center, South Paris, Maine to assist in development of technical college center; 99. $250,000 for the City of Bangor, Maine for further development of the Penobscot Riverfront Park;

100. $250,000 for the City of Brewer, Maine to assist the city’s

shoreline stabilization project; 101. $120,000 for Sagadahoc County, Maine to repair granite

steps at the Sagadahoc County Courthouse; 102. $210,000 for Town of Thomaston, Maine to fund construction of sidewalk in business district;

103. $600,000 for the City of Baltimore, Maryland for the Main

Streets Initiative project; 104. $100,000 for the Baltimore Child Abuse Center in Baltimore, Maryland for building renovations; 105. $500,000 for the B&O Railroad Museum in Baltimore,

Maryland for building renovations; 106. $250,000 for the Great Blacks in Wax Museum in Baltimore, Maryland for the Museum Expansion Project; 107. $250,000 for Harford County, Maryland for the Havre de

Grace Youth & Senior Center;

108. $500,000 for Howard County, Maryland for Revitalization of

the Route 1 Corridor;

109. $750,000 for Montgomery County, Maryland for pedestrian

linkages in Silver Spring;

110. $300,000 for the City of Gaithersburg, Maryland for the Gaithersburg Youth Center;

111. $650,000 for Prince Georges’ County, Maryland to develop

an African American Cultural & Community Center in the Gateway Arts District;

112. $300,000 for Washington County, Maryland for the

Smithsburg Library;

113. $260,000 for the City of Laurel, Maryland for improvements

to Route 1;

114. $65,000 for the Woodlawn Community Education & Development Association in Baltimore County, Maryland for the

Woodlawn Community Auditorium Project;

115. $250,000 for the City of District Heights, Maryland for facade and building renovations in the city’s commercial area;

116. $1,500,000 for the Girl Scouts of the USA for youth development initiatives in public housing;

117. $250,000 for Main South Community Development Corporation, Worcester, Massachusetts for the Gardner-Kilby Hammond

Neighborhood Revitilization Project;
42

118. $250,000 for the City of Boston, Massachusetts for the City

of Boston Affordable Housing Environmental Remediation Project; 119. $1,000,000 for the State of Michigan for costs associated

with the relocation of the A.E. Seaman Mineral Museum;

120. $250,000 for the City of Detroit, Michigan for the Detroit

Riverfront revitalization project; 121. $250,000 for the FOCUS:HOPE Institute in Detroit, Michigan for facilities renovation; 122. $500,000 for the City of Saginaw, Michigan for the South

Washington Street Improvement Initiative; 123. $500,000 for the Mexicantown Community Development

Corporation, Detroit, Michigan for the construction of a welcome

center;

124. $225,000 for the City Opera House Heritage Association,

Traverse City, Michigan for costs associated with restoration; 125. $250,000 for the City of Parchment, Michigan for the Parchment Brownfield Redevelopment Project; 126. $187,500 for the City of St. Paul, Minnesota for rehabilitation needs at the Ames Lake Neighborhood/Phalen Place Apartments;

127. $187,500 for the Shelter House in Willmar, Minnesota for

a new building project; 128. $187,500 for Heartland Corn Products in Winthrop, Minnesota for the construction of a new facility; 129. $187,500 for the City of Roseau, Minnesota for the rehabilitation of damaged housing; 130. $500,000 for the City of Tchula, for the development of the

Mississippi Municipal Complex; 131. $500,000 for the City of Oxford, Mississippi for the City of

Oxford Innovation and Outreach Center;

132. $1,000,000 for the City of Meridian, Mississippi for the rehabilitation of the Riley Education and Performing Arts Center; 133. $1,000,000 for Mississippi State University for the renovation of the Lloyd-Ricks Building;

134. $250,000 for the City of Richton, Mississippi for repairs associated with the City of Richton’s Municipal Complex;

135. $500,000 for the City of Brookhaven, Mississippi for the rehabilitation of the Lincoln County and City of Brookhaven’s Courthouse;

136. $500,000 for the City of Pearl, Mississippi for the renovation

of the City of Pearl’s Community Center;

137. $500,000 for the City of Holly Springs, Mississippi for the

North Memphis Street District Redevelopment and Revitalization;

138. $250,000 for John C. Stennis Institute of Government, Mississippi State, Mississippi, for the Capacity Development Initiative;

139. $500,000 for the Tredegar National Civil War Center Foundation for planning and construction of the Tredegar National Civil

War Center in Virginia;

140. $250,000 for the Stars and Stripes Museum/Library Association in Stoddard County, Missouri for archiving facility upgrades

and equipment;

141. $500,000 for the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, Missouri for renovations to the Buck O’Neil Research and

Education Center;
43

142. $90,000 for the Capitol City Area Council for Special Services in Cole County, Missouri for costs associated with the construction of the Low Income Family Program expansion; 143. $600,000 for the City of Maryville, Missouri for neighborhood revitalization;

144. $1,000,000 for the Metropolitan Parks & Recreation District

in St. Louis, Missouri for feasibility, engineering, and design of the

Choteau Lake and Greenway Project; 145. $250,000 for the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Commission, Ashland, Missouri for construction costs related to the Life

Sciences Technology Incubator; 146. $500,000 for the City of Raytown, Missouri for downtown revitalization;

147. $500,000 for the Urban League of Kansas City, Missouri for

costs associated with construction;

148. $500,000 for Grand Center, Inc. in St. Louis, Missouri for

construction of a multi-purpose facility for the Charmaine Chapman Community Center; 149. $450,000 for the City of Clarksville, Missouri for costs associated with construction of the Riverfront Development Project; 150. $100,000 for the Eugene Field House Foundation in St.

Louis, Missouri for the Eugene Field House restoration; 151. $500,000 for the Friends of the RB Project, Inc. in Stockton,

Missouri for costs associated with construction of the Friends of RB

Stockton Lake Community Project; 152. $1,000,000 for the University of Missouri-Kansas City for

construction of the Cardiovascular Proteomics Center;

153. $750,000 for the National Children’s Cancer Society in St.

Louis, Missouri for construction;

154. $500,000 for the Daly Mansion Preservation Trust,

Hamiliton, Montana for the Marcus Daly Mansion Renovation

Project; 155. $500,000 for the Story Mansion, Bozeman, Montana for historical renovations and improvements;

156. $650,000 for the Deaconess Billings Clinic, Billings, Montana for additions to the research division;

157. $500,000 for St. Vincent’s Foundation, Billings, Montana for

construction of a senior citizens facility;

158. $500,000 for the Big Sky Economic Development Authority,

Billings, Montana for economic development outreach;

159. $150,000 for the Great Falls Development Authority, Great

Falls, Montana for economic development outreach;

160. $500,000 for the Southwest Boys and Girls Club, Bozeman,

Montana for construction of a new facility;

161. $275,000 for the Northern Cheyenne Boys and Girls Club,

Lame Deer, Montana for construction costs;

162. $225,000 for Missoula Aging Services, Missoula, Montana

for expansions and renovations;

163. $250,000 for the Yellowstone Boys and Girls Ranch Billings,

Montana for construction costs;

164. $350,000 for the Bozeman Library, Bozeman, Montana for

renovations and infrastructure;

165. $250,000 for the City of Omaha, Nebraska for the North

24th Street Corridor Revitalization project;
44

166. $375,000 for the Omaha Performing Arts Society in Omaha,

Nebraska for construction costs associated with the Omaha Performing Arts Center; 167. $625,000 for the North Omaha Housing Initiative in

Omaha, Nebraska for the development of affordable housing; 168. $750,000 for the City of Nashua, New Hampshire to renovate and expand the Nashua Senior Center; 169. $500,000 for the City of Nashua, New Hampshire for the

restoration of Mines Falls Park;

170. $700,000 for the Greater Manchester YMCA, Manchester,

New Hampshire for renovation of facilities; 171. $550,000 for City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire to assist

in the creation of a safe pedestrian link (Portsmouth Piscataqua

Riverwalk) between scenic and historic destinations and New

Hampshire’s only working deep-water seaport; 172. $100,000 for the Town of Troy, New Hampshire for the Troy

Economic Development Initiative; 173. $500,000 for the City of Claremont, New Hampshire, for the

Claremont Economic Development Initiative/Renovation of Historic

Mills;

174. $400,000 for the City of Concord, New Hampshire for the

renovation of Penacook Mills;

175. $1,000,000 for the State of New Jersey for construction costs

associated with the South Jersey Rural Economic Development

Corporation; 176. $1,000,000 for the New Jersey Community Development

Corporation in Paterson, New Jersey for construction of a Transportation Opportunity Center; 177. $500,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Santa Fe, New Mexico to construct a new facility; 178. $500,000 to the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, to complete construction and renovation of buildings occupied by the

Cuidando los Ninos program for homeless children and families

(the John Marshal Renovation Project, Phase II, Cuidando los

Ninos site);

179. $700,000 for the Hobbs Industrial Air Park redevelopment

project in Hobbs, New Mexico;

180. $640,000 for the Village of Tijeras, New Mexico for construction of an addition to the Tijeras Village Hall;

181. $360,000 for the Town of Taos, New Mexico, for the

DreamTree Project Transitional Living Program Apartments to

serve homeless, abused, and neglected youth;

182. $1,600,000 for the Town of Taos, New Mexico, to complete

construction and lining of the Paseo del Canon Drainage Channel

and related safety fencing;

183. $200,000 for Don ̃ a Ana County, New Mexico, for the Veterans Memorial Wall to honor war veterans;

184. $250,000 for the Sephardic Community Center, Brooklyn,

New York for a building addition for seniors, adults, teenagers and

children;

185. $250,000 for the Broome-Tioga Workforce Development System in New York to create a business incubator;

186. $250,000 for Schines Theatre, Auburn, New York for restoration of the facility;
45

187. $250,000 for the Foothills Performing Arts Center, Inc.,

Oneonta, New York for construction of a new facility;

188. $250,000 for the Nepperhan Valley Technology Center, Yonkers, New York to develop a biotechnology incubator;

189. $250,000 for the Metropolitan Development Association of

Central New York in Syracuse, New York for VISION 2010;

190. $250,000 for Southern Tier Sports and Recreation Center,

Inc. in Binghamton, New York for development of a Community

Center Complex;

191. $350,000 for the City of North Las Vegas, Nevada for a

neighborhood beautification project;

192. $350,000 for the City of Reno, Nevada for the construction

of the Reno Homeless Resource Center;

193. $350,000 for the City of Las Vegas, Nevada for improvements to a historic building;

194. $350,000 for Community Chest, Inc., Virginia City, Nevada

for construction of a youth and community resource center;

195. $350,000 for the City of Reno through the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Nevada for streetscaping improvements;

196. $200,000 for WestCare Foundation in Las Vegas, Nevada for

renovations of facilities;

197. $50,000 for the YMCA of Southern Nevada in Las Vegas for

facility renovations;

198. $1,000,000 for the V.I.C.T.M. Family Center in Washoe

County, Nevada for the construction of a facility for multi-purpose

social services referral and victim counseling;

199. $500,000 for Transylvania County, North Carolina for construction of a library;

200. $300,000 for Bennett College, Greensboro, North Carolina

for a community revitalization project;

201. $100,000 for Mayland Community College, Spruce Pine,

North Carolina for the Hampshire Mill Building Reuse and Market

Study;

202. $100,000 for the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum, Hatteras, North Carolina to complete construction;

203. $600,000 for the City of Rugby, North Dakota to complete

information technology and energy projects;

204. $400,000 for Lewis and Clark CommunityWorks, Bismark,

North Dakota for the Mandan Library Square project;

205. $500,000 for the Northwest Venture Communities Inc.,

Minot, North Dakota for the construction of the Northwest Career

and Technology Center;

206. $500,000 for Three Affiliated Tribes Tourism Department,

New Town, North Dakota for a cultural interpretive center;

207. $500,000 for Sitting Bull College, Fort Yates, North Dakota

for a day care center;

208. $700,000 for Franklin County Metro Parks, Franklin County, Ohio for the purchase of land in the Darby Creek Watershed;

209. $1,000,000 for the City of Dayton, Ohio for the development

of structures in the W. Third Street Historic District;

210. $500,000 for the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority for the

Northwest Ohio Brownfield Restoration Initiative;
46

211. $300,000 for the Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing Program [CAMP], Ohio to renovate and continue construction of the

Cleveland Manufacturing Technology Complex [CMTC];

212. $450,000 for the Johnny Appleseed Heritage Center, Inc. in

Ashland County, Ohio for construction of facilities;

213. $800,000 to the Dayton Development Coalition for the development of a commercial and industrial site near the airport in Dayton, Ohio;

214. $250,000 to the Village of Cedarville, Ohio for the construction of a library;

215. $1,000,000 for the Portland Development Commission, Portland, Oregon for the South Waterfront Greenway Project;

216. $400,000 for the Portland Development Commission, Portland, Oregon for affordable housing in North Macadam Central

District;

217. $200,000 for the City of Portland, Oregon for the Central

City Eastside Streetcar project;

218. $100,000 for the City of Astoria, Oregon for restoration to

the Astoria Column Cultural Heritage Center;

219. $50,000 for the Umatilla Community Recreation Center, Oregon for construction;

220. $100,000 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;

221. $100,000 to the Erie Municipal Airport Authority in Erie,

Pennsylvania, for the redevelopment of the recently acquired,

former Fenestra window manufacturing facility to serve the needs

of major air express carriers as an on-airport integrated service

center;

222. $300,000 to the Community Initiatives Development Corporation, Our City Reading, in Reading, Pennsylvania, for the rehabilitation of abandoned houses and parks to provide quality

home ownership opportunities to low-income families;

223. $75,000 to the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the

rehabilitation of the Blue Horizon Theater, which will serve as an

anchor in the Entertainment District;

224. $50,000 for the City of Erie, Pennsylvania, for site preparation and redevelopment of the vacant and blighted Koehler Brewery Building;

225. $150,000 for the Borough of Lehighton, Pennsylvania, to establish a Market Towns Community Technology Center, which will

serve as a community technology center to support the Corridor

Market Towns regional revitalization initiative;

226. $125,000 for Downtown Chambersburg, Inc., in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, to construct the Capitol Theatre Center and

preserve the 1927 Capitol Theatre as part of a regional arts initiative;

227. $100,000 for the Chester Economic Development Authority,

in Chester, Pennsylvania, for the redevelopment of the blighted

and vacant waterfront district, including the former PECO power

station into office space;

228. $75,000 for the Warner Theater Preservation Trust, in Erie,

Pennsylvania, to restore and expand the historic Warner Theater,
47

which will serve as the centerpiece of a regional performing arts

venue;

229. $100,000 for Mt. Airy, USA, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

to continue a redevelopment and urban renewal initiative as part

of neighborhood housing preservation strategy aimed at revitalizing

the community’s main commercial corridor, Germantown Avenue; 230. $100,000 for the City of Bradford, Pennsylvania, to assist

with the rehabilitation of the old City Hall Building as the cornerstone of the city’s urban redevelopment plan; 231. $250,000 for the Greater Wilkes-Barre Chamber of Business

and Industry, in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, for the acquisition

and redevelopment of the historic Irem Temple, which will be converted into a cultural center;

232. $75,000 for Nueva Esparanza, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to create a Latino Corridor, as part of an inner city development initiative to transform neighborhood vacant lots and abandoned homes into a vibrant commercial corridor;

233. $150,000 for Jefferson Square Community Development Corporation, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for a home ownership development initiative aimed at rejuvenating the inner-city through

blight removal and construction of modern, low-income homes; 234. $75,000 for Enterprise Center CDC, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the design and development of Enterprise Heights,

which will contain 50,000 square feet of new and rehabilitated office and retail space; 235. $100,000 for the Urban Redevelopment Authority, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to revitalize the Centre Avenue Corridor

through acquisition and redevelopment of vacant structures and

lots in the community; 236. $100,000 for the Allegheny County Department of Economic

Development in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, for the redevelopment of the former U.S. Steel Carrie Furnace site, as part of an

effort to stabilize the community through the integration of the

former industrial area, the adjacent neighborhoods and the riverfront;

237. $200,000 for the Allegheny County Department of Economic

Development for the construction of an Industrial Park in McKeesport, Pennsylvania, including the rehabilitation of a former USX

Tube Works site utilizing high performance building techniques;

238. $75,000 for the City of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, for the Pine

Street Neighborhood Development Project, including the acquisition and demolition of a blighted warehouse, as well as construction of affordable housing and an office building to house area nonprofit organizations, which will offer social services to city residents;

239. $75,000 for the South Philadelphia Area Revitalization Corporation, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the construction of lowand moderate-income housing;

240. $100,000 for the Greater Johnstown Regional Partnership,

in Johnstown, Pennsylvania to construct a regional technology center as part of a community revitalization initiative;

241. $75,000 for the Columbia Alliance for Economic Growth, in

Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, for technological infrastructure improvements for the Bloomsburg Regional Technology Center;
48

242. $300,000 for the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania for the development of an entertainment/retail complex;

243. $75,000 for the Historic Preservation Trust of Lancaster

County, Pennsylvania, for rehabilitation of facilities at the Thaddeus Stevens and Lydia Hamilton Smith historic site;

244. $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;

245. $125,000 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;

246. $75,000 to the National Trust for Historic Gettysburg in

Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, for the restoration of the historic Majestic Theater;

247. $100,000 to the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the construction of a

Chinatown Community Center;

248. $75,000 to the Invest Erie Community Development Corporation in Erie, Pennsylvania, for the acquisition and development

of property to establish a Parade Street Plaza;

249. $700,000 for the Salvation Army of Rhode Island, Providence, Rhode Island for construction of a day care center;

250. $130,000 for the City of North Providence, Rhode Island for

construction of a senior center;

251. $300,000 for the YMCA of Greater Providence, Rhode Island

for the Village of Promise project;

252. $300,000 for the Sexual Assault and Trauma Center of

Rhode Island, Providence, Rhode Island to purchase a building for

the Children’s Advocacy Center;

253. $300,000 for the Providence Public Library, Rhode Island for

renovations;

254. $450,000 for the Johnston Senior Citizens Center, Johnston,

Rhode Island for the construction of a new senior center;

255. $170,000 for AS220 and Perishable Theatre, Providence,

Rhode Island for building refurbishment;

256. $300,000 for the Pawtucket Armory Association in Pawtucket, Rhode Island for the renovation of the Pawtucket Armory

as an arts center;

257. $200,000 for the Warwick Boys and Girls Club, Warwick,

Rhode Island for building renovations;

258. $150,000 for the Trinity Repertory Theatre, Providence,

Rhode Island for the construction of the Pell Chafee Performance

Center;

259. $100,000 for Travelers Air in Providence, Rhode Island for

building renovations;

260. $100,000 for the Institute for the Study and Practice of Nonviolence for the renovation of the institute;

261. $100,000 for the Town of Bristol, Rhode Island for the redevelopment of the waterfront complex;

262. $100,000 for the Roger Williams Park in Providence, Rhode

Island for the construction of the Botanical Gardens;
49

263. $50,000 for the Seabee Museum and Memorial park in

North Kingstown, Rhode Island for costs associated with construction;

264. $50,000 for Harmony Hill School in Chepachet, Rhode Island for construction of Harmony House II;

265. $1,000,000 for the Five Rivers Community Development

Corporation, Georgetown, South Carolina for economic development

and affordable housing;

266. $500,000 to the Winchester Conservation Museum,

Edgefield, South Carolina for expansion;

267. $2,000,000 for Wakpa Sica Historical Society in Fort Pierre,

South Dakota for the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Center;

268. $400,000 for the City of Parker, South Dakota for the development of a community center;

269. $400,000 for the City of Beresford, South Dakota for the

Beresford Industrial Infrastructure Development project;

270. $200,000 for the Aberdeen Workforce Development Council,

Aberdeen South Dakota for costs associated with the Workforce Development Center;

271. $50,000 for the Canton Economic Development Corporation,

Canton, South Dakota for infrastructure development;

272. $350,000 for Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, South

Dakota for facilities construction for the McGovern Library and

Center for Public Service;

273. $350,000 for the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota for the

expansion and rehabilitation of the Orpheum Theatre;

274. $200,000 for the City of Vermillion, South Dakota for the expansion of the Center for Children and Families;

275. $100,000 for the City of Redfield, South Dakota for renovations and improvements to the Carnegie Library;

276. $900,000 for the Five Points Commercial Development

Project in Knoxville, Tennessee to develop abandoned, blighted,

and underdeveloped commercial areas;

277. $500,000 for Rolling Mill Hills in Nashville, Tennessee to revitalize distressed urban areas;

278. $500,000 for the New Town Center at Soulsville in Memphis, Tennessee to support economic and community development;

279. $500,000 for the Chattanooga Riverfront Development

Project, Chattanooga, Tennessee to create new park space and

other improvements along the riverfront;

280. $100,000 for the Historic Rugby Economic Development

Project in Rugby, Tennessee to develop new visitor facilities and

encourage economic growth;

281. $500,000 for the Tennessee State University Communications Enhancement Initiative in Nashville, Tennessee to complete

a performing arts center and support community programs;

282. $250,000 for the City of San Angelo, Texas for the Innovative Low Income Housing Financing Initiative;

283. $450,000 for the Greater Kelly USA Development Authority,

San Antonio, Texas for the Kelly USA Economic Development for

Commerce for a manufacturing site served by rail;

284. $200,000 for the City of Denton, Texas for the downtown redevelopment and infrastructure improvements;
50

285. $100,000 for the City of Dallas, Texas for renovations to the

Texas Theater;

286. $300,000 for the City of Dallas, Texas for the Eagle Ford

Low Income Housing Project for the development of affordable

housing for low and moderate-income families;

287. $200,000 for the City of Beaumont, Texas for the Downtown

Improvement Program;

288. $200,000 for Camp Fire USA, Texas for costs associated

with multiple construction projects;

289. $200,000 for the Border Trade Alliance, Texas for the Economic Health of the Southwest Border project;

290. $200,000 for the City of Austin, Texas for the SMART (Safe,

Mixed-Income, Accessible, Reasonably-Priced and Transit-Oriented)

Housing Program;

291. $300,000 for the Chinese Community Center, Houston,

Texas to develop a new center site;

292. $200,000 for Holt Hotel in Wichita Falls, Texas for continued renovations to the Holt Hotel;

293. $200,000 for the Science Spectrum in Lubbock, Texas for the

Science Spectrum Aerospace Exhibit to design and construct a

5,000 square foot permanent, hands-on exhibition demonstrating

the science and engineering principles of powered flying machines,

including aerospace concepts;

294. $400,000 for the City of Austin, Texas for renovations needed, associated with the 2006 World Congress on Information Technology, to the Austin Community Center;

295. $300,000 for the St. Philip’s Development Board, Dallas,

Texas for the St. Philip’s Neighborhood Development Plan;

296. $1,000,000 for the City of Provo, Utah for the Pioneer

Neighborhood Revitalization project;

297. $1,000,000 for the City of Ogden, Utah for the Ogden Central Neighborhood Redevelopment project;

298. $500,000 for the City of Logan, Utah for Northwest Public

Park project;

299. $500,000 for Salt Lake City, Utah for the Pete Suazo Business Center to purchase building space;

300. $500,000 for Syracuse City, Utah for the Syracuse City Senior Citizen and Community Center for construction;

301. $500,000 for the Vermont Institute of Natural Science,

Woodstock, Vermont for the construction of a wildlife rehabilitation

facility;

302. $400,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board,

Montpelier, Vermont for the creation of affordable rental housing

in downtown Brattleboro;

303. $100,000 for the City of Burlington, Vermont for the construction of the Lake Champlain Navy Memorial;

304. $1,000,000 for the Vermont Center on Emerging Technologies, Burlington, Vermont for the development of a technology

incubator;

305. $200,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board,

Montpelier, Vermont for construction of affordable housing in St.

Albans, Vermont;
51

306. $250,000 for the Northern Community Investment Corporation, St. Johnsbury, Vermont for development of the Newport Area

Family Services project;

307. $400,000 for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board,

Montpelier, Vermont for construction of affordable housing in

Essex, Vermont;

308. $150,000 for the Vermont Broadband Council to expand

broadband services in rural Vermont;

309. $1,200,000 for the City of Newport News, Virginia for the

development of the Newport News Fine Arts Center;

310. $300,000 for the Art Museum of Western Virginia, Roanoke

Virginia for the planning of the museum;

311. $500,000 for the Museum Development Authority, Seattle,

Washington for costs associated with brownfields redevelopment;

312. $250,000 for the Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority, Bremerton, Washington for downtown revitalization;

313. $250,000 for the Washington Technology Center in Seattle

for the Washington Nanotechnology Initiative;

314. $500,000 for the West Central Community Center, Spokane,

Washington for costs associated with expansion;

315. $300,000 for Lutheran Community Services Northwest,

SeaTac, Washington for the construction of a community services

building;

316. $500,000 for the Compass Center in Seattle, Washington for

the renovation and expansion of facilities;

317. $200,000 for Hope Home in Pasco, Washington for the purchase and renovation of a home for its program;

318. $250,000 for the Walter Clore Wine and Culinary Center in

Prosser, Washington for costs associated with construction;

319. $250,000 for the Economic Alliance in Okanogan, Washington for the construction of a business incubator;

320. $250,000 for the City of Manitowoc, Wisconsin for economic

development acitivities;

321. $200,000 for the Menomonee Valley Partners of Milwaukee,

Wisconsin for the redevelopment of a former rail yard;

322. $100,000 for the West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning

Commission of Eau Claire, Wisconsin for an economic development

initiative;

323. $100,000 for the City of Beloit, Wisconsin for the redevelopment of a former industrial site;

324. $100,000 for Techstar of Milwaukee, Wisconsin for economic

development initiatives;

325. $500,000 for C–CAP, Inc., Waukesha, Wisconsin for costs associated with the Low Income Housing Redevelopment Project;

326. $250,000 for the City of Kenosha, Wisconsin for the construction of affordable housing;

327. $250,000 for the City of Madison, Wisconsin for the construction of low-income housing;

328. $500,000 for Appalachian Bible College, Beckley, West Virginia to complete its library resource center;

329. $1,000,000 for the Huntington Area Development Council,

Huntington, West Virginia for the construction of a business incubator;
52

330. $2,000,000 for West Virginia University in Morgantown for

the construction of a facility focused on forensic science and biometrics research;

331. $1,000,000 for the University of Wyoming for the construction of the Wyoming Technology Business Center.

The Neighborhood Initiatives grants are as follows:

1. $2,000,000 for the Denali Commission for the rehabilitation

and construction of affordable housing for teachers in rural Alaska;

2. $4,000,000 for the Oklahoma Department of Environmental

Quality for neighborhood restoration in Ottawa County;

3. $5,000,000 for the Grace Hill Neighborhood Health Centers,

Inc. for lead-abatement of housing in St. Louis, Missouri;

4. $500,000 for the City of Denton, Texas for downtown redevelopment;

5. $250,000 for the Garfield Family Intervention Center in

Birney, Montana for renovations;

6. $250,000 for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Missoula,

Montana for building construction;

7. $500,000 for the City of Fresno, California for the Roeding

Business Park Development project;

8. $750,000 for the City of Waterbury, Connecticut for the demolition of blighted buildings;

9. $250,000 for the County of Hawaii for neighborhood restoration in Hilo, Hawaii;

10. $500,000 for the Iowa Department of Economic Development

for the Main Street Iowa initiative;

11. $500,000 for the City of Waterloo, Iowa for the redevelopment

of the Rath area brownfields;

12. $300,000 for the City of Rockford, Illinois for a neighborhood

revitalization project in the North Mid Town Area;

13. $200,000 for the City of Indianapolis, Indiana for the Tenth

Street Revitalization Project;

14. $1,000,000 for MassDevelopment, Boston, Massachusetts for

the Lawrence Gateway/Quadrant Area Redevelopment Plan;

15. $500,000 for the City of Roseau, Minnesota for economic redevelopment;

16. $250,000 for Rural Opportunities, Rochester, New York for

the Upstate New York Community and Business Development New

Market Initiative;

17. $1,000,000 for the City of Rock City, South Carolina for the

revitalization and the development of the Arcade-Westside Area of

Rock Hill;

18. $1,500,000 for the City of Beckley, West Virginia for downtown revitalization;

19. $1,000,000 for East Baltimore Development Inc., in Baltimore, Maryland for redevelopment activities in East Baltimore.

20. $150,000 for Charles County, Maryland for the La Plata

Community Center.

The bill includes a number of technical corrections to previous

grant awards.
53

COLONIAS GATEWAY INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $0

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 16,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 0

The Committee does not include $16,000,000 as requested by the

Administration for a new initiative in the Colonias.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN GUARANTEES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Limitation on guarantee loans Program costs

Appropriations, 2003 .................................................................................................. $275,000,000 $6,284,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ............................................................................................... 0 0

Committee recommendation ....................................................................................... 275,000,000 6,325,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of

1974, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to issue Federal loan

guarantees of private market loans used by entitlement and nonentitlement communities to cover the costs of acquiring real property, rehabilitation of publicly-owned real property, housing rehabilitation, and other economic development activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,325,000 for

program costs associated with the section 108 loan guarantee program. This amount is $41,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted

level and $6,325,000 more than the budget request. The Administration recommended no funding for this program. While the program has had an uneven history, it does afford some communities

the ability to leverage private capital for large projects through a

pledge of future CDBG funds.

Of the funds provided, $5,332,000 is for credit subsidy costs to

guarantee $275,000,000 in section 108 loan commitments in fiscal

year 2004, and $993,000 is for administrative expenses to be transferred to the salaries and expenses account.

BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $24,837,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 0

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.
54

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000 for

this program. This amount is about the same as the fiscal year

2003 enacted level and $25,000,000 above the budget request. The

administration requested no funding for this program. 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, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,987,000,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 2,197,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,975,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act, as amended, authorizes the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This program provides assistance to States and units of local government

for the purpose of expanding the supply and affordability of housing to low- and very low-income people. Eligible activities include

tenant-based rental assistance, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing and, also, construction of

housing. To participate in the HOME program, State and local governments must develop a comprehensive housing affordability

strategy. There is a 25-percent matching requirement for participating jurisdictions which can be reduced or eliminated if they are

experiencing fiscal distress. Funding for the American Dream

Downpayment Assistance initiative is also provided through the

HOME program. This initiative provides downpayment assistance

to low income families to help them achieve homeownership.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,975,000,000

for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This amount is

$12,000,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and

$222,000,000 less than the budget request. The Committee includes $18,000,000 for technical assistance, the

same amount as provided in fiscal year 2003. Of this amount,

$6,000,000 is for qualified non-profit intermediaries to provide

technical assistance to Community Housing and Development Organizations [CHDOs]. The remaining $12,000,000 is for intermediaries to provide technical assistance to HOME participating

jurisdictions. The Committee objects to any proposal by the Department that ties the use of HOME funds for homeownership to the

allocation of funds under the American Dream Downpayment

Fund.

The Committee includes $50,000,000 for the Administration’s

proposed American Dream Downpayment Fund. The Committee

supports expanding homeownership opportunities, but remains concerned that this program lacks authorization and may be implemented by States and localities as an eligible HOME activity. The

Committee supports efforts the Department may undertake to edu-
55

cate communities on how to use HOME funds to expand homeownership, and encourages the Department to use its technical assistance funds towards this end.

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. The Committee views homeownership counseling,

including pre- and post-purchase counseling, as an essential part of

successful homeownership. The Committee expects that this program will remain available to those participating in all HUD’s

homeownership programs. The Committee also 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, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,217,037,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,325,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,325,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Homeless Assistance Grants Program provides funding to

break the cycle of homelessness and to move homeless persons and

families to permanent housing. This is done by providing rental assistance, emergency shelter, transitional and permanent housing,

and supportive services to homeless persons and families. The

emergency grant is a formula funded grant program, while the supportive housing, section 8 moderate rehabilitation single-room occupancy program and the shelter plus care programs are competitive

grants. Homeless assistance grants provide Federal support to one

of the Nation’s most vulnerable populations. These grants assist localities in addressing the housing and service needs of a wide variety of homeless populations while developing coordinated Continuum of Care [CoC] systems that ensure the support necessary

to help those who are homeless to attain housing and move toward

self-sufficiency.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,325,000,000 for homeless assistance grants. The amount recommended is $107,963,000 more than

the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level and equal to the budget request. Of the amount provided, $194,000,000 is to fund Shelter

Plus Care renewals on an annual basis and $12,000,000 is for technical assistance and management information system.

The Committee also has provided funds for the United States

Interagency Council on Homelessness 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
56

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

March 15, 2004 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. The Committee directs HUD to report on the progress of this data collection and analysis effort by

no later than March 12, 2004.

The Committee supports the U.S. Interagency Council on

Homelessness’s [ICH] efforts to develop 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness. For example, the U.S. Conference of Mayors recently adopted a resolution encouraging cities to create and implement performance based, results oriented strategic plans to end

chronic homelessness in 10 years. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department to develop incentives or requirements, as necessary, under the McKinney-Vento program that supports the development and implementation of these 10-year plans.

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 2005 budget justifications.

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $100,000,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 100,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Emergency Food and Shelter Program originated as a onetime emergency appropriation to combat the effects of high unemployment in the emergency jobs bill (Public Law 98–8) which was

enacted in March 1983. It was authorized under title III of the

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, Public Law

100–177.
57

The program has been funded by the Department of Homeland

Security’s [DHS] Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]

and administered by a national board and the majority of the funding has been spent for providing temporary food and shelter for the

homeless. Participating organizations are restricted by legislation

from spending more than 3.5 percent of the funding received for

administrative costs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not include the Administration’s proposal to

transfer the Emergency Food and Shelter Program from DHS to

HUD. The Committee has provided funding for this program within

DHS.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANTS

The Committee includes a rescission of $30,000,000 from the

UDAG program, as requested by the Administration. This program

was terminated in 1990.

HOUSING PROGRAMS

HOUSING FOR SPECIAL POPULATIONS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,027,081,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 0

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 in section 202

housing for fiscal year 2003. 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 $30,000,000 for the conversion of section 202 housing to assisted living facilities, and up to

$50,000,000 for service coordinators. HUD is directed to report by

June 15, 2004 to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the status of the conversion program, including steps being

taken to ensure funds are being utilized. Of the funds provided,

$30,000,000 is for the capital grant program. The Committee in-
58

tends that these funds are available to both convert existing 202

properties to assisted living as well as for substantial capital repairs. The Committee urges HUD to work with the National Baptist Convention Office of Housing Commission on providing affordable housing for seniors and as an interface for technical assistance.

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 provides for the re- capture of $303,000,000 from contract authority in excess of funds

needed under section 236 of the National Housing Act. The Committee has dedicated these funds to other housing needs.

MANUFACTURED HOUSING FEES TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $12,915,000

Budget request, 2004 ............................................................................. 17,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,000,000
59

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 $4,000,000 less than

the budget request and $85,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Limitation on direct

loans

Limitation on guaranteed loansAdministrative expenses

Appropriations, 2003 ......................................................... $100,000,000 $165,000,000,000 $345,568,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ...................................................... 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 359,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................. 50,000,000 185,000,000,000 359,000,000

GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Limitation on direct loansLimitation on guar- anteed loansAdministrative ex- penses Program costs

Appropriations, 2003 .................................... $50,000,000 $23,000,000,000 $222,262,000 $15,000,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ................................. 50,000,000 25,000,000,000 229,000,000 14,902,000

Committee recommendation ......................... 50,000,000 25,000,000,000 229,000,000 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
60

HUD ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ accounts. Additionally, funds are also

appropriated for administrative contract expenses for FHA activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has included the following amounts for the ‘‘Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program’’ account: a limitation on guaranteed loans of $185,000,000,000, a limitation on direct loans of

$50,000,000, and an appropriation of $359,000,000 for administrative expenses. For the GI/SRI account, the Committee recommends

$25,000,000,000 as a limitation on guaranteed loans, a limitation

on direct loans of $50,000,000, and $229,000,000 for administrative

expenses. The administrative expenses appropriation will be transferred and merged with the sums in the Department’s ‘‘Salaries

and expenses’’ account and the ‘‘Office of the Inspector General’’ account.

In addition, the Committee directs HUD to continue direct loan

programs in 2004 for multifamily bridge loans and single family

purchase money mortgages to finance the sale of certain properties

owned by the Department. Temporary financing shall be provided

for the acquisition and rehabilitation of multifamily projects by

purchasers who have obtained commitments for permanent financing from another lender. Purchase money mortgages will enable

governmental and nonprofit intermediaries to acquire properties

for resale to owner-occupants in areas undergoing revitalization.

The Committee remains concerned that HUD has failed to calculate adequately the amount of credit subsidy necessary to support its multifamily mortgage insurance programs. The Committee

continues to direct 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.

The Committee is disappointed by FHA’s failure to notify the appropriate Congressional committees that it may not have had adequate authority to cover loan commitments for its FHA Single

Family Mortgage Insurance program in fiscal year 2003. Without

HUD’s recent decision to delay the point of obligation for the effective date of liability for FHA single family mortgage insurance,

HUD would have had to terminate its FHA Single Family Mortgage Insurance program in August of 2003, effectively stalling

homeownership for many thousands of families. While this legal

decision appears appropriate, the Committee is concerned that the

Congress was never effectively notified regarding the potential risk

of termination of this important homeownership program. To ensure that HUD provides proper notification of the status of the

FHA Single Family Mortgage Insurance program in the future, the

Committee directs HUD to continue submitting reports required by

section 3(b) of Public Law 99–289 as well as weekly updates to the

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations regarding FHA’s

commitment levels following notification that the FHA’s mortgage

insurance commitments have exceeded 75 percent of the limit set

forth in this bill.
61

The Committee also continues to be disappointed by the slow

pace at which the Department is implementing the Asset Control

Area [ACA] program. The Committee recognizes that the Department has made substantial changes to the Asset Control Area program guidelines, including a fairer, more streamlined discount

structure on foreclosed properties. However, no Asset Control Area

contracts have been signed since this Committee instructed the Department to resume the ACA program in H.R. 4775.

Contributing to the delay in implementation of the ACA program

is the fact that HUD continues to narrowly interpret the statutory

flexibility Congress provided when it created the ACA program.

The ACA program must remain sufficiently flexible to allow the

Department to be responsive to the unique needs of each community. For example, HUD should allow ACA partners to sell

rehabbed properties at market value so that sales of HUD properties do not undermine already unstable housing markets. Any

proceeds above eligible total development costs should be used to

further the goals of the ACA program. In addition, HUD should

allow ACA participants to rehabilitate a limited number of multiunit homes for rental housing for low-income people or sell them

for development of rental housing for low-income people.

The Department has proposed a number of administrative

changes to the Asset Control Area program, including redefining

revitalization areas. The Committee directs the Department to also

consider high rates of default or foreclosure for single family mortgages insured by FHA when determining revitalization areas, as

required by Public Law 105–276. Further, the Committee directs

the Department to submit a report that lists all of the communities

that lost their designation as revitalization areas, and to provide a

justification for that change to the Committee by January 2, 2004.

Until this program is fully operational, the Committee directs HUD

to award no bonuses, step increases or other awards for the staff

that have primary responsibility for this program. This program

represents an opportunity to help rebuild distressed communities

through homeownership. HUD has no valid excuse for its failure to

implement this program in a timely manner. Both the families who

live in these distressed communities and communities themselves

have been disadvantaged because of HUD’s continuing failure to

move forward with a program that should be considered a priority

program within the FHA housing portfolio.

The Committee is concerned that the Section 242 Hospital Insurance program’s focus in a single state constitutes unacceptably high

risk and that the Department should take steps to reduce the 83

percent portfolio concentration in New York in order to ensure the

long-term viability of the program and mitigate risks for the General Insurance Fund. Therefore, the Committee directs HUD to report to the Committee by June 30, 2004 on its efforts to reduce geographic concentration of risk in the Section 242 program not later

than 180 days after the enactment of this act. The Committee also

directs HUD in this report to identify alternatives to HUD’s underwriting of hospitals as well as assess the overall financial risk to

HUD in underwriting hospital insurance, how risk is assessed and

ways to mitigate and minimize this risk. This report should include

an assessment of private and public investment in hospitals and
62

healthcare facilities as well as how the marketplace works in meeting the healthcare facility needs of rural and urban areas. The Department is directed to consult with HHS on these issues for the

final report.

The Committee urges the Department to take more proactive

steps to prevent foreclosures in its FHA single family programs.

The Committee directs FHA to require one or more of the following: an appraisal conducted by a State certified appraiser, with

experience in the market and certified by the city; a home inspection; or the presence of someone with a fiduciary responsibility to

the buyer, such as a buyer’s realtor, or other agent representing

the buyer’s interest, during the purchase of FHA-insured houses in

revitalization areas. The Committee also urges the Department to

reinstitute its long standing policy which required that new homes

purchased with FHA insurance receive either an FHA-certified inspection or a 10-year insurance-backed warranty.

The Committee has included bill language to require the Department to promulgate a regulation to institute a ‘‘good neighbor’’ policy in the multi-family housing insurance program at FHA. The

Committee intends for this regulation to allow HUD to preclude

certain buyers from purchasing foreclosed properties during the

disposition process. The Committee directs the FHA to institute a

policy that allows it to prevent the sale of HUD properties, from

HUD, or from State and local governments, to people with demonstrated patterns of severe housing code violations. Bill language

is included to require the regulation be issued within 90 days of enactment.

GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

GUARANTEES OF MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES LOAN GUARANTEE

PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2003:

Limitation on guaranteed loans ................................................ $200,000,000,000

Administrative expenses ........................................................... 10,276,000

Budget estimate, 2004:

Limitation on guaranteed loans ................................................ 200,000,000,000

Administrative expenses ........................................................... 10,695,000

Committee recommendation:

Limitation on guaranteed loans ................................................ 200,000,000,000

Administrative expenses ........................................................... 10,695,000

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
63

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 $10,695,000 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 $10,695,000 for administrative expenses, the same as

the budget request and an increase of $419,000 above the fiscal

year 2003 enacted level.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $46,695,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 51,000,000

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 $305,000 above

the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $4,000,000 below the budget

request. Of this funding, $7,500,000 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. The Committee also supports the continuing research on promising technologies for the manufactured housing industry.
64

In addition, because in the past HUD has used this office’s broad

authority to administer new and unauthorized programs, the Office

of Policy Development and Research is denied demonstration authority except where approval is provided by Congress in response

to a reprogramming request.

FAIR HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $45,601,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 50,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 50,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The fair housing activities appropriation includes funding for

both the Fair Housing Assistance Program [FHAP] and the Fair

Housing Initiatives Program [FHIP].

The Fair Housing Assistance Program helps State and local

agencies to implement title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as

amended, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in the provision of brokerage services. The

major objective of the program is to assure prompt and effective

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 $50,000,000, of which

$23,000,000 is for the fair housing assistance program [FHAP] and

no more than $27,000,000 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, 2003 ............................................................................. $174,856,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 136,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 175,000,000
65

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 $175,000,000 for lead-based paint

hazard reduction and abatement activities for fiscal year 2004. This

amount is $39,000,000 more than the budget request and $144,000

more than the fiscal year 2003 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 $50,000,000 for the lead hazard reduction demonstration program which was established in fiscal

year 2003 to focus on major urban areas where children are disproportionately at risk for lead poisoning.

As previously discussed, there remains significant lead risks in

privately-owned housing, particularly in unsubsidized low-income

units. For that reason, approximately 1 million children under the

age of 6 in the United States suffer from lead poisoning. While lead

poisoning crosses all socioeconomic, geographic, and racial boundaries, the burden of this disease falls disproportionately on low-income and minority families. In the United States, children from

poor families are eight times more likely to be poisoned than those

from higher income families. Nevertheless, the risks associated

with lead-based paint hazards can be addressed fully over the next

decade.

As noted last year, the urban lead hazard reduction program is

designed to target funding to major urban areas where the lead

hazard risk for low-income children under the age of 6 is greatest.

Qualified applicants are 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
66

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 capacity acceptable to the Secretary of Housing

and Urban Development. The plans should identify units with the

most significant risk, and should include strategies to reduce the

risk of lead hazards and to mobilize public and private resources.

The Committee also encourages HUD to work with grantees on

its lead-based paint abatement hazards programs so that information is disclosed to the public on lead hazard abatements, risk assessment data and blood lead levels through publications and internet sites such as Lead-SafeHomes.info.

The Committee also includes $5,000,000 in the Neighborhood Initiative program to begin a lead-based paint abatement pilot program in St. Louis to be coordinated by the Grace Hill Neighborhood

Health Centers to eliminate the source of lead paint poisoning

within the city’s large, aging housing stock. The Committee is

aware of highly successful lead paint abatement efforts in Milwaukee and Baltimore and strongly recommends that the St. Louis

effort use and adopt the best practices from those cities and other

successful efforts to help perfect a model program that could be

used as a nation-wide model.

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

[In thousands of dollars]

Appropriation FHA funds GNMA

funds

CDBG

funds

Title VI

transfer

Indian

housing

block

grant

Native

Hawaiian

loan

Total

Appropriations, 2003 .............. 526,852 544,639 10,276 993 199 149 35 1,083,143

Budget estimate, 2004 .......... 536,000 564,000 10,695 1,000 250 150 35 1,112,130

Committee recommendation .. 547,000 564,000 10,695 1,000 150 250 35 1,122,130

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.
67

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 $1,112,130,000 for salaries and expenses. This amount is $28,987,000 more than

the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the budget request. The appropriation includes the requested amount of

$564,000,000 transferred from various funds from the Federal

Housing Administration, $10,695,000 transferred from the Government National Mortgage Association, $1,000,000 from the community development block grant funds, $150,000 from title VI,

$250,000 from the Native American Housing Block Grant, and

$35,000 from the Native Hawaiian Housing Program.

The Committee remains concerned over HUD’s hiring practices

which resulted in the Department hiring some 268 full time

equivalents [FTEs] over its requested 9,100 FTEs for fiscal year

2003. In many cases, these employees were hired without regard

to office and program needs or pursuant to HUD’s own staffing

plan. The Committee directs HUD to report quarterly to the House

and Senate Committees on Appropriations on all hiring within the

Department, including justifications for any significant increase in

FTEs for any particular office or activity.

The Committee also is concerned with the Department’s misunderstanding of the fiscal year 2003 bill and report language for

this account which resulted in the removal of all authority for appropriations law from the Office of the General Counsel to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and the Office of Budget. This

bill reaffirms the overall responsibility of the HUD General Counsel for appropriation law issues within HUD. The Committee notes

that a legal opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel in the

Department of Justice on August 8, 2003 stated unequivocally that,

while the VA–HUD fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Act provided

authority for the HUD Chief Financial Officer to investigate potential and actual violations of all appropriations law, nothing in that

law removed overall authority for appropriations law issues from

the Office of the General Counsel. The Committee expects HUD to

follow this opinion and reinstate the authority of the Office of the
68

General Counsel for overall appropriation law issues. In addition,

the Committee remains very concerned that any efforts to limit authority for violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act and other appropriations laws to the Office of the CFO and the Budget Office will

create unacceptable conflicts of interest with regard to the normal

responsibilities of the CFO and the Budget Office.

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)

Appropriation FHA funds by

transfer

Drug elimination

grants transfer Total

Appropriations, 2003 .................................................... $73,674,000 $23,343,000 ........................ $97,017,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ................................................. 76,080,000 24,000,000 ........................ 100,080,000

Committee recommendation ......................................... 78,000,000 24,000,000 ........................ 102,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation will finance all salaries and related expenses

associated with the operation of the Office of the Inspector General

[OIG].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an overall funding level of

$102,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This

amount is $4,983,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and

$1,920,000 above the budget request. This funding level includes

$24,000,000 by transfer from various FHA funds. The Committee

commends OIG for its commitment and its efforts in reducing

waste, fraud and abuse in HUD programs.

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $274,504,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 276,300,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 240,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The working capital fund, authorized by the Department of

Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, finances information

technology and office automation initiatives on a centralized basis.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $240,000,000 for the working capital fund for fiscal year 2004. These funds are $36,300,000 below

the budget request and $34,504,000 below the fiscal year 2003

level.
69

CONSOLIDATED FEE FUND

(RESCISSION)

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $8,000,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 0

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 0

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, 2003 ............................................................................. $29,805,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 32,415,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 32,415,000

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 $32,415,000 for the Office of Federal

Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is the same as the budget request and $2,610,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.

The Committee remains very concerned regarding the competency of this office to provide the necessary financial oversight of

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This concern was reinforced by

OFHEO’s failure to identify recent accounting and management

irregularities at Freddie Mac. While it appears that Freddie Mac

is in good financial shape, it is not clear whether OFHEO would

have identified the financial irregularities if Freddie Mac had been

in financial risk. Because of these irregularities the Committee believes OFHEO must be competant and capable to identify all ac-
70

counting and management irregularities, regardless of immediate

financial risk.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee recommends 25 administrative provisions. A

brief description follows.

SEC. 201. Promotes the refinancing of certain housing bonds.

SEC. 202. Provides free speech protections.

SEC. 203. Technical correction for the allocation of HOPWA funding.

SEC. 204. Requires HUD to award funds on a competitive basis

unless otherwise provided.

SEC. 205. Allows funds to be used to reimburse GSEs and other

Federal entities for various administrative expenses.

SEC. 206. Limits HUD spending to amounts set out in the budget

justification.

SEC. 207. Clarifies expenditure authority for entities subject to

the Government Corporation Control Act.

SEC. 208. Requires HUD to submit certain additional information

as part of its annual budget justifications.

SEC. 209. Requires HUD to maintain section 8 assistance on

properties occupied by elderly or disabled families.

SEC. 210. Exempts Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi from the requirement of having a PHA resident on the board of directors for

fiscal year 2004. Instead, the public housing agencies in these

States are required to establish advisory boards that include public

housing tenants and section 8 recipients.

SEC. 211. Sunsets the HOPE VI program on September 30, 2006.

SEC. 212. Requires quarterly reports on all uncommitted, unobligated and excess funds associated with HUD programs.

SEC. 213. Requires HUD to report on the number of units being

assisted under section 8 and the per unit cost of these units.

SEC. 214. Provides correction to HOPWA funding for Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

SEC. 215. Extends the authority to waive the 40 percent rent ceiling under section 8 for certain projects.

SEC. 216. Makes section 811 housing eligible for service coordinators.

SEC. 217. Revises formula for the payment of debentures under

FHA.

SEC. 218. Renames Interagency Council on the Homeless.

SEC. 219. Establishes new FHA mortgage insurance program to

reform bad credit.

SEC. 220. Provides access to new data to vertify section 8 rents.

SEC. 221. Facilitates the financing of rehabilitation and development of public housing.

SEC. 222. Corrects salary requirements for the United States

Interagency Council on Homelessness.

SEC. 223. Changes management of funding for nonentitlement

areas in Hawaii.

SEC. 224. Establishes new requirements for the disposition of

HUD-owned multifamily housing.
71

SEC. 225. Makes a technical correction to section 217 of Public

Law 107–73 with respect to the re-use of funds originally made

available for the Hollander Ridge HOPE VI grant award.
(72)

TITLE III—INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $35,017,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 32,400,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 35,000,000

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 $35,000,000 for the American Battle

Monuments Commission. This amount is $2,600,000 above the

budget request and $17,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted

level. The Committee has provided additional funds to support the

ongoing Normandy visitor center project ($1,720,000) and to restore

funding for salaries and expenses ($880,000).

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $6,408,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 8,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board was authorized by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to investigate

accidental releases of certain chemical substances resulting in, or

that may cause, serious injury, death, substantial property damage,

or serious adverse effects on human health. It became operational

in fiscal year 1998.
73

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the budget request of $8,000,000 for

the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, equal to the

budget request and $1,592,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level.

The Committee recognizes that the Board has accepted the

FEMA IG’s recommendations to rectify certain unacceptable deficiencies, and has taken strong steps to implement the IG’s recommendations. The Committee continues to support the FEMA

IG’s ongoing review of the Board’s activities and remains concerned

regarding the Board’s ability to meet mission requirements.

The Committee also believes that the Board should be working

with the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] in identifying

critical requirements for the protection of chemical and related industrial plants from the risk of terrorist attack. The Committee directs the Board to report to the Committee by April 20, 2005 on

its contributions to these efforts and its relationship with the DHS.

As provided in previous fiscal years, for this fiscal year and hereafter, 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 30th of 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, 2003 ............................................................................. $74,512,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 51,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 70,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund makes

investments in the form of grants, loans, equity investments, deposits, and technical assistance grants to new and existing community development financial institutions [CDFIs], through the CDFI

program. CDFIs include community development banks, credit

unions, venture capital funds, revolving loan funds, and microloan

funds, among others. Recipient institutions engage in lending and

investment for affordable housing, small business and community
74

development within underserved communities. The CDFI Fund administers the Bank Enterprise Award [BEA] Program, which provides a financial incentive to insured depository institutions to undertake community development finance activities. The CDFI Fund

also administers the New Markets Tax Credit Program, a newly

created program that will provide an incentive to investors in the

form of a tax credit, which is expected to stimulate private community and economic development activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for the CDFI Fund,

which is $4,512,000 below the fiscal year 2003 level and

$19,000,000 above the administration’s request. The Committee is

disappointed with the Administration’s proposed reductions to

CDFI and BEA. Both are important programs and play an important role in underserved communities.

The Committee 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 the same as the fiscal year 2003 enacted

level. The Committee has included this set-aside in fiscal year 2004

because the Native American, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiian communities have been historically underserved by CDFIs. The

Committee directs the Fund to submit an update to its 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 April 20, 2004.

The Committee provides funds to restore proposed cuts to the financial assistance, technical assistance and Bank Enterprise

Award programs. The Committee directs the CDFI Fund to make

funds for financial assistance available to CDFIs regardless of their

size and to continue the Small and Emerging CDFI Assistance program. The Committee is concerned about the Fund’s new Hot

Zones strategy which targets CDFI Program funding to distressed

areas rather than to underserved populations. The Committee believes that the CDFI Fund should continue to provide capital to

poor and underserved populations, regardless of the poverty rates

for the surrounding area.

The Committee is concerned that the CDFI Fund’s recent

changes to Investment Areas distress criterion will negatively impact rural areas. CDFI no longer considers out-migration and population loss as criteria for determining Investment Areas eligible for

CDFI Fund targeting. Between 1990 and 2000, nearly one-third of

the nation’s rural counties lost 10 percent of their population, contributing to a loss of businesses and high unemployment. Poverty

and unemployment rates often appear relatively low in rural communities because low-income and employed residents move away.

Thus, out-migration and population loss can be crucial distress indicators for rural America, and the Committee believes that CDFI

must take these factors into account as separate eligibility criteria.

As such, the Committee directs the CDFI Fund to restore out-mi-
75

gration and population loss as criteria in determining Investment

Areas for fiscal year 2004.

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.

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $56,629,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 60,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 60,000,000

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 $60,000,000 for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, equal to the budget request and an increase of $3,371,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. 1 $384,172,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 597,742,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 484,075,000

1 Includes rescission of $48,000,000.

GENERAL 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–
76

82) to enhance opportunities for national and community service

and provide national service education awards. The Corporation

makes grants to States, institutions of higher education, public and

private nonprofit organizations, and others to create service opportunities for a wide variety of individuals such as students, out-ofschool 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 fulltime or part-time higher education, vocational education, job training, or school-to-work programs.

The Corporation is governed by a Board of Directors and headed

by the Chief Executive Officer. Board members, the Chief Executive Officer, and the Chief Financial Officer are appointed by the

President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $484,075,000 for the Corporation for

National and Community Service, an increase of $99,902,000 over

the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $113,667,000 below the

budget request.

In addition to the normal operating plan requirements as directed in this report, the Committee directs the Corporation to notify the Chair of the Committee prior to each reprogramming of

funds in excess of $100,000 between programs, activities, or elements.

NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS

OPERATING EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2003 1 ........................................................................... $378,211,000

Budget estimate, 2004 2 ......................................................................... 592,742,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 452,575,000

1 Includes $20,367,000 for salaries and expenses.

2 Includes $21,600,000 for salaries and expenses.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National and Community Service programs operating expenses account funds all programs and activities authorized by the

National and Community Service Act of 1993. This account covers

two of the three main components to the AmeriCorps program (the

AmeriCorps State and National, and AmeriCorps National Civilian

Community Corps [NCCC]); Learn and Serve; Innovation, Demonstration, and Assistance activities (authorized under subtitle H);

program administration for State commissions; audits and evaluations; and the Points of Light Foundation. Funding for AmeriCorps

supports costs for volunteer stipends and education benefits. Education benefits are deposited into the National Service Trust, which

provides a secure repository for education awards earned by eligible AmeriCorps members who successfully complete a term of service.
77

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $452,575,000 for the Corporation’s

programs operating expenses. This appropriation provides

$340,000,000 for AmeriCorps (not including NCCC); $43,000,000

for Learn and Serve; $25,000,000 for NCCC; $14,575,000 for subtitle H fund activities; $12,000,000 for State administrative expenses; $3,000,000 for audits and evaluations; $5,000,000 for America’s Promise; and $10,000,000 for the Points of Light Foundation.

AmeriCorps.—The Committee recommends $340,000,000 for

AmeriCorps grants, National Direct and State funds, and education

awards. This amount is $66,787,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $93,242,000 below the budget request.

The Committee did not appropriate the full budget request level

for the AmeriCorps program due to the new funding procedures implemented after the submission of the budget request last fall and

the bill’s requirement to reduce the Federal share of member costs.

These new factors will allow the Corporation to support the same

level of membership as requested but at a lower cost to the taxpayer. Therefore, the Committee’s recommended funding level will

support up to 75,000 new volunteers for the AmeriCorps program.

Further, the Committee directs the Corporation to comply fully

with the Inspector General’s [IG] July 24, 2003 report recommendations and prohibits the expenditure of AmeriCorps funds

until the IG has certified that the Corporation has complied fully

with the IG’s recommendations. In addition, the Committee has included report language under the salaries and expenses account

that prohibits bonuses and salary increases for senior level management until the Corporation has complied fully with the IG’s recommendations.

The Committee remains extremely concerned about the Corporation’s mismanagement of the AmeriCorps program. Last year, the

Corporation over-approved the AmeriCorps program by about

22,000 members resulting in a suspension of the program and the

need for additional appropriated funds into the National Service

Trust fund. More troubling to the Committee is the IG’s recent

finding in its July 24, 2003 report that the Corporation violated the

Anti-Deficiency Act [ADA] by approving more AmeriCorps members

than could be financially supported. According to the IG, the primary causes for the ADA violation were ‘‘inadequate oversight,

flawed membership and financial reporting systems, job responsibilities for key personnel that were either not well-defined or adhered to, and a lack of effective communication among Corporation

managers.’’ The IG also found that the Corporation violated two

provisions in its authorizing statute related to the National Service

Trust.

The Committee recognizes and applauds the efforts of the Corporation, especially the Chief Financial Officer [CFO] and her staff,

in addressing the management problems of the AmeriCorps program. However, the IG stated in his July 24, 2003 report that ‘‘internal control weaknesses still pose a threat to the financial integrity of the Corporation and the National Service Trust.’’ Further,

the IG stated that ‘‘Unless effectively addressed, these weaknesses

could also result in future violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act.’’
78

Accordingly, the Committee has included restrictions on the expenditure of AmeriCorps funds to ensure that the Corporation complies with the law and demonstrates financial and management

competency.

While the over-enrollment problems were initially created several

years ago, the Corporation’s senior leadership failed to respond to

the problems in a timely manner. According to the Office of Inspector General [OIG], senior Corporation leadership was aware of the

over-enrollment problems as far back as the summer of 2002. A

senior Corporation manager informed the Corporation’s leadership

that ‘‘estimated enrollment could reach 58,000 by year end, and

that down the line the Corporation would have to be sure the Trust

had sufficient funds to handle the increased enrollments.’’ This official sent subsequent messages to the Corporation’s leadership

about the over-enrollments. Despite warnings from staff, senior

leadership including the CEO, the CEO’s senior aide, the Chief Operating Officer, and the Director of AmeriCorps did not act. The

Corporation acted after the new Chief Financial Officer assumed

duties in November 2002 and enrollments to the AmeriCorps program were suspended.

When the Committee was first notified of the over-enrollment

problem, the General Accounting Office [GAO] and the Corporation’s Office of Inspector General [OIG] was contacted to examine

fully the causes of the problem. The auditors found that the Corporation had violated its own authorizing legislation by approving

more AmeriCorps positions than it could financially support. Further, GAO concluded that the Corporation did not comply with the

law on recording its financial liabilities for the National Service

Trust.

The auditors also identified several factors that led to the Corporation’s incorrect accounting practice. The factors included inappropriate obligation practices, little or no communication among

key Corporation executives, too much flexibility given to grantees

regarding enrollments, and unreliable data on the number of

AmeriCorps participants. The OIG noted a number of practices

that violated the Corporation’s own handbook rules including

AmeriCorps program officers approving additional enrollments in

excess of the originally approved levels.

The OIG also noted that the administration’s fiscal year 2002

budget request contributed to the insolvency of the Trust fund to

cover the AmeriCorps program liabilities by not requesting any

funds for the Trust. According to the Corporation’s own budget justifications for fiscal year 2002, no new budget authority was required in fiscal year 2002 because among other factors, it assumed

a program budget based on ‘‘no growth in the number of

AmeriCorps members in 2002’’ and an ‘‘assumption that

AmeriCorps will remain at 48,000 members beyond 2002.’’

The Committee also notes that the administration’s fiscal year

2003 budget for the AmeriCorps program proposed $57,000,000 for

the Trust fund to support 74,000 AmeriCorps members and to fund

8,000 high school scholarships.

To ensure that the Corporation was able to meet its commitments to the program and to ensure current level services for the

AmeriCorps program, the Congress appropriated $275,000,000 in
79

fiscal year 2003. This represented a $35,500,000 increase over the

fiscal year 2002 enacted level. In response to the Corporation’s revised request, the conference committee designated $100,000,000 to

the Trust Fund to ensure solvency in the program and to allow the

Corporation to enroll 50,000 new members in fiscal year 2003.

The administration subsequently requested and the Congress ap- proved a deficiency appropriation of $64,000,000 to fund previous

years’ commitments to the AmeriCorps program. This request was

made after the administration realized that the Corporation had

incorrectly calculated its legal liabilities for past enrollments. The

Committee reminds the Corporation of the requirements attached

to the fiscal year 2003 Emergency Wartime supplemental appropriations (Public Law 108–11) in which the funds were made contingent upon the submission of an Anti-Deficiency Act report to the

Congress, which has yet to be submitted.

Further, the Congress passed an accounting correction bill (the

Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act) in June 2003 to remedy the

Corporation’s incorrect funding practices for the AmeriCorps programs. The Committee took these actions to ensure that the

AmeriCorps program was maintained at current service levels despite the Corporation’s mismanagement. However, the Committee

still expects the Corporation to address fully the culture and management controls of the AmeriCorps programs to ensure that past

failures do not reoccur.

The Committee has not designated a specific allocation for the

National Service Trust fund to allow greater flexibility in the

AmeriCorps program. The Committee, however, expects the Corporation to determine and designate a specific amount for the

Trust consistent with its estimate of AmeriCorps members it expects to support in fiscal year 2004 and consistent with the funding

formula requirements established under the Strengthen

AmeriCorps Program Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–45). The Committee expects the Corporation to provide this detailed information

in the operating plan and expects the operating plan to contain detailed information on its membership level estimates, Trust and

program grant allocations, and details on its compliance with Public Law 108–45, including the assumptions used in its methodology

for calculating service award liability.

The Committee directs the Corporation to provide monthly reports to the Committees on Appropriations and the Corporation’s

Inspector General on the actual and projected year-end level of

AmeriCorps membership enrollment, usage, and earnings, and the

financial status of the Trust fund (revenue, expenses, outstanding

liabilities, reserve, etc.). Further, the Committee directs the Chief

Executive Officer, the Director of AmeriCorps, and the Chief Financial Officer to certify that the information in these reports is accurate and independently verified. If the year-end projections are expected to exceed the levels that can be supported financially by the

Corporation, the Committee expects the Corporation to take immediate corrective actions and notify the Committee.

Within the amount provided, the Committee is providing

$50,000,000 for national direct grantees. Further, the Committee is

designating $5,000,000 for national service scholarships for high

school students and $4,900,000 for the Promise Fellows program.
80

The Committee remains concerned about the Corporation’s efforts to reduce grantee reliance on Federal funding and the Federal

costs per program participant. The Committee reminds the Corporation that these goals have been a long-standing requirement in

the VA–HUD bill. While the Committee appreciates the Corporation’s sustainability report submitted last April, the Committee

strongly believes that more aggressive measures must be taken by

the Corporation to comply with the letter and spirit of the sustainability requirement. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Corporation to require sustainability as a criterion in its competitive

grant programs and require organizations to provide information in

its applications on all of its funding sources, including all Federal,

other public, and private sources. Further, the Committee directs

the Corporation to increase the matching requirements for those

organizations that have received more than $3,000,000 on average

for the past 3 years. At a minimum, the Corporation should increase the match by 50 percent and consider an incremental increase in the match requirement on an annual basis. Further, the

Committee directs the Corporation to publish in its fiscal year 2005

budget justifications a list of recipients that have received more

than $500,000 and the amount of other Federal and non-Federal

funds that it received.

The Committee has also addressed the bill’s long-standing requirement that the Corporation reduce the total Federal costs per

participant by requiring the Corporation to reduce the costs by at

least 10 percent in fiscal year 2004. Based on recent data from the

Corporation, the Corporation spends about $16,000 per AmeriCorps

members for program and education award costs. The Committee

strongly believes that the goal to reduce costs by 10 percent is

achievable given the recent upsurge in private corporate interest in

the AmeriCorps program. Further, the Committee has included bill

language that shifts the education award only authority from the

H fund to the regular AmeriCorps program account. This flexibility

will allow the Corporation to fund more AmeriCorps members at a

lower cost, consistent with its agreement established several years

ago with Senator Grassley.

The Committee bill includes language that requires the Inspector

General [IG] to conduct random audits of AmeriCorps grantees.

The Committee included this provision because of continuing concerns over the lack of accountability and oversight in the

AmeriCorps program. For example, two Corporation-funded programs in Terre Haute, Indiana, gave members credit for service

that was inappropriate under the grants. These activities included

life guarding, babysitting and cutting lawns. In this case, only one

of 25 AmeriCorps members interviewed by the IG had completed

the hours required to earn an education award. Nevertheless, all

25 AmeriCorps members were certified as having met the requirements for the education award. The Indiana Commission repaid

$237,000 to the Corporation.

While the IG has made progress in identifying and addressing

examples of fraud and abuse, the Committee understands that the

Corporation does not have the proper management information systems to track grants or ensure appropriate use and accountability.

Because of the long-term nature of this problem, the Committee is
81

requiring the Inspector General to conduct random audits of the

grantees that administer activities under the AmeriCorps programs

and to debar any grantee that has been determined to have committed any substantial violations of the requirements of the

AmeriCorps programs, including any grantee that has been determined to have violated the prohibition of using Federal funds to

lobby the Congress. The Committee directs the IG to audit all

grantees at least once over the next 5 years and report to Congress

annually on all audits. The Committee also directs the IG to include in the audits for the first year all the nonprofits that are in

the top 10 percent of the grantees receiving the largest AmeriCorps

grants.

The Committee encourages the Corporation to support volunteers

or organizations that mobilize unpaid volunteers for community activities. In other words, by moving away from ‘‘retail’’ activities to

‘‘wholesale’’ activities, the Corporation could expand its reach to

more citizens who wish to respond to the call to service.

Within the amount provided, the Committee directs the Corporation to continue at least the current level of support for programs

designed to help teach children to read by the third grade and for

activities dedicated to developing computer and information technology skills for students and teachers in low-income communities.

Further, the Committee directs the Corporation to support activities designed to assist the needs of veterans, especially homeless

veterans.

Innovation, Demonstration.—The Committee recommends

$14,575,000 for innovation, demonstration, and assistance activities. Within this amount, the Committee recommends $5,000,000

for challenge grants; $2,000,000 for next generation grants;

$500,000 for Martin Luther King Jr. Day grants; $100,000 for the

Fellowship program; $300,000 for Freedom scholarships; $250,000

for faith-based activities; $725,000 for Service Learning Clearinghouse and Exchange; $2,000,000 for training and technical assistance; and $4,000,000 for disability programs. The Committee has

not funded activities that serve other Federal agencies and offices.

The Committee expects the administration to fund those activities

from the relevant agencies and offices and establish appropriate

transfer authority in cases where the Corporation is administering

programs on the agency’s behalf.

The Committee directs the Corporation to comply with the challenge grant funding requirements established under the conference

report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution,

2003.

NCCC.—The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for the National Civilian Community Corps [NCCC]. This is the same funding

level as provided in fiscal year 2003.

Learn and Serve.—The Committee recommends $43,000,000 for

school-based and community-based service learning programs. This

is the same funding level as provided in fiscal year 2003.

State Administration.—The Committee recommends $12,000,000

for State commission administrative expenses. The Committee directs the Corporation to address immediately the management

problems identified by the Office of Inspector General. The Committee strongly urges the Corporation to withhold additional grant
82

awards to those State commissions that have not taken corrective

actions in response to the OIG audits.

Audits and Evaluations.—The Committee recommends

$3,000,000 for audits and evaluations. Of the funds provided for

audits and evaluations, the Committee has provided $2,000,000 to

evaluate and conduct performance measurement audits of the

AmeriCorps program.

The Committee appreciates the Corporation’s recent efforts to develop a performance measurement system to assess the impact of

the AmeriCorps program. Nevertheless, to date, the Corporation is

unable to provide performance data on neither the impact of

AmeriCorps nor the actual costs of the program. As noted in the

administration’s Program Assessment Rating Tool [PART], the

AmeriCorps program received an overall weighted score of 36 percent and a rating of ‘‘results not documented.’’ The PART analysis

found that the AmeriCorps program’s current goals are neither specific nor measurable and the Corporation is unable to track program outcomes and use this information to shape funding decisions. The Committee directs the Corporation to submit a report to

the Committee by no later than February 21, 2004 on its efforts to

address its performance measurements weaknesses.

In addition, the Committee has allocated $1,000,000 for a contract with the National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA]

to conduct a comprehensive review of the leadership, operations

and management of the Corporation. The Committee expects NAPA

to pursue those areas within this broad framework that, in its

judgment, warrant review. However, the Committee is particularly

interested in the areas of financial management, field and headquarters organization structure, business processes, grant program

structure and operations, human resources management, and interactions with involved State and local entities and other stakeholders. The Committee directs the Corporation to award this contract within 3 months of the enactment of this bill, and directs

NAPA to issue a final report no later than 12 months after the

signing of the contract.

Points of Light.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for

the Points of Light Foundation. Of the amounts provided, the

Foundation may set-aside $2,500,000 for its endowment fund.

America’s Promise.—The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for

America’s Promise.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. ( 1 )

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... ( 1 )

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

1These funds were included under the program account.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The salaries and expenses appropriation provides funds for staff

salaries, benefits, travel, training, rent, advisory and assistance

services, communications and utilities expenses, supplies, equipment, and other operating expenses necessary for management of

the Corporation’s activities.
83

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000 for

salaries and expenses. The Committee reiterates the directive

under the program account that the Corporation must fund all

staffing needs from the salaries and expenses account. Within the

amount provided, the Committee directs the Corporation to fund

those staff positions that the Corporation previously funded within

subtitle H authorities. This past practice by the Corporation was

an inappropriate use of Innovation funding. The Committee has

consolidated all salaries and expenses under this new account to

improve accountability and transparency to these activities. Under

this account, the Committee has provided $18,300,000 for salaries

and benefits, $400,000 for travel, $2,300,000 for technology,

$2,000,000 for other administrative expenses (rent, supplies, equipment, etc.), and $2,000,000 for the Office of Chief Financial Officer

for purposes of addressing the Corporation’s management problems. The Committee directs the Office of Chief Financial Officer

to control and oversee the allocation and expenditure of funds

under this account, including all salary increases and bonuses. The

Committee also prohibits the Corporation from providing bonuses

or salary increases to senior level managers unless the IG certifies

that the Corporation has complied with the recommendations in

the IG’s July 24, 2003 National Service Trust report. Further, the

Committee directs the Corporation to provide a breakdown of funds

under this account by office and activity in its fiscal year 2005

budget justification.

The Committee is aware of and deeply troubled by long-standing

problems with the Corporation’s Alternative Personnel System

[APS]. A recent Inspector General [IG] investigation of the APS

identified and confirmed many problems with the Corporation’s administration of the APS, including but not limited to: the Corporation’s longstanding practice of failing to adequately budget for employee raises; the lack of clarity in the system, which leads to confusion among managers and employees; and the Corporation’s failure to negotiate a competitive status agreement with the Office of

Personnel Management [OPM]. The Corporation is directed to report within 60 days of this bill’s enactment on measures taken to

address the concerns identified by the IG and to implement the

IG’s recommendations.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $5,961,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 5,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,500,000

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
84

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 $6,500,000 for

the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This amount is $1,500,000

above the budget request and $539,000 above the fiscal year 2003

enacted level. The Committee is providing additional funds to support the OIG’s review and audit of the Corporation’s grant management and oversight activities due to the continuing problems ranging from inadequate record-keeping, to improper counting of service

hours by AmeriCorps members and programs, to fraud and abuse.

The Committee directs the OIG to continue reviewing the Corporation’s management of the National Service Trust fund. The

Committee is primarily interested in the Corporation’s efforts to

address its accounting procedures and obligation practices. The

Committee directs the OIG to review the monthly Trust reports

and to notify the Committees on Appropriations on the accuracy of

the reports.

The Committee is aware of concerns raised about the Corporation’s administration of the 2003 AmeriCorps grant process, and directs the IG to audit the process and report to the Committee by

February 6, 2004.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

The Committee has included two administrative provisions carried in prior year appropriations acts.

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $14,233,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 16,220,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,220,000

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 $16,220,000

for the Court of Appeals for Veterans claims, an increase of

$1,987,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
85

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

CEMETERIAL EXPENSES, ARMY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $32,234,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 25,961,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 32,000,000

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, 2002, Arlington

and Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemeteries contained

the remains of 295,799 persons and comprised a total of approximately 652 acres. There were 4,022 interments and 2,283 inurnments in fiscal year 2002; 2,283 interments and 2,700 inurnments

are estimated for the current fiscal year; and 3,925 interments and

2,775 inurnments are estimated for fiscal year 2004.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $32,000,000 for the Army’s

cemeterial expenses. This amount is $6,039,000 above the budget

request and $234,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The

Committee has provided additional funds to accelerate Arlington

Cemetery’s data automation project, to address the Cemetery’s distressed headstones, and to continue developing phase II of project

90.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $83,528,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 78,774,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 78,774,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, an

agency within the National Institutes of Health, was authorized in

section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, to conduct

multidisciplinary research and training activities associated with

the Nation’s Hazardous Substance Superfund program, and in section 126(g) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizations

Act of 1986, to conduct training and education of workers who are

or may be engaged in activities related to hazardous waste removal

or containment or emergency response.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $78,774,000 for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which is the same as the
86

budget request and $4,754,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted

level.

AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY

TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $82,262,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 73,467,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 73,467,000

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 $73,467,000 for the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR], which is the same as

the budget request and $8,795,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The ATSDR is directed to assess the level of lead poisoning of families, especially children, at the Tar Creek Superfund

site in Oklahoma. A report to Congress on this assessment is due

no later than July 31, 2004.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $8,078,062,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 7,630,538,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,182,718,000

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
87

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 en-
88

compasses 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 $8,182,718,000 for EPA.

This is an increase of $552,180,000 above the budget request and

an increase of $104,656,000 above the fiscal year 2003 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.

The Committee supports the overall funding level in the President’s Budget Request for homeland security within EPA of some

$123,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, including $50,793,000 in Science

and Technology, $18,754,000 in Environmental Program Management, $37,021,000 in Superfund, $5,000,000 in State and Tribal Assistance Grants, and $11,500,000 in Buildings and Facilities. In

particular, the Committee directs the Agency to provide by March

31, 2004 a full accounting regarding how these funds have been or

will be invested and how the use of these funds will be coordinated

within the national strategy being implemented by the Department

of Homeland Security.

The Committee directs EPA to round all programs to the nearest

thousand dollar and requests that the budget submission for fiscal

year 2005 propose funding at no less than the nearest thousand

dollar.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $715,579,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 731,483,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 715,579,000
89

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 $715,579,000 for science and technology, $15,904,000 below the budget request and the same as the

enacted level. In addition, the Committee recommends the transfer

of $45,000,000 from the Superfund account, for a total of

$760,579,000 for science and technology.

The Committee supports the budget request for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance [OECA] activities within the

Science and Technology.

The Committee recommends the transfer of $45,000,000 to

‘‘Science and Technology’’ from the ‘‘Hazardous Substance Superfund’’ account for ongoing research activities in a manner consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended.

The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget

request:

¥$5,000,000 for particulate matter, for a total of $35,000,000, an

increase of $4,914,000 above the 2003 level;

¥$5,000,000 for communicating information research, for a total

of $10,743,000, an increase of $835,000 above the 2003 level;

¥$10,000,000 for research to support emerging issues, for a total

of $31,471,000, an increase of $2,320,000 above the 2003 level;

¥$40,678,600 as a general reduction, subject to normal reprogramming guidelines;

∂$1,500,000 for the Centers for Children’s Environmental

Health and Disease Prevention Research, for a total of

$7,500,000, equal to the 2003 level;

∂$4,875,000 for the STAR fellowship program, for a total of

$9,750,000, equal to the 2003 level;

∂$5,000,000 for small system arsenic removal research, for a

total of $11,700,000, equal to the 2003 level. The Committee

directs EPA to report by April 7, 2004, on the current status

of the demonstrations to implement low-cost treatment technology for arsenic removal, including benchmarks and targets

for continued implementation of these technologies.

In addition, the Committee recommends the following increases

to the budget request:

∂$3,600,000 for the American Water Works Association Research Foundation;
90

∂$3,600,000 for the Water Environment Research Foundation;

∂$600,000 for a National Academy of Sciences study of the

health risks to children from residential lead contamination;

∂$500,000 for the New England Green Chemistry Consortium;

∂$500,000 for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research;

∂$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;

∂$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;

∂$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;

∂$750,000 for Clean Air Counts of Northeastern Illinois to develop an innovative and cost effective method to reduce smogcausing 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;

∂$1,500,000 for the Connecticut River Airshed-Watershed Consortium;

∂$250,000 for acid rain research at the University of Vermont;

∂$100,000 for the University of Vermont’s Proctor Maple Research Center to continue mercury deposition monitoring effects;

∂$100,000 for the University of Vermont’s land use mapping initiative;

∂$200,000 for the Vermont Department of Agriculture to work

with conservation districts and local communities to reduce

nonpoint source run-off in the Allen Brook watershed;

∂$425,000 for the Southwest Clean Air Quality Agency’s Columbia Gorge Air Quality Technical Foundation Study;

∂$400,000 for the Clark County Department of Air Quality Management/Desert Research Institute in Nevada for the ozone

transport monitoring project;

∂$400,000 to demonstrate containment and disposal technologies associated with the Arnold Heights project in California;

∂$425,000 for Southeastern Louisiana University for the Turtle

Cove research station;

∂$1,000,000 for the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Colorado;

∂$300,000 for Utah State University for monitoring and assessment activities related to freshwater ecosystems;

∂$1,000,000 for the Houston Advanced Research Center and the

University of Texas Air Quality Study;

∂$750,000 for the Mickey Leland Urban Air Toxics Research

Center;
91

∂$1,000,000 for the University of South Alabama for the Center

for Estuarine Research;

∂$2,000,000 for an air quality program for Anchorage, Alaska;

∂$800,000 for Ohio University’s Air Quality Center to develop

an advanced modeling program on air quality issues in the

Ohio River valley region;

∂$1,000,000 to the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in

Missouri for a Parasitic Nematode Controls research project;

∂$500,000 to the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in Missouri for the development of technologies for environmental

phytoremediation and the development of technologies for extending the environmentally safe use of biotechnology for

phytoremediation, and for the production of novel materials

and compounds in plants;

∂$800,000 for Montec Research in Butte, Montana to research

pilot scale enzyme catalyzed processes;

∂$750,000 for the Frank M. Tejeda Center for Excellence in Environmental Operations at Texas A&M;

∂$800,000 for the University of Northern Iowa for new environmental technologies for small businesses;

∂$1,000,000 for the Alabama Department of Environmental

Management for the Alabama Water and Wastewater Training

Program;

∂$1,000,000 for the Desert Research Institute for western Nevada regionally-based clean water activities.

The Committee urges the EPA Office of Research and Development to continue with the research, development and validation of

new and revised, alternative chemical screening and prioritization

methods which reduce, refine or replace animal studies (such as

rapid, non-animal screens and Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships [QSAR]) for potential inclusion in EPA’s current and future relevant chemical evaluation programs. These activities shall

be designed in consultation with EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances.

The EPA is directed to contract with the National Research

Council [NRC] to conduct a study to develop a research agenda for

interpreting human biomonitoring data. The study should identify

the key uncertainties in estimating the exposure, health effects and

human risks potentially associated with biomonitoring data and

propose research to address these uncertainties. The report should

include approaches to improve the future collection of biomonitoring data so that the data is more useful for health risk evaluations.

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, mulch,

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. More than a

year later, that risk assessment has not been completed; and, significantly, the Consumer Product Safety Commission [CPSC] has

completed a report on the risks posed to children and documented

that CCA-treated wood playground equipment will lead to as many
92

as from 2 children to 100 children out of 1,000,000 being at risk

of becoming ill from bladder and/or lung cancer. For these reasons,

the Committee directs the Agency to complete its risk assessment

by October 31, 2003, and directs the CPSC to commence final hearings on its study’s finding.

With regard to the Agency’s risk assessment, the Committee expects this assessment to include concrete findings and conclusions

about whether there are significant health and safety risks of CCAtreated wood products. The Committee also expects the assessment

to include recommendations on ways to mitigate potential risks,

and any Agency’s plans, as determined necessary, to conduct public

education to ensure that consumers, local governments, and school

systems are aware of potential risks and ways to mitigate them.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $2,097,879,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 2,219,659,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,219,659,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Agency’s ‘‘Environmental programs and management’’ account includes the development of environmental standards; monitoring and surveillance of pollution conditions; direct Federal pollution control planning; technical assistance to pollution control agencies and organizations; preparation of environmental impact statements; enforcement and compliance assurance; and assistance to

Federal agencies in complying with environmental standards and

insuring that their activities have minimal environmental impact.

It provides personnel compensation, benefits, and travel and other

administrative expenses for all agency programs except hazardous

substance Superfund, LUST, Science and Technology, Oil Spill Response, and OIG.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,219,659,000 for environmental

programs and management, the same as the budget request and

$121,780,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.

The Committee supports the budget request for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance [OECA] activities within the

Environmental Programs and Management Account which would

fund 100 FTEs over the fiscal year 2003 funding level.

The Committee strongly supports the EPA Brownfields program

at the Budget Request of $30,000,000 within this account. The

Committee notes that the inclusion of these funds in conjunction

with funding of $160,500,000 in the States and Tribal Assistance

Grants account for Brownfields activities results in a total of

$190,500,000 being available for Brownfields activities in fiscal

year 2004.

The Committee directs the following funding levels for programs

in this account:

$5,500,000 for Environmental Justice which is the same as the

budget request and approximately the same as the 2003 program

level;
93

$19,500,000 for the National Estuary program which is approximately the budget request; $50,300,000 for the Energy Star program which is the budget request; $33,500,000 for Regulatory Development;

$10,000,000 for the Great Lakes Legacy Act program which is $5,000,000 less than the budget request and $10,000,000 more

than the 2003 program level; $14,000,000 for RCRA Waste Reduction;

$9,000,000 for Environmental Education. This program was

eliminated in the budget request; $20,000,000 for Data Standards which is a reduction of

$3,270,800 from the budget request and $17,489,700 more than the

fiscal year 2003 level; $25,000,000 for Data Management which is a reduction of $1,299,200 from the budget request and an increase of $5,810,600

more than the fiscal year 2003 level; $43,000,000 for Drinking Water implementation;

$26,000,000 for Drinking Water regulations;

$10,000,000 for Geospatial;

$45,000,000 for Information Technology Management;

$120,000,000 for Management Services and Stewardship;

$38,000,000 for Regional Management which is a reduction of $1,311,100 from the budget request and an increase of $6,000,000

over the fiscal year 2003 level. The Committee recommends a general reduction of $42,020,300,

subject to normal reprogramming requirements.

The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget

request:

∂$16,000,000 for rural water technical assistance activities and

groundwater protection, including $9,000,000 for the National

Rural Water Association, $3,500,000 for 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;

∂$2,000,000 for NRWA to assist small water systems to conduct

vulnerability assessments;

∂$2,000,000 for EPA’s National Computing Center to provide for

remote mirroring of all critical information and related systems

to achieve a Continuance of Operations [COOP]/Disaster Recovery Capability;

∂$5,000,000 for America’s Clean Water Foundation for implementation of on-farm environmental assessments for livestock

operations;

∂$2,000,000 for the Coeur d’Alene Basin commission to continue

a program for environmental response, natural resource restoration and related activities;

∂$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
94

State University, the University of Illinois, and Mississippi

State University;

∂$500,000 for the Kenai River Center in Kenai, Alaska;

∂$500,000 for the State of New Hampshire for the New Hampshire Estuaries Project;

∂$3,000,000 for the Univeristy of Oklahoma for surface water

treatment, monitoring and environmental remediation of minewaste tailings in the Tar Creek and Spring Creek watersheds

in Ottawa County, Oklahoma;

∂$1,000,000 shall be made available to the State of Alaska to

conduct a mercury testing program on seafood;

∂$2,000,000 for EPA Regional 10 for environmental compliance;

∂$500,000 for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services for a milfoil and invasive species removal program;

∂$1,000,000 for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for the development of innovative cleanup technologies for environmental contamination of soil and water;

∂$500,000 for University of Louisville Center for Infrastructure

Research in Kentucky for research of ways to address problems

caused by obsolete designs, aging facilities and growing demands on water, wastewater and sewer infrastructure;

∂$500,000 for the Western Kentucky University Center for

Wastewater Research for research on wastewater and management issues;

∂$1,000,000 for the Watershed of the Ozarks in Missouri for the

Valley Mill Watershed Project;

∂$1,000,000 for the University of Missouri at Columbia for the

Innovative Technologies for Nutrient Management Project;

∂$1,000,000 for the Missouri Pork Producers Association for the

development of environmental processes for agricultural producer certifications;

∂$450,000 for the Village of Questa, New Mexico for an impact

study on the quality of groundwater and surface water sources

and for costs related to mine reclamation;

∂$750,000 for the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission to complete a riverwide TMDL review of Dioxin and PCBs;

∂$750,000 for wellcare funding for Ohio’s Water System Council;

∂$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 $22,777,700 available in fiscal year 2004 for the Chesapeake Bay Program, which is $126,000 above the fiscal year

2003 program level;

∂$1,500,000 for the Lake Champlain Basin Program, for a total

program level of $2,455,000;

∂$1,825,000 for the Long Island Sound Program, for a total program level of $2,302,000;

∂$750,000 for the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation for

Lake Ponchartrain water quality improvement projects;
95

∂$250,000 for the Maryland Bureau of Mines for an acid mine

drainage remediation project;

∂$1,000,000 for projects demonstrating the benefits of Low Impact Development along the Anacostia Watershed in Prince

Georges County, Maryland, including $500,000 for storm

drains and trash traps;

∂$250,000 for the Midwest Technology Assistance Center at the

University of Illinois;

∂$500,000 for the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District for toxic pollutant control;

∂$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;

∂$500,000 for the painting and coating assistance initiative

through the University of Northern Iowa;

∂$500,000 for the Department of Water Supply, County of Maui,

Hawaii for the upcountry Maui lead-water reduction plan;

∂$250,000 for the Economic Development Alliance of Hawaii

promote biotechnology to reduce pesticide use;

∂$400,000 for the County of Hawaii and the Hawaii Island Economic Development Board for community-based waste recycling and reuse system;

∂$200,000 for the Milwaukee Community Services Corps for a

phytoremediation treatability plan;

∂$300,000 for the Great Lakes Indian and Wildlife Commission;

∂$250,000 for the Northwest Straits Commission for Washington State University’s beach watchers program;

∂$500,000 for the Columbia Basin Groundwater Management

Area;

∂$350,000 for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission tribal

water quality program;

∂$300,000 for the Walker Lake Working Group in Nevada for

scientific, analytical, and other technical assistance to evaluate

solutions for the restoration of Walker Lake;

∂$200,000 to the Walker Lake Paiute Tribe to conduct environmental remediation of ordnance and other toxic materials on

tribal lands;

∂$325,000 for the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe for an environmental

characterization study of mine drainage on the Owybee River,

riparian areas, and other areas on the Tribe’s Duck Valley Reservation;

∂$750,000 for the University of West Florida’s PERCH program;

∂$200,000 for pollution prevention of Wreck Pond and nearby

beaches in Spring Lake, New Jersey;

∂$250,000 for a storm water research initiative at the University of Vermont;

∂$500,000 for New Bedford, Massachusetts, for environmental

education and science programs;

∂$250,000 for the North Carolina Rural Center for statewide

planning and technical assistance;

∂$200,000 for the Northeast Waste Management Officials Association [NEWMOA];
96

∂$200,000 for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use

Management [NESCAUM];

∂$2,000,000 for the National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium; and

∂$500,000 for the Clinton River Watershed Initiative in Michigan.

The Great Lakes Legacy Act, enacted in November 2002, authorizes appropriations for remediation of sediment contamination in

the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Committee strongly encourages

EPA to promulgate rules implementing this program before the end

of fiscal year 2004.

The Agency is directed to continue to provide the current level

of support for water quality monitoring along the New York-New

Jersey shoreline.

The Committee notes that in 2000 the United States Circuit

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that EPA was

improperly regulating recycling by using an overly broad definition

of ‘‘discarded material.’’ The Committee encourages EPA to promulgate a rule in fiscal year 2004, revising the regulation of recycling

under 40 CFR Part 261, by limiting the definition of ‘‘discarded material’’ to materials that are ‘‘disposed of, abandoned or thrown

away’’, not those materials that are legitimately and safely recycled, reclaimed or reused. The Committee also supports EPA’s work

to examine the effectiveness of the current comparable fuel program to supplement domestic energy sources with industrial materials, and encourages EPA to promulgate a rule in fiscal year 2004

allowing additional industrial materials to be safely used as fuels.

The Committee includes full funding for the Endocrine Disruptor

Screening program [EDSP]. These funds are critical to ensuring

that the proposed screens and tests for this program are adequately validated prior to the EPA requiring them for its screening

and testing program. The Committee has included a total of $21,000,000 for the HPV

and VCCEP programs in recognition of the substantial amount of

data that EPA is receiving and must process. EPA must be able to

assess this data in a timely and meaningful way for integration

into its risk-based chemical management programs. EPA also is directed to continue to provide funding for implementation of its voluntary children’s chemical evaluation program [VCCEP] to ensure

that the EPA will be able to effectively analyze the results of the

program.

The Committee also directs EPA to provide equal access to the

benefits of the Energy Star Labeled Homes program to all sectors

of the affordable housing industry. In particular, the Committee directs EPA to work with the manufactured housing industry on

ways for manufactured housing to avail itself of the Energy Star

Labeled Homes program.

Within the funds provided, the Agency is directed to contract

with an independent research organization, within 60 days of enactment of this Act, to complete a comprehensive study of jobs created by water infrastructure funding.

The Committee is concerned that the Agency has not yet awarded fiscal year 2003 funding appropriated for the University of Nevada, Reno to conduct water testing and related studies of the ar-
97

senic problem and its impact in Fallon, Nevada, and consequently,

this important work has been unable to begin. The Committee directs the Agency to award this grant expeditiously and without further delay or imposition of additional review procedures. The Committee further directs the Agency to allow only the University of

Nevada, Reno to assess appropriate overhead fees for this grant.

The Committee believes that a strong criminal enforcement program is essential to reducing pollution and protecting public

health, and is concerned that the Agency has not devoted adequate

resources to the program, leading to staffing and case backlogs.

While the Committee also supports the Agency’s compliance assistance and monitoring activities, these activities should be complementary to traditional criminal enforcement activities, not in

lieu of them. Similarly, the Agency’s increased criminal activities

related to homeland security should be conducted in addition to,

not at the expense of, the traditional criminal enforcement program. The Committee therefore directs the Agency to report by

January 30, 2004, with a plan to reduce case backlogs and ensure

adequate resource and staffing levels.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $35,766,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 36,808,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 36,808,000

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 $36,808,000 for the Office of Inspector General, the same as the budget request and $1,597,000 above

the fiscal year 2003 level. In addition, $13,214,000 will be available

by transfer from the Superfund account, for a total of $50,022,000.

The trust fund resources will be transferred to the inspector general ‘‘General fund’’ account with an expenditure transfer.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $42,639,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 42,918,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 42,918,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The appropriation for buildings and facilities at EPA provides for

the design and construction of EPA-owned facilities as well as for

the repair, extension, alteration, and improvement of facilities utilized by the Agency. These funds correct unsafe conditions, protect

health and safety of employees and Agency visitors, and prevent

deterioration of structures and equipment.
98

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $42,918,000 for buildings and facilities, $279,000 above the fiscal year 2003 level and the same as the

budget request.

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,264,614,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,389,716,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,265,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

On October 17, 1986, Congress amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

[CERCLA] through the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 [SARA]. SARA reauthorized and expanded the

Hazardous Substance Superfund to address the problems of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and spills. Specifically, the legislation

mandates that EPA: (1) provide emergency response to hazardous

waste spills; (2) take emergency action at hazardous waste sites

that pose an imminent hazard to public health or environmentally

sensitive ecosystems; (3) engage in long-term planning, remedial

design, and construction to clean up hazardous waste sites where

no financially viable responsible party can be found; (4) take enforcement actions to require responsible private and Federal parties to clean up hazardous waste sites; and (5) take enforcement actions to recover costs where the fund has been used for cleanup.

Due to the site-specific nature of the Agency’s Superfund program,

site-specific travel is not considered part of the overall travel ceiling set for the Superfund account.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,265,000,000 for Superfund,

$386,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $124,716,000

below the budget request. Of these funds, $879,460,000 is for

Superfund response and cleanup activities; $148,000,000 is for enforcement activities; $140,500,000 for management and support;

$13,214,000 for transfer to the Office of the Inspector General;

$45,000,000 for transfer to the Science and Technology account for

research and development activities; and up to $38,826,000 for reimbursable interagency activities. Changes to these funding levels

shall be made pursuant to normal reprogramming requirements.

The Committee notes that with the maturity of the Superfund

program, many sites on the National Priority List are entering the

final stages of the Superfund ‘‘pipeline’’ when site remediation and

long-term response actions occur. The Committee notes that the

EPA Inspector General [IG] found that EPA spent only 16 percent

of its annual appropriation to fund site remedy construction and

long-term response activities. The Committee is concerned that

EPA is not dedicating enough funds to actual remediation and

Superfund close-out activities. The Committee expects EPA to allocate no less than 22 percent of its annual appropriation for these
99

activities. Further, the Committee directs the EPA IG to conduct

a comprehensive audit of fiscal years 2002 and 2003 Superfund expenditures to assess the use of funds in Superfund clean-ups and

make recommendations for enhancing the completion of final cleanup and remediation activities in the Superfund program.

LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $71,843,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 72,545,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 72,545,000

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 $72,545,000

for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, an increase of $702,000 over the fiscal year 2003 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, 2003 ............................................................................. $15,480,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 16,209,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,209,000

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 Deep-
100

water Port Act of 1974, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

Amendments of 1978, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

as amended. Pursuant to law, the Trust Fund is managed by the

United States Coast Guard.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $16,209,000 for the oil spill response trust fund, the same as the budget request and $729,000

above the fiscal year 2003 enacted and the level budget request.

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $3,834,905,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 3,121,200,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,814,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The ‘‘State and tribal assistance grants’’ account funds grants to

support the State revolving fund programs; State, tribal, regional,

and local environmental programs; and special projects to address

critical water and waste water treatment needs.

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 infrastructure projects.

It also contains the following categorical environmental grants,

State/tribal program grants, and assistance and capacity building

grants: (1) air resource assistance to State, regional, local, and tribal governments (secs. 105 and 103 of the Clean Air Act); (2) radon

State and Tribal grants; (3) water pollution control agency resource

supplementation (sec. 106 of the FWPCA); (4) BEACHS Protection

grants (sec. 406 of FWPCA as amended); (5) nonpoint source (sec.

319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act); (6) wetlands State

program development; (7) water quality cooperative agreements

(sec. 104(b)(3) of FWPCA; (8) targeted watershed grants; (9) public

water system supervision; (10) underground injection control; (11)

Drinking Water Program State Homeland Security Coordination

grants; (12) hazardous waste financial assistance; (13) Brownfields

cleanup grants; (14) underground storage tanks; (15) Pesticides

Program implementation; (16) lead grants; (17) toxic substances

compliance monitoring; (18) pesticides enforcement; (19) the Environmental Information Exchange Network; (20) pollution prevention; (21) enforcement and compliance assurance; and, (22) Indians

general assistance grants. As with the case in past fiscal years, reprogramming requests associated with Performance Partnership

Grants need not be submitted to the Committee for approval

should such grants exceed the normal reprogramming limitations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,814,000,000

for State and tribal assistance grants, an increase of $692,800,000

over the budget request and is $20,905,000 below the fiscal year

2003 enacted level.
101

The Committee recommends the following funding levels for programs in this account:

(1) $1,350,000,000 for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan

Fund. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2003 level and

$500,000,000 more than the budget request.

(2) $850,000,000 for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.

This amount is the same as fiscal year 2003 level and the budget

request.

(3) $16,000,000 for the Targeted Watershed Grants program.

This is a $5,000,000 reduction from the budget request. This reduction is due to uncertainties regarding the basis for selecting watersheds for funding, and the impact of the program.

(4) $228,550,000 for Section 103 and 105 State and Local Assistance grants.

(5) $196,000,000 for the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution

Control Grants program. This is a $42,000,000 reduction from the

budget request. The Committee believes there is overlap with other

Agricultural programs and an inadequate plan for the use of this

funding.

(6) $200,400,000 for the Section 106 State Pollution Control

Grant Program, which includes support for State Total Maximum

Daily Load programs. This amount is $20,023,000 above the 2003

level.

(7) $45,000,000 for Alaska Native Villages to address the special

water and wastewater treatment needs of thousands of households

that lack basic sanitation. The State of Alaska will provide a 25

percent match.

(8) $3,500,000 for remediation of above ground leaking fuel tanks

in Alaska as authorized by Public Law 106–554.

(9) $20,000,000 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.

(10) $50,000,000 for high priority water and wastewater facilities

in the area of the United States-Mexico border, including

$7,000,000 for the El Paso-Las Cruces Sustainable Water Project

and $2,000,000 for the Brownsville water supply project.

(11) $14,900,000 for the Wetland program which is a reduction

of $5,100,000 from the budget request. This program would be

funded at the 2003 level. The Committee supports this program but

believes that States still need time to develop a comprehensive

plan to ensure the success of the program;

(12) $4,700,000 for the Lead-Based Risk Reduction program

which is $9,000,000 less than the budget request. The Committee

has supported strongly efforts to reduce lead-based paint hazard

reduction programs in other areas of the bill and supports this program. However, the Committee notes that the EPA has been consistently carrying over between $9,000,000 and nearly $15,000,000

over the past 5 years. This carryover ensures the ability of the EPA

to maintain consistent funding for States and localities;

The Committee includes no funds for the Homestake Mine which

is a State and corporate responsibility. The Committee includes no
102

new funds for a special drinking water grant for Puerto Rico as requested by the Administration. The Committee includes $130,000,000 for targeted project grants.

These grants include a local match of 45 percent for all grants utilized unless a hardship waiver is provided by the EPA. The EPA

is directed to expedite any request for a waiver and assist any communities that are likely to qualify for a waiver in processing such

a request. In addition, for these targeted project grants, the Committee recognizes the administrative burden on recipients from

having to comply with similar and sometimes duplicative administrative and procedural requirements attendant to receiving both a

grant under this heading and a loan under a State water pollution

control or drinking water revolving fund. In these cases, the Committee intends the responsibility for these grants to become the responsibility of the applicable State water pollution control or drinking water revolving fund in accordance with existing cost and administrative requirements. The targeted project grants are as follows:

1. $700,000 for the Coosa Valley Water Supply District for development of a surface water supply in St. Clair County, Alabama; 2. $2,000,000 to the Tom Bevill Reservoir Management Area Authority for Construction of a drinking water reservoir in Fayette

County, Alabama; 3. $450,000 to the Southwest Alabama Regional Water Supply

District for regional water supply distribution in Thomasville, Alabama;

4. $100,000 to the Town of Hodges, Alabama for the Hodges

water improvement project; 5. $150,000 to the Town of Double Springs, Alabama for water

system improvements; 6. $250,000 for Smith’s Sewer and Water Authority for sewer

system expansion in Smith, Alabama; 7. $100,000 to the Water and Sewer Boards of the Cities of Brent

and Centreville for court ordered repairs to the system to mitigate

water pollution in Centreville, Alabama;

8. $250,000 to the City of Athens Utilities for commercial sewage

extension in Athens, Alabama;

9. $100,000 to the City of Camden, Alabama for water and sewer

infrastructure improvements;

10. $250,000 for the Waterworks Boards of Section and Dutton

for water distribution system expansion and upgrade in Jackson

County, Alabama;

11. $150,000 for the Cherokee County Commission for Weiss

Lake Area system improvements in Centre, Alabama;

12. $2,000,000 for Anchorage, Alaska for water and sewer upgrades in West Anchorage;

13. $1,500,000 for Fairbanks, Alaska for water system upgrades;

14. $1,000,000 for North Pole, Alaska for water and sewer improvements;

15. $985,000 for Palmer, Alaska for a water main;

16. $768,000 for Sitka, Alaska for Japonski Island water supply

improvements;

17. $925,000 for Wasilla, Alaska for water and sewer improvements;
103

18. $1,000,000 for the City of Scottsdale, Arizona for the Arsenic

Removal Project;

19. $650,000 for the Town of Greers Ferry, Arkansas for drinking

water infrastructure improvements;

20. $650,000 for the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas for wastewater infrastructure improvements;

21. $1,000,000 for the Santa Clara Valley Water District, California for perchlorate groundwater clean-up;

22. $500,000 for the City of Ukiah, California for wastewater infrastructure improvements;

23. $500,000 for the West Valley Water District, California for

the Inland Empire Perchlorate Force Wellhead Treatment;

24. $500,000 for Madera County, California for wastewater infrastructure improvements;

25. $500,000 for the City of Santa Ana, California for water infrastructure improvements;

26. $200,000 for Ventura County, California for sewer infrastructure improvements;

27. $1,000,000 for the Town of Rico, Colorado for the construction

of a wastewater treatment plant and sewer system;

28. $1,000,000 for the Brownsville Water District, Colorado for

the construction of a sanitary sewer collection system and interceptor line;

29. $1,000,000 for the Englewood/Littleton Bi-City Wastewater

Treatment Plant, Colorado for wastewater infrastructure improvements;

30. $500,000 for the Town of East Hampton, Connecticut for

drinking water infrastructure improvements;

31. $500,000 for the City of New Britain, Connecticut for drinking water infrastructure improvements;

32. $300,000 for the Town of Southington, Connecticut for drinking water infrastructure improvements;

33. $600,000 for the City of Wilmington, Delaware for wastewater infrastructure improvements;

34. $1,000,000 for the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach

County, Florida for continued construction of the Tri-County Biosolids Pelletization Facility;

35. $300,000 for the Northwest Florida Management District for

the Escambia County Utility Authority Water Reclamation Project;

36. $300,000 for the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning

District for water infrastructure improvements;

37. $750,000 for the City of Forsyth, Georgia for wastewater infrastructure improvements;

38. $1,000,000 for Oahu County and Kauai County, Hawaii for

water infrastructure improvements;

39. $2,000,000 for the City of Ottumwa, Iowa for the separation

of combined sewers;

40. $200,000 for the City of Carroll, Iowa for wastewater infrastructure improvements;

41. $1,500,000 for the City of Sioux City, Iowa for the construction of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant;

42. $2,000,000 for Shoshone County, Idaho, for Burke Canyon

Water and Sewer Improvements;
104

43. $500,000 for the City of Burley, Idaho, for construction on its

Wastewater Treatment System Project; 44. $500,000 for Galesburg Sanitary District, Illinois for wastewater infrastructure improvements; 45. $500,000 for the Villiage of Franklin Park, Illinois for water

and wastewater infrastructure improvements; 46. $500,000 for Lake County, Illinois for water and wastewater

infrastructure improvements; 47. $500,000 for the City of Galena, Illinois to expand and improve wastewater facilities; 48. $200,000 for the City of Wilmington, Illinois for wastewater

infrastructure improvements; 49. $200,000 for the Delaware County Commissioners, Eaton, Indiana for water system improvements; 50. $200,000 for the City of Elwood, Indiana for sewer infrastructure improvements; 51. $250,000 for Vanderburgh County/City of Evansville, Indiana

for wastewater system improvements; 52. $100,000 for the City of Martinsville, Indiana for water infrastructure improvements; 53. $1,000,000 for the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana for water infrastructure improvements; 54. $2,000,000 for the City of Hutchison, Kansas for groundwater

remediation;

55. $1,000,000 for the City of Roeland Park, Kansas for

stormwater infrastructure improvements; 56. $500,000 to the South Woodford Water District in Woodford

County, Kentucky, for the South Woodford Water District System

Improvement Project; 57. $500,000 to the Hardin County Water District No. 2 in Hardin County, Kentucky, for the Elizabethtown Loop Project; 58. $2,000,000 to the Intermodal Transportation Authority in

Bowling Green, Kentucky, for Kentucky TriModal Transpark Water

and Sewer Improvements;

59. $1,000,000 for Sanitation District Number One in Kentucky

for water infrastructure improvements;

60. $700,000 for the Ohio County Regional Wastewater District,

Kentucky for wastewater infrastructure improvements;

61. $300,000 for the State of Kentucky for water infrastructure

improvements in Union County;

62. $1,000,000 for the City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana for water

infrastructure improvements;

63. $750,000 for the City of Monroe, Louisiana for wastewater infrastructure improvements;

64. $750,000 for the Town of Gramercy, Louisiana for drinking

water infrastructure improvements;

65. $700,000 for the City of St. Martinville, Louisiana for wastewater infrastructure improvements;

66. $500,000 for the City of Gardiner, Maine for sewer infrastructure improvements;

67. $250,000 for the Town of Machias, Maine for wastewater infrastructure improvements;

68. $250,000 for Indian Township, Maine for improvements to

wastewater facilities;
105

69. $1,000,000 for the Town of Westernport, Maryland for sewer

infrastructure improvements;

70. $500,000 for Chestertown, Maryland for water infrastructure

improvements;

71. $500,000 for the Town of Delmar, Maryland for water infrastructure improvements;

72. $500,000 for the Town of Crisfield, Maryland for water infrastructure improvements;

73. $500,000 for the Town of Hurlock, Maryland for water infrastructure improvements;

74. $500,000 for the Town of Snow Hill, Maryland for water infrastructure improvements;

75. $1,000,000 for Harford County, Maryland for the Oaklyn

Manor Project;

76. $600,000 for the Cities of New Bedford and Fall River, Massachusetts for combined sewer overflow mitigation in Bristol County;

77. $1,000,000 for the City of Benton Harbor, Michigan for water

infrastructure improvements;

78. $400,000 for Crystal Falls Township, Michigan for water infrastructure improvements;

79. $1,000,000 for the City of Saginaw, Michigan for sewer infrastructure improvements;

80. $400,000 for Genesee County Drain Commission, Michigan

for the North-East Relief Sewer and Kearsley Creek Interceptor

project;

81. $1,500,000 for the City of Joplin, Missouri for the Shoal

Creek Pre-treatment facility and Silver Creek parallel relief;

82. $300,000 for the City of Mille Lacs, Minnesota for wastewater

infrastructure improvements;

83. $500,000 for the City of Moorhead, Minnesota for water infrastructure improvements;

84. $450,000 for the City of Pascagoula, Mississippi for

stormwater and wastewater infrastructure improvements;

85. $1,000,000 for the City of Forest, Mississippi for water infrastructure improvements;

86. $200,000 for the City of Gulfport, Mississippi for wastewater

infrastructure improvements;

87. $1,000,000 for the West Rankin Metropolitan Water and

Sewer Authority, Rankin County, Mississippi for water infrastructure improvements;

88. $500,000 for the City of Tchula, Mississippi for wastewater

infrastructure improvements;

89. $500,000 for the City of Meridian, Mississippi for wastewater

infrastructure improvements;

90. $500,000 for the City of Jackson, Mississippi for wastewater

system improvements;

91. $1,000,000 for the City of St. Joseph, Missouri for sewer infrastructure improvements;

92. $750,000 for Monroe City, Missouri for water main replacement and water line extension;

93. $1,000,000 for the Cities of Peculiar and Raymore, Missouri

for the Cass County Watershed Expansion Project;
106

94. $700,000 for the City of Pacific, Missouri for sewer infrastructure improvements;

95. $750,000 for Northwest Missouri Regional Council of Governments for regional drinking water projects;

96. $750,000 for the City of Lebanon, Missouri for sewer infrastructure improvements;

97. $400,000 for Wright City, Missouri for the construction of an

elevated water storage tank;

98. $150,000 for Steelville, Missouri for completion of its water

service project, well and water storage tank;

99. $500,000 to the City of St. Louis Department of Public Utilities Water Division for the Columbia Bottoms Wellfield Development Project in St. Louis, Missouri;

100. $300,000 for the City of Helena, Montana for Phase 1 of Helena’s Missouri River Water Treatment Plant reconstruction;

101. $1,000,000 for the Missouri River Water Project, Helena,

Montana for a wastewater treatment facility;

102. $600,000 for the City of Kalispell, Montana for wastewater

treatment improvements;

103. $500,000 for the City of Missoula, Montana for the Rattlesnake Water Project;

104. $350,000 for the City of Red Lodge for a wastewater treatment facility;

105. $350,000 for the City of Manhattan, Montana for a wastewater treatment facility;

106. $300,000 for the City of Wisdom, Montana for wastewater

infrastructure improvements;

107. $400,000 for the City of Hamilton, Montana for wastewater

infrastructure improvements;

108. $300,000 for the City of Omaha, Nebraska for the separation of combined sewers;

109. $375,000 for the City of Omaha, Nebraska for the construction of combined sewer separation systems;

110. $375,000 for the City of Lincoln, Nebraska for the construction of combined sewer separation systems;

111. $100,000 for the Town of Hawthorne, Nevada for sewer infrastructure improvements;

112. $1,000,000 for the Virgin Valley Water District, Nevada for

drinking water infrastructure improvements;

113. $1,000,000 for Washoe County, Nevada for the North

Lemmon Valley Artificial Recharge Project;

114. $600,000 for Clark County, Nevada for water infrastructure

improvements;

115. $500,000 for the City of Berlin, New Hampshire, for the

Berlin Waterworks water distribution system improvements;

116. $500,000 for the Town of Colebrook, New Hampshire for

drinking water infrastructure improvements;

117. $300,000 for the Town of Rollingsford, New Hampshire for

wastewater treatment improvements;

118. $350,000 for the Town of Jaffrey, New Hampshire for wastewater treatment improvements;

119. $500,000 for the City of Nashua, New Hampshire for a Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement project;
107

120. $500,000 for the City of Manchester, New Hampshire for the

Phase 1 Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement project;

121. $350,000 for the City of Rochester Waterworks, New Hampshire for the extension of Rochester, New Hampshire sewer line;

122. $1,000,000 for the City of Camden, New Jersey for the Von

Neida Park Wastewater Management project;

123. $700,000 for Rockland County in New York, for the Western

Ramapo, New Jersey, sewer extension;

124. $300,000 for the City of Gallup, New Mexico for wastewater

infrastructure improvements;

125. $2,000,000 for the Valley Utilities Project in the City of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, New Mexico;

126. $1,000,000 for the City of Espan ̃ ola, New Mexico, for water

and wastewater system improvements;

127. $1,000,000 for the City of Los Lunas, New Mexico, for the

interceptor sewer line project;

128. $250,000 for the City of Oswego, New York for water infrastructure improvements;

129. $250,000 for the City of Corning, New York for a reservoir

project;

130. $1,000,000 for the Village of Lake Placid, New York for

water infrastructure improvements;

131. $1,000,000 for the Neuse Regional Water and Sewer Authority in Kinston, North Carolina for drinking water infrastructure

improvements;

132. $550,000 for the City of Devils Lake, North Dakota for

water infrastructure improvements;

133. $900,000 for the City of Grafton, North Dakota for the Grafton Water Treatment Plant;

134. $200,000 for the City of Park River, North Dakota for water

infrastructure improvements;

135. $550,000 for the City of Riverdale, North Dakota for the

Riverdale Regional Water Treatment Facility;

136. $300,000 for Dickey Rural Water Users Association in

Southeast, North Dakota for the Southeast Regional Expansion

Project;

137. $900,000 for Guernsey County, Ohio to build the ClaysvilleCumberland Waterline;

138. $900,000 for the City of Delphos, Ohio to construct a reservoir, surface water treatment plant, and associated piping;

139. $300,000 to the Village of Millersburg, Ohio to upgrade the

Millersburg Wastewater Treatment Plant;

140. $900,000 to the City of Van Wert, Ohio to increase the size

of the drinking water reservoir;

141. $500,000 to Fulton County, Ohio to prevent landfill leachate

flows into surface water by improving the cap and leachate collection system at the Fulton County Landfill;

142. $1,500,000 for the City of Lawton, Oklahoma for the Southwest Water Treatment Plant:

143. $750,000 to the Warrenton Municipal Wastewater Out-fall/

Tie-In Project, Oregon;

144. $500,000 for the City of Irrigon, Oregon for water infrastructure improvements;
108

145. $500,000 for the City of Portland, Oregon for its wet weather demonstration project;

146. $2,000,000 for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration program to develop innovative, cost-effective solutions to assist

municipalities to eliminate sewer overflows in Allegheny County,

Pennsylvania;

147. $750,000 to the Cambria Somerset Authority for the

Quemahoning Reservoir water supply project to provide water to

communities in Somerset and Cambria Counties, Pennsylvania;

148. $300,000 to the City of Lancaster to construct an advanced

ultrafiltration membrane water treatment system in Lancaster

County, Pennsylvania;

149. $250,000 to Jersey Shore Borough for water infrastructure

improvements in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania;

150. $250,000 to the Summit Township Sewer Authority for a

public sanitary sewer system extension in Erie County, Pennsylvania;

151. $250,000 to Tuscarora Township for East Waterford sanitary sewer system upgrades in Juniata County, Pennsylvania;

152. $200,000 to Newport Borough Water Authority for a river

filtration system and distribution line replacement in Perry County, Pennsylvania;

153. $1,450,000 for the Narragansett Bay Commission, Rhode Island for combined sewer overflow infrastructure improvements;

154. $500,000 for the Pascoag Utility District, Rhode Island for

water infrastructure improvements;

155. $440,000 for the City of Providence, Rhode Island for water

infrastructure improvements;

156. $500,000 for the Town of Jamestown, Rhode Island for

water infrastructure improvements;

157. $500,000 for the Pawtucket Water Supply Board, Rhode Island for the renovation of Central Falls Pipe;

158. $100,000 for the Prudence Island Water Utility, Rhode Island for water infrastructure improvements;

159. $1,200,000 for the Town of Ravenel, South Carolina for construction of a main sewer transmission line along U.S. Hwy 17;

160. $1,000,000 for the Commission of Public Works of the City

of Charleston, South Carolina for wastewater tunnel replacement;

161. $1,000,000 for the City of Corsica, South Dakota for water

infrastructure improvements;

162. $1,000,000 for the City of Lennox, South Dakota for water

infrastructure improvements;

163. $200,000 for the City of Sisseton, South Dakota for water

infrastructure improvements;

164. $1,000,000 for the City of Hartford, South Dakota for drinking water infrastructure improvements;

165. $100,000 for the City of DeSmet, South Dakota for water infrastructure improvements;

166. $600,000 for the City of Jackson, Tennessee for the Sandy

Creek Sanitary Sewer Overflow Project;

167. $1,400,000 for the City of Newport, Tennessee for the Newport Utility District to expand drinking water services and improve

wastewater treatment;
109

168. $1,300,000 for San Antonio Water Systems, San Antonio,

Texas for Brooks City-Base water infrastructure improvements;

169. $1,200,000 for the City of Austin, Texas for sanitary sewer

overflow mitigation;

170. $600,000 for Daggett County, Utah for the Dutch John

Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements;

171. $500,000 for the City of Riverton, Utah for water infrastructure improvements;

172. $650,000 for Iron County, Utah for wastewater infrastructure improvements;

173. $250,000 for the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District,

Utah for a groundwater extraction and treatment remedial project;

174. $500,000 for Park City, Utah for Spiro and Judge Tunnel

Water Treatment Facility;

175. $500,000 for the City of Sandy, Utah for water and

stormwater infrastructure improvements;

176. $500,000 for the City of Orem, Utah for water infrastructure

improvements;

177. $300,000 for Fairfax County, Virginia for wastewater infrastructure improvements;

178. $400,000 for the City of Norfolk, Virginia for the Prentis

Park Water and Sewer Rehabilitation;

179. $300,000 for the City of Lynchburg, Virginia for combined

sewer overflow controls;

180. $500,000 for the City of Lakewood, Washington for sewer infrastructure improvements;

181. $1,000,000 for the City of Sunnyside, Washington for wastewater infrastructure improvements;

182. $750,000 for the Skagit Public Utility District, Washington

for sewer improvements for the Similk Beach Community;

183. $450,000 for the Vashon Sewer District, Washington for

wastewater infrastructure improvements;

184. $1,000,000 for the Town of Waitsfield, Vermont for wastewater infrastructure improvements;

185. $1,500,000 for the Champlain Water District, Vermont, for

Chittenden County stormwater infrastructure improvements;

186. $1,700,000 for the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin for sewer

infrastructure improvements;

187. $500,000 for the City of Racine, Wisconsin for water infrastructure improvements.

The Committee includes $160,500,000 for Brownfields activities

within this account. These funds augment funding of $30,000,000

included in the Environmental Programs and Management account

for fiscal year 2004. This is a $20,000,000 reduction to this program from the budget request. The Committee strongly supports

this program but is disappointed in the revolving loan component

of the Brownfields program that has resulted in only five clean-ups

being completed over the life of the program. EPA has awarded

some $112,000,000 to 142 entities to capitalize these revolving loan

funds. Unfortunately, only about $11,000,000 in loans have been

made throughout the Nation by 24 entities. This means that 118

entities or some 83 percent of all entities have never made a loan.

The Committee directs EPA to report on the status of the revolving
110

loan fund component and the success of any efforts to make this

program work more effectively.

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 one-third of 1 percent cap on the Tribal

set aside from non-point source grants; (3) increase to 1.5 percent

the cap on the Tribal set-aside for the Clean Water SRF; and (4)

require that any funds provided to address the water infrastructure

needs of colonias within the United States along the United StatesMexico 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.

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.—As has been the case for

the last several years to ensure adequate resources for the EPA’s

pesticide re-registration program, the Committee has included bill

language which authorizes for 1 year the collection by EPA of

$21,500,000 in maintenance fees. This provision expires on September 30, 2004. The bill also prohibits the use of funds to promulgate a new regulation to implement changes in the payment of pesticide tolerance fees as proposed at 64 Federal Register 31040, or

any similar proposal; and prohibits the collection of pesticide registration fees if a new maintenance fee has gone in effect.

The bill includes two provisions to reform the EPA Brownfields

program. The first provision extends eligibility to Brownfields sites

that were purchased prior to the enactment of the Small Business

Liability Relief and Brownfield Revitalization Act of 2001. The second provision allows the EPA to permit the use of funds for reasonable administrative costs.

The bill includes a provision that clarifies an existing exemption

in the Clean Air Act that farm and construction equipment which

are smaller than 175 horsepower are exempt from state regulation

for emissions but remain subject to EPA regulation.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $5,333,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 7,027,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,027,000
111

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Science and Technology Policy [OSTP] was created

by the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and

Priorities Act of 1976 (Public Law 94–282) and coordinates science

and technology policy for the White House. OSTP provides authoritative scientific and technological information, analysis, and advice

for the President, for the executive branch, and for Congress; participates in formulation, coordination, and implementation of national and international policies and programs that involve science

and technology; maintains and promotes the health and vitality of

the U.S. science and technology infrastructure; reviews and analyzes, with the Office of Management and Budget, the research and

development budgets for all Federal agencies; and coordinates research and development efforts of the Federal Government to maximize the return on the public’s investment in science and technology and to ensure Federal resources are used efficiently and appropriately.

OSTP provides support for the National Science and Technology

Council [NSTC].

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,027,000 for

the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This amount is the

same as the budget request and $1,694,000 above the fiscal year

2003 enacted level.

The Committee believes the President’s Science Advisor should

continue to play an integral role in advising the President on the

appropriate balance among and between disciplines and agencies in

the Federal R&D portfolio. The Committee also expects the Science

Advisor will conduct effective outreach to the science and engineering community and be an active and influential advisor to the

President on important public policy issues grounded in science

and technology.

The Committee notes that the Government share for R&D funding has declined substantially over the last 15 years. However, industry’s dependence on public R&D for innovation remains very

high. Nearly three quarters of U.S. industry patents cite publicly

funded science as the basis for the invention. The Committee is

concerned that further reductions in public funding for science and

engineering could result in a decrease in the private sector’s capacity to innovate.

The Committee is also concerned about the adequacy of this Nation’s scientific and technical workforce, and the efforts needed to

boost the participation of women and minorities in the science and

engineering workforce. The Committee urges OSTP to work with

the relevant agencies on the development of policies and in the allocation of resources to address these issues effectively.

The Committee reiterates its long standing interest in improving

coordination and cooperation among the various R&D agencies

under the auspices of OSTP and the National Science and Technology Council [NSTC].

The Committee is strongly supportive of the interagency

nanoscience and technology initiative and urges OSTP to continue
112

to strengthen the emerging research, education, and training objectives of the National Nanotechnology Initiative [NNI]. The Committee is particularly interested in the planned efforts to transfer

nanotechnology research results generated from the NNI into applications and urges OSTP to continue to address this issue. The

Committee notes that the request by the administration for the

multi-agency NNI will effectively be double the amount funded for

nanotechnology in fiscal year 2004.

The Committee understands that prior to 1989, the National Institutes of Health [NIH] provided indirect cost reimbursements to

the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] in compliance with Public

Law 90–31. However, the NIH stopped providing these reimbursements after 1989. Accordingly, the Committee strongly urges OSTP

to assist the VA and the NIH to negotiate a fair and equitable

agreement for VA to receive reimbursement from NIH for facility

costs incurred while conducting NIH-sponsored research.

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $3,011,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 3,328,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,328,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Council on Environmental Quality/Office of Environmental

Quality was established by the National Environmental Policy Act

and the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970. The

Council serves as a source of environmental expertise and policy

analysis for the White House, Executive Office of the President,

and other Federal agencies. CEQ promulgates regulations binding

on all Federal agencies to implement the procedural provisions of

the National Environmental Policy Act and resolves interagency

environmental disputes informally and through issuance of findings

and recommendations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $3,328,000 for the Council on Environmental Quality, an increase of $317,000 above the fiscal year

2003 enacted level and equal to the budget request. The Committee

directs CEQ to provide quarterly reports on all ongoing activities,

including use of detailees and agency representatives.

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $30,848,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 30,125,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,848,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The FDIC Office of Inspector General conducts audits, investigations, and other reviews to assist and augment the FDIC’s contribution to the stability of, and public confidence in, the Nation’s

financial system. A separate appropriation more effectively ensures
113

the OIG’s independence consistent with the Inspector General Act

of 1978, as amended and other legislation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $30,848,000 for the FDIC inspector

general, the same as the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and

$723,000 more than 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.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL CITIZEN INFORMATION CENTER FUND

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $11,466,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 17,643,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Citizen Information Center [FCIC] successfully

brings together an array of U.S. Government information and services and makes them easily accessible to the public. Whether citizens need information on the web, via e-mail, in print, or over the

telephone, FCIC is their help desk for everyday life—giving answers and assistance they trust about the things that matter.

Originally established within the General Services Administration [GSA] by executive order on October 26, 1970, to help Federal

departments and agencies promote and distribute printed consumer information, FCIC has evolved and consolidated a variety of

complementary functions to augment the original print and media

channels through which it informed the public.

On January 28, 2000, the FCIC assumed responsibility for the

operations of the Federal Information Center [FIC] program. The

FIC program was established within the General Services Administration in 1966, and was formalized by Public Law 95–491 in 1980.

The program’s purpose is to provide the public with direct information about all aspects of Federal programs, regulations, and services. To accomplish this mission, contractual services are used to

respond to public inquiries via the nationwide toll-free National

Contact Center.

On June 30, 2002, FCIC assumed operational control of the

FirstGov.gov website, the official portal of the U.S. Government,

and became a critical part of GSA’s newly established Office of Citizen Services and Communications. This Office brings together all

of GSA’s citizen-centered programs. The new Office serves as a central Federal gateway for citizens, businesses, other governments,

and the media to easily obtain information and services from the

Government. Under this new organization, FCIC remains committed to its consumer and citizen 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 the Government. On March 31, 2003, FCIC began accepting e-mail and fax inquiries from the public through the

FirstGov.gov website and responds to them at its National Contact

Center.
114

Public Law 98–63, enacted July 30, 1983, established a revolving

fund for the FCIC. Under this fund, FCIC activities are financed

from the following: annual appropriations from the general funds

of the Treasury, reimbursements from agencies for distribution of

publications, user fees collected from the public, and any other income incident to FCIC activities. All are available as authorized in

appropriation acts without regard to fiscal year limitations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $14,000,000 for the Federal Citizen

Information Center, an increase of $2,534,000 above the fiscal year

2003 enacted level and $3,643,000 below the budget request.

The appropriation will be augmented by a projected $560,000 reimbursements from Federal agencies for distribution of consumer

publications, user fees from the public, and other income. FCIC’s

anticipated resources for fiscal year 2004 will total approximately

$14,560,000.

As FCIC responsibilities continue to expand to better serve the

public within a recently established GSA organization, the Committee emphasizes that the funds appropriated from this account

are available solely for FCIC staffing and activities to achieve its

core mission as presented to and approved by the Committee.

UNITED STATES INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $1,490,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1 1,500,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,500,000

1Funded under the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is an

independent agency created by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 to coordinate and direct the multiple efforts of

Federal agencies and other designated groups. The Council was authorized to review Federal programs that assist homeless persons

and to take necessary actions to reduce duplication. The Council

can recommend improvements in programs and activities conducted by Federal, State and local government as well as local volunteer organizations. The Council consists of the heads of 18 Federal agencies such as the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Labor, and Transportation;

and other entities as deemed appropriate.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the United States

Interagency Council on Homelessness [ICH], the same level as the

budget request and $10,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted

level. These funds are for carrying out the functions authorized

under section 203 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
115

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 fully supports the ongoing work of the ICH to develop a comprehensive and coordinated strategy for ending and

preventing homelessness. To that end, the Committee supports the

ICH’s efforts to work with local and State governments in developing and implementing performance based, results oriented strategic plans to end chronic homelessness in 10 years.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $15,338,907,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 15,469,300,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,338,907,000

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 $15,338,907,000 for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2004, the

same as the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $130,393,000 below

the President’s request.

The Committee has modified the account structure as proposed

under the budget request of NASA. The Committee has transferred

the appropriate activities to reflect the two newly created accounts

of Science, Aeronautics and Exploration, and Space Flight Capabilities. Science, Aeronautics and Exploration will contain the enterprises of Space Science, Earth Science, Biological and Physical Research, Aeronautics, and Education. The Space Flight Capabilities

account will contain the funding for the International Space Station [ISS], Space Shuttle, Space Flight Support, and Crosscutting

Technology. The account of the Office of the Inspector General will

remain unchanged. These account revisions were made to better

accomodate NASA’s transition to full cost accounting.

In addition, NASA is at a crossroad in its history. Because of the

tragic loss of the Shuttle Columbia, the Committee believes that

both the Congress and NASA must make a renewed commitment

to safety as the highest priority in the NASA budget. While safety

has always been our highest priority for NASA, something went

terribly wrong on that tragic day in February when the Shuttle Columbia crashed to earth and seven of our bravest astronauts died.

We know more about the Columbia tragedy now that the Columbia
116

Accident Investigations Board [CAIB] has issued its final report.

The findings are disturbing but provide a foundation for NASA to

assess and institute the substantial reforms that must be made to

make a return to flight both safe and successful.

As part of this reform process, the Committee directs NASA to

submit a comprehensive plan within 4 months of enactment of this

Act that will respond to the CAIB report as well as address other

staffing, systemic and program shortcomings in NASA programs.

The plan should also include an assessment of any proposed investments that NASA considers critical to the reform of the agency and

the success of its missions. Finally, the plan is expected to provide

a 10-year funding profile for implementing proposed reforms with

benchmarks that are designed to ensure a robust and safe return

to flight.

Moreover, NASA’s existing budget profile already maps out an

aggressive role for the United States in both manned and unmanned space exploration. However, the potential out-year costs

are substantial and will likely be very difficult to sustain. This difficulty will be compounded further by whatever NASA proposes in

the way of reforms and investments in response to the final findings of the CAIB. In addition, the Committee believes that there

must be a renewed commitment to a replacement of the Shuttle as

the primary vehicle for manned space flight. While this commitment may begin with an increased investment and new timetable

for the Orbital Space Plane [OSP], the Committee understands that

NASA sees the OSP, not as a shuttle replacement, but as a crew

return vehicle from the ISS in times of emergency and as a crew

and supply transport vehicle otherwise. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that a replacement for the Space Shuttle must be

considered a priority as part of any plan for a return to flight and

the Committee directs NASA to include plans and benchmarks for

the replacement of the Space Shuttle as part of its comprehensive

plan in response to the CAIB.

During fiscal year 2004 the Committee directs NASA to include

the outyear budget impacts on all reprogramming requests and include the outyear budget impact of all missions in the annual operating plan. The operating plan and all resubmissions also should

include a separate accounting of all program/mission reserves.

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.

The Committee also expects NASA to continue its work on longterm plans to partner with U.S. universities and industry in a variety of NASA-related science research, including research related to

nanotechnology, information technology and remote sensing. These

are all areas of investment that have a commercial application that
117

will have an increasing impact on society, the economy, and quality

of life.

The Committee remains very concerned over the inefficient use

of funds by NASA. The Committee understands that most of the

programs and activities funded by NASA are very difficult and

technologically challenging and are what laypersons jokingly refer

to as ‘‘rocket science.’’ Nevertheless, where there are delays in programs and activities, NASA often ends up paying the additional

costs necessary to support a standing army of contractors and related employees for little or no work in order to protect the institutional memory of the delayed program or activity, regardless of the

reason for the delay. In these cases, NASA and the American taxpayer get little in return. The Committee directs NASA to report

within 4 months of the date of enactment on various options to reduce the costs associated with these delays, including new requirements for what constitutes ‘‘core’’ staff and ‘‘core’’ program needs.

These costs are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain and have

resulted in funding shortfalls that have to be compensated through

reserves maintained for other projects and activities.

SPACE FLIGHT CAPABILITIES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $6,165,658,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 7,782,100,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,582,100,000

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

NASA’s ‘‘Space Flight Capabilities’’ [SFC] account provides for

the Space Flight and Crosscutting Technology Programs. The Space

Flight Program includes the International Space Station [ISS], the

Space Shuttle Program, and Space and Flight Support. The Crosscutting Technology Program includes Space Launch Initiative, Mission & Science Measurement Technology, and Commercial Technology Partnerships.

The SFC appropriation includes both the direct and the indirect

costs supporting the Programs, and provides for all of the research;

development; operations; salaries and related expenses; design, repair, rehabilitation, and modification of facilities, and construction

of new facilities; maintenance, and operation of facilities; and other

general and administrative activities supporting the Space Flight

Capabilities programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided $7,582,100,000 for the Space Flight

Capabilities account. This amount is $200,000,000 below the President’s request for these activities in fiscal year 2004 and

$1,416,442,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.

Space Shuttle.—The Committee believes there is no higher priority than improving the safety and reliability of the remaining

Shuttle orbiters. The Shuttle remains the cornerstone of our Nation’s heavy launch capability and is critical to the future of the

International Space Station [ISS] and scientific research. The future of the ISS, and other U.S. manned space flight missions for

the rest of the decade are contingent upon having a working Shuttle fleet that is as safe as possible. While it is expected that NASA
118

will do its best work at making the Shuttle a safe vehicle, it will

face increasing challenges as the Shuttle and the Shuttle infrastructure continue to age.

The Committee notes that prior to the Columbia accident, both

the Shuttle and the supporting infrastructure were expected to

need substantial investments in future years in order to maintain

the integrity of the Shuttle program. Now that the CAIB has released its final findings, it is expected that NASA will establish an

aggressive schedule and provide sufficient resources to upgrade

Shuttle hardware and supporting infrastructure in fiscal year 2004

and beyond.

As discussed in previous years, the Committee remains committed to the continued safety of the Shuttle program as its highest

priority and looks forward to addressing the recommendations of

the CAIB and working with NASA in order to provide the necessary funds to ensure the future success of the shuttle fleet. It is

of paramount importance that there be transparency in all documentation of shuttle safety provided to the Committee, and that

this information contain details of NASA’s current safety efforts, as

well as any future plans that may develop out of the CAIB report.

Moreover, now that the recommendations of the CAIB have become available, and NASA has the opportunity to decide on how

best to implement fixes in order to return the shuttle to flight, the

Committee directs NASA to keep the Committee informed, in writing, of any reprogramming of funds related to the shuttle program,

as well as including the outyear impacts on all activities involved

in the reprogramming.

The Committee is very concerned that the NASA response to the

CAIB report will require a major restructuring of the Shuttle program if not the entire agency. These reforms also are likely to require substantial additional funds which the Committee expects

will be consistent with the comprehensive plan requested by the

Committee for the reform of the shuttle program and agency. Nevertheless, the Committee is confident in the ability of the strong

leadership in place at NASA and looks forward to working with

NASA to ensure a safe and successful return to flight.

The Committee believes that implementing the recommendations

of the CAIB, particularly as it pertains to the management of the

HEDS Enterprise, will be the greatest challenge facing the agency.

The list of potential recommendations and their impact on NASA’s

entire management structure could have a profound impact on

NASA’s future. Under current plans, NASA believes the Shuttle

will need to fly until the year 2020. During the next decade, NASA

also has plans to launch the Orbital Space Place, or some other vehicle to supplement the Shuttle, to support the operation of the

Space Station. With NASA planning to manage two manned vehicles in the near future, the Committee believes it is absolutely critical that NASA implement the safety recommendations of the CAIB

as they pertain to the management of the HEDS Enterprise.

Due to the uncertainty of how NASA intends to implement the

final CAIB recommendations for the return to flight of the Shuttle,

the Committee recommends that funding for the Shuttle be

$3,968,400,000, the same as the level within the request of the ad-
119

ministration. This will allow NASA to have funds readily available

to make a return to flight as soon, and as safely as possible.

More importantly, the shuttle funds are provided as a discrete

budget line, with this account dedicated solely to shuttle funding

needs. NASA may seek additional funds by transfer from the ISS

funds within this account.

The Committee directs NASA to continue its oversight of the contractors involved with all aspects of the Shuttle and its infrastructure. While NASA ultimately bears the responsibility for assuming

the safety and integrity of the Shuttle program, it also relies upon

contractors to do a vast majority of the work. The oversight role

that NASA plays cannot be taken lightly, but it is all who are involved in the Shuttle program that must bear responsibility for

making the program as safe as possible to insure the success of the

Shuttle program.

The Committee is concerned about the current inventory of parts

for the shuttle fleet. With the need for specialized equipment in

order to maintain the safety of the remaining shuttle fleet, it is expected that NASA have appropriate inventory of parts available in

order to keep the orbiter fleet from experiencing further delay. The

reliance on the Shuttle for at least the next decade and beyond

should be reason enough to ensure appropriate levels of replacement parts in order to keep shuttles flying on schedule once the

shuttle program has returned to flight. The Committee directs

NASA to provide the Committee with a report detailing the shortfalls in shuttle part inventory, the plans on how to correct these

shortfalls, and the cost implications of keeping adequate resources

available. This report should be submitted to the Committee no

later than 60 days after enactment of this bill.

The Committee notes its strong support and approval of the actions of the current Administrator, Mr. Sean O’Keefe, whose leadership has been instrumental in moving NASA beyond the Columbia tragedy and in a position where it will be able to make a successful return to flight. Mr. O’Keefe made numerous reforms to the

administration of NASA programs before the Columbia tragedy and

has continued these efforts with regard to both the Shuttle program and all other aspects of NASA program administration and

management.

On May 12, 2003, the Administrator re-established the Space

Flight Advisory Committee [SFAC]. The Committee supports the

re-activation of this Committee and believes its mission is more important than ever. Before and after the creation of an independent

oversight board by Congress, the Committee believes SFAC can

serve a valuable role by providing the Congress with an independent assessment of the Agency’s progress in implementing the

recommendations of the CAIB as well as an overall assessment of

the Shuttle program. The Committee directs the SFAC to report directly and independently to the Congress by April 1, 2004 on

NASA’s implementations of the CAIB recommendations as well as

an overall assessment of the Shuttle program. The Committee provides $3,000,000 to the SFAC from within available funds for this

purpose.

The Committee finds that the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel,

a commission established by statute after the Apollo fire, did not
120

materially factor into the intended effort to provide clear ‘‘warning

signs’’ prior to the Columbia accident, nor did it provide the required checks and balances in its review of the safety procedures

at NASA to observe the culture deficiencies cited by the Columbia

Accident Investigation Board. As such, the Administrator should

reconstitute this statutory panel to appoint recognized safety, management and engineering experts from industry and academia with

a renewed charge to provide the checks and balances necessary.

This should include, but not be limited to, an examination of the

annual budget for shuttle operations, management and safety to

advise of its adequacy prior to the annual budget submission. The

Administrator should appoint leading experts in these fields, and

consider drawing from the ‘‘Stafford-Covey Task Group’’ Return To

Flight membership. Further, the Safety Advisory Panel shall also

provide the Committee with a report, at the time of the annual

budget submission, in order for the Committee to better asses the

budget for the Shuttle program in terms of safety, upgrades, operations, and overall management of the Shuttle program.

The Committee also expects regular consultations by NASA on

all proposed changes to investments in the Shuttle program. These

consultations should occur before final decisions are made to the

program.

Space Station.—The International Space Station [ISS] was expected to reach a significant milestone in February of 2004 of core

complete. With seven shuttle flights necessary for the construction

of the ISS to reach core complete, there is still a significant amount

of assembly and logistical support needed in order to reach this

construction milestone.

Instead, of reaching core complete, the ISS is now being regularly transported by and supplied through Russian built Progress

and Soyuz capsules. While these capsules are capable to transport

both crew and supplies, the Committee is concerned that reliance

on these vehicles, while not optimal, may have to continue for an

extended time into the future.

The Committee also is concerned about the present situation

aboard the ISS which involves a 2 person crew with approximately

120 hours a week of availability for activities. According to NASA,

of those 120 hours, 111 are consumed by activities that do not utilize the science endeavors that the ISS is being constructed to facilitate. During these 111 hours, astronauts are engaged in activities involving maintenance, planning, and ISS systems operation.

While these activities are crucial for the on-board operation of the

ISS, there are only 9 hours a week available to the crew for continuing to support prioritized science activities.

The Committee recognizes that the Aerospace Safety Advisory

Panel has analyzed the risks involved in maintaining a crew of two

on the ISS and has determined that a crew of two is feasible. Given

the potential of having crews of two aboard the ISS for an undetermined amount of time, the Committee asks that resources to continue to keep a crew at the ISS be identified and made available

as NASA works through the reccomendations of the CAIB report.

The reliance on ISS partners to provide the resources to procure

vehicles that are now even more essential than planned should

allow the ISS partners the opportunity to further show their com-
121

mitment to the ISS, as well as give NASA the opportunity to take

the time necessary to make modifications to the Shuttle for continued construction of the ISS.

As soon as the Shuttle is available to provide access to the ISS,

the Committee is adamant that NASA provide the Committee with

a plan detailing the steps necessary to reach US Core Complete, as

well as the outyear costs associated with the revised schedule.

Space Launch Initiative.—The Space Launch Initiative [SLI]

began in 2001 as a key component of the ISTP, with a goal to provide the necessary technology development, risk reduction, and systems analysis to enable NASA to proceed into full scale development of a 2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle. The goal of

SLI is to provide safe, reliable, and affordable access to space and

to extend the boundaries of human space flight. SLI consists of two

significant programs, the Orbital Space Plane [OSP], and the Next

Generation Launch Technology [NGLT] program.

The Committee understands that the role of the OSP is to provide a crew return capability from the ISS by approximately 2010.

Once this occurs, it will then evolve into a complement to the Shuttle for taking crew into space, and will enable a transition path to

future reusable launch vehicle systems. It is expected that the OSP

program will provide the opportunity to support crew transport to

and from space by 2012. It is clear to the Committee that some

type of vehicle will be necessary to supplement the aging Shuttle

fleet, and that such a vehicle should be made available as quickly,

and as safely as possible.

The Committee is skeptical that the OSP is the only approach for

NASA to move astronauts to and from the ISS. As previously

noted, the ISS is currently being serviced, and crews are being

transferred using Russian vehicles. This technology has been employed by NASA for a number of missions, and the ISS has relied

on these vehicles since the Columbia tragedy and we continue to

expect to rely on these Russian vehicles at least for the near term.

Therefore, NASA should not limit itself to RLV technology alone,

but should also explore other future options for servicing the ISS

in light of the loss of Columbia.

The Committee does not want to repeat the mistakes of the

Space Station, where poor management and lack of independent

oversight resulted in major cost overruns, to occur with the Orbital

Space Plane. Therefore, the Committee directs the Administrator to

create an independent oversight committee, modeled after the

International Space Station Management and Cost Evaluation

Task Force, to examine the design, technology readiness and cost

estimates for the Orbital Space Plane. The Administrator shall use

available funds within the Science, Aeronautics and Exploration account to provide sufficient resources for this Commission this fiscal

year. This oversight committee shall report to the Administrator

and the Committees on Appropriations by June 1, 2004 on their

findings.

The NGLT program is experimental in nature and was created

from the consolidation of the remaining technology development activities from the former Second Generation RLV with the Space

Transfer and Launch Technology Program to ensure a coordinated

technology effort. The goal of the NGLT program is to develop tech-
122

nology to make next generations of launch systems more affordable

and more reliable, in support of the Agency’s Integrated Space

Transportation Plan. It is anticipated that, as the high risk technologies are developed and further refined, they will be moved into

programs at NASA that will utilize the results, thus freeing NGLT

to pursue other technologies. The Committee instructs NASA to determine the best candidates for the NGLT, as well as when these

technologies will be able to be used in conjunction with other NASA

activities. It is also assumed that if technologies being developed

are not progressing as intended, that a thorough review of each

project will occur, and that those projects showing a lack of

progress will be terminated.

In particular, the Committee is concerned that NASA has not

maintained control over its investment in NGLT. The Committee

believes out-year costs cannot be maintained at the current level

assuming the current projections on the out-year funding for other

NASA priorities.

The Committee directs NASA to submit a report by January 31,

2004 on the outyear costs for projects within the NGLT program,

the criteria being used to select technologies for investment, and

the metrics used to determine whether projects within NGLT are

progressing, or should be permanently shut down.

SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, AND EXPLORATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $9,147,815,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 7,660,900,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,730,507,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

NASA’s ‘‘Science, Aeronautics and Exploration’’ [SAE] account

provides funding for the Space Science, Earth Science, Biological

and Physical Research, Aeronautics and Education Programs. The

SAE appropriation includes both the direct and the indirect costs

supporting the Programs, and provides for all of the research; development; operations; salaries and related expenses; design, repair, rehabilitation, and modification of facilities and construction

of new facilities; maintenance and operation of facilities; and other

general and administrative activities supporting SAE programs.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,730,507,000 for the Science, Aeronautics and Exploration account, an increase of $69,607,000 above

the President’s request and $1,417,308,000 below the fiscal year

2003 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.
123

The quest for this information, and the answers themselves, are

intended to maintain scientific leadership, excite and inspire our

society, strengthen education and scientific literacy, develop and

transfer technologies to promote U.S. competitiveness, foster international cooperation to enhance programs and share their benefits,

and set the stage for future space ventures.

The opportunities presented under the new Project Prometheus

are both compelling and will be revolutionary to how space research is done. The additional power resources developed through

nuclear power will provide scientists with unprecedented ability to

collect data though powerful scientific instruments. The Jupiter Icy

Moons Orbiter [JIMO] will use breakthrough nuclear propulsion

and power systems to fuel an ambitious mission to Jupiter’s icy

moons, which scientists believe may harbor organic material, and

lay the groundwork for even more ambitious exploration missions

in the coming decades. The technology to develop such capabilities

does not come easily, or without the need for substantial resources.

It has been estimated that the cost of Project Prometheus through

2012 will be on the order of $8,000,000,000 to $9,000,000,000. This

ambitious project, and the resources it will consume, will require

NASA to make trade-offs over the next decade, but if successful,

could change the potential scientific payoff for all missions after a

successful JIMO mission.

The Committee is concerned that the current uncertainties in the

mission design, and the dependence on the development of new

technologies for success, will cause Prometheus to incur additional

unanticipated costs and potential delays. The Committee directs

NASA to provide specific milestones and funding paths for all elements of Project Prometheus, and to report on these items, with

any updated funding and out-year implications on a quarterly

basis. Again, NASA needs to provide the Committee with an analysis of all out-year costs, including those targeted to shuttle reform,

as to how NASA will accommodate the projected budgets of all

NASA programs, including reserves. A report on these costs based

on a 10-year funding profile is due no later than May 1, 2004.

The Committee has made the following adjustments to the budget request:

A decrease of $20,000,000 for the JIMO. The Committee notes

that JIMO received $20,000,000 in unanticipated funding in fiscal

year 2003. This funding was done in advance of the new initiative

and is considered to have been used to initiate JIMO earlier than

previously planned by NASA. The $72,600,000 recommended by the

Committee, when combined with the advance funding of

$20,000,000 from the previous year will provide NASA with the full

requested amount, albeit over a 2-year period.

The Committee has made the following adjustments to the budget request:

An increase of $3,000,000 for Solar Probe mission within available funds;

An increase of $1,000,000 to Utah State University, Logan, Utah

for the Calibration Center;

An increase of $1,500,000 to Montana State University-Bozeman

for the Center for Studying Life in Extreme Environments;
124

An increase of $750,000 to Montana State University-Bozeman

for the Space Science and Engineering Lab; An increase of $1,000,000 to the University of Idaho in Moscow,

Idaho for advanced microelectronics and biomolecular research;

An increase of $1,500,000 to Glenn Research Center for Advance

Power Systems Institute; An increase of $2,000,000 to New Mexico State University for the

ultra-long balloon program to augment planned flights and technology development; An increase of $2,000,000 to Texas Tech University in Lubbock,

Texas for equipment at the Experimental Sciences Building; An increase of $1,000,000 to the University of Texas, Austin for

nanomedicine;

An increase of $1,000,000 to Texas A&M University in College

Station for the Space Engineering Institute; An increase of $2,000,000 for Stennis Space Center for the commercial technology program; An increase of $1,400,000 to the University of New Orleans, Louisiana for the Composites Research Center of Excellence and for

the development of advanced metallic joining technologies at

Michoud Space Center; An increase of $2,500,000 to Marshall University, Bridgeport,

West Virginia for the Hubble Telescope Project; An increase of $2,300,000 to the University of North Dakota,

Grand Forks, North Dakota for the Northern Great Plains Space

Science and Technology Center; An increase of $2,000,000 for University of Maryland, Baltimore

County for photonics research.

Earth Science.—The activities of NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise seek to understand the total Earth system and the effects of

humans on the global environment. This pioneering program of

studying global climate change is developing many of the capabilities that will be needed for long-term environment and climate

monitoring and prediction. Governments around the world need information based on the strongest possible scientific understanding.

The unique vantage-point of space provides information about the

Earth’s land, atmosphere, ice, oceans, and biota as a global system,

which is available in no other way. In concert with the global research community, the Earth Science Enterprise is developing the

understanding needed to support the complex environmental policy

decisions that must be addressed.

The Committee has made the following adjustments to the budget request:

A decrease of $11,000,000 from Global Climate Change Research

Initiative;

A decrease of $15,000,000 from Earth Science Applications;

An increase of $11,000,000 for mission formulation studies for

EOS follow-on missions;

An increase of $25,000,000 for EOSDIS Core System Synergy

Program.

Future EOSDIS.—The Committee supports NASA’s decision to

guarantee that the future data system will be evolutionary in nature. Such an approach must maximize the utilization of the existing operational ground system while allowing for the introduction
125

of new capabilities as new technologies develop. Utilizing the existing EOSDIS Core System, the Committee expects NASA to develop

the initial baseline architecture and information technology blueprint for this system. The architecture should guarantee the system’s resilience to accommodate various flight models and schedules, as well as permit the maximum number of end users from the

scientific, educational, governmental and commercial sectors.

An increase of $1,500,000 to George Mason University, Fairfax,

Virginia for the Center for Earth Observing and Space Research

Mid-Atlantic Geospatial Information Consortium;

An increase of $1,000,000 to Utah State University, Logan, Utah

for the Intermountain Region Digital Image Archive and Processing

Center;

An increase of $2,500,000 to the University of Mississippi for the

Enterprise for Innovative Geospatial Solutions;

An increase of $2,000,000 to Mississippi State University for the

Geospatial and Natural Resources Institute;

An increase of $1,600,000 to the University of New Mexico for

the Center for Rapid Environmental Assessment and Terrain Evaluation;

An increase of $3,000,000 for the University of Alaska for weather and ocean research;

An increase of $1,000,000 for the Pacific Northwest Collaboratory

at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to demonstrate realtime applications of earth science data.

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.

In previous years, the Committee has expressed its intent that

scientific research remain one of NASA’s top priorities. However,

delays in the construction of the Station and the current stand

down of the Shuttle fleet have significantly reduced the opportunities for life and microgravity research in the near term. The Committee urges NASA to resume, as practically as possible, scientific

research in this area, as well as to fully employ all resources currently available to further research in this area until regular operations on the ISS are resumed.

The Committee has made the following adjustments to the budget request:

An increase of $1,000,000 to Glenn Research Center for the John

Glenn Biomedical Engineering Consortium;
126

An increase of $1,250,000 to Space Sciences Inc. for microgravity

related pharmaceutical development; An increase of $2,500,000 for Marshall Space Flight Center for

the Propulsion Materials Microgravity Research project; An increase of $2,000,000 for the University of Missouri

Bioinformatics Consortium for equipment purchase; An increase of $1,500,000 for Truman State University Life

Sciences for laboratory equipment.

Aero-Space Technology.—NASA’s Aerospace Technology Enterprise works to maintain U.S. preeminence in aerospace research

and technology. The Enterprise aims to radically improve air travel, making it safer, faster, and quieter as well as more affordable,

accessible, and environmentally sound. The Enterprise is also

working to develop more affordable, reliable, and safe access to

space; improve the way in which air and space vehicles are designed and built; and ensure new aerospace technologies are available to benefit the public.

NASA’s Aeronautics program pioneers the identification, development, verification, transfer, application, and commercialization of

high-payoff aeronautics technologies. NASA also supports the development of technologies to address airport crowding, aircraft engine emissions, aircraft noise, and other issues that could constrain

future U.S. air system growth.

The Committee is concerned with the steady decline during recent years in the aeronautics research and technology request.

NASA’s failure to reverse this trend over the next several years is

even more alarming. Further, the United States faces major foreign

competition in the commercial aviation arena. The Europeans have

stated in their ‘‘Vision 2020,’’ that they intend to dominate the commercial aviation global market by 2020 through their investment

in aeronautics R&D. The Committee feels that the vitality of U.S.

aviation should not be left behind. The Committee is committed to

the research NASA conducts in aeronautics, and to the benefits,

both in safety and economically, that will be made available to the

public through NASA led research.

The Committee also supports NASA’s investment in the Mobile

Broadband Network and urges NASA and the Ames Research Center to work with the Department of Homeland Security to continue

research into highly secure communications systems that will benefit local, State and Federal governments.

The Committee urges NASA to move forward with implementation of the Wallops Flight Facility Mission 2005 Strategic Plan and

encourages further cooperation between Wallops and the Marshall

Space Flight Center.

The Committee has made the following adjustments to the budget request:

An increase of $5,000,000 for the development of an aeronautics

research budget covering the next 5 years. It is expected that air

traffic management will also be included within this budget. Funds

shall be allocated to the National Institute for Aerospace for contracting with industry and academia to prepare such a budget plan

no later than March 1, 2004;

An increase of $15,000,000 for future aircraft research with a priority on supersonic flight technologies;
127

An increase of $15,000,000 for future aviation systems including

a priority on aviation security and air traffic management; An increase of $15,000,000 for continued development of flight

technologies with direct application to military vehicles; An increase of $3,000,000 to Wichita State University, Wichita,

Kansas for the National Center for Composite Materials Performance;

An increase of $1,000,000 to Wichita State University, Wichita,

Kansas for the Critical Aircraft Icing project; An increase of $2,000,000 to Glenn Research Center for the commercial technology program; An increase of $2,500,000 to Stennis Space Center for infrastructure improvements; An increase of $1,000,000 to Stennis Space Center for relocation

of the visitors center. NASA is also directed to submit a funding

plan to the Committee for the visitors center; An increase of $1,000,000 to the Delaware Aerospace Education

and Foundation, Kent County, Delaware; An increase of $2,000,000 to Wheeling Jesuit University for the

National Technology Transfer Center.

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 recommends the following adjustments to the

budget request:

An increase of $600,000 to the Challenger Center in Kenai, Alaska;

An increase of $1,000,000 to the Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia for advance research in batteries and fuel

cells;

An increase of $1,500,000 to the University of Montana in Missoula, Montana for the National Space Privatization Program;

An increase of $2,000,000 for the Denver Museum of Nature and

Science in Denver, Colorado for equipment for the Space Science

Museum;

An increase of $1,500,000 for the Adventure Science Center in

Nashville, Tennessee for the Sudekum Planetarium;

An increase of $500,000 for the University of Northern Iowa in

Cedar Falls, Iowa for the Existing Business Enhancement Program;

An increase of $1,300,000 for Iowa State University for the PIPELINES Project;
128

An increase of $1,000,000 for the Metropolitan School District of

Decatur Township Indiana for the Challenger Learning Center Expansion;

An increase of $1,700,000 for Northern Kentucky University/University of Louisville for a digital science center;

An increase of $2,000,000 for the University of Alabama in

Huntsville for the Center for Modeling Simulation and Analysis;

An increase of $1,000,000 for the Oregon Museum of Science and

Industry for the space science education distance learning program;

An increase of $1,000,000 for Southeast Missouri State University for the NASA ERSC Outreach Project;

An increase of $1,500,000 for Dominican University’s Center for

Science and Technology for project based learning;

An increase of $200,000 to Wheeling Jesuit University for Classroom of the Future;

An increase $2,000,000 to the University of Connecticut for the

Center for Land Use Education and Research;

An increase of $2,000,000 to Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

for non-destructive evaluation studies;

An increase of $500,000 to the Des Moines Science Center, Des

Moines, Iowa;

An increase of $2,000,000 for the School of Science and Mathematics at the College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina;

An increase of $3,000,000 to the University of Hawaii, Hilo for

the Mauna Kea Astronomy Education Center;

An increase of $1,500,000 to Space Education Initiative, Wisconsin for the Wisconsin Geoscience Education initiative;

An increase of $1,000,000 to the Youth Achievers Committee of

New Jersey, Burlington County, New Jersey for the Youth Achievers Committee Science and Math Initiative;

An increase of $500,000 to the University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont for the Center for Advanced Computing;

An increase of $1,000,000 to Wayne State University, Detroit,

Michigan for the Center of Smart Sensors and Integrated Microsystems;

An increase of $1,000,000 for Wellpinit School District in

Wellpinit, Washington for the Virtual Classroom Project;

An increase of $1,500,000 for the Mitchell Institute, Portland,

Maine for science and engineering education.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $25,434,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 26,300,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 26,300,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Inspector General was established by the Inspector

General Act of 1978. The Office is responsible for providing agencywide audits and investigative functions to identify and correct management and administrative deficiencies which create conditions for

existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
129

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $26,300,000 for fiscal year 2004, the

same as the budget request and $866,000 above the fiscal year

2003 enacted level. The Committee commends the NASA IG’s diligence in addressing issues of fraud and abuse.

As a high profile agency within the Federal Government, NASA

has been the target of numerous attacks against its IT infrastructure. The NASA IG has waged a battle with the sole purpose of

being able to provide cyber-security for NASA in order to keep the

data collected by the agency safe. With this effort in mind, the

Committee notes its awareness that there are technologies that

have been developed commercially to provide vulnerability management that can help identify network susceptibility to intrusion and

to reduce risk exposure. For example, nCircle has a product that

provides real time analysis of network vulnerabilities, and System

Detection Inc. has developed software that identifies anomalies in

computer networks. Other IT related products are also available

and could be of benefit to NASA, and to other agencies, in maintaining a high degree of IT security. The Committee urges NASA,

and the NASA OIG, in particular, to assess the effectiveness of

these technologies and to use appropriate funding for procurement

if such technologies are determined to be beneficial to NASA’s IT

security. In particular, because of the high commitment of the

NASA IG to computer security, the Committee directs the IG to assess the status of computer security within NASA and the IT that

is available in the marketplace, and to report to the Congress by

May 15, 2004 on overall IT weaknesses within NASA.

The Committee also directs the NASA IG to review NASA’s contract procedures and conventions to determine if there are ways to

reform the process and reduce the costs of NASA programs and activities. In particular, many NASA contract provisions require

NASA to pay for significant cost overruns and, in cases of program

delays, significant costs associated with staffing that appears to be

maintained solely to ensure the preservation of the institutional

memory for the delayed program or activity. The Committee agrees

that institutional memory is critical to the success of many if not

all NASA programs which are in most cases exceedingly complex.

Nevertheless, these costs are substantial and, in some cases, may

be unwarranted or unnecessary. As a result, the Committee believes that contract reform should be considered a priority as part

of NASA’s overall restructuring in response to the CAIB. The Committee expects the NASA IG to work with NASA to identify and

implement reform of NASA’s contract process and procedures. The

NASA IG is directed to report on these efforts and issues no later

than June 1, 2004.

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.

NASA has continued to ask Congress to look at the human capital challenges within the agency. The Committee is aware that the
130

Senate has, for its consideration, S. 610 that addresses the tools

NASA deems necessary to address human capital needs at the

agency and will monitor the progress of this legislation. The Committee is also aware of the challenges faced by NASA in the area

of human capital and is conscious of the over 3-to-1 ratio of workers over 60 to those who are under 30. This imbalance did not appear suddenly, but has come about over time and will likely take

time to correct. This also is a Government-wide problem and is consistent with projected retirements at other agencies throughout the

Government. In addition, the human capital options that NASA desires will have more than an impact on the workforce at NASA, it

will also have a budgetary impact if the proposed changes are enacted. Therefore, the Committee directs NASA to provide a report

that quantifies the budgetary impacts of the changes to the hiring

and retention of human capital, and the effects of such spending

in the outyears, as proposed by NASA and expects this report to

be provided to the Committee no later than 30 days after the enactment of this bill.

The Committee is also concerned about the management structure at NASA. The CAIB report contains comments about the management structure of the shuttle program and possibly NASA as a

whole. The Committee believes that now is an appropriate time to

conduct a complete review of NASA’s organizational, programmatic,

and personnel structures. The Committee is particularly interested

in reviewing the field and headquarters organizational structures,

business processes, human resources management, and program

structures and operations. It is expected that this review will take

into account any recommendations of the CAIB, as well as the proposed human capital issues contained in NASA’s report that is due

no later than 30 days after the enactment of this bill. The Committee has allocated $2,000,000 within the amounts appropriated

to NASA for a contract with the National Academy of Public Administration (the Academy) to conduct this study. The Committee

understands that NASA is already working with NAPA on developing a study and commends NASA for these efforts. Consequently,

the Committee expects NASA to award this contract to the Academy within 3 months after the signing of NASA’s fiscal year 2004

appropriation bill, and that the Academy will issue a final report

no later than 18 months after the signing of the contract.

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FACILITY

Direct loan limitation Administrative

expenses

Appropriations, 2003 .................................................................................................. $1,500,000,000 $309,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ............................................................................................... 1,500,000,000 310,000

Committee recommendation ....................................................................................... 1,500,000,000 310,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Credit Union Administration [NCUA] Central Liquidity Facility [CLF] was created by the National Credit Union

Central Liquidity Facility Act (Public Law 95–630). The CLF is a
131

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

$310,000 in fiscal year 2004. The Committee recommends a limitation of $1,500,000,000 for the principal amount of new direct loans

to member credit unions. These amounts are the same as the budget request. Funds provided for administrative expenses are $1,000

above the fiscal year 2003 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 2004.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $993,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 1,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,500,000

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.
132

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $1,500,000 for loans and technical assistance to community development credit unions. This funding

level is $500,000 above the budget request and the fiscal year 2003

enacted level. The Committee has provided additional funds to provide additional technical assistance grants to low-income credit

unions in rural areas.

The Committee’s recommendation includes $700,000 for loans to

community development credit unions and $800,000 for technical

assistance to low-income and community development credit

unions. The Committee supports NCUA’s outreach to low-income,

rural and underserved communities through the Technical Assistance Grants program. The Committee encourages NCUA to continue to develop technical assistance efforts in rural areas in order

to assist in the further expansion of basic financial and related

services to members which otherwise might not be available in the

community. The Committee also supports NCUA’s efforts in providing an alternative to predatory lenders by consistently reaching

out to offer financial services, products, and education in the community.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $5,309,951,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 5,481,200,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,585,760,000

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The National Science Foundation was established as an independent agency by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950

(Public Law 81–507) and is authorized to support research and

education programs that promote the progress of science and engineering in the United States. The Foundation supports research

and education in all major scientific and engineering disciplines,

through grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and other forms

of assistance awarded to more than 2,000 colleges and universities,

nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and other organizations

in all parts of the United States. The Foundation also supports

international programs and unique, large scale, national user research facilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,585,760,000 for the National

Science Foundation for fiscal year 2004. This amount is

$275,810,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and

$104,560,000 above the budget request.

The Committee continues to be supportive of the efforts achieved

in the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–368) and the pursuit of a doubling path for NSF funding. However, due to funding constraints, the Committee is not

able to provide such funding at this time, but will continue to pursue these efforts in the future.

The Committee notes that productivity growth, powered by new

knowledge and technological innovation, makes the economic bene-
133

fits 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.

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, 2003 ............................................................................. $4,056,460,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 4,106,360,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,220,610,000

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; international activities; and will bring the perspectives of

many disciplines to bear on complex problems important to the Nation. The Foundation’s discipline-oriented research 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 an appropriation of $4,220,610,000

for research and related activities. This amount is $164,150,000

above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $114,250,000 above

the budget request.
134

Within the amount for research and related activities, the following specific funding levels for each of NSF’s research activities

are as follows: $577,220,000 for Biological Sciences, $609,390,000

for Computer and Information Science, $550,000,000 for Engineering, $692,210,000 for Geosciences, $1,085,870,000 for Mathematical

and Physical Sciences, $206,740,000 for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, $273,660,000 for Polar Research Programs,

$68,070,000 for Antarctic Logistical Support, and $157,450,000 for

Integrative Activities.

The Committee supports fully the Foundation’s efforts to push

the boundaries of science and technology issues, especially in the

areas of information technology, biotechnology, and the administration’s focus on nanotechnology. The Committee also applauds the

Foundation’s efforts to address the problem of science and mathematics education among K–12, undergraduate, and graduate students. However, in order for the Foundation to reach successfully

its research and education goals, it must reach out to individuals

and schools that have not participated fully in NSF’s programs. Accordingly, the Committee remains concerned about programs designed to assist minorities, women, and schools that have not received significant Federal support.

To improve planning and priority-setting for the Foundation and

improve the Committee’s efforts to understand NSF’s long-term

budgeting, the Committee directs NSF to continue to provide multiyear budgets for all of its multi-disciplinary activities. While the

Foundation has provided outyear budgets for projects under its

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account,

only 1 year budgets have been generally provided for its activities

under the R&RA and Education and Human Resources accounts.

The Committee is concerned that NSF has taken on more significant initiatives that often require multi-year funding to meet its research goals, but has not provided the Committee with documentation that identifies these types of initiatives and their long-range

budget implications. For example, NSF has major efforts in the

areas of information technology, biocomplexity, and

nanotechnology, as well as funding mid-level projects that do not

require funding through the MREFC account that may not need

approval of the National Science Board. Accordingly, the Committee directs NSF to include the outyear budget impacts and

needs of all these major multi-disciplinary and mid-level activities,

in the annual operating plan and in future budget requests.

The Committee recommends $90,000,000 for the Plant Genome

Research Program and supports the Foundation’s request for funding the ‘‘2010 Project.’’ The Committee expects the Foundation to

continue its support for structural and functional plant genomic research on economically significant crops. The Committee directs the

Foundation to implement Section 8(3)(c) related to the plant genome program included in the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–368). The Committee expects the Foundation to provide details on its implementation plans

in its fiscal year 2004 operating plan. The Committee recognizes

the findings of the Interagency Working Group [IWG] on Plant

Genomes, which recommended spending at least $320,000,000 over

5 years in new funds on plant genome research.
135

The ‘‘2010 Project’’ is expected to create needed genome-wide

tools that will lead to more rapid advances in functional genomics

research in valuable food crops. The Committee encourages NSF to

work with the IWG on Plant Genomes to make use of the important tools that will be developed through the ‘‘2010 Project.’’ The

Committee is also excited by NSF’s supported research in nutritional genomics, which will lead to the discovery in plants of key

genes controlling metabolic pathways that lead to production of vitamins, essential amino acids, antioxidants, and accumulation of

minerals essential for human nutrition. This research could substantially improve the nutritional quality and health benefit of eating normal portions of fruits and vegetables, which would greatly

benefit people in developing countries. The Committee encourages

NSF and the IWG on Plant Genomes to work together in developing recommendations for the Committee concerning research and

training in nutritional genomics.

To further NSF’s major initiatives, the Committee recommends $25,130,000 in additional funding to enhance its Computer and Information Science and Engineering [CISE] activities. Information

Technology Research within CISE is funded at $233,240,000. The

fundamental research done within this program has helped in the

understanding of computing, communications, and information systems. The funds provided will further this research in the areas of

large-scale networking, new high end architectures, high data volume instruments, and information management. Within the funds

for CISE, the Committee also provides $25,000,000 for

cyberinfrastructure in order to enable new types of research based

on the massive data resources available to researchers.

The Committee recommends $275,000,000 for the multi-agency

nanotechnology initiative. The Committee believes that the recommended level of funding will allow the Foundation to continue

to be the largest Federal agency for this initiative in a field that

is still in its beginning stages. This represents an increase of

$25,000,000 above the requested level. Of these additional funds

for nanotechnology, the following increases should be added to NSF

activities already in the request made by the administration:

$5,000,000 within CISE; $10,000,000 within Engineering; and

$10,000,000 within Math and Physical Sciences.

There are continued concerns about the Foundation taking on

another major interagency initiative when its administrative resources have remained relatively flat. With these concerns in mind,

NSF is encouraged to provide the proper resources within NSF to

facilitate this Federal leadership role in nanotechnology. The Committee also expects the Foundation to continue working with the

Office of Science and Technology Policy in carefully crafting a detailed, rational long-term strategy with performance outcome measurements for the nanotechnology initiative.

The Committee recognizes the significant infrastructure needs of

our Nation’s research institutions, especially for smaller research

and minority institutions that have not traditionally benefited from

Federal programs. The Committee is especially concerned about the

larger schools receiving a disproportionate share of scarce Federal

resources from indirect cost reimbursements to fund infrastructure

needs. As a result, the Committee recommends $115,000,000 for
136

the Foundation’s Major Research Instrumentation [MRI] account to

address the infrastructure needs of research institutions. NSF is

encouraged to continue targeting these funds in assisting those research institutions which tend to be underrepresented. To ensure

that minority serving institutions are also a focus of MRI funding,

within the amount provided for MRI, $30,000,000 should be used

to provide instruction in digital and wireless network technologies,

and enhance the Nation’s digital and wireless infrastructure at

these institutions.

The Committee notes that the Federal Oceanographic Facilities

Committee [FOFC] has recognized the impending need to recapitalize the academic research fleet and recently completed, ‘‘Charting the Future for the National Academic Research Fleet—A Long

Range Plan for Renewal.’’ The report outlines the state of the fleet

and charts a path for maintaining fleet capabilities. Because there

is no detailed plan outlining how the Government will manage the

procurement and construction of the vessels, the Committee directs

the Foundation to develop a plan in consultation with all participating agency partners. The plan should be submitted to the Committee no later than 6 months after the enactment of this Act.

The Committee is concerned that NSF has not proposed to maintain adequately its existing astronomy facilities. Support for enhanced operations, maintenance, and development of new instrumentation at the Very Large Array and the Very Long Baseline

Array in New Mexico and the Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia continues to be a priority for the Committee. These astronomy facilities need to be supported in their operations, and new instrumentation and upgrades must be provided to keep them as

world class facilities. The Committee provides the National Radio

Astronomy Observatories [NRAO] $55,310,000 for annual operations. Also within the increase provided for NRAO, the Committee

approves $9,400,000 specifically to continue the Expanded Very

Large Array program, and $10,300,000 for the Green Bank Observatory. The Committee is also aware that the rail upon which the

Green Bank telescope turns is showing premature wear and will

require either retrofitting or replacement. For the purpose of engineering studies and cost for repair or replacement, in addition the

Committee is providing $4,600,000 in funding out of the funds provided in the Math and Physical Sciences activity.

The Polar Programs activity receives an increase of $11,800,000

above the requested amount. Within these additional funds,

$6,000,000 is intended to address unexpected incurred costs associated with additional efforts in providing fuel to research facilities

in Antarctica. These necessary efforts included additional ice

breaking requirements and additional fuel transportation costs.

The Committee fully supports the Foundation’s fiscal year 2004

priority for Arctic research under its Study of Environmental Arctic

Change [SEARCH] program. Accordingly, the Committee has provided $5,800,000 within NSF’s Office of Polar Programs to support

SEARCH infrastructure needs, including research support for the

Barrow Arctic Research facility.

The Committee remains supportive of the International Arctic

Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska and strongly urges the

Foundation to continue its support for the center.
137

The Committee noted in the fiscal year 2002 bill that it was troubled by the recent findings by the National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] on the Foundation’s peer review system. In its

February 2001 report, ‘‘A Study of the National Science Foundation’s Criteria for Project Selection,’’ NAPA found that NSF is unable to assess the criteria to encourage a broader range of institutions or greater participation of under-represented minority researchers. In other words, while NSF claims to be making efforts

to assist smaller research institutions and minorities, in practice,

this does not occur. NAPA recommended that NSF should institute

broader-based review panels by bringing in participants from a

wider range of institutions, disciplines, and under-represented minorities. The Committee does not believe NSF has made adequate

progress in this matter and directs NSF to institute immediately

changes to its peer review process that reflect these recommendations.

The Partnerships for Innovation [PFI] program, which was created in fiscal year 2000, was expected to address the needs of

smaller research institutions and other underfunded entities, as

well as enhance infrastructure that is necessary to foster and sustain innovation for the long term. The Committee acknowledges

that the request for this year is double that from last year and recommends $10,000,000 for the PFI program, the same as the request by the administration.

Finally, the Committee recognizes the Foundation’s funded research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences [SBE] area.

The Committee recognizes that, in conjunction with the 2000 census, the collection of data for the National Survey of College Graduates 2003 will begin and provides the funding necessary to complete this survey. The survey provides data on the scientific and

engineering workforce of the country, and occurs once every decade

to reflect the results of the Decennial Census. The Committee is

also interested in SBE activities intended to raise science literacy,

which is a problem in this country that will impact the economic

health and competitiveness of the Nation.

The Committee notes that NSF is investing in a multi-year priority area of research in Human and Social Dynamics, and recognizes that this research will play a role in understanding the complex problems facing our Nation.

MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $148,538,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 202,330,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 149,680,000

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
138

costs of the facilities are provided through the research and related

activities appropriation account.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $149,680,000 for

major research equipment and facilities construction. This amount

is $1,140,000 more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and

$52,650,000 below the budget request.

The Committee has provided $51,040,000 for the Atacama Large

Millimeter Array [ALMA], $43,730,000 for EarthScope, and

$35,460,000 for the IceCube Neutrino Observatory. The Committee

has also provided $10,060,000 for Terascale Computing, $8,090,000

to continue the construction of the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation [NEES], and $1,300,000 for funding of the current South Pole Station modernization efforts. Due to budgetary

constraints, no funding is provided for new starts within this account for fiscal year 2004.

Further, the Committee is awaiting the results of the National

Academy of Sciences work on developing a set of criteria that can

be used to rank and prioritize the Foundation’s large research facilities. The Committee anticipates that the Academy’s work will

lead to a priority-setting process that is fair and rational. While the

Foundation has made some strides in addressing the Committee’s

concerns that the current process appears subjective and ad hoc,

the Committee believes that questions about the process still remain.

The Committee also recognizes the continuing weaknesses in the

Foundation’s management and oversight of its large research facilities. The Committee is encouraged by the recent hiring of a permanent senior management level official in charge of overseeing NSF’s

large research facilities and looks forward to working with the new

deputy director, the National Science Board, and the NSF Office of

Inspector General in addressing the Foundation’s management

issues.

In addition to funding large research facilities under the major

research equipment and facilities construction [MREFC] account,

the Foundation supports smaller projects through its research and

related activities [R&RA] account. The Committee directs the

Foundation, in consultation with the National Science Board, to develop clear and definitive criteria that define projects under both

the MREFC and R&RA accounts. Further, the Committee directs

the Foundation to identify all equipment, infrastructure-related,

and facilities with an estimated cost of over $5,000,000 in its fiscal

year 2005 budget submission to the Congress. Lastly, the Committee directs the Deputy Director of Large Facility Projects to develop immediately internal guidelines and a central tracking system of all research projects, regardless of cost, to ensure adequate

oversight.

In fiscal year 2001, the Foundation provided funds to design and

model test a vessel to replace the R/V Alpha Helix. With that phase

completed, the Committee urges the Foundation to consider the inclusion of funding in its fiscal year 2005 budget to begin construction of a new research vessel to replace the R/V Alpha Helix.
139

EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $903,171,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 938,040,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 975,870,000

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; attract STEM participants to teaching;

augment advanced technological education at 2-year colleges; and

develop dissemination tools. Graduate support is directed to research and teaching fellowships and traineeships, and 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.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $975,870,000 for

education and human resources [EHR]. This amount is $72,700,000

more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $37,830,000 more

than the budget request. The Committee also notes that NSF will

not receive any funds associated with the H–1B Visa account due

to expiration of the legislation in fiscal year 2003, which has supplemented EHR activities in the past.

The Committee is deeply disappointed by the administration’s

lack of support in its budget request for assisting smaller research

institutions and minorities. The Committee is particularly troubled

by the continued lack of support provided to the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research [EPSCoR]. The Committee has provided $100,000,000 to EPSCoR, an increase of

$10,590,000 over last year’s enacted level and $25,000,000 over the

budget request. The Committee believes that high-speed network

connections and advanced technology resources provided by the Research Infrastructure Improvement program, are crucial to the success of underrepresented (most notably, rural areas) areas and institutions and encourages NSF to ensure that EPSCoR states are

able to fully participate in research partnerships. The Committee

directs NSF to submit a report by May 1, 2004 on the status of all

the States participating in EPSCoR. There is an expectation that

States will graduate from EPSCoR and instead States have apparently begun to view the program as an ‘‘entitlement’’. NSF is expected to assess what changes should be made to the program to

ensure States begin to graduate.
140

The undergraduate ‘‘tech talent’’ expansion program is increased by $23,000,000 above the request of the administration. The Committee strongly encourages NSF to continue support for this plan

for undergraduate science and engineering education. This program

will continue to help colleges and universities increase the number

of U.S. citizens, and permanent residents, pursue degrees in STEM

fields. At a time when enrollment in STEM fields of study have declined for several years, it is important that NSF use its position

to support students working towards degrees in these areas. The Committee is also providing an additional $7,710,000 above

the budget request to the Advanced Technological Education program. This important NSF program supports undergraduate

science education activities at the Nation’s community colleges.

To address the importance of broadening science and technology

participation to minorities, the Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities—Undergraduate Program [HBCU–UP], an increase of

$6,150,000 over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $5,030,000

more than the budget request. The Committee also recommends

$35,000,000 for the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation

program, an increase of $2,270,000 above the budget request. To

the extent possible, funds within these programs should also address issues contained within S. 196 involving minority serving institutions.

The Committee is recommending an increase above the request

for the HBCU-Research University Science & Technology

[THRUST] initiative within the Centers of Research Excellence in

Science and Technology [CREST] program of $10,000,000. Eligibility for THRUST should not exclude CREST recipients, but funds

provided in fiscal year 2004 should be used to first fully-fund multiyear awards to recipients of THRUST awards in the program’s first

year. The total level of funding for the CREST program is expected

to be $20,000,000, an increase of $9,120,000 above the President’s

request.

The Committee is also providing $17,500,000 for the Alliance for

Graduate Education and the Professoriate [AGEP] program. This

amount is $5,700,000 above both the fiscal year 2003 enacted level

and the President’s request. The AGEP program strives to increase

the number of doctoral degrees in STEM related fields for underrepresented minority populations and encourages students in the

program to become professors. The Committee encourages NSF to

work to achieve their projections that show AGEP activities doubling minority doctorial degree production within the next 5 years.

The Committee remains supportive of the tribal colleges program

and is especially pleased with the Foundation’s inclusion of Alaskan Native serving institutions and Native Hawaiian serving institutions as eligible entities to receive funds from this program. To

that end, the Committee supports the Foundation’s continued inclusion of these entities in the tribal colleges program.

The Committee supports the Foundation’s efforts to strengthen

the Nation’s security of its information infrastructure. The Committee is providing $16,180,000 for the Scholarships for Service

program to build a talented pool of individuals within the Federal

sector with the skills to protect the Nation’s information systems.
141

The Committee also continues its strong support for the Informal

Science Education [ISE] program. The Committee especially values

the ISE program in raising interest among children and young

adults in science and technology and notes the success of certain

settings, such as the Sea Life Center in Seward, Alaska and the

National Aquarium in Baltimore, Maryland. The Committee is disappointed in NSF’s proposed decrease for fiscal year 2004 and provides an additional $15,000,000 above the request for ISE. The ISE

plays a role in the development of science teachers, as well as

builds collaborations between informal and formal science institutions, provides opportunities for underrepresented groups, includes

the involvement of parents, and enhances the public understanding

of mathematics.

The Committee is aware that the Systemic Secondary Schools

Initiative was created in the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–368) and directs the Foundation to provide details of the implementation for this program when

NSF submits its annual operating plan to the Committee.

The Committee recognizes and is supportive of the request by the

administration for the Foundation’s graduate research education

programs. The request will allow the Foundation to raise the annual stipend amount from its current level of $27,500 to $30,000

per award. The Committee believes that the increased stipend will

improve the Foundation’s ability to attract the best and brightest

students into the science, mathematics, engineering, and technology fields. It is also expected that through the additional funds

provided to the Research and Related Activities account, NSF will

also be able to provide the same level of stipends for the existing

Graduate Teaching Fellowships in K–12 Education program, the

Graduate Research Fellowships program, and the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program. The Committee

also urges NSF to work towards increasing the number of women,

minorities, and other underrepresented groups within these programs to the greatest extent possible.

The Committee is concerned about information regarding some

grantees in the Math and Science Partnership [MSP] program not

being able to provide documentation on how funds through this

program have been spent. The Committee urges NSF to prohibit

grantees that have not been able to provide appropriate documentation from continuing to receive funding, or to receive future

funding for this program. Nevertheless, the MSP program is an important asset in providing improved math and science education by

partnering local school districts with faculty of colleges and universities. The Committee recommends that the MSP program be funded at $145,000,000, an increase of $18,330,000 above the fiscal year

2003 enacted level.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $189,115,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 225,700,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 225,700,000
142

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The salaries and expenses appropriation provides funds for staff

salaries, benefits, travel, training, rent, advisory and assistance

services, communications and utilities expenses, supplies, equipment, and other operating expenses necessary for management of

the agency’s research and education activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $225,700,000 for

salaries and expenses. The Committee directs NSF to fund travel

only from this account and not to use other account funds for travel

purposes.

The Committee is concerned that as NSF has grown in terms of

agency funding in recent years, that staffing and structural needs

have not been adequately addressed. The current request for NSF

staff FTEs for fiscal year 2004 is an increase of only 12 above the

FTE level 2 years ago. Over the same period of time, the amount

of staff requested under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act [IPA]

has risen by 41 over that same 2-year period, with the most dramatic increase of 30 additional IPAs requested for fiscal year 2004.

IPAs typically stay at NSF from 1 to 3 years and then move on to

other positions outside of NSF. While there are valid reasons to use

these rotator positions, the Committee is troubled that 59 percent

of current program officers at NSF are temporary in nature. The

National Academy of Public Administration will be completing a

study early in 2004 that will include an evaluation of this situation

and the Committee expects NSF to address any recommendations

in a decisive manner, as well as informing the Committee of any

actions resulting from the study.

The Committee is troubled by the initial findings by the GAO

concerning the contract with Booz-Allen-Hamilton to analyze and

develop a plan for enhancing NSF’s mission-critical business processes, human capital, and information technology. GAO has found

that NSF is already experiencing some delays in starting and completing some of the initial contract deliverables. The project plan,

which will guide the contractor’s activities over the life of the contract, is scheduled to be issued 1 year after its originally planned

completion date. In addition, NSF did not estimate, nor is it tracking, the costs for each of the seven key contract deliverables, which

would be a prudent business management practice given the overall cost, length, and scope of the contract. Due to the unusual cost

of the Booz-Allen-Hamilton contract, the Committee directs that no

additional funds shall be expended on this contract until auditable

documentation of how the cost-range of the contract was derived is

presented to the Committee. The Committee also directs NSF to

seek the concurrence of both the National Science Board and the

NSF Inspector General concerning the proposed project plan prior

to continuing the further funding of this contract. The Committee

also expects NSF to notify the Committee of any reprogramming of

funds with regard to this contract, and strongly urges NSF to be

prepared to provide an implementation plan upon completion of the

contract.
143

The Committee also directs NSF to create a senior level management position dedicated to assisting minority serving institutions.

It is expected that the person selected for this position will work

to help minority serving institutions improve the quality of STEM

education, and the on campus incorporation of innovative technologies.

OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $3,477,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 0

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,900,000

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,

provides oversight of its programs and activities, and approves of

its strategic directions and budgets. The Board reviews and approves NSF awards at levels above its delegation of authority to

the NSF Director.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,900,000 for

the National Science Board. This amount is $423,000 more than

the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.

Given the increasing oversight responsibilities of the Board, driven by the growth of the Foundation, the Committee wants to ensure the Board continues to carryout effectively its policy-making

and oversight responsibilities. The Committee is providing funding

to support the operations, activities, 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.

It is also expected that NSF will continue to provide support for

the preparation of Science and Engineering Indicators from funds

provided within the Research and Related Activities account. NSF

is also expected to continue to support all other activities of the

Board as they have done in the past.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $9,190,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 8,770,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,000

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.
144

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000 for

the Office of Inspector General. This amount is $810,000 more than

the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and $1,230,000 more than the

budget request.

The proposed increase would allow the OIG to further expand its

efforts in several priority areas that pose the greatest risk to the

agency: financial management, acquisition, information technology,

human capital, award administration, awardee financial accountability and compliance, and the management of agency programs

and projects. The Committee is disappointed with the proposed reduction in funding for the OIG. Under the requested amount, the

OIG will only have the resources to be able to react to allegations

of fraudulent practices. With the additional funds provided, the

OIG will have the added capability to also provide proactive prevention and detection efforts to determine if violations identified

during individual investigations are widespread or whether they

undermine the integrity of the data upon which NSF relies.

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

PAYMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $104,317,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 115,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 115,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation was created by the

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act (title VI of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, Public Law

95–557, October 31, 1978). Neighborhood Reinvestment helps local

communities establish working partnerships between residents and

representatives of the public and private sectors. These partnership-based organizations are independent, tax-exempt, nonprofit

entities and are often known as Neighborhood Housing Services

[NHS] or mutual housing associations. Collectively, these organizations are known as the NeighborWorks® network.

Nationally, 226 NeighborWorks® organizations serve over 2,300

urban, suburban and rural communities in 49 States, the District

of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In fiscal year 2002, the

NeighborWorks® network assisted nearly 70,000 families to obtain

and maintain safe and affordable rental and homeownership units,

where 70 percent of the people served are in the very low and lowincome brackets.

Neighborhood Reinvestment also provides grants to Neighborhood Housing Services of America [NHSA], the NeighborWorks®

network’s national secondary market. The mission of NHSA is to

utilize private sector support to replenish local NeighborWorks®

organizations’ revolving loan funds. These loans are used to back

securities that are placed with private sector social investors.
145

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $115,000,000 for the Neighborhood

Reinvestment Corporation, the same level as the budget request

and $10,683,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.

The Committee has included a set-aside of $5,000,000 for the

multifamily rental housing initiative. This program has been successful in producing mixed-income affordable housing in communities with affordable housing shortages.

The Committee commends Neighborhood Reinvestment for their

capacity building support of rural organizations. Funding support

for rural NeighborWorks® organizations has increased from nearly

$12,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 to an estimated $18,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. The Committee strongly urges the Corporation to

continue increasing its support for rural organizations in fiscal year

2004.

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.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

The Committee has included an administrative provision to correct the Corporation’s enabling legislation related to salaries and

benefits. This provision was requested by the administration.

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2003 ............................................................................. $26,308,000

Budget estimate, 2004 ........................................................................... 28,290,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 26,308,000

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
146

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 $26,308,000 for

the Selective Service System. This amount is the same as the fiscal

year 2003 enacted level and $1,982,000 below the budget request.

The Committee also prohibits the use of any funds to support the

Corporation for National and Community Service.
(147)

TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Committee recommends inclusion of 17 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.
(148)

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 7 of Rule XVI requires that Committee reports on

general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate

during that session.’’

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Rural housing and economic development: $25,000,000.

Brownfields: $25,000,000.

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

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on September 4, 2003,

the Committee ordered reported en bloc: S. 1585, an original bill

making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice,

and State, the judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 2004; an original bill making appropriations

for the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, the Executive

Office of the President, and certain independent agencies for the

fiscal year ending September 30, 2004; and S. 1584, an original bill

making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and

Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent

agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004; 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 Stevens

Mr. Cochran

Mr. Specter

Mr. Domenici

Mr. Bond

Mr. McConnell

Mr. Burns

Mr. Shelby

Mr. Gregg

Mr. Bennett

Mr. Campbell

Mr. Craig

Mrs. Hutchison

Mr. DeWine

Mr. Brownback

Mr. Byrd
149

Mr. Inouye

Mr. Hollings

Mr. Leahy

Mr. Harkin

Ms. Mikulski

Mr. Reid

Mr. Kohl

Mrs. Murray

Mr. Dorgan

Mrs. Feinstein

Mr. Durbin

Mr. Johnson

Ms. Landrieu

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form

recommended by the committee.’’

With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the Committee that

it is necessary to dispense with these requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC.

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED

[In millions of dollars]

Budget authority Outlays

Committee

allocation 1 Amount of bill Committee

allocation 1 Amount of bill

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations

to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution

for 2004: Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and

Urban Development, and Independent Agencies:

Discretionary ........................................................................ 90,034 90,034 95,754 1 95,372

Mandatory ............................................................................ 32,911 32,707 32,685 1 32,093

Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:

2004 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 77,032

2005 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 22,211

2006 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 8,909

2007 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 5,022

2008 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 4,721

Financial assistance to State and local governments for

2004 ......................................................................................... NA 31,278 NA 6,598

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.
150

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropria- tion Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003 appropriation Budget estimate

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Veterans Benefits Administration

Compensation and pensions ................................................................................................................................................ 28,949,000 29,845,127 29,845,127 ∂896,127 ..........................Readjustment benefits ......................................................................................................................................................... 2,264,808 2,529,734 2,529,734 ∂264,926 ..........................Veterans insurance and indemnities ................................................................................................................................... 27,530 29,017 29,017 ∂1,487 ..........................Veterans housing benefit program fund program account (indefinite) .............................................................................. 437,522 305,834 305,834 ¥131,688 ..........................

(Limitation on direct loans) ........................................................................................................................................ (300) (300) (300) .......................... ..........................Credit subsidy ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥98,000 .......................... .......................... ∂98,000 ..........................Administrative expenses .............................................................................................................................................. 167,114 154,850 154,850 ¥12,264 ..........................

Education loan fund program account ................................................................................................................................ 1 1 1 .......................... ..........................

(Limitation on direct loans) ........................................................................................................................................ (3) (3) (3) .......................... ..........................Administrative expenses .............................................................................................................................................. 70 .......................... 70 .......................... ∂70

Vocational rehabilitation loans program account ............................................................................................................... 55 52 52 ¥3 ..........................

(Limitation on direct loans) ........................................................................................................................................ (3,626) (3,938) (3,938) (∂312) ..........................Administrative expenses .............................................................................................................................................. 287 300 300 ∂13 ..........................

Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account .................................................................................................. 554 571 571 ∂17 ..........................

Total, Veterans Benefits Administration ................................................................................................................. 31,748,941 32,865,486 32,865,556 ∂1,116,615 ∂70

Veterans Health Administration

Medical care ......................................................................................................................................................................... 23,889,304 25,218,080 24,388,080 ∂498,776 ¥830,000

Delayed obligation ....................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,100,000 ∂1,100,000 ∂1,100,000Contingent emergency funding ................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,300,000 ∂1,300,000 ∂1,300,000Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥270,000 ¥270,000 ¥270,000

Medical care cost recovery collections:

Offsetting receipts ....................................................................................................................................................... ¥1,386,000 ¥2,141,409 ¥1,564,000 ¥178,000 ∂577,409
151

Appropriations (indefinite) .......................................................................................................................................... 1,386,000 2,141,409 1,564,000 ∂178,000 ¥577,409

Total available (excludes offsetting receipts) ........................................................................................................ 25,275,304 27,359,489 28,082,080 ∂2,806,776 ∂722,591

Medical and prosthetic research ......................................................................................................................................... 397,400 408,000 413,000 ∂15,600 ∂5,000Medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses ......................................................................................... 74,230 79,146 79,146 ∂4,916 ..........................

Total, Veterans Health Administration ................................................................................................................... 24,360,934 25,705,226 27,010,226 ∂2,649,292 ∂1,305,000

Departmental Administration

General operating expenses ................................................................................................................................................. 1,245,849 1,283,272 1,283,272 ∂37,423 ..........................

Supplemental Appropriations (Public Law 108–11) ................................................................................................... 100,000 .......................... .......................... ¥100,000 ..........................

National Cemetery Administration ....................................................................................................................................... 132,284 144,203 144,203 ∂11,919 ..........................Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 57,623 61,750 62,250 ∂4,627 ∂500Construction, major projects ................................................................................................................................................ 99,128 272,690 272,690 ∂173,562 ..........................Construction, minor projects ................................................................................................................................................ 224,531 252,144 252,144 ∂27,613 ..........................Grants for construction of State extended care facilities ................................................................................................... 99,350 102,100 102,100 ∂2,750 ..........................Grants for the construction of State veterans cemeteries .................................................................................................. 31,792 32,000 32,000 ∂208 ..........................

Total, Departmental Administration ....................................................................................................................... 1,990,557 2,148,159 2,148,659 ∂158,102 ∂500

UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS (Mandatory) ........................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................UNDISTRIBUTED ADJUSTMENTS (Discretionary) .................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Total, title I, Department of Veterans Affairs ........................................................................................................ 58,100,432 60,718,871 62,024,441 ∂3,924,009 ∂1,305,570

(Limitation on direct loans) ........................................................................................................................... (3,929) (4,241) (4,241) (∂312) ..........................Consisting of:

Mandatory ............................................................................................................................................. (31,580,860) (32,709,712) (32,709,712) (∂1,128,852) ..........................Discretionary ......................................................................................................................................... (26,519,572) (28,009,159) (29,314,729) (∂2,795,157) (∂1,305,570)

Medical care collection fund ....................................................................................................... (1,386,000) (2,141,409) (1,564,000) (∂178,000) (¥577,409)Contingent emergency funding .................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,300,000 ∂1,300,000 ∂1,300,000

Total Discretionary (excluding MCCF) ..................................................................................... (25,133,572) (25,867,750) (27,750,729) (∂2,617,157) (∂1,882,979)
152

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropria- tion Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003 appropriation Budget estimate

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Public and Indian Housing

Housing Certificate Fund:

Direct appropriation .................................................................................................................................................... 12,938,913 .......................... 14,233,606 ∂1,294,693 ∂14,233,606Advance appropriations provided in previous acts .................................................................................................... 4,172,700 .......................... .......................... ¥4,172,700 ..........................Advance appropriations provided in fiscal year 2003 ............................................................................................... 4,200,000 .......................... 4,200,000 .......................... ∂4,200,000Advance appropriations provided in fiscal year 2004 ............................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,200,000 ∂4,200,000 ∂4,200,000Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,372,000 ¥1,372,000 ¥1,372,000

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 21,311,613 .......................... 21,261,606 ¥50,007 ∂21,261,606

Appropriations, scored against year .............................................................................................................. (17,111,613) .......................... (17,061,606) (¥50,007) (∂17,061,606)Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... (¥1,372,000) (¥1,372,000) (¥1,372,000)Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2003 .................................................................................................... (4,200,000) .......................... (4,200,000) .......................... (∂4,200,000)Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2004 1 .................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... (4,200,000) (∂4,200,000) (∂4,200,000)

Housing assistance for needy families:

Direct appropriation .................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 8,335,201 .......................... .......................... ¥8,335,201Advance appropriations provided in fiscal year 2003 ............................................................................................... .......................... 4,200,000 .......................... .......................... ¥4,200,000Advance appropriations provided in fiscal year 2004 ............................................................................................... .......................... 4,200,000 .......................... .......................... ¥4,200,000

Subtotal 1 ................................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 16,735,201 .......................... .......................... ¥16,735,201

Appropriations, fiscal year 2004 1 ................................................................................................................. .......................... (12,535,201) .......................... .......................... (¥12,535,201)Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2004 1 .................................................................................................. .......................... (4,200,000) .......................... .......................... (¥4,200,000)

Project based rental assistance 1 ........................................................................................................................................ .......................... 4,823,405 .......................... .......................... ¥4,823,405Rescission of unobligated balances .................................................................................................................................... ¥1,600,000 ¥300,000 .......................... ∂1,600,000 ∂300,000Public housing capital fund ................................................................................................................................................ 2,712,255 2,641,000 2,641,000 ¥71,255 ..........................Public housing operating fund ............................................................................................................................................ 3,576,600 3,574,000 3,576,600 .......................... ∂2,600
153

Revitalization of severely distressed public housing .......................................................................................................... 570,269 .......................... 195,115 ¥375,154 ∂195,115Native American housing block grants ................................................................................................................................ 644,782 646,600 646,600 ∂1,818 ..........................Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account ...................................................................................................... 5,266 1,000 5,300 ∂34 ∂4,300

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ............................................................................................................................... (197,243) (27,473) (197,243) .......................... (∂169,770)

Native Hawaiian housing block grant ................................................................................................................................. .......................... 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000Native Hawaiian housing loan guarantee fund ................................................................................................................... 1,028 1,000 1,035 ∂7 ∂35

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ............................................................................................................................... (39,712) (35,348) (39,712) .......................... (∂4,364)

Total, Public and Indian Housing ........................................................................................................................... 27,221,813 28,132,206 28,327,256 ∂1,105,443 ∂195,050

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (24,621,813) (20,032,206) (21,299,256) (¥3,322,557) (∂1,267,050)Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥1,600,000) (¥300,000) (¥1,372,000) (∂228,000) (¥1,072,000)Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2003 .................................................................................................... (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) .......................... ..........................Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2004 .................................................................................................... .......................... (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (∂4,200,000) ..........................

Community Planning and Development

Housing opportunities for persons with AIDS ...................................................................................................................... 290,102 297,000 291,000 ∂898 ¥6,000Rural housing and economic development .......................................................................................................................... 24,837 .......................... 25,000 ∂163 ∂25,000Empowerment zones/enterprise communities ...................................................................................................................... 29,805 .......................... .......................... ¥29,805 ..........................Community development fund ............................................................................................................................................. 4,904,909 4,716,000 4,950,000 ∂45,091 ∂234,000Colonias initiative (legislative proposal) ............................................................................................................................. .......................... 16,000 .......................... .......................... ¥16,000Urban development action grant (rescission) ..................................................................................................................... .......................... ¥30,000 ¥30,000 ¥30,000 ..........................Section 108 loan guarantees:

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ............................................................................................................................... (275,000) .......................... (275,000) .......................... (∂275,000)Credit subsidy ............................................................................................................................................................. 6,284 .......................... 6,325 ∂41 ∂6,325Administrative expenses .............................................................................................................................................. 993 .......................... 1,000 ∂7 ∂1,000

Brownfields redevelopment .................................................................................................................................................. 24,837 .......................... 25,000 ∂163 ∂25,000HOME investment partnerships program ............................................................................................................................. 1,987,000 2,197,000 1,975,000 ¥12,000 ¥222,000Homeless assistance grants ................................................................................................................................................ 1,217,037 1,325,000 1,325,000 ∂107,963 ..........................Samaritan housing initiative (legislative proposal) ............................................................................................................ .......................... 50,000 .......................... .......................... ¥50,000

Total, Community planning and development ....................................................................................................... 8,485,804 8,571,000 8,568,325 ∂82,521 ¥2,675

Housing Programs

Housing for special populations .......................................................................................................................................... 1,027,081 .......................... 1,033,801 ∂6,720 ∂1,033,801Housing for the elderly 2 ...................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 773,636 .......................... .......................... ¥773,636Housing for persons with disabilities 2 ................................................................................................................................ .......................... 250,515 .......................... .......................... ¥250,515Housing counseling assistance ............................................................................................................................................ .......................... 45,000 .......................... .......................... ¥45,000Rental housing assistance (rescission) ............................................................................................................................... ¥100,000 ¥303,000 ¥303,000 ¥203,000 ..........................Manufactured housing fees trust fund ................................................................................................................................ 12,915 17,000 13,000 ∂85 ¥4,000
154

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropria- tion Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003 appropriation Budget estimate

Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. ¥13,000 ¥17,000 ¥13,000 .......................... ∂4,000

Federal Housing Administration

FHA—Mutual mortgage insurance program account:

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ............................................................................................................................... (165,000,000) (185,000,000) (185,000,000) (∂20,000,000) ..........................(Limitation on direct loans) ........................................................................................................................................ (100,000) (50,000) (50,000) (¥50,000) ..........................Administrative expenses .............................................................................................................................................. 345,568 359,000 359,000 ∂13,432 ..........................Negative subsidy ......................................................................................................................................................... ¥2,753,000 ¥2,921,000 ¥2,921,000 ¥168,000 ..........................Administrative contract expenses ............................................................................................................................... 85,163 85,000 85,000 ¥163 ..........................Additional contract expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 993 1,000 1,000 ∂7 ..........................

FHA—General and special risk program account:

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ............................................................................................................................... (23,000,000) (25,000,000) (25,000,000) (∂2,000,000) ..........................(Limitation on direct loans) ........................................................................................................................................ (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) .......................... ..........................Administrative expenses .............................................................................................................................................. 222,262 229,000 229,000 ∂6,738 ..........................Negative subsidy ......................................................................................................................................................... ¥225,000 ¥225,000 ¥225,000 .......................... ..........................Subsidy ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14,902 15,000 15,000 ∂98 ..........................Non-overhead administrative expenses ...................................................................................................................... 93,170 93,700 93,700 ∂530 ..........................Additional contract expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 3,974 4,000 4,000 ∂26 ..........................

Total, Federal Housing Administration ................................................................................................................... ¥2,211,968 ¥2,359,300 ¥2,359,300 ¥147,332 ..........................

Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account:

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ............................................................................................................................... (200,000,000) (200,000,000) (200,000,000) .......................... ..........................Administrative expenses .............................................................................................................................................. 10,276 10,695 10,695 ∂419 ..........................Offsetting receipts ....................................................................................................................................................... ¥358,000 ¥318,000 ¥318,000 ∂40,000 ..........................

Policy Development and Research

Research and technology ..................................................................................................................................................... 46,695 51,000 47,000 ∂305 ¥4,000
155

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Fair housing activities ......................................................................................................................................................... 45,601 50,000 50,000 ∂4,399 ..........................

Office of Lead Hazard Control

Lead hazard reduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 174,856 136,000 175,000 ∂144 ∂39,000

Management and Administration

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 526,852 536,000 536,000 ∂9,148 ..........................

Transfer from:

Limitation on FHA corporate funds .................................................................................................................... (544,639) (564,000) (564,000) (∂19,361) ..........................GNMA .................................................................................................................................................................. (10,276) (10,695) (10,695) (∂419) ..........................Community Development Loan Guarantees Program ......................................................................................... (993) (1,000) (1,000) (∂7) ..........................Native American Housing Block Grants ............................................................................................................. (149) (150) (150) (∂1) ..........................Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program ................................................................................................ (199) (250) (250) (∂51) ..........................Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantees ...................................................................................................... (35) (35) (35) .......................... ..........................

Total, Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................... (1,083,143) (1,112,130) (1,112,130) (∂28,987) ..........................

Working capital fund ............................................................................................................................................................ 274,504 276,300 240,000 ¥34,504 ¥36,300Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 73,674 76,080 78,000 ∂4,326 ∂1,920

(By transfer, limitation on FHA corporate funds) ....................................................................................................... (23,343) (24,000) (24,000) (∂657) ..........................

Total, Office of Inspector General .......................................................................................................................... (97,017) (100,080) (102,000) (∂4,983) (∂1,920)

Consolidated fee fund (rescission) ...................................................................................................................................... ¥8,000 .......................... .......................... ∂8,000 ..........................Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight .................................................................................................................. 29,805 32,415 32,415 ∂2,610 ..........................

Offsetting receipts ....................................................................................................................................................... ¥30,000 ¥32,415 ¥32,415 ¥2,415 ..........................

Total, title II, Department of Housing and Urban Development ............................................................................ 35,208,908 35,928,132 36,085,777 ∂876,869 ∂157,645

Appropriations ....................................................................................................................................... (32,716,908) (28,161,132) (29,390,777) (¥3,326,131) (∂1,229,645)Rescissions ........................................................................................................................................... (¥1,708,000) (¥633,000) (¥1,705,000) (∂3,000) (¥1,072,000)Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2003 ........................................................................................... (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) .......................... ..........................Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2004 ........................................................................................... .......................... 4,200,000 4,200,000 ∂4,200,000 ..........................

(Limitation on direct loans) ........................................................................................................................... (150,000) (100,000) (100,000) (¥50,000) ..........................(Limitation on guaranteed loans) .................................................................................................................. (388,511,955) (410,062,821) (410,511,955) (∂22,000,000) (∂449,134)(Limitation on corporate funds) .................................................................................................................... (579,634) (600,130) (600,130) (∂20,496) ..........................
156

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropria- tion Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003 appropriation Budget estimate

TITLE III

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

American Battle Monuments Commission

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 35,017 32,400 35,000 ¥17 ∂2,600

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 6,408 8,000 8,000 ∂1,592 ..........................

Department of the Treasury

Community Development Financial Institutions

Community development financial institutions fund program account .............................................................................. 74,512 51,000 70,000 ¥4,512 ∂19,000

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 56,629 60,000 60,000 ∂3,371 ..........................

Corporation for National and Community Service

National and community service programs operating expenses ......................................................................................... 426,211 592,742 452,575 ∂26,364 ¥140,167Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 25,000 ∂25,000 ∂25,000

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................... ¥48,000 .......................... .......................... ∂48,000 ..........................

Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 5,961 5,108 6,500 ∂539 ∂1,392

Total ........................................................................................................................................................................ 384,172 597,850 484,075 ∂99,903 ¥113,775

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 14,233 16,220 16,220 ∂1,987 ..........................
157

Department of Defense—Civil

Cemeterial Expenses, Army

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 32,234 25,961 32,000 ¥234 ∂6,039

Department of Health and Human Services

National Institute of Health

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences .......................................................................................................... 83,528 78,774 78,774 ¥4,754 ..........................

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Toxic substances and environmental public health ............................................................................................................ 82,262 73,467 73,467 ¥8,795 ..........................

Total, Department of Health and Human Services ................................................................................................ 165,790 152,241 152,241 ¥13,549 ..........................

Environmental Protection Agency

Science and Technology ....................................................................................................................................................... 715,579 731,483 715,579 .......................... ¥15,904

Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund ......................................................................................................... 85,608 44,697 45,000 ¥40,608 ∂303

Subtotal, Science and Technology .......................................................................................................................... 801,187 776,180 760,579 ¥40,608 ¥15,601

Environmental Programs and Management ......................................................................................................................... 2,097,879 2,219,659 2,219,659 ∂121,780 ..........................Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 35,766 36,808 36,808 ∂1,042 ..........................

Transfer from Hazardous Substance Superfund ......................................................................................................... 12,659 13,214 13,214 ∂555 ..........................

Subtotal, OIG ........................................................................................................................................................... 48,425 50,022 50,022 ∂1,597 ..........................

Buildings and facilities ........................................................................................................................................................ 42,639 42,918 42,918 ∂279 ..........................Hazardous Substance Superfund ......................................................................................................................................... 1,264,614 1,389,716 1,165,000 ¥99,614 ¥224,716

Delayed obligation ....................................................................................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 100,000 ∂100,000 ∂100,000Transfer to Office of Inspector General ...................................................................................................................... ¥12,742 ¥13,214 ¥13,214 ¥472 ..........................Transfer to Science and Technology ........................................................................................................................... ¥86,168 ¥44,697 ¥45,000 ∂41,168 ¥303

Subtotal, Hazardous Substance Superfund ............................................................................................................ 1,165,704 1,331,805 1,206,786 ∂41,082 ¥125,019

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program ...................................................................................................................... 71,843 72,545 72,545 ∂702 ..........................Oil spill response ................................................................................................................................................................. 15,480 16,209 16,209 ∂729 ..........................State and Tribal Assistance Grants ..................................................................................................................................... 2,692,000 1,918,500 2,684,000 ¥8,000 ∂765,500

Categorical grants ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,142,905 1,202,700 1,130,000 ¥12,905 ¥72,700
158

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropria- tion Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003 appropriation Budget estimate

Subtotal, STAG ........................................................................................................................................................ 3,834,905 3,121,200 3,814,000 ¥20,905 ∂692,800Total, EPA ................................................................................................................................................................ 8,078,062 7,630,538 8,182,718 ∂104,656 ∂552,180

Executive Office of the President

Office of Science and Technology Policy ............................................................................................................................. 5,333 7,027 7,027 ∂1,694 ..........................Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality ............................................................................ 3,011 3,238 3,238 ∂227 ..........................

Total ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8,344 10,265 10,265 ∂1,921 ..........................

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Office of Inspector General (transfer) .................................................................................................................................. (30,848) (30,125) (30,848) .......................... (∂723)

General Services Administration

Federal Citizen Information Center Fund ............................................................................................................................. 11,466 17,643 14,000 ∂2,534 ¥3,643

Interagency Council on the Homeless

Operating expenses .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,490 .......................... 1,500 ∂10 ∂1,500

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Human space flight ............................................................................................................................................................. 6,165,658 .......................... .......................... ¥6,165,658 ..........................Space flight capabilities ...................................................................................................................................................... .......................... 7,782,100 7,582,100 ∂7,582,100 ¥200,000Science, aeronautics and technology ................................................................................................................................... 9,147,815 .......................... .......................... ¥9,147,815 ..........................Science, aeronautics and exploration .................................................................................................................................. .......................... 7,660,900 7,730,507 ∂7,730,507 ∂69,607Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 25,434 26,300 26,300 ∂866 ..........................

Total, NASA ............................................................................................................................................................. 15,338,907 15,469,300 15,338,907 .......................... ¥130,393
159

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) (310) (310) (∂1) ..........................

Community Development Revolving Loan Fund ................................................................................................................... 993 1,000 1,500 ∂507 ∂500

National Science Foundation

Research and related activities ........................................................................................................................................... 3,988,902 4,038,360 4,152,540 ∂163,638 ∂114,180

Defense function ......................................................................................................................................................... 67,558 68,000 68,070 ∂512 ∂70

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 4,056,460 4,106,360 4,220,610 ∂164,150 ∂114,250

Major research equipment and facilities construction ........................................................................................................ 148,538 202,330 149,680 ∂1,142 ¥52,650Education and human resources ......................................................................................................................................... 903,171 938,040 975,870 ∂72,699 ∂37,830Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 189,115 225,700 225,700 ∂36,585 ..........................National Science Board ........................................................................................................................................................ 3,477 .......................... 3,900 ∂423 ∂3,900Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 9,190 8,770 10,000 ∂810 ∂1,230

Total, NSF ................................................................................................................................................................ 5,309,951 5,481,200 5,585,760 ∂275,809 ∂104,560

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ................................................................................................... 104,317 115,000 115,000 ∂10,683 ..........................

Selective Service System

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 26,308 28,290 26,308 .......................... ¥1,982

Total, title III, Independent agencies ..................................................................................................................... 29,648,833 29,696,908 30,133,494 ∂484,661 ∂436,586

Appropriations ....................................................................................................................................... (29,696,833) (29,696,908) (30,133,494) (∂436,661) (∂436,586)Rescissions ........................................................................................................................................... (¥48,000) .......................... .......................... (∂48,000) ..........................

(By transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... (30,848) (30,125) (30,848) .......................... (∂723)(Limitation on direct loans) ........................................................................................................................... (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) .......................... ..........................(Limitation on corporate funds) .................................................................................................................... (309) (310) (310) (∂1) ..........................

Grand total (net) ..................................................................................................................................................... 122,958,173 126,343,911 128,243,712 ∂5,285,539 ∂1,899,801

Appropriations ....................................................................................................................................... (120,514,173) (118,576,911) (119,418,712) (¥1,095,461) (∂841,801)Rescissions ........................................................................................................................................... (¥1,756,000) (¥633,000) (¥1,975,000) (¥219,000) (¥1,342,000)Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2003 ........................................................................................... (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (4,200,000) .......................... ..........................Advance appropriations, fiscal year 2004 ........................................................................................... .......................... (4,200,000) (4,200,000) (∂4,200,000) ..........................Contingent emergency funding ............................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,300,000 ∂1,300,000 ∂1,300,000

(By transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... (30,848) (30,125) (30,848) .......................... (∂723)
160

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2003 appropria- tion Budget estimate Committee rec- ommendation

Senate Committee recommendation

compared with (∂ or ¥)

2003 appropriation Budget estimate

(Limitation on direct loans) ........................................................................................................................... (1,653,929) (1,604,241) (1,604,241) (¥49,688) ..........................(Limitation on guaranteed loans) .................................................................................................................. (388,511,955) (410,062,821) (410,511,955) (∂22,000,000) (∂449,134)(Limitation on corporate funds) .................................................................................................................... (579,943) (600,440) (600,440) (∂20,497) ..........................

TITLE I—Department of Veterans Affairs

Veterans Benefits Administration ........................................................................................................................................ 31,748,941 32,865,486 32,865,556 ∂1,116,615 ∂70Veterans Health Administration ........................................................................................................................................... 24,360,934 25,705,226 27,010,226 ∂2,649,292 ∂1,305,000Departmental administration ............................................................................................................................................... 1,990,557 2,148,159 2,148,659 ∂158,102 ∂500

Total, Title I—Department of Veterans Affairs ...................................................................................................... 58,100,432 60,718,871 62,024,441 ∂3,924,009 ∂1,305,570

TITLE II—Department of Housing and Urban Development

Public and Indian housing ................................................................................................................................................... 27,221,813 28,132,206 28,327,256 ∂1,105,443 ∂195,050Community and planning development ............................................................................................................................... 8,485,804 8,571,000 8,568,325 ∂82,521 ¥2,675Housing programs ................................................................................................................................................................ 926,996 766,151 730,801 ¥196,195 ¥35,350Federal Housing Administration ........................................................................................................................................... ¥2,211,968 ¥2,359,300 ¥2,359,300 ¥147,332 ..........................Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) ........................................................................................................... ¥347,724 ¥307,305 ¥307,305 ∂40,419 ..........................Policy development and research ........................................................................................................................................ 46,695 51,000 47,000 ∂305 ¥4,000Fair housing and equal opportunity activities .................................................................................................................... 45,601 50,000 50,000 ∂4,399 ..........................Office of lead hazard control ............................................................................................................................................... 174,856 136,000 175,000 ∂144 ∂39,000Management and administration ......................................................................................................................................... 1,083,143 1,112,130 1,112,130 ∂28,987 ..........................Working capital fund ............................................................................................................................................................ 274,504 276,300 240,000 ¥34,504 ¥36,300Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 97,017 100,080 102,000 ∂4,983 ∂1,920Consolidated fee fund (rescission) ...................................................................................................................................... ¥8,000 .......................... .......................... ∂8,000 ..........................Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight .................................................................................................................. ¥195 .......................... .......................... ∂195 ..........................

Total, Title II—Department of Housing and Urban Development ......................................................................... 35,208,908 35,928,132 36,085,777 ∂876,869 ∂157,645
161

TITLE III—Independent Agencies

American Battle Monuments Commission ........................................................................................................................... 35,017 32,400 35,000 ¥17 ∂2,600Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board ............................................................................................................... 6,408 8,000 8,000 ∂1,592 ..........................Community development financial institutions fund (Department of Treasury) ................................................................. 74,512 51,000 70,000 ¥4,512 ∂19,000Interagency Council on the Homeless .................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................Consumer Product Safety Commission ................................................................................................................................ 56,629 60,000 60,000 ∂3,371 ..........................Corporation for National and Community Service ............................................................................................................... 384,172 597,850 484,075 ∂99,903 ¥113,775U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ......................................................................................................................... 14,233 16,220 16,220 ∂1,987 ..........................Cemeterial expenses, Army .................................................................................................................................................. 32,234 25,961 32,000 ¥234 ∂6,039HHS/(NIH-Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) and (CDC-Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) .................... 165,790 152,241 152,241 ¥13,549 ..........................Environmental Protection Agency ......................................................................................................................................... 8,078,062 7,630,538 8,182,718 ∂104,656 ∂552,180EOP/Office of Science and Technology Policy, Council Environmental Qual, and Office of Environmental Qual .............. 8,344 10,265 10,265 ∂1,921 ..........................Federal Deposit Insurance Corp ........................................................................................................................................... 30,848 30,125 30,848 .......................... ∂723GSA/Federal Consumer Information Center .......................................................................................................................... 11,466 17,643 14,000 ∂2,534 ¥3,643National Aeronautics and Space Administration ................................................................................................................. 15,338,907 15,469,300 15,338,907 .......................... ¥130,393National Credit Union Administration .................................................................................................................................. 993 1,000 1,500 ∂507 ∂500National Science Foundation ................................................................................................................................................ 4,056,460 4,106,360 4,220,610 ∂164,150 ∂114,250Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation ............................................................................................................................. 104,317 115,000 115,000 ∂10,683 ..........................Selective Service System ...................................................................................................................................................... 26,308 28,290 26,308 .......................... ¥1,982

Total Title III—Independent Agencies .................................................................................................................... 29,648,833 29,696,908 30,133,494 ∂484,661 ∂436,586Grand Total ............................................................................................................................................................. 122,958,173 126,343,911 128,243,712 ∂5,285,539 ∂1,899,801

1 The fiscal year 2003 Act provided funds for these purposes under the Housing Certificate Fund account.2 The fiscal year 2003 Act provided funds for these activities in the Housing for special populations account.

Æ